Type 26 Annoucement

Author
Discussion

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
Speculatore said:
89 - 1992 as PO(R) then CPO(R) Chatham was 94 - 97 after a spell at Dryad
Ah ok, a bit before my time then, I would have been 12. laugh

Cumberland in 1999 for YO Fleet Time in the Med..happy ship

Fugazi

564 posts

120 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
I've been doing a lot of work at Liverpool uni on the aerodynamics of this ship over the last 5 or so years. It's an interesting project, hoping to blag a visit when they finally start putting the first one together, managed to have a peek around the QEC and River Class when they were being put together.

Speculatore

2,002 posts

234 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Speculatore said:
89 - 1992 as PO(R) then CPO(R) Chatham was 94 - 97 after a spell at Dryad
Ah ok, a bit before my time then, I would have been 12. laugh

Cumberland in 1999 for YO Fleet Time in the Med..happy ship
We all have our favourates but there was something special about the 'Fighting 85'

Gazzas86

1,707 posts

170 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
I work for BAE Systems, and also work in HMNB Portsmouth, i can promise you the stuff going on T26 will not be old hat stuff currently fitted to T23's, Agreed above, T22's were the best!, was gutted when i decommissioned Cumberland

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Tuesday 4th July 2017
quotequote all
So no Phalanx from the common supply and maintenance center then?

I do like the way the improved round, barrel supports and IR guidance moa have put it back on to the top of the pile again....

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
Gazzas86 said:
I work for BAE Systems, and also work in HMNB Portsmouth, i can promise you the stuff going on T26 will not be old hat stuff currently fitted to T23's, Agreed above, T22's were the best!, was gutted when i decommissioned Cumberland
Likewise, shed a tear seeing Cornwall leave Pompey stripped bare. Think BAE are spinning you st dits ref T26 - 1SL has already said there is to be a transfer of kit, every man and his dog is saying the same other than BAE - if you need it from the horse's mouth, the Defence Committee have publicly stated this to be the case:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617...

Two excerpts from pages 16 and 17:

Peter Roberts from RUSI questioned the need for such a lengthy design process. In his opinion the Type 26 would not be a “gold-plated, fantastic, world-beating, cutting-edge unit” and that “a lot of the equipment” on the Type 26 would be transferred directly from the existing fleet of Type 23s:

"This is not a bunch of new kit that is arriving, it is a new hull that will take these systems. We don’t have a new or massive increase in capability. We need to understand that this is simply a like-for-like replacement for the current one we’ve got, in order effectively to reduce the risk of hull degradation that we have got from current platforms that are way over their service limit."

And on P16:

"Much of the equipment to be installed on the Type 26 frigates will come directly from the Type 23s. The efficient transfer of that equipment from ship to ship is therefore a key component of the Type 26 programme—not least because the Type 26s will be built on the Clyde, whereas work on the Type 23s is carried out at Devonport."

"We were therefore concerned that this would add an additional logistical complication to the programme. Admiral Jones, explained that plans had been put in place to ensure an efficient transfer of equipment. He told us that to avoid any reduction in the complement of the surface fleet, new equipment had been procured for the first of the Type 26s. The new equipment would provide “a residue of decommissioned Type 23s’ equipment”, which would be recycled, and delivered into the Type 26 construction
programme”

So why so expensive?


donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
You're really labouring this point. When they talk about transfer of kit, they're not talking about the gun, the torpedo system, any of the 3 silos, the radar is being trialled on 23, but is designed for 26. None of these things are 'free' to the T26 project. And even if they were, they still need designed in, fitted, tested, commissioned.

It's not just a case of sitting these things down on the deck and plugging them in.
I've asked why it is so expensive. All the commentary seen so far is asking the same question outside of the BAE bubble. And so far you've not given any possible reasons, just made stuff up.

Tell me it's 10% quieter than the 23, will cost 5% less to run a year, has a revolutionary new sonar, tell me it's got gold plated dildos for all the wrens if you need to, but nothing you've said indicates why in real terms it's probably going to be twice the price of the ships it replaces and an order of magnitude more than comparable platforms.

