Programme Costs

One the Open Thread there was some discussion about the Type 26 and recent revelations of its estimated Programme Cost of £11.5 billion. There was some speculation about total numbers of vessels and what would be included.

Type 26 Global Combat Ship DSEI 2013

Programmes also include the Assessment Phase, the Assessment Phase matures the design options and lowers risk. Some infrastructure and long lead items are sometimes included in the Assessment Phase. The Demonstration and Manufacture Phase is included and in some cases, Support and Service. It is also important to understand that cost estimates will include technical, financial and exchange rate risk values. If those risks are not realised, the overall programme cost will decrease. Some programmes will have greater risk provision, those with significant foreign content will have greater provision for exchange rate risk and those bringing new advanced systems into service, greater technical risk provision.

The definition of what constitutes a programme does not seem to be universal but some examples might be interesting to examine;

Typhoon did not include the costs of ASRAAM, Meteor, Paveway IV, Storm Shadow or Brimstone for example. The QE Class carrier programme does not include the cost of its aircraft, and those aircraft programme costs do not include the cost of the weapons they carry either.

The Type 45 Destroyer programme included the UK’s share of the Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS), SAMPSON radar, associated software and ASTER missiles. Assessment phase was £232m, Demonstration and Manufacture, £5,556 million and £761m for support. That is £6,549 million for the six ships, with support rolled in and a portion of the costs of a cutting edge air defence system.

For the Type 26, the Sea Ceptor air defence missile system is covered within another programme, Complex Weapons. Complex Weapons includes Fire Shadow, Brimstone 2, Sea Ceptor, SPEAR Capability 2 Spiral Development, SPEAR Capability 3, Future Local Area Air Defence System (Land), Future Anti Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) and Future Anti Surface Guided Weapon (Light).

Merlin and Wildcat helicopters are outside the Type 26 programme, as are the Stingray lightweight torpedo. Mature systems like Sonar 2093, command and control software, Artisan radar and various countermeasures are excluded but unit costs for new builds will be. So, if the Type 26 needs x number of Sonar 2093s sets then only those components used on Type 26 will be charged against the programme, no development costs for example.

Because so many systems destined for Type 26 will have been de-risked and installed on Type 23 there are opportunities to actually transfer physical equipment from one type to the other. This probably is not as simple as it seems because of build sequence and physical integration issues but the potential is there.

The Maritime Indirect Fires System (MIFS) is included within the programme umbrella, the 5” gun at the pointy end!

The Type 26 programme has incurred an initial Assessment Phase cost of £127 million, plus the £859 million demonstration contract awarded last year that includes approximately £600m of long lead items and some shore facilities that will reduce the overall manufacture phase costs.

The £11.5 Billion was apparently an unscripted comment so no doubt more details will emerge in due course but I think the point is;

Programme cost estimate divided by proposed quantities does not equal unit cost .

63 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JJ
JJ
September 26, 2015 5:35 pm

All very true. But the key point to take away is that for the Royal Navy to get 13 Frigates we are spending at least £11.5Bn which is £850m+ per ship. This is the ridiculous premium the MoD has to pay to keep inefficient UK shipyards in business. If the Navy has so little ships don’t blame the Navy or the MoD, blame the government for insisting we do it this way for votes.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 26, 2015 5:45 pm
Reply to  JJ

Why is it ridiculous. You mskeyan assertion yet you do not have a clue what is included in the programme and offer zero supporting evidence for it being “ridiculous”.
If you actually offered up some evidence about similar programmes and capabilities then I could take your post a bit more seriously.
At the moment it is a rant.

Steve
Steve
September 26, 2015 7:06 pm

Ok, now I am worried.

If the cost per ships works at around 900k (11.5 / 13), there is no way we will get 13 hulls. We just have to look at the type 45 down from 12 to 6 because of costs. A 50% reduction in frigates would pretty much signal the end of the royal navy as anything other than a support role for other nations.

6 destroyers and 7 frigates could barely defend the carriers, let alone anything else.

