There is a decision looming, possibly towards the end of the year that will see the future military surface shipbuilding landscape in the UK defined.
As the Type 45 build phase draws to a close the end point of CVF within view the only major build programme on the horizon is the Type 26. The end of the design phase for Type 26 is around 2013/2014 which is as we know is well within the timeframe for any referendum on Scottish independence.
The UK has a public private hybrid, although ostensibly BAE Systems is a PLC, in the ship building sector it only has one customer, the MoD, and that customer also defines the wider industrial policy as well. The Maritime Change Programme is informing the ship building and support environment, making sure that skills, capabilities and capacities match predicted and stable orders. Driving this programme is the 2009 15 Year terms of business agreement (TOBA) which defined a run rate of about £230 million revenue from the MoD per year. The MoD is committed to this 15 year programme, it would be on the hook for a large stack of costs if it pulls out.
The TOBA has at its core a need to reduce costs, BAE is under the cosh with both carrot and stick.
The SDSR demanded cost savings across the board and surface shipbuilding does not get a free pass.
There are two yards in Scotland and one in England
Govan, Scotsoun and Portsmouth each offer a range of advantages and disadvantages so there is no obvious contender. If Portsmouth goes it will also have implications for Birkenhead and the Tyne where Cammell Laird and A&P are based.
Whilst there is nothing unusual with block building very large ships like CVF where parallel fabrication can be used to speed construction it surely must introduce some measure of inefficiency and additional cost on smaller vessels.
The recent MARS contract was placed overseas partly because it was cheaper but mainly because of a lack of capacity, the UK shipbuilding industry is at full tilt with CVF but this isn’t going to last forever and a reduction in capacity is inevitable.
Maintaining the three yards at a reduced and realistic capacity is not viable, three yards with a build rate of one Type 26 a year does not make for a cheap build or viable industry.
Closure of one or more would seem inevitable, unpleasant for all concerned of course.
BAE have retained the services of Lek Consultanting to provide an impartial analysis but whilst this may provide a perfectly sensible outcome it may not take into account the political aspects.
It may come down to a simple choice between North or South and if the North decides to leave the Union then where does that leave our desire to retain onshore the ability to design, build and integrate complex surface warships?
BAE Systems must take this into account; it cannot be swept under the carpet and I would expect that no decision will be made until the referendum issue becomes clear.
A sting in the tale courtesy of the TOBA is that if any yards are closed, Mr and Mrs taxpayer, courtesy of the MoD’s budget, will be invited to foot the bill.
A cynic might think the recent announcements were BAE’s way of reminding the MoD to get a move on with Type 26 but I think long term it is clear that the current capacity will need to be trimmed back.
Perhaps there are options, selling a yard to Babcock, bringing forward other projects or having a long term strategy for example.
Sad times.
Isn’t BAE also building 4 corvettes for Oman?
Oops, my bad, the project was completed June last year.
We have to be realistic and not just reach for the comfort blanket of T45 batch 2. Nice as that would be from a capability viewpoint its not going to happen.
The next complex RN warship after T26 is probably LPD replacement but that is too far off to help us in the 2015-25 period.
There’s presumably a few more RFAs round the corner that BAe could bid for. They’ll have to sharpen the pencil to beat the Koreans but that work could conceivably keep a yard plodding on.
Other choices: (1) close a scottish yard (2) get serious about export.
Export is really hard. Everyone wants technology transfer and ships built at home. Do we go like the French and get into bed with the Russians?
Also the export market is very competitive. So we need the export business to be lean and mean and very commercial.
Best option: spin a yard out of BAe as an arm’s length export specialist. The conjouring trick will be to give it real managment autonomy while still sitting within the TOBA umbrella. Maybe demerge it completely to some hard nosed venture capitalists, sweetening the deal with an initial order for the next batch of RFA: after that its down to them.
I agree about the extreme competitiveness of exports, try “cost overruns” or “handover delays” between countries and see what happens. BAe would get their a-se handed to them on a platter.
If Britain is to be really serious about export, it needs to lose some tech to another country. Other people are always looking for the competitive edge, and tech is one area where the UK has a slight edge.
Astutes to Korea and Taiwan would not be unthinkable, that region is really heating up.
