RN Type 45 Delayed Again!

[LancerMc]

Well the inservice date the RN's new Typer 45 Air Defense Ship has slipped again according to Jane's Defense Weekly. The new delay is for another 7 months, and additional 157 million pounds ($310 million) in cost increases this year. The HMS Daring won't enter service now till the very end of 2009.

Lately this seems to be the norm for British procurement programs. An abundant of programs are way behind schedule over considerably over budget including the Eurofighter, Mk4 Nimrod, Meteor BVRAAM, Astute attack subs, and many others.

With the RN going through a major overhaul the next few decades, I don't think they really can stand for further delays in so many important programs like the Type 45. The Daring and her sister ships will be essential in protecting the RN's new carriers in the coming decades, and even more so if the RN goes for surface ships for their new nuclear deterrent vessel in the future.

I know sources in the U.S. are out of the loop on the progress of programs like the Type 45. What the opinion and views of everyone in Europe and abroad?

 

[Galrahn]

Aren't these 1 time, first in class costs specific only to the first unit? I got the impression the unit cost is still near budget.

If that is true, considering the complexity of the Type 45, it seems to me the number is relatively low considering the Type 45 is perhaps the most complicated warship ever built.

 

[LancerMc]

Yes its true the first of any new vessel normally see's the most dramatic cost overruns, but the Type 45 and other British weapons programs have become so plagued with problems that funds orginally ment for purchasing more ships and aircraft are being spent on development.

I just hope they can overcome the numerous cost overuns and delays to at least get the Daring ready for service by 2010.

 

[mark22w]

The Daring and her sister ships will be essential in protecting the RN's new carriers in the coming decades, and even more so if the RN goes for surface ships for their new nuclear deterrent vessel in the future.

The RN is going for replacement SSBN's for its nuclear deterrent role as outlined in the (UK) governments recent white paper - the surface 'option' may have been considered but was certainly dismissed.

The last I had read was the first T45 (Daring) was due in 2009 with numbers two (Dauntless) and three (Diamond) to be commissioned in 2010, so does the article outline reasons for delay? Interested to hear more if you have it...

As to numbers the RN wanted 12 vessels, which was cut for political reasons to first 8, and now 'up to' 8 (read the current 6 on order) - sadly this is no different to other areas of the RN and UK armed forces generally, not unique to new systems. There are few countries that are updating AND increasing numbers - not likely for the UK in this parliament...

Any details on the reasoning for T45 delay much appreciated - thanks.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Any details on the reasoning for T45 delay much appreciated - thanks.

"Ongoing problems" with the SAMPSON radar, apparently.

 

[contedicavour]

"Ongoing problems" with the SAMPSON radar, apparently.

I confirm, I read about serious problems with the Sampson radar and its integration with the combat system on several magazines lately.
Introducing the first active phased array radar in service clearly isn't as simple as initially foreseen.
The UK should have stuck to the Horizon programme at least for a first batch of DDGs...

cheers

 

[LancerMc]

The current in service date will be December 2009, but likely in that period of time further delays will happen, thats why I stated they hope to get it in service by at least 2010.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The UK should have stuck to the Horizon programme at least for a first batch of DDGs...

Why should we have stuck with a programme that didn't fulfill our needs? The whole reason we left was that you guys and the French kept insisting you get more work and control of the project than you deserved, in regards to projected building orders.

 

[contedicavour]

Why should we have stuck with a programme that didn't fulfill our needs? The whole reason we left was that you guys and the French kept insisting you get more work and control of the project than you deserved, in regards to projected building orders.

True, but given your number of ships your industry would have gotten sufficient % of overall work... and, most importantly, you would have operational new generation DDGs late 2007 instead of 2010... who knows how many emergencies may arise in 3 years' time, during which the mighty Royal Navy has no jets with BVR capability and no modern DDGs :shudder
Besides, last but not least, your Type 45s will end up operating exactly the same missiles as the Horizons, so honestly a deal could have been reached on preserving a British Horizon variant.

cheers

 

[Big-E]

True, but given your number of ships your industry would have gotten sufficient % of overall work... and, most importantly, you would have operational new generation DDGs late 2007 instead of 2010... who knows how many emergencies may arise in 3 years' time, during which the mighty Royal Navy has no jets with BVR capability and no modern DDGs :shudder
Besides, last but not least, your Type 45s will end up operating exactly the same missiles as the Horizons, so honestly a deal could have been reached on preserving a British Horizon variant.

cheers

Didn't UK pull out of Horizon because it wasn't proceeding fast enough? How ironic... patience is a virtue after all.

 

[Grand Danois]

Didn't UK pull out of Horizon because it wasn't proceeding fast enough? How ironic... patience is a virtue after all.

IIRC it was because UK wanted an AWD to a higher spec than Horizon. But not entirely sure if there could be other factors.