I thought the costs were meant to be under 600k.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 26, 2015 7:13 pm

@Simon

Did you bother reading a word of the post? Or the discussion on it yesterday. Even the executive summary?
Nope. Thought not.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
September 26, 2015 7:15 pm

e 5.7 bn for 10 FREMMs in Italy
e 9.9 bn for 11 in France
£ 6.5 for 6 T45s in the UK
£ 11.5 for 13 (maybbe?) T26s in the UK
build three dozen LCSs and you get well below $ 1/2 bn in unit cost, but add prgrm cost (?) and the modules (theoretically shared) @ $ 7 bn

Now, I am not even going to bother to do the division on a calculator (to get the unit costs) and then run a regression on installed power, displacement, some form of fire power & sensor capability comparison index (as determining factors for the overall cost)… but someone might!

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 26, 2015 7:21 pm

You have simply added up the unit cost from wiki have you not? Total waste of time. As for LCS unit vs R and D make it complex but let me give you this figure. In 2011 the programme cost for that single year for LCS was over £2 Billion.
I scolded NAB earlier but tend to agree with him now.

Steve
Steve
September 26, 2015 7:28 pm

It’s all about PR, if the royal navy can make the cost per hull sound lower by not including key tech on the ships then they need to. The penny counters in Westminster will be trying to cut costs anyway they can without giving much thought to the result. We saw the argument of the type45 and that it had the same power as multiple previous ships but without giving any thought to a ship is only any good if its actually in the area.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 26, 2015 7:32 pm

Well done TD, you have created an entire thread for people who have zero idea experience or knowledge to divide 11.5 by 13 then decide to do it by 8 then tell us we are all fucking doomed.
I may give this a miss unless someone who actually has a semi clue makes a valid point

Steve
Steve
September 26, 2015 7:37 pm

You miss the point, if all 13 were built on the same day, then the argument of 11.5 / 13 or 8 would make sense but they aren’t.

What will happen, is we will get 5 or 6 built and then the politicians will talk about saving money by cancelling extra ships, forgetting about sunk costs and by cancelling ships they are making the ones already built more expensive.

Politics is all about the now, with little consideration of the past or future. There are votes to win today.

phrank
phrank
September 26, 2015 7:39 pm

So had you built 13 more Type 45 what would the cost have been compared to the Type 26’s

All Politicians are the same
All Politicians are the same
September 26, 2015 7:41 pm
Reply to  Think Defence

You started it, enjoy :)

Hohum
Hohum
September 26, 2015 8:36 pm

Wow, this thread hit full retard quickly.

So, on the basis of an understanding level of absolute zero people are already claiming that T26 is too expensive and thus doomed. Impressive.

Mike wheatley
Mike wheatley
September 26, 2015 8:38 pm

Not sure why I am bothering, but:
The Net Book Value of HMS Dragon, on the year she entered service, was £342m.

Mickp
Mickp
September 26, 2015 9:02 pm

The £11.5bn could include anything so it’s impossible to comment entirely sensibly. If it is the right total cost for 13 ships then the first question I would ask is what would they charge us extra for ship 14. If 11.5 is right and it does prove to be operationally as good as it looks it seems like we should look to build around 24 to properly benefit from the investment. Worst thing we could do would be stop at 8 or even13. We could replace the Rivers (again), look at Repulses idea for raiding vessels, can we use them for MHC, and can they replace T45 down the line. Slightly tongue in cheek but….

Mickp
Mickp
September 26, 2015 9:03 pm

….the Arleigh Burkes of the RN

wilson
wilson
September 26, 2015 9:05 pm

If they are that expensive why not keep building the 45 ? This has F22/JSF fiasco written all over it . We will end up spending more than 18 T45’s would have cost for probably a fleet of six 45’s and six 26’s . Clowns.

challenger
challenger
September 26, 2015 9:08 pm

I fully understand that unit cost and total program cost are completely different things, so dividing £11.5 billion by 13 is foolish and ultimately pointless.

However…..call me naive or confused or ignorant, but even if the cost of each T26 does come out at around £500 million (£250-300 million always sounded very optimistic) that would still only add up to about £6.5 billion. Where on earth is the other £5 billion going to be spent?

Even factoring in R&D, assessments, long-lead items, parallel weapons/systems projects etc that remains a staggering figure.

Chris.B.
Chris.B.
September 26, 2015 9:16 pm

Is there not an inflation adjustment in that figure as well. It sounds very ballpark but I suspect it has one (or should), considering that the program will run over many years. That alone will add millions to each ship as you go forward vs current prices.