Phillipines would love to buy one, it’s been bashing heads with China recently, and Vietnam is getting worried too, but the ability of these countries to pay for it would be in question. Cash/barter? Sounds very old school, but resources are resources. Hell, take trade in coal/iron and sell it to China for a profit. That would be ironic, but money is money, even if it is in Yuan.
But you have to be fast, if the situation cools down, there is going to be less of a seller’s market, which might mean no sale.
Maybe we should be designing products secifically for export?
An ‘Astute lite’ SSK maybe?
The experience of Canada with the Upholders casts a long shaddow over that particular idea but realistically it should be worth a dabble.
Frankly if BAE can’t find deals for export off its own back then you might as well just let it go. There are a number of companies here in the UK (BAE included) that could do the design of future vessels. Have the hulls built abroad and just shipped back here for the finally assembly.
Export isn’t the way to go. What we have to do is convince the “ship builders” that bashing metal is best done by somebody else and that the best work is to be found in fit out as the Danes and Dutch have found.
@ PE
I think many here would agree BMT Vidar to keep Barrow in work is the way to go. As long as we can have four.
After Type 26 isn’t the MHPC the next procurement project ?
hopefully it will be a 2000t minor warship than a tiny patrolcraft/ minehunter or the JSBL for the RFA
I hope the go for LHD’s rather than a LPD to give us more flexibility.
TD
Q+D answer – nationalise the shipyards and award a management contract to whoever can do the work.
The whole framework / attitude that you describe is corporatism gone mad. If BWoS can’t sell on the open international market then it is not fit to sell to the RN period.
There is plenty of work out there if your designs and your tech is leading edge, Meko Mk3′s are just me-to stuff for a MOD / RN that doesn’t know what it wants or needs until it finds it in a foreign shipbuilders catalogue.
regarding workload going forward why was the MARS contract signed now rather than waiting 4 years until the CVF splurge was finished and things had calmed down.
As in most things MOD I fear a hidden agenda.
That is BWoS is actively working towards the closure of one of the yards.
As noted above the MHPC contract / product space offers huge opportunities for leading edge designs / new ways of working both o thge slipway and on the water.
Odds on BWoS rising to the challenge?
For me it is export or die.
BWoS don’t employ 3-4K workers on the Clyde they have 3-4K human shields to protect their market position.
Dont think its the ship builders you need to convince about metal bashing abroad as its a government stipulation to metal bash in the UK.
Err, this was the entire point of the BVT construct and the TOBA, so should be no surprise to anyone. It was always recognised that post-CVF with the “planned” size of the navy that there would not be enough work to sustain Scotstoun, Govan and Portsmouth (shipbuilding). Barrow is a different issue. But that’s what happens if you base your entire industry on naval output. There’s also Appledore to consider as well.
Everyone is agreed that the design skills need to be retained in the UK – trouble is that the surface ship design skills base is highly fragmented. Some is in Glasgow, some Portsmouth, some Bristol and elsewhere and the combat system design expertise is spread a little wider still.
It is almost certain that at least one yard will close. It could be Scotstoun (too small to be of real use) but there is a real centre of gravity of design expertise there – although many are leaving at the minute. It could be Portsmouth (good facility but over complicated launch method) and a real mixed bag of design capability (part VT holdover and some newer BAE transfers). It is unlikely to be Govan (big enough to build most of what we’ll need), but most design staff at Scotstoun.
Some (Thales in particular) think the answer is unmanned vehicle design and licence build – who knows why. Others think that design only and licence build is the way forward. Trouble is, if you don’t actually build ships, sooner or later the tricks associated with the actual physical article atrophy and in any case, eventually the licence builders will come and eat your lunch (Korea have already started and I’m not talking about MARS).
Personally think the Norwegian model is worth a look. They build some highly complex ships, largely one-offs in a small number of yards, largely leveraging their O&G sector. They don’t build their larger naval vessels, but then they don’t really have enough to make that viable. The UK does – just!
It seems questionable to me – FBoT’s back to the 60s nationalisation aside – whether any of the solutions proposed are workable. BAE have gone a considerable way towards integrating Govan (“metal bashing” or rather a Steelwork Centre of Excellence in BAE-speak) and Scotstoun. So maybe there are only two yards anyway.