 

[Big-E]

IIRC it was because UK wanted an AWD to a higher spec than Horizon. But not entirely sure if there could be other factors.

I thought the real reason for withdrawal was due to the project stalling in 99'. I was under the impression that the design modifications were a result rather than the cause for the withdrawal.

 

[Grand Danois]

I thought the real reason for withdrawal was due to the project stalling in 99'. I was under the impression that the design modifications were a result rather than the cause for the withdrawal.

Well, could be. If I stumble across the right explanation, I shall remember to post it here.

 

[contedicavour]

I agree with Big-E. The Horizon was still very much a tri-national affair with adequate participation of each country's defence industry... until the day when the UK pulled out and we had to adapt design & specs to purely Italian and French requests.
It is true that the UK wanted higher capability (ie active phased array radar) AAW on its DDGs, but mostly it didn't want to accept GE/Avio LM2500 turbines (it preferred Rolls Royce WR21) and didn't want to spend on fixed costs required to install SSMs, CIWS, ASW torpedoes and sonars, etc. since the British wanted a purely AAW ship.
Anyway, whether the decision was right or wrong, the UK will now have to pray there are no conflicts requiring Sea Harriers with AIM120 or new generation DDGs between now and 2010. Eventually as of the end of 2007 we might help out with one of our Horizons

cheers

 

[alexsa]

Yes its true the first of any new vessel normally see's the most dramatic cost overruns, but the Type 45 and other British weapons programs have become so plagued with problems that funds orginally ment for purchasing more ships and aircraft are being spent on development.

I just hope they can overcome the numerous cost overuns and delays to at least get the Daring ready for service by 2010.

I would suggest this not just a "British problem" but one that is common with first of class platforms of a new type. Have a look at the US DDG1000, LCS, F-22, Osprey etc, or even the Australian Collins class SSK, for project that have problems in the beginning.

 

[contedicavour]

I would suggest this not just a "British problem" but one that is common with first of class platforms of a new type. Have a look at the US DDG1000, LCS, F-22, Osprey etc, or even the Australian Collins class SSK, for project that have problems in the beginning.

You are right, but they could have spared 3 years by remaining in the Horizon consortium for at least a first batch of DDGs...

cheers

 

[RubiconNZ]

I would suggest this not just a "British problem" but one that is common with first of class platforms of a new type. Have a look at the US DDG1000, LCS, F-22, Osprey etc, or even the Australian Collins class SSK, for project that have problems in the beginning.

What problems have the LCS had?

I agree with the others, though the DDG-1000 seems to be more political than anything, Just curious as I dont recall reading anything, except perhaps some minor issues with the Mission modules.

 

[alexsa]

What problems have the LCS had?

I agree with the others, though the DDG-1000 seems to be more political than anything, Just curious as I dont recall reading anything, except perhaps some minor issues with the Mission modules.

One hull is in the water but they are signfiicantly over budget on the original expectation. In 2005 there was an increase of 241 millions USD over the 2004 allocated funds for this project. This includes an increase in 2005 of 107 million for just the first flihgt 0 ship. Even thought this was supported through defence appropriations it is a significant increase. In 2005 the programmed fully funded cost of the first LCS was 214 million USD and as far as I can tell this does not include mission packages.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpque...&r_n=hr553.108&db_id=108&item=&sel=TOC_353365&

I don't want to sound like a doom sayer but the flight 0 vessels are developmental themselves and there is signficant risk in this project. It is a similar sitaution wiht the JSF competions between Boeing and Lockheed with the flight 0 vessels being developmental prototypes.

As always system intergration will be the fun bit. This project is in its infancy and cost should be expected to rise further.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

You are right, but they could have spared 3 years by remaining in the Horizon consortium for at least a first batch of DDGs...

...and got ships we didn't want. Why should we have agreed to your demands? Why couldn't you have accepted our position when we were always going to order more?

Conte, just accept the fact we saw no reason to give in to unreasonable demands. If we had stayed on it would have been years more arguing only for the same thing to happen. We did you a favour by dropping out as well.

 

[contedicavour]

...and got ships we didn't want. Why should we have agreed to your demands? Why couldn't you have accepted our position when we were always going to order more?

Conte, just accept the fact we saw no reason to give in to unreasonable demands. If we had stayed on it would have been years more arguing only for the same thing to happen. We did you a favour by dropping out as well.

I'm not arguing against the fact that you are sovereign in your procurement decisions. Up to you to decide that no negotiation was better than a poor outcome to the trinational negotiation.
I'm just stating the facts : the Royal Navy is in serious danger from now until 2010 earliest because of your government's choice. If it feels fine with taking such a risk, then I don't care.
There is one thing though I disagree with : no the fact that the RN pulled back from Horizon did us no favours... a DDG that costs 800 million euro apiece instead of the 600 max it would have cost in a trinational programme is a nightmare for our stranded defence budgets.

cheers