All Politicians are the same
All Politicians are the same
September 26, 2015 9:24 pm
Reply to  Mickp

Stretch them to 160M plus about 10K plus tonnes, utilise 2 MT30 GTs with modern generators for a CODLAG propulsion system with FPP. Type 45 radar fit, 2 48 cell MK 57 silos with SM3/6 Sea Ceptor quad packed LRASM/NSM and land attack missiles. Oto Melara 127/64 on the front end. 2 or 3 76MM OTO Melara Strales for anti FAC/FIAC and the best CWIS going. 2087 or upgrade, good MF Hull sonar, mission bay and hangar for 2 Merlins.

Anyway can but dream :)

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
September 26, 2015 9:26 pm

@APATS, RE:
“Total waste of time. As for LCS unit vs R and D make it complex but let me give you this figure. In 2011 the programme cost for that single year for LCS was over £2 Billion.”

Can you not read? You said the same thing as I did:
“get well below $ 1/2 bn in unit cost, but add prgrm cost (?) and the modules (theoretically shared) @ $ 7 bn
Now, I am not even going to bother to do the division on a calculator (to get the unit costs) and then …”
-btw, the (?) there denotes the unknown (x, which you put a figure to)
– do you understand what “not even going to bother to do the division on a calculator” means? I thought it was plain English.

I can’t even get angry (like with idiots from the other side of the Atlantic who can’t be blamed for their lack of knowledge… they might know about their own stuff better than we do; but who surely can be blamed for their lack of manners). I am just starting to rapidly lose interest when old & trusted participants do not want to improve the discussion, but rather, to lower the standards.

I’ve never said this before, even though I have long held the belief: You are the RN Press Agency, not even one person, but several, working on a rota. That as such would be commendable, to bring in an informed point of view, and for a long time I have taken it to be exactly that. No more, though.

I could also spell out who are in the pay of Britain’s biggest defence contractor (not necessarily just here), but there is no point. I just laugh at people who , from a balanced account read only the parts that are against the company (read: entity) and then go on to respond (and try to hide their true intentions behind the veil of rudeness).

TAS
TAS
September 26, 2015 9:41 pm

APATS, you forgot the lasers, railguns, photon torpedoes and everybody’s favourite – a gold plated hull!

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 26, 2015 9:46 pm
Reply to  ArmChairCivvy

I am the RN Press agency? Beautiful, that is truly the funniest comment that I have read on here ever and I have read some crackers.
I may have been unfair on your post but not certain I ever saw an X. Your costs for FREMM and t45 were wiki unit costs. LCS average costs per unit as basic modules have been about £300 million this bought you zero ASW capability, a 57mm gun, 1 RAM launcher and some 50 cal. The rest is modular so I would say they do not fit a requirement we have or need.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 26, 2015 9:48 pm
Reply to  TAS

Fuck, sorry :)

Steve
Steve
September 26, 2015 9:54 pm

Unit cost is a lot more difficult to calculate than at first sight, as was seen with the carriers, which it was ultimately cheaper to build 2 than 1.

At some point we will sign a contract for x hulls, including clauses for a reduction should it be decided and a large upfront payment. The fear is that at some point between the contract being signed and the last hull being built, the decision will be made to reduce the numbers, which means triggering the break cause with what ever payment that will involve.

As such dividing the total cost by the eventual number of hulls won’t be far off reality. Of course there will be some saving, but it won’t as huge as it should be.

However politics don’t care about sunk cost, its all about saving of future money and declaring it to the press today to win vote. Who cares if that means saving 100milion by not making the last 4 ships, as its 100 million saved, even if that would have equated to 4 insanely cheap ships if they had gone ahead.

Politics isn’t economically isn’t logical.

Maybe I am wrong but I suspect not.

