Type 26 Annoucement

Author
Discussion

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
Why so fricking expensive?!

http://www.naval-technology.com/news/newsbae-syste...

North of £800m for a hull with kit that's pretty much already been developed seems OTT, even by BAE standards..

Propulsion and gensets - based on existing tech
Combat Management System - based on existing DNA(2) as fitted to 23s
Satellite Comms - SCOT 3 as fitted to 23's
Radar - Artisan 997 as fitted to almost everything else
Electro Optical - as fitted to 45s
Sonar - likely to be 2050 and 2080 as fitted to 23's
VLS - new to the RN, but off the shelf
Guns - as fitted to 45s and 23s
ECM - as fitted to 23s
Aircraft Handling - as fitted to 23's

No wonder we can't have 13 ffs.


Ceeejay

398 posts

150 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
Ask yourself a similar question regarding cladding on a high rise tower... its been used before, just slap it on !

I hate to think of the amount of clearance activities and documentation that will have to be done putting old kit on a new hull (highly oversimplified)

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Guns - as fitted to 45s and 23s
Nope.

23s and 45s have Mk8, T26 does not. Although the gun is old tech, the ammunition handling is not.

kurt535

3,559 posts

116 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
they never use state of the art though on any mil kit cos it has to be already proven to break down on a regular basis. new stuff just might work off the shelf and we cant have that.

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
Nope.

23s and 45s have Mk8, T26 does not. Although the gun is old tech, the ammunition handling is not.
Was thinking more of the MSI 30mm and Phalanx which are on both - looks like the 26 will have the Mk45 Mod 4, so proven at least..


donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
What do you think it should cost?

Do you think the cost of each ship is the cost of the project divided by 13? It doesn't matter if you build 1 or 100, you still have to design one, and that's the part that takes the most time.

North of £800m makes them cheaper than a T45, with a fk-tonne of extra kit on board.
Tell me how it moves the ASW game on substantially from the Type 23 and I'll give you a cost - for a ship that is due to replace the Type 23s and for the most part uses existing or COTS kit, £800m does not seem good value v's £200million give or take for a T23 with cab, inflation notwithstanding.

Being cheaper than the potmess that is the T45 does not in any way make it good value. £800m will inevitably rise too..






stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
stevesingo said:
Nope.

23s and 45s have Mk8, T26 does not. Although the gun is old tech, the ammunition handling is not.
Was thinking more of the MSI 30mm and Phalanx which are on both - looks like the 26 will have the Mk45 Mod 4, so proven at least..
Nope. Try again ;-)

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
Looks like it will be a very useful ship, but I wouldn't be surprised if we only end up with 6 of them.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that the Type 31 will be quietly killed off.

I think the credible future of the Navy is hanging by a thread right now, and that's before we think of the horror of Corbyn in Number 10.


donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
200 million in 87 is 516 now, and outside of ASW, the new ships will be much more versatile. Also like I tries to explain, a lot of the cost is designing it, the more you order, the cheaper each one will be.
They've only ordered 3 at present.

And if a T45 isn't a useful comparison, what should it cost? I don't know what similar spec ships built elsewhere cost?
I wouldn't compare the two because IIRC the T45 was 80% new kit and Sampson/PAAMS was / is genuinely a quantum leap in capability. With that in mind, At £1bn a pop, they almost seem good value, when they work.

The T26 on the other hand seems to be a mix of second hand parts and COTS / MOTS stuff - I get how and why they're reducing risk by swapping out T23 kit as they decommission, I just don't see the price tag being commensurate with the end product.

Did notice earlier that the T26 programme director Geoff Searle has said that the 3.7bn includes manufacturing and long lead supplier costs from previous phases and yet it still seems pricey.

I don't think it's ok to say 'outside of ASW she'll be a much more versatile' - the bread and butter for the T26 is to hunt and kill submarines. With Merlin/ Wildcat only and no torpedos or commitment to using the VLS for something like the RUM 139, she's all fur coat and no knickers in this department. No Harpoon replacement mentioned either, although options down the line I guess, even if that line is 15 yrs away.

Hopefully, the class will morph into a true successor to the batch 3 T22s that could do a bit of everything...

Simpo Two

85,150 posts

264 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
With Merlin/ Wildcat only...
Blimey, is it WW2 again?

12" armour and 16" guns, oh yes.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Monday 3rd July 2017
quotequote all
Do they have any chance of a cruise SSM in the options list or is it still in the Nelson style guns guns guns?

Speculatore

2,002 posts

234 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Hopefully, the class will morph into a true successor to the batch 3 T22s that could do a bit of everything...
The Batch III Type 22's were the way ahead. I served on Cumberland and Chatham and they were excellent ships with the right amount of equipment to make them really versatile. From Towed Array to Harpoon, Goalkeeper to STWS and Mk8 Gun to Seawolf and either Lynx or Merlin.... Bring it on....

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
Sylvaforever said:
Do they have any chance of a cruise SSM in the options list or is it still in the Nelson style guns guns guns?
Yes, the question is whether the UK can afford to buy any.