The Artisan radar will see service on circa 20 ships for the best part of a decade and beyond and is covered by a separate contract with BAE. Sonar will be lifted and shifted. And what torpedoes are you referring to exactly? Please stop peddling ste.



RizzoTheRat

25,084 posts

191 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Back to the thread topic, looks like the FREMM frigate is significantly cheaper, with a broadly comparable capability.
Presumably part of the reason Type 26 costs a lot more than FREMM is numbers, 3 Type 26's vs 20+ FREMM. If they build more T26 the unit cost should come down as a big chunk of that is development costs not manufacturing costs. The risk is they decide to buy less of them due to the cost, meaning the unit cost goes up, as seen with pretty much every military programme ever (Type 45, F35, Typhoon, F22, B2...).

RizzoTheRat

25,084 posts

191 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
Completely agree, although that does also seem to be the main reason we're getting F35b with the Rolls Royce lift fan rather than the more capable F35c with less UK build components.

I can't remember the actual figures for Apache but apparently by doing some of the work in the UK it increased the cost to the point that it would have been cheaper to buy from the US and pay every Westland employee do nothing for several years, but we then wouldn't have a skilled workforce available afterwards.

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
Just because you haven't read it somewhere online, doesn't make it ste.

You need to calm down a bit, and stop assuming you're right all the time, you're embarrasing yourself with your behaviour here.

I've made nothing up, I don't work for BAE, and I'm not stupid enough to tell you things that aren't in the public domain, so you can believe me, or you can choose not to. If you choose the latter, that doesn't make me wrong.

As for the numbers, I can only assume maths isn't your strong point, because there's only one of us talking st here, and it's not me laugh It's not twice the price of the ships it replaced, and it's certainly not an order of magnitude more than ships of comparable platforms.
I couldn't be more calm if I tried - it's 23 degrees, sunny and I'm in the marina, but thanks smile There's absolutely nothing you've evidenced that contradicts the professional head of the RN, the Defence Committee nor industry commentators, so I'll choose not to believe you on this occasion.

PS: I'd say the Italian FREMM at £600million ish is both comparable and an order of magnitude less, so my maths looks sound, unlike your spelling wink


donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
Nanook said:
Alright then, clearly you know it all, because you read a blog online laugh

Edited by Nanook on Wednesday 5th July 11:41
I know a little, because I've served. You?

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
RizzoTheRat said:
Presumably part of the reason Type 26 costs a lot more than FREMM is numbers, 3 Type 26's vs 20+ FREMM. If they build more T26 the unit cost should come down as a big chunk of that is development costs not manufacturing costs. The risk is they decide to buy less of them due to the cost, meaning the unit cost goes up, as seen with pretty much every military programme ever (Type 45, F35, Typhoon, F22, B2...).
True - don't we have some provisional or export orders for the 26 though? I thought one of the design considerations was modularity for export so the RN benefited from some economies of scale..

Kuroblack350

1,383 posts

199 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Nanook said:
You're really labouring this point. When they talk about transfer of kit, they're not talking about the gun, the torpedo system, any of the 3 silos, the radar is being trialled on 23, but is designed for 26. None of these things are 'free' to the T26 project. And even if they were, they still need designed in, fitted, tested, commissioned.

It's not just a case of sitting these things down on the deck and plugging them in.
I've asked why it is so expensive. All the commentary seen so far is asking the same question outside of the BAE bubble. And so far you've not given any possible reasons, just made stuff up.

Tell me it's 10% quieter than the 23, will cost 5% less to run a year, has a revolutionary new sonar, tell me it's got gold plated dildos for all the wrens if you need to, but nothing you've said indicates why in real terms it's probably going to be twice the price of the ships it replaces and an order of magnitude more than comparable platforms.

The Artisan radar will see service on circa 20 ships for the best part of a decade and beyond and is covered by a separate contract with BAE. Sonar will be lifted and shifted. And what torpedoes are you referring to exactly? Please stop peddling ste.
This thread reminds me of that scene from Layer Cake when Daniel Craig tries to explain to the Duke why he can't ask £5 a pop for the pills...