And those “hard-nosed venture capitalists”, where were they when Kvaerner closed up shop and when Swan Hunter said good night? I’d guess that they probably don’t exist and won’t do this side of the next bubble. As for Babcock, they own Appledore, a nice little shipyard with a mix of business. Why buy another one with a doubtful future? And if, as seems to be the case, Govan and Scotstoun are joined at the hip, would you let Babcock buy up Portsmouth without selling Devonport? That gets messy.
For what it’s worth, the rumour mill says Portsmouth is the victim of choice. As for the referendum, thus the Scotsman, which never knowingly undersells a scare story about the horrors of separation: “Howard Wheeldon, an independent defence analyst with more than 40 years’ experience of the sector, said: If BAE decides to close a shipyard because of uncertainty about future work levels, I think it would be Portsmouth. It would be natural because Portsmouth is smaller than the Clydeside operation. They can build larger ships in Scotland and also do everything that Portsmouth does, such as constructing bits of destroyers. It is true that if Portsmouth closed and Scotland goes independent, all our shipyards would be in Scotland. But that’s not BAE’s concern, that’s the UK government’s concern.”
And on the last, bolded point, it is an odd twist of fate that the two constituency MSPs for Govan are Nicola Sturgeon (Deputy First Minister and Alex Salmond’s preferred successor) and Johann Lamont (Labour leader; her deputy Anas Sarwar MP’s constituency takes in part of the old Govan seat). Oh, how BAE must have laughed.
So anyone who thinks the floaty bit of a hypothetical Scottish Defence Force is getting little boats has to be off on another planet. BAE wouldn’t allow it. Things would be as if FBoT was Chief Constructor I suspect, so much room for growth – and steel – would there be in the ships. Well, look on the bright side, steel is cheap – even after BAE works on it – and air is free. And it could be much worse. BAE don’t build expensive things that fly in Scotland.
The Portsmouth Yard only came in to BAE ownership as part of the VT deal. I am guessing it will be the easiest operating to close for shipbuilding. That being said I think the yard is heavily involved in ongoing maintainence of existing vessels. With a buy of just 13 (if we even get that many) T26′s I don’t think we canexpect to keep even two yards going. However as with barrow as long as we have one then we maintain the capability. It’s not the MOD’s problem to worry about unemployment in glasgow or any where else. Maybe one yard at Govan with design at Scotstoun is the best soulution. Better to have one very viable yard that can reap the benfit of economies of scale than three seperate yards. If they up the tempo at Govan they can always transfer staff across from Scotstoun.
maybe the best option is to close Scotstoun and put all type 26 production at Govan. Stretch out the T26 procurment and move up production of the multi mission mine counter measure vessel with production centred on Portsmouth. There is probably allot more export potential for this vessel than there is for a large frigate. If MOD procurment can be made fexible enough then we might look to sell production slot’s to foreign governments as we did with Saudi Arabia on Typhoon. If we are successful with exports then Scotstoun can always be reactivated by transfering staff back from Govan. Only major issue I can see is how much longer can T23 hold on if T26 production is slowed. However if we factor in some of the multi mission vessels into the fleet mix we could probably survive with less T23′s in the near term.
Another possible idea is to licence build USVs at the smaller yard instead of closing it down. Get either the US or Israel to allow licence production, then market it as a close range maritine coastal protection system, a single “command center” building and a squadron of USVs. Has potential for those looking for coastal defence on the cheap. 45-50 men for a squadron of 12 ships on a 3 shift rotation, 36 pilots ~9-14 maintainance crew. Sounds workable as compared to a corvette or patrol vessel single ship.
On reflection, with all the Astute work and CVF, shouldn’t it be fairly easy to work a deal on where and when Type 26 takes over?
It might mean one yard has to shut, but if that’s what it takes to secure long term survival then so be it.
BAe did have a sale of corvettes to Oman, just completed last year, so it’s not like the yards were not doing any export business.
As pointed out, the build of MHPC could keep Appledore open. Portsmouth could fit out the MHPCs, plus going back to VT days, it could build larger (200-500t) replacements for the P2000′s giving the RN a mid shore fast patrol craft which I believe it needs for both costal defence and Litterol environments such as the Gulf. The T26s and eventual replacement of the Albions should be enough to keep the Scottish yards open.
Also, doesn’t Appledore have a contract for new Irish patrol boats?
BAE’s export history goes like this –
Brunei corvettes – Scotstoun design, rejected by Brunei, currently sitting in Barrow docks (been there about 4 years), allegedly being reactivated for a customer.