A Caribbean Perspective
A Caribbean Perspective
September 27, 2015 12:33 am

Funnily enough, I don’t think that this is that much of a problem. Despite not knowing what is actually included in the figure given, it’s encouraging (since I seem to be having a glass half-full kind of a day) to think that for once, maybe, the program has been properly costed out, with realistic allowances for risk elements (which seem to have been minimised as much as is practical) built into the budget, along with all the other costs that will be encountered along the way (training and testing facilities, ancilliary equipment, new logistics arrangements, hopefully also the cost of refits for the earlier hulls etc, etc). The real crunch is whether HMG is prepared to buy into these figures and give the whole program the green light (which will probably depend on what both the SDSR and the Treasury have to say). Over a twenty-year program, this comes to less than 600m per annum, which seems rather manageable.

mike
mike
September 27, 2015 12:52 am

Just interesting seeing the response to this compared to the costs of aviation programmes… nothing gets people talking more on TD than a Naval project.
Much to TD’s chagrin, I reckon ;)
(I jest)

I take this as the cost of us maintaining a sovereign top tier ship-building capability, I imagine the cost goes far beyond hulls, equipment and logistics… but the whole shebang, R&D and process. Starting up an entirely new design was always going to cost, and having such a small fleet will mean costs go up. I just hope they make damn sure these are “fitted for and with” this time around…

Martin
Martin
September 27, 2015 3:37 am

it’s not necessarily useful to compare other vessels like FREMM against T26. FREMM vessels are ready complete where as this figure for T26 will cover a build schedule into the mid 2030’s. If we compared FREMM to T23 where there is a similar gap and building schedule then T23 looks ridiculously cheap.

It’s also possible that the navy is angling for 15 and not 13 which could also go some way to explain the higher cost.

Also given that the T26 program does not include much R&D compared to T45 it is unlikely we will see exponential costs growth if unit numbers are reduced.

That being said if BAE can knock out a fairly standard frigate for the £500 million mark them it’s time to make some serious decisions.

Interesting to note today that India is looking for tech transfer to build some MCMV’s and as with the Saudi deal for France BAE is not even submitting proposals.

TAS
TAS
September 27, 2015 6:22 am

There is an astounding level of idiocy being displayed here, hilarious!

We know that the T26 is little more than a refreshed T23. We know that almost every system onboard is a risk-reduced long term tech transfer from the T23 or else proven, low cost systems such as CODLOG. There is nothing novel or controversial about it. Yet ill informed idiots have leaped at the opportunity to write pages of nonsense based on their total lack of understanding and a single, random headline-grabbing figure. This has been an illuminating thread, even more so than usual. The power of Wikipedia – pity we can’t weaponise it and install it in a gold-plated launcher!

Maybe they parked a couple of FRES in the mission bay?

JamesF
September 27, 2015 8:36 am

If the point of this estimate – made off the record – was to emphasise what an important programme T26 is, then we should take this will a pinch of salt (it probably includes everthing from BAe’s revamping of of its Glasgow yards to the MoD project team in Abbeywood). It also comes at a time when MoD are launching a consultation on new pricing rules for single sourced contracts – of which major warships are usually the largest – in advance of T26 and Successor. Lets see what emerges.

pacman27
pacman27
September 27, 2015 8:52 am

I think this conversation clearly demonstrates several issues that need to be understood and resolved.

1. The cost per unit is exactly that – all costs divided by the amount of units provided and there is no getting away from that.
2. Fixed or sunken costs are also that – there is a minimum cost to get in the game and then economies of scale kick in thereby reducing the cost.
3. The MOD have a terrible track record in both explaining points 1 and 2 and then delivering against their commitments, BAE are also to be held accountable for this.
4. Other countries (most notably the Scandinavians) can produce very capable ships to a cost point (Absolon, Huitfeld).
5. The RN need a long term plan like the USN 30 year plan and we need to fund it on an annual basis – at which point we can decide how we spend £2-3b on our shipbuilding – this takes into account the life of most vessels and allows for a managed asset renewal program to be in place.
6. By building new every year we reduce the need for extension programmes which in themselves cost money.
7. By committing to a long term strategy British industry can then provide a good price based upon income stability.

The T26 will be similar to a FREMM, Absolon, or Huitfeld or similar and we should be bringing these in at £500m per ship fully loaded. If we can’t then we shouldn’t build them and we should look at alternatives I am afraid.

We can buy Mistrals for this kind of money – why not a frigate.

pacman27
pacman27
September 27, 2015 8:57 am

In addition to the above I should point out that all new ships should be front line ships and as they get older and are replaced they can take on less aggressive roles – such as fisheries and border protection and humanitarian aid.

If this means we have standard ship design for all platforms that is then fitted out as required so be it.
If this design needs to be 90-120m – so be it. but lets have a lot more of them.