I don't mean any offence, but you seem to have a very limited, almost Daily Mail style view of both large scale defence procurement works, and how these products are actually designed and built. You've got 3 or 4 people on this thread, including two employees of the prime contractor, telling you 'it's not as simple as you think' but you seem to think you know better..? From a few blogs? Seems a bit thin to me mate, but happy to be corrected!

Of course I would have replied to this yesterday but I was far too busy accepting massive bribes and generally producing rubbish kit smile


Edited by Kuroblack350 on Wednesday 5th July 12:48

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
Kuroblack350 said:
This thread reminds me of that scene from Layer Cake when Daniel Craig tries to explain to the Duke why he can't ask £5 a pop for the pills...

I don't mean any offence, but you seem to have a very limited, almost Daily Mail style view of both large scale defence procurement works, and how these products are actually designed and built. You've got 3 or 4 people on this thread, including two employees of the prime contractor, telling you 'it's not as simple as you think' but you seem to think you know better..? From a few blogs? Seems a bit thin to me mate, but happy to be corrected!

Of course I would have replied to this yesterday but I was far too busy accepting massive bribes and generally producing rubbish kit :

Edited by Kuroblack350 on Wednesday 5th July 12:48
My opening post to this thread was asking why the ships appear to be so expensive - a genuine question, without any angle. More importantly, it's one being asked by people far brainier than I, with much more sea going experience - all asking, why is this ship priced as it is, given the spec sheet on offer. If that grates for those working for BAE, so be it, suck it up - it's a question being asked over and over in defence circles.

I'd hoped that given the expertise we appear to have here, that it'd be reasonably straightforward to explain why the costs appear to be so high, even within the constraints of a public forum. It could be as simple as way too few units ordered, something much more complex beyond my wit, or a series of incremental improvements in key parts of ship, but to someone who spent 1/3 of their undistinguished career in Frigates, it appears to be mighty poor value for the end user.

To dismiss the parliamentary report and respected industry sources such as RUSI that I've quoted as 'just some stuff on a blog' or in the style of the Wail is disingenuous. I wouldn't have asked the question in Post #1 if I was an expert on procurement, but I would have expected more robust evidence from those who claim to be, other than 'I work here, it's great, it's more versatile, you don't understand' which is the size of it so far. And when BAE employees openly contradict their own project director, the Defence Committee and 1SL (on transferring over Type 23 kit), I'll call bullst. Building a warship class is undoubtably not simple - you won't find me claiming otherwise on here - explaining enhanced capability in Jack and Jill terms however, should be a doddle if you've done anything other than make the wets for 4 years on the project.

When Peter Roberts, Director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, who advises both UK and foreign governments on maritime matters, says of the T26:

"This is not a bunch of new kit that is arriving, it is a new hull that will take these systems. We don’t have a new or massive increase in capability. We need to understand that this is simply a like-for-like replacement for the current one we’ve got, in order effectively to reduce the risk of hull degradation that we have got from current platforms that are way over their service limit."

and in his opinion the Type 26 would not be a “gold-plated, fantastic, world-beating, cutting-edge unit” and that “a lot of the equipment” on the Type 26 would be transferred directly from the existing fleet of Type 23s, there are some questions to ask, without Daily Mail hyperbole.


Fugazi

564 posts

120 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
I've only been involved as far as providing technical feedback and advice regarding the aerodynamics and how the design of the superstructure could potentially affect maritime aviation. But even this has taken several years and multiple phases as the design changes and compromises are reached with other aspects of the design. What we would advise to minimise any hot exhaust and turbulence issues over the flight deck would mean a large increase in radar cross section and other issues with things like weapon placement. So a new iteration on the design is carried out and a new analysis is carried out. This is a hugely complex ship and even small changes to the topside may necessitate a redesign of the hull due to CG issues when a ship-motion study is carried out.