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
Speculatore said:
The Batch III Type 22's were the way ahead. I served on Cumberland and Chatham and they were excellent ships with the right amount of equipment to make them really versatile. From Towed Array to Harpoon, Goalkeeper to STWS and Mk8 Gun to Seawolf and either Lynx or Merlin.... Bring it on....
Exactly this. What year were you on Cumberland?

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
Second hand parts? You'll have to enlighten me. What are they using straight from decommissioned T23s?

No torpedos? What are you talking about? What would the torpedo launchers be for if there are no torpedos? She can operate 2 Merlins, 2 Wildcats, or a Chinook, and will be fitted with the new CAMM sea-ceptor (which is being trialled on T23, is that what you mean by second hand parts) which is a superior system to seawolf that makes up much less space.

I think perhaps you're misinformed, and basing your thoughts on bad information?

Also, it seems ok to me, to say that outside of it's core ASW tasks, it'll be a much more versatile ship. Once you consider the above, it has the ASW part covered, and yet can still carry out many different types of operations, which was a criticism levelled at the T45, it was too focussed and wasn't multi-purpose.

Edited by Nanook on Tuesday 4th July 08:33
I think you're misinformed, unless the First Sea Lord is basing his thoughts on bad information:

Admiral Sir Philip Jones

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committe...

"Yes, that is absolutely true. One of the things that we think will de-risk the Type 26’s entry into service is the fact that much of its equipment will have been tested and proved by operating on the Type 23 frigates, in particular the Sea Ceptor missile system, the Artisan Type 997 air surveillance radar and a number of other things.The Type 23 that we bring in to pay off has to be the donor platform to the next Type 26. We’ve bought new equipment for each of the three first Type 26s, to sort of get the class going, if you like; that is part of the long-lead items we have procured. So we will then have, as it were, a residue of decommissioned Type 23s’ equipment, which we can return and recycle, and deliver to the builder to fit into the Type 26. We won’t have to bring one in and stop it operating before we send it north; we’ve deliberately factored that in. I think that means that we will have much more resilience and already-tested equipment in that ship, which will bring it into service much faster than we’ve seen before."

Knock yourself out:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/

"Light guns for ship’s self defence will come from retiring Type 23s, as will a good part of the decoy outfit, including the S2170 anti-torpedo system."

"It even seems that the Type 26 will not carry ship-launched anti-submarine torpedoes. For years now there has been no mention of migrating the Type 23’s magazine torpedo launchers. In absence of a vertical launch anti-submarine weapon such as the American ASROC, the Type 26 will be entirely dependent on the embarked helicopter for prosecuting the submarines it picks up on the sonar. While the limitations of the ship-launched light torpedo are well understood (being close enough to a submarine to employ it probably means the submarine has already fired its own much larger torpedoes), it seems rather disconcerting to do away with them entirely. And if they aren't fitted, this is another capability the Type 26’s budget is not funding.'

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/the-type-26-frigate/...

"It is likely that the Sonar 2087’s will be a direct transfer from Type 23 to Type 26."

The sorry saga of 'for and not with' eh?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-fl...

My original comment appears entirely valid - plenty of scope for turning this into a T22 B3 successor, but right now seems fking expensive.














donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
So as I said, they're testing brand new kit on T23, and they'll be putting it onto T26. Artisan, & Sea Ceptor. The kit they're "recycling" that's upsetting you so much is the machine guns?

As for the rest of it, you can quote blogs at me all day long, but I'm afraid you're/they're not correct. It's not a sorry saga or 'for and not with', it's the usual misinformed rantings of people that don't know.
Riiight. Industry experts v's a piston heads expert who knows. laugh

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
Alternatively, some blog on the internet vs someone that's been working on the project for 4 years.

I was trying to provide you with some info, since the info you were basing your assumptions and thoughts on seemed to be wrong. You don't need to get upset about it. Sometimes you're wrong. Happens to us all.
Ah, so you're a BAE employee or contractor. Makes sense now biggrin

What have you been doing for 4 years if you'd missed the bit about Artisan and Sonar being lifted from 23's and plonked on the 26? Making tea? You were wrong about recycled kit, wrong about torpedoes and have yet to explain why it moves the ASW game on to a point commensurate with the price tag. Comparisons with the T45 simply make you look like an arse.

Having served in HM Ships that have operationally suffered due to piss poor BAE delivery and hearing daily about our FF/DD fleet that can float, barely move and certainly not fight due entirely to BAE failures, the opinion of someone involved with a corrupt company, is frankly, worth less than a wk.

Back to the thread topic, looks like the FREMM frigate is significantly cheaper, with a broadly comparable capability.

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
laugh

Alright then, whatever you say Sailor!
Someone say sailor?


Speculatore

2,002 posts

234 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Exactly this. What year were you on Cumberland?
89 - 1992 as PO(R) then CPO(R) Chatham was 94 - 97 after a spell at Dryad

Speculatore

2,002 posts

234 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Someone say sailor?

"SPANNERS"