JamesF
September 27, 2015 9:03 am

@pacman27. I agree with you, but we should not take this figure at face value yet, Its ‘double hearsay’ a reporter relaying a comment overheard by an ‘industry insider’ during a presentation to industry at DSEi, made in private. It has only been reported by Defense News. No other outlet has picked up the story.

John Hartley
John Hartley
September 27, 2015 9:19 am

I still think that had we built 12 T45, fully armed & equipped, then the RN would not be putting all its wish list onto T26, so the T26 could have been a smaller cheaper ship. Say an evolved T23 of around 4700 tons.

JamesF
September 27, 2015 9:20 am

For a real procurement cock-up, you can’t beat the Canadian Joint Support Ships- two 20,000 ton replenshment ships, years late (the Canadians are having to borrow a Chilean tanker and lease commerical ships in the meantime), designed in Germany and built in Vancouver for £1.3 billion. We are getting four 37,0000t replenishment tankers from S. Korea for £452 million.

|rmChairCivvy
|rmChairCivvy
September 27, 2015 9:40 am

From this “MoD are launching a consultation on new pricing rules for single sourced contracts – of which major warships are usually the largest – in advance of T26 and Successor. Lets see what emerges”… will emerge just some more rigorous risk management around the below figures, which in themselves won’t change much, but the error ceases to be just up from the point estimate… one wishes
“”In the 10-year equipment program rolled out last year, the MoD said it would spend £18.2 billion buying and maintaining surface ships over the next decade and around £40 billion on submarines.

The total 10 year equipment and support plan is costed at £163 billion.”

Maintain & support is a bigger category in the DE&S budget than upright proc. but in a way that is a red herring for T26
– as the prgrm (proc & suport) stretches beyond the 10 (by now 9) year horizon for the plan, and
– as if the ships will come in at steady intervals, the average to be supported is half of the total number, until the last one is delivered, when that calculation will stop operating.

Life time costs for major purchases are supposed to be the basis for decision making (at least as a comparator between major alternatives, which sets the bar for correct rank ordering rather than getting the spot estimates bang on, over many decades). Have we seen any such for the CVF? For FRES-SV? I have seen attempts at it for the F35… but that was by Canada (where it has been even more of a political hot potato, and the job of doing it was given to the Dept for Public Works – not to the goat watching over the cabbage patch).

WiseApe
September 27, 2015 9:48 am

@ArmChairCivvy – Can I just state for the record that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. I do admit to owning a Frigate Mafia T-shirt and mouse mat, however. Made them myself.

It would be especially bonkers in this case to simply divide the programme costs by 13 given that we know that 5 of the planned ships are going to be the cheaper GP versions anyway. Might the figure include a guesstimate of the cost of physically transferring all the stuff from T23 to T26 (plus integration and trials)? Engineers don’t work cheap.

JamesF
September 27, 2015 10:31 am

There was a report in the FT in March which suggested that costs had ‘ballooned’. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/65f700c2-c0f2-11e4-9949-00144feab7de.html#axzz3mvvpRjRz

JamesF
September 27, 2015 10:58 am

However FT were also quoting a cost of ‘up to £400 million’ per ship in March – which is just about ok, I guess. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/795878f4-c0f6-11e4-876d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3mvvpRjRz. H

Frenchie
Frenchie
September 27, 2015 11:43 am

I do not know if this interests you, but the two BPC are going to be sold to Egypt for 950 million euro, I do not know if there is an interest of the Royal Navy for these ships ? As for the FREMM, we could provide, for 650 million euro each, almost immediately, but it is better for the United Kingdom to maintain its ability to build warships.

A Different Gareth
A Different Gareth
September 27, 2015 12:14 pm

I wonder if there are some bets being hedged. There is a chance that the UK could exit the EU. In that case the UK would need to scale up its supervision of the UK fishing grounds wouldn’t it? And in the other direction could the UK be intending to build some ships for other nations to man?(A bit like the NATO C-17 fleet)

pacman27 said: “In addition to the above I should point out that all new ships should be front line ships and as they get older and are replaced they can take on less aggressive roles – such as fisheries and border protection and humanitarian aid.”

Sounds sensible. You could guarantee a long period of work and some significant economies of scale if the project involved, say, stamping out a hull a year for 30 years but having all the front line ships be no more than 15 years old. The mid point of the programme could be a time for improvements to the design and from then on you start shuffling the old ships off to other duties, forces or nations.