Trinidad & Tobago coastguard vessels – VT design and original contract, rejected by T&T, sold to Brazil and being commissioned as I write. Design licenced to Brazil for further ships.
Oman corvette, VT design and contract, in major difficulties with regard to ME design last I heard. £200M loss provision on a £600M contract.
BAE have managed to sell a design to Malaysia for a Malaysian build fairly recently. They also sold two corvettes at the back end of the 90s. However, that’s it.
Appledore do have a contract for the Irish navy which is great for a good little yard. However, the above describes our export performance for the last decade. Not exactly brilliant and in a world where there are plenty of second hand ships depressing the market.
@ Mark re “ship builders”
There is a reason why that’s in quotes. If you look at more broadly it isn’t just BAE that “builds” ships. It is HMG, the workforce, and it is the country, the man in the street, the voter, for who these ships are ultimately being built. We have to carry the idea so beloved of defence ministers of recent times that the ship is just a platform and that real value its construction in terms of wealth preservation as a whole is the fit out the high end value added stuff. Only 40% of the build costs of a warship is hull. And only a percentage of that is the metal.
@ NotABoffin
What if we got somebody like BMT to design a large diesel frigate (6,500t) with those MEKO style modules everybody here gets excited about, a crew of 75-ish, and with an eye to recycling, and just build them perpetually tweaking the design as we go? As soon as the capacity is there in the yard start building one, and then when there is capacity start the next one. And when the first of class is say 10 to 12 years old either sell it on or scrap it. And during those 10 to 12 years drive them hard with two crews. Perhaps long termism by committing to a buy of 12 one class is as much a crime as short termism in other spheres?
We also have another British shipbuilding company called Rolls Royce. Design office is in Norway but ships are built at whichever yard quotes the best price and has the capacity. Recently designed and built a new coastguard vessel for Iceland, fabricated in Chile for £30m! Twice the size of the Rivers. Sign RR up for MHPC get them to take over Portsmouth make half there, rest in Chile (that would please Argentina)leave the Scottish yards to build frigates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICGV_%C3%9E%C3%B3r
Has anyone had any thoughts of ditching T26 and reactivating production of T23. Given the new scaled back version of T26 with no strike VLS, 5500 tones and no 127mm gun. It is little better if any than T23. It’s also 4 knts slower than T23. Both will have Artisan 3d Radar and both will deploy Sea Ceptor and type 2087 sonar.
The last T23 was only built in 2001 for a cost of around £100 million including its Merlin helicopter. Can anyone see the logic in following the US which restarted Burke production. Obviously there has been defence inflation since 2001 (not least the takeover of ship building by BAE) but it surely must be cheaper and far less risky to go back to a proven design that is still relatively modern and capable. Estimate price for the T26 is £250 million each which in BAE speak means around half a billion or so. With escort number sin the fleet already cut to nothing another T45 style debacle would literally end the RN.
NaB @ 7.59
You are our man on the inside so –
What is wrong with the Brunei ships?
What is wrong with the T+T ships?
What went wrong with the Oman ships?
I fear we are running before we can walk.
Project based design, building to whatever Sales can sell.
We need to go back to a businesslike, measured approach.
What do we understand?
What can we build?
What does the market want?
Spend time and effort to better align all three above.
On the subject of the Colonial Sloop.
We do have some design knowledge in the PSV / AHTS product space.
From memory we have RR doing some work in Norway and some foreign company with an office here.
In addition we did some ships at Govan in the last 10 years.
As currently planned the T26 is shaping up to be a “Me too MEKO”.
If we are wanting to build a truly competitive warship business we need to do better than this.
Martin, was not aware we had made any final decisions ref T26. Whilst I agere on not reinventing the wheel,I think T26 can be made bigger than T23 but a lot of T23 equipment and ideas can be taken across.
The CODLAG propulsion and use of generators rafted and mounted well above the waterline should be retained. Perhaps utilising more efficient DGs and something like the WR 21 GT that is in 45 could easily see a ship that is not only more fuel efficient but also faster. The 26 kts at this satge is a figure plucked from thin air.
Artisan, 2087, DNA 2, sea Ceptor and Merlin will all migrate.