I forget who, but somebody in government a few years ago made a statement along the lines of 'where there is no military aviation directive, they will then adopt the closest civilian regulation'. So things like the temperature rise over the flight deck due to the onboard engines and exhaust plumes suddenly becomes important with regards to the aircraft integration side of things. Accidents have occurred due to excessive temperatures over the flight deck as both the rotor loses lift and the compressor can stall. It can and has happened many times on oil rigs and around power stations, even wrote a paper on this myself and we think a lot of these accidents to ships are being attributed to excessive pilot workload, turbulence, ship motion etc, when ingestion of hot exhaust gases can cause a helicopter to literally drop out of the sky. All these kinds of studies add to the development time and cost as things aren't like they were in the old days when people paid little heed to the effects of radar cross section, infra-red signatures, pilot workload, safety etc.

Edited by Fugazi on Wednesday 5th July 17:29

donutsina911

Original Poster:

1,049 posts

183 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
Fugazi said:
Interesting stuff
Cheers, fascinating insight there...

stevesingo

4,848 posts

221 months

Wednesday 5th July 2017
quotequote all
The more you know, the more time it takes to understand the best solution.

How much time does it take to design a golf ball now as opposed to designing a golf ball 100yrs ago? We know so much more about materials and aerodynamics that designers will have to go through so many more iterations in order to get to the best golf ball hey can. The limiting factor in the golf ball analogy is the customer will not stand the cost of a perfect golf ball. With MOD/Defence contracts, the cost of the perfect ship (or meeting requirements set out by the MOD/Defence) is passed on to the very people who set the requirement in the first place.

If anyone has dealt with MOD requirements (DEFSTANSs etc) for equipment will understand that the bulk of the cost is spent meeting the standard required.

Steve_D

13,737 posts

257 months

Thursday 6th July 2017
quotequote all
stevesingo said:
....................If anyone has dealt with MOD requirements (DEFSTANSs etc) for equipment will understand that the bulk of the cost is spent meeting the standard required.
I think you will find the bulk of the cost is documenting the proof that you have achieved the required standard. Meeting the standard is the easy bit.

Steve

S7Paul

2,103 posts

233 months

Thursday 6th July 2017
quotequote all
The tendency is for the MoD to overspecify in the first place, without realising that with a few ill-chosen key strokes they've just added several million to the cost of the programme.

The Prime Contractor then has to take a Requirement set consisting of umpteen thousand functional & non-functional requirements, decompose them to a level that can be used to specify a specific system or sub-system, and then try to find someone who can make it.

Once they've made it, they then have to put it through full design proving (functional, shock, EMC, environmental, etc.), which generates a mass of documentation which the Prime Contractor then has to assess. This evidence, along with Sea Trials data (in the case of Ships & Subs), is then used to try to persuade the MoD Requirement Owner to sign-off the Requirement(s) as formally accepted. And therein lies the next hurdle...

The MoD Requirement Owners frequently do not possess the expertise to really understand what they are being presented with, and so tend to err on the side of caution. This results in lengthy delays in getting requirements accepted. The MoD staff tend to change jobs every couple of years, so they'll often be avoiding signing anything because they know they'll be moving on shortly (so the next person can have the responsibility) or they're looking for their next grade, so don't want to do anything that might possibly involve any risk.

For industry, this means that we have to start educating a new person in the (usually) years of history of a particular system, to bring them up to speed to the point where they might, just might, sign on the dotted line. Frustrating? Oh yes!

And don't even get me started on how the MoD manages its finances!

eccles

13,720 posts

221 months

Friday 7th July 2017
quotequote all
donutsina911 said:
Nanook said:
Alright then, clearly you know it all, because you read a blog online laugh

Edited by Nanook on Wednesday 5th July 11:41
I know a little, because I've served. You?
No one is neutral when it comes to large projects or high profile projects.

I work on aircraft and have worked on many RAF and Army projects over the years that have been high profile with MP's asking questions in the house, Air Marshalls making statements etc (all the sort of stuff your quoting), and the stuff they say has on many occasions been nothing like what's actually happening in the hangar to the aircraft in question.
Some of the statements that have been published have been outright lies to make the civilian contractor look bad, other times the stuff published is to make it look like something is on track, when in reality, due to MOD incompetence, it's months behind.....so be very wary about what you read, and often the chap at the coal face is arguably the most accurate source of information, as he's doing it day to day. (And, yes, I've served)