TAS
TAS
September 27, 2015 12:30 pm

Okay, I’ll bite, could use the entertainment.

“There is a chance that the UK could exit the EU. In that case the UK would need to scale up its supervision of the UK fishing grounds wouldn’t it?”

Your justification for this being…?

Martin
Martin
September 27, 2015 1:12 pm

surely we would need less supervision if we can just ban Spanish fisherman. no need to go round all the time checking nets. Just sink them with mq9 MPA drones if they enter EEZ. :-)

Donald_of_Tokyo
Donald_of_Tokyo
September 27, 2015 3:23 pm

Dear ALL

I agree you need to know what is included in the GBP 11.5B program cost. I am also very much interested in. Here I have 3 comments.

1:’£400 million per ship’
It stands for 540M Euro, or 600M$ or 72Byen. This is right the cost we in Japan pays for purchasing the Akizuki-class DD. I shall say that compared to T26, Akizuki DD has a bit better (with ASROC and 2 SH60K) level of ASW, better AAW (ESSM with 8 fixed AESA), much superior ASuW (T26 lacks SSM), very inferior land-attack (no TLAM), lacks “multi-roll” deck, significantly higher speed (30+ knots with 4 SM1C GT) in a slightly smaller hull (6800 t FL). I suppose the range will be also inferior.

However, ‘£400 million per ship’ does NOT include Sea Ceptor itself nor S2087 nor type-977 radar (but includes integration of them). Thus, my personal impression is that T26 IS expensive by, say, 20-30%. Considering the ship building industry size difference, and recent 20-30% cheaper Yen, it might be understandable (IF YOU REALLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TLAM. If not, it 400 MGBP is definitely expensive).

0.4G x13 = 5.2 B GBP is less than half of the program cost, so what is included in addition is of great interest.

2: total hull number, if 13 is to be built, is not so “small”.
For example, we build only 4 Akizuki. Even if you think Akizuki is “a modified modified Murasame”, the number is 9 (Murasame)+5(Takanami) +4(Akizuki) = 18. Not much different from 13.

Also in Europe, there are only 4 Type-125 (Germany). French FREMM is 8+1+1=10. Italian FREMM is 10 (they are almost different ships built in different yards with different sensor suits and armaments).

3: Question. Are there really any cost difference in ASW and GP versions?
Since S2087 is already purchased, and the ship’s CDS will be the same (dare not develop different version), only difference will be its integration and the analysis software. The difference cannot be 100M GBP, much much smaller.

Anyway, just a comment….

Rocket Banana
September 27, 2015 4:05 pm

The £11.5b figure was the expected OUTTURN price of the PROGRAM which is expected to run into 2030. So given that inflation runs at about double every 10 years (this is massively debatable but I still struggle to predict the future) you could say the current costs will be less than half of that figure putting 13 ships at around the <£400m each.

That's way more in line with the previous estimates.

Sorry if it's already been said but APATS has already had a go at me on this thread (comment 4) and I hadn't even said anything. ;-)

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 27, 2015 4:32 pm
Reply to  Rocket Banana

What a huge apology I owe you. My supposedly intelligent keyboard on my phone took the S on this site and I pressed the default. So Steve became Simon :(
Mea culpable (fuckwittery of highest order).

Rocket Banana
September 27, 2015 4:40 pm

Absolutely no worries, besides the apology is much more welcome than what I was expecting, which was something along the lines of “it’s the kind of rubbish you usually spout” :-)

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same
September 27, 2015 5:11 pm
Reply to  Think Defence

I hope not. Maybe I should check :)

Mickp
Mickp
September 27, 2015 5:28 pm

Obviously assigned the RN APATs rota to a trainee this week ?

Frenchie
Frenchie
September 27, 2015 8:16 pm

@Donald_of_Tokyo

I know what it means to “ASW” anti-submarine warfare, but “GP” General purpose, so here I do not know?

Repulse
September 27, 2015 8:48 pm
Reply to  Mickp

Great idea :)

Repulse
September 27, 2015 8:59 pm

I’m not going to comment on the programme budget as unless we are going into cost (capability) cutting or the death of UK ship building – it is what it is. Two things I do hope for, given the comments about the batch 2 Rivers replacing in due course batch 1 Rivers, perhaps we are talking about a stepping stone to 16 FFs. Fantasy fleet maybe, but prior to the last SDSR there were 17 FFs… Secondly, I’d like a stretched none ASW version to enable a larger mission bay and RM capacity.