So the real questions are, 4.5 Mk8 or different gun, 30MM ASCG or other system and what sort of silo to utilise. Sea Ceptoe can quad pack in an existing T23 silo, So the existing 32 cell silo could carry 128 missiles out to 19NM a tremendous capbility. More likely a smaller silo will be used, a 16 cell T23 type silo would leave room for another silo either in initial build or refit.
A Mk41 silo perhaps or a bigger Astor silo. Not certain what sort of silo the new NSM will fit in.
Plenty of decisions to be made and those extra 2k tonnes over T23 offer more flex.
Matin vs All PATS
This is why the T26 design process is both a sham and a shambles.
At the moment the best we can hope for is a sand blasted T23 with an ability to launch a rowing boat “oot it’s erse”.
Not a very good return for £127mill / £254mill / …
We can fit VLS at £500K a tube.
Yet we spend months flitting backwards and forwards / yes-no and no matter what we will still get it wrong.
The T26 should be seen as a platform / component set / information spine.
We are currently trying to work out the colour of the sofa cushions before we have built the foundations.
It is mental and shows the complete lack of understanding of basic business and design principles that blight MOD sponsored / BWoS led activities.
@ APATS
We know all the kit can be moved across. What Martin is saying why if the kit already fits what we have why go to the trouble and expense of designing a new vessel just build the design we have? Just to have a bigger ship? The only reason why I can see a need for a bigger ship is to bring accommodation into line with that found in T45 (and CVF?) But if there is more automation, a reduced crew (I think T23 could go to sea with a crew numbered in the 70s but I am only an armchair sailor), and a bit of imagination applied I can’t see why the T23′s messdecks can’t be laid out to give fewer ratings more space and more individual space.
I am all for big ships. But T23 works and works well.
FBOT, The T26 should be seen as a platform / component set / information spine? It does help if we decide what we need it to be able to do.
X, The reason i would go bigger is to allow for through life growth and extra systmes to be fitted. T23 is at max capacity at the moment. Steel is cheap and air is free, BAE designing a new hull is unfortunately exorbitant.
@ APATS – BAE have already released fairly accurate video of the T26. Allot of info has also come out on the updated design. Obviously no decision has been made yet however leaky reports these days are almost as good as announcements.
I think we can be sure of displacement at 5500 tonnes (only 600 more than the upgraded T23’s)
ASW version with a speed of 28 knts (T23 has recorded 34 knts in sea trials)
General purpose version < 25 knts
Engine noise reduction but only in the ASW variant. General purpose variant likely to have diesel engines. (All T23 have noise reduction)
Radar is guaranteed to be Artisan 3D
Missile silo with 16 Tubes quad packing Sea Ceptor (likely to be either A50 or possibly just A35)
Gun 4.5 at best more likely 76mm
Harpoon transferred over from T23 along with Phalanx, Merlin and 2087
Best of all FBOT you will be happy to know that the stern ramp design capable of launching UUV’s and boats oot its arse is also gone.
I really don’t see what we are getting here for the £250 million (if that actually is the price) verses rebuilding the T23 for the same price or maybe less with a hell of allot less risk. It’s likely to be more stealthy but with what looks like the removal of the aft mission bay it will be inflexible and offer very little in the way of options for upgrade in the future. It will surely use more automation than T23 but there is no reason why we could not have more automated systems and smaller crews in a new batch of T23’s.
I take the point about having to maintain design skills but if this is the best our designers can come up with are they worth keeping. Maybe we should just keep building T23 till the end of time.
TD et al
My thoughts on what to do?
Split the Workstreams into a hull component and a warload component.
The hull will be fully operational in a civil sense and it will include an information spine to hang stuff off plus plenty of deckspace and voids to fit stuff that goes bang.The warload component will look to put a VFM fit onto a large cheap hull with a menu pricing system to offer flexibility and competition. The first thing to be sorted would be the CMS and how this could be flexed to support a Patrol workload, a RN GP workload and a RN Tier 1 ASW workload.
Hull = cheap, central spine with large voids / tanks on the outside.
Large flight deck and hangar to offer flexibility.
Make use on containership practices to get large transverse bulkheads at 15m / 18m centres.
MSD of course / PSV AHTS component set / low crew numbers with a range between 60-120 depending on fit and mission.
Build 2 quickly – accelerate the current timings by 2 years.
GP spec and these can be tested and the design refined.
