Type 26 Annoucement

[donutsina911]

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.

[donutsina911]

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]

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..

[donutsina911]

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...

[donutsina911]

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]

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]

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.

[donutsina911]

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

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]

Nanook said:

Alright then, whatever you say Sailor!

Someone say sailor?

[donutsina911]

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.

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

[donutsina911]

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]

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.

[donutsina911]

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 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 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

[donutsina911]

Nanook said:

Alright then, clearly you know it all, because you read a blog online

Edited by Nanook on Wednesday 5th July 11:41

I know a little, because I've served. You?

[donutsina911]

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..

[donutsina911]

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.

[donutsina911]

Fugazi said:

Interesting stuff

Cheers, fascinating insight there...