JamesF
September 27, 2015 9:11 pm

@Donald – nice ships those Akizukis, but more comparible to a T45 without Aster 30 than a T26. I have a couple of comments in comparison. Akizuki does not really have an ASW power plant – its COGAG, whereas T26 will have a silent dielel-electric drive and gas for dash (and cruise). I don’t know about the Akizuki hull form but T26 also has a acoustically designed hull form (as has T23). It could have ASROC, as it has a T41 VLS, but probablt wont get it. There is a plan to procure a long range AsuM, but none for TLAM yet (as we have them on SSNs), but again its a possibility down the line. CAMM does have the range of ESSM (offically 25km+, but some say up to 60km), also it can be cued by any radar in the fleet and uses an active radar seeker unlike ESSM, which has a passive seeker, but where Akizuki scores is with its PAAMS like AAW combat sysytem and radars. Also I think T26 is a little larger, its crept up to 6,500t now, 8,000 full load. One Merlin HM2 and space for UAVs – together with a big flght deck and a mission deck and a as with Akizuki a pair of CIWS. Yet the Merlin and towed array sonor combined with the CODLOG drive train and accounstic hull form make T26 a better sub hunter I believe..

Engineer Tom
September 27, 2015 11:05 pm

I noticed a couple of comments about just building more T45’s to save the cost of designing a new vessel.

There is one major issue with that the T45 can’t do ASW, you would of had to redesign every pipe system every piece of equipment’s mounting would have needed to be redesigned, you would have needed to change the propulsion system, I am also guessing the hull may have needed a redesign for noise. Basically a new vessel.

mickp
mickp
September 27, 2015 11:30 pm

– of course ‘one for one replacement of T23s’ could be interpreted as 16, as that is how many were built. Clutching at straws!

Donald_of_Tokyo
Donald_of_Tokyo
September 28, 2015 3:28 am

. Thanks for you comment. Here, just for help what I meant…

Yes Akizuki is COGAG and could be less quiet than T23/26. But it is very near to T23/26 than T45 (we have Aegis DDGs for AAW). Its hull is “modified modified Murasame DD”, the specialized ASW platform, tailored to be silent for decades. JMSDF thinks much about ASW, as much as purchasing 50-70 P-1s, and those DDs are training with our Soryu SSs, which is known to be very scilent (of course because it is non-nuclear subs).

In Japan, RN is regarded as one of the few navies which think much about ASW. And thus, we are pretty much interested in T26.

Donald_of_Tokyo
Donald_of_Tokyo
September 28, 2015 5:43 am

I’am sorry if I am wrong, but I understand RN is to build 8 ASW version and 5 GP version T26s? While the only difference is that later version lacks S2087.

A Different Gareth
A Different Gareth
September 28, 2015 9:24 am

TAS said: “Your justification for this being…?”

Because it’ll be the sole responsibility of the UK rather than being shared across the EU nations. Just as the EU’s Schengen area is resource efficient compared to operating national borders, the return of a national boundary could bring with it a requirement for increased monitoring.

Note, I’m not speculating that the RN will need to be bigger to defend the UK waters but that more hulls than the RN would ordinarily need itself could be in the pipeline. Either through a higher rate of replacement to shuffle ships off to less arduous duties (such as marine supervision) while they still have life left in them or to not operate some of them alone (like the NATO C-17 fleet)

x
x
September 28, 2015 1:05 pm

@ ACC

LCS? Dude don’t………….

@ APATS

Calm down dear. I am sure T26 will have a lovely EW suite, the Americans will take care of anything kinetic and fighty, and I am sure BAE already a have video production module design ready for the mission bay.

@ Think Defence

Please could you remove my e-mail address from you subscription thingy. Thanks in advance.

Stu W
September 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Earlier in the month the Government said they wanted the MoD to support foreign sales!!! Not the best start 11.5bn quid sticker price quoted by the an MoD official.

Allan
October 6, 2015 11:46 pm
Reply to  TAS

@TAS…..

Can you imagine how many people the RN would need to employ to keep the hulls polished and all nice ‘n’ shiny…..plus the cost of industrial quantities of gold nail varnish required to touch up the hulls……