Build 3 new Bays – Mk2 design – and sell the originals – recover half your costs.
Build 1 new T26 – ASW spec and test thoroughly.
Build 3 more T26 – GP spec with increased AAW capabilities to pack the batting for the T45s using lessons learned.
Build 7 more T26 – ASW spec.
Build 5 new T27 – GP with Tier 2 AAW.
Sell 5 old T26 – GP spec – Recover half your costs using DfID money to sweeten the deal / make sure the books balance.
All through we can do the big push on exports.
First build / third of order – whichever higher built in the UK.
Other alternative work share arrangements could be looked at.
Bare hull sections overseas – UK fit out – even for RN ships.
Power module – 180 / 240 ft section built in the UK and barged to overseas work site.
Rent out a floating dock to allow work to go ahead in export markets with little shipbuilding infrastructure?
Finally when it was announced that Turkey may be getting involved -
Did anyone else have a double take on this news?
That is that they would be transferring technology and design knowledge to us?
That is how bad things have become.
All PATS @ 9.14
That is the RN / MOD mindset writ large.
Work out the living room colours down to the finest detail including preferred supplier – Dulux or Crown – before the foundations can begin.
Absolutely mental.
Build the Christmas tree and then work out what lights / fairies / decorations you want to hang off it – simples!
@ APATS said “BAE designing a new hull is unfortunately exorbitant.” and growth
I know and I agree. I want plenty of volume and I want crews to have high standards of accommodation.
But I do wonder what mean by growth especially with with reference to current paradigm in ship design. Aren’t electronics getting smaller? Won’t whatever replaces say Artisan be in the exactly the same position and be reliant on a system with considerably more processing power than we have now but probably fit into a smaller volume (even if we have to have massive parallel system to keep pace with competing systems.)? Won’t power generation systems be more efficient? What BAE are offering in T26 is just T23 in a big box. It isn’t as if it is something radical like a Zumwalt or even a BMT pentamaran frigate. Who knows some radical technology may come along and sweep conventional warships from the sea? “We” can only build ships for now. And T26 doesn’t offer us much over a rebuilt T23, just buying and building FREMM, dusting off T45 for a second batch, or going cheap(er) and cheerful with a Danish CODAD.
Martin @ 9.36
VLS – Sylver 35 vs Sylver 50 – Decision time.
That one issue tells you all you need to know about the madness of the T26.
That we would want to go S35 to save pennies is bordering on the farcical.
The question should be how do we fit S70 or L/A spec Mk 41?
Regarding what to do we should try and start up the MHPC programme to test out the basic hull design / build principles –
148m x 23m x 5m’ish – 9K tons full load.
Looking at 18MW MSD / electric motor install for 22 knots +
Patrol spec – HMS Clyde capabilities – £75mill incl FoC premium.
Weapons would be extra / second hand / taken from stores / ex T42 where appropriate.
1100m2 flight deck / 250m2 hangar / erse fitted for but not with rowing boat ejection.
Crew – As Clyde but with space for more.
FBOt, we do however have some very specific decorations to hang which if they do not fit make the whole thing a waste.
X/Mark There are some differeing videos going around of T26. The very latest ones show the position of the Phalanz changed and a turret on the bow that does not look like a Mk8. it definitely shows 2 seperated silos forad and launch spaces for 3 boats in the super structure.
It cannot be difficult to design a new 140 odd M hull. Could we use the FREMM hull with our superstructure and weapons/propulsion?
Given BAE’s inability to deliver Khareef OPV’s for less than £200 million a pop I think we should be very worried about the prospects for T26. With only 13 escort’s any over run and resulting reduction in numbers will simply wipe out what is left of the navy. Atleast T45 was a complicated design. One might understand a price tag of £ 1 billion each but if they can’t knock out OPV’s for less than £200 million in 2008 prices how are they going to build somethinh like T26 for £250 million in 2021 prices. Think we should all be very scared.
Well I got to admit TD covered the Maritime Change Programme bit and TOBAs pretty well, very few people even understand it in the MOD! Sums the whole situation up pretty accurately too.
Type 26 is the only game in town now and BAE are going to be playing some serious politics. Cancel Type 26 and you can kiss UK shipbuilding goodbye, there really is nothing else on the horizon and no money to fund it.
Type 26 is not going to be a stretch Type 23. There is a lot of thought going into it and T23 just does not have the room to keep going in the future, especially with the RN getting leaner. The US are happy to keep their Burkes with high manning requirements, the RN is not. All the tweaks to T26 may seem small in isolation, but cumulatively they will make a big difference.
BAE were meant to use the RN orders as a baseline, keeping the shipyards open is dependent on export orders. No export orders (BAE/VT’s record is really not good) and so something has to give. The Government is really trying to push the export card with the T26, but truthfully, the signs are not that encouraging. No one wants to spend that money and no one trusts BAE to deliver.
Hard times indeed.
By the way you need to stop thinking of MHPC as being about hulls, it is not. MHPC is about delivering systems that can do the job, with autonomous systems really coming along (Thales are all over this like a rash!), the thinking is that they will just buy a cheap and small hull which just acts as a mothership. Combining the Mine, hyrdo and patrol requirements just bulks up the numbers, although truthfull the patrol one does not fit in easily with the whole MHPC philosophy.
In short, it is not inconcievable that they will just something that is a small and complicated step up from a cargo ship and just fit it with what they need. Replacing the Rivers on this basis would be tricky though.
Can somebody tell me what BWoS stands for?
Cheers.
Martin @ 9.58
You have been bitten by the BWoS bug.
The T45s are not / were not / should not be seen as complex / expensive pieces of kit.
It was just a basic hull to take an upmarket naval AAW system out to sea.
It was sensors / sensor analysis / CMS + missile control / VLS tubes.
It was a very simple system – the cost came in the capacity that needed to be included into the system.
However this should not impact on the cost of the basic navigable hull.
BWoS seems desperate to go with the rule of thumb that the hull should be 40% of the cost of the ship and therefore 66% of the cost of the warload so that when a requirement like the T45 comes up it can make a killing on the hull.
What is so special about the T45 hull – absolutely nothing.
It is only a basic steel structure to stop 3 containers of electronics from getting wet.
Everything else is sales patter / hype / contractor profit.
Desk Jockey, Whilst mine hunting in a potential mine field or route survey work well with remote systems. initial detection is nearly always done by the plastic Ship. How do you conduct a lead through with an autonomous system? No doubt people have thought of this just wondering what their soulution is?
Desk Jockey @ 10.09
Why does cheap have to be small?
What level of war fighting does the Patrol requirement need?
What type of commercial platform is being looked at?
By any chance is it of the PSV / AHTS variety?
No FBOT, The Hull is the place where people, live, work, relax, exercise, socialise, sleep and eat. It is not just numbers on a sheet of paper.
@ APATS
How do you conduct a lead through with an autonomous system? No doubt people have thought of this just wondering what their soulution is?
From what I am hearing they have not really thought about it. For all the talk of UUV’s for mine counter measures and hunting I don’t think anyone has as of yet got a system fully operational. The US in particular seem to be having a pretty tough time and the MCM modual for LCS is rumered to be North of $70 million.
Simon, BWoS stands for “British waste of Space” and is often used to refer to BAE.
@ FBOT – The T45 is an incredibly complicated and versatile vessel. You need to get out of the thinking that every warship can be a container ship with a flight deck on top. There is allot more to it than that.
All PATS @ 10.17
TD has posted pictures of various contraptions that can be launched from the patrol type ship and which can be used as a detecting screen to sweep an area of threats.
Not sure if they are unmanned ed or they have two guys in wet suits ready to bail out.
However they carry a mainstream detection suite and they do the donkey work.
The support / patrol vessel just offers a bed, a garage and a global reach / range.
Interesting to find out if a full on well deck would help with the transport and launch of the mine hunter contraptions?
148m x 23m x 5m’ish hull – Good for a 30m x 12m well deck?
What are the dimensions of the well deck on the mini RSN LPD?
Similar basic dimensions as above and it operates some pretty chunky LCMs.
APATS,
I had “Big Wad of Software” and not a lot else.
Thanks.
Martin @ 10.26
Where is the complication?
What use does it serve?
Why do we need it?
You need to understand the capabilities of commercial shipping.
They have moved on while we want to sandblast a 30 yr old design and claim it as progress.
All PATS @ 10.20
What are you describing?
Is it a T45 or the Disney Princess?
Now help me out here, what is the going rate for a cruise ship?
Cost per 10K tons of displacement will do just fine.