BAE wins £127m contract to design Navy warship

The stern ramp and mission bay will survive, I expect the hanger to become one simple big box however. What this does point to is C1 and C2 being a single class with different start of life fitouts

Hi everybody, just got back from an enforced volcano stay in Gib, lovely!

It would perhaps make a good economical arguement to have C1 and C2 essentially being the same ship (i.e. T26) you can keep hull production going for a longer period in the same places and then you provide adabtability and economy in upgrades, C2s could be switched to C1s given a dire crisis where more of that type are needed, you could in effect have the C2s as an active, useful war reserve. The C2 becomes a a C1 fitted for but not with perhaps. would save money on traing and spares too.

The image of the mission deck is consistent with information released over the last few years, such as the model exihibited at the ? Exhibition last summer. It also gives a clue to the strange, low rcs object to port of the hangar in the T26 images released last month. This newly posted image appears to show that there is an access to the mission deck via a hatch in the forward part of the flight deck, port side, and that a crane is tucked in beside the hangar presumably for stowing and unstowing kit in the mission deck when no dockside craneage is available. Might the strange object in the T26 cgi be a low rcs housing for such a crane, and might the idea of the deck space down the port side of the hangar be for the storage of containers etc. in low intensity operations such as disaster relief, which could likewise be handled by the crane.

Cheers, R38

Everything on Navy Matters dates back several years, the webmaster has obviously become clinically depressed with the status quo…

Stern ramp, mission bay, twin hangar oh dear, has this been torn directly from page two of “Cancelling defence projects 101”?

The stuff I’m talking about goes back years before the last update in 2008.

The stern ramp and mission bay will survive, I expect the hanger to become one simple big box however. What this does point to is C1 and C2 being a single class with different start of life fitouts

I’ve seen a lot of people talk on forums about mission bays on C2s but AFAIK it’s always been destined for C1, there’s stuff on Navy Matters about it dating back several years.

Everything on Navy Matters dates back several years, the webmaster has obviously become clinically depressed with the status quo…

Stern ramp, mission bay, twin hangar oh dear, has this been torn directly from page two of “Cancelling defence projects 101”?

Good find – the block diagram is more a way of roughing out what is needed to fit into the hull, and how much hull you are likely to need to contain it, than any kind of finished-article design piece. Whats interesting in that is the elements that have been deemed ‘desireable’ to be fit into the hull. I wonder if this is the ‘downselected’ block diagram or one of a number of similar images with various possible loudout permutations.

The thing thats jumped out on me here, and maybe I’m being clinically thick, but why are we looking at a mission-bay on C1?. It was my thinking that C1 was the ASW/GP warfighter and the patrol hull ‘stabilisation combattant’, that requires the mission bay, was the C2?.

Seeing the vessel in these images has a towed array installation and the mission bay are we now looking at the merging of C1 and C2 requirements into a single hull?. Back to square one with FSC or what???.

I’ve seen a lot of people talk on forums about mission bays on C2s but AFAIK it’s always been destined for C1, there’s stuff on Navy Matters about it dating back several years.

Good find – the block diagram is more a way of roughing out what is needed to fit into the hull, and how much hull you are likely to need to contain it, than any kind of finished-article design piece. Whats interesting in that is the elements that have been deemed ‘desireable’ to be fit into the hull. I wonder if this is the ‘downselected’ block diagram or one of a number of similar images with various possible loudout permutations.

The thing thats jumped out on me here, and maybe I’m being clinically thick, but why are we looking at a mission-bay on C1?. It was my thinking that C1 was the ASW/GP warfighter and the patrol hull ‘stabilisation combattant’, that requires the mission bay, was the C2?.

Seeing the vessel in these images has a towed array installation and the mission bay are we now looking at the merging of C1 and C2 requirements into a single hull?. Back to square one with FSC or what???.

Actually it seems to fit almost all the info we have on the design so far, and it is on the MOD intranet

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/E95A2EFE-A319-406C-B6B7-73171248D918/0/20100315NDP_Translucent_Bl.jpg&alt=Ship%20Block%20Design

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/67586E6C-1840-4A8B-9DC2-182674076DE7/0/20100315NDP_MisionBayStern.jpg&alt=Stern%20view%20of%20the%20Mission%20Bay

Check these C1 images out

How did you come across those? They don’t seem to resemble any of the images that have been seen before and they seem rather on the large and deluxe side to stand any reasonable chance of being ordered.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/E95A2EFE-A319-406C-B6B7-73171248D918/0/20100315NDP_Translucent_Bl.jpg&alt=Ship%20Block%20Design

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=/NR/rdonlyres/67586E6C-1840-4A8B-9DC2-182674076DE7/0/20100315NDP_MisionBayStern.jpg&alt=Stern%20view%20of%20the%20Mission%20Bay

Check these C1 images out

I usually find myself agreeing with Swerve’s comments or thinking “hmm good point but inconvenient to my firmly held belief I shall ignore it“. But I wonder how much design work £127m buys? Please god MoD have actually signed a fixed-price contract this time.

For example
Let’s be ruthless and minimise the design work on a T45.

Working for’d to aft

A Position – keep Mk8 reuse from T22s and T23s

B Position – keep VLS length and width, assume CAAMM is shorter than Aster to do not build deckhouse, just use belowdecks bit. Fit 2 8 cell modules in center (opposite of T45 so we are also doing any work necessary to fit CAAMM to T45s when their Lordhips finally admit defeat on TLACMs)

C Position – Harpoons (as T45 FFBNW) reuse from T22s and T23s

For’d mast – fit Artisan in place SAMPSON. Do NOTHING else (also advantage of making best use of an already limited radar set)

Midships – re use Phalanx reuse from T42s

Mid mast – leave as is

Aft mast – delete, volume beneath for cabinets and gubbins for ASW and workdeck

Hangar and Sea Boats – remove Sea Boat cubby holes, Make hangar full width for 2x EH101 or 1x EH101 and UAVs

Flightdeck and beneath – full length workdeck for deploying TAS, UAVs, Seaboats

Is that doable? Is that doable for £127m?

Would anything else be simpler or cheaper?

Al

I really don’t believe any “requirement” should be read too literally. In this case, it seems unlikely that the RN can afford a real land attack capability for the Type 26. Perhaps CAMM will come to fruition, as it is mostly a domestic make-work project, and if the timescales are to be believed, CAMM will replace the current Sea Wolf VL systems fitted to the Type 23s and then will be transplanted to the Type 26s.

Check the timescales again. When the first T26 enter service, there won’t be any CAMM/Artisan-equipped T23s retiring. Only T22 (still with Sea Wolf). Next to go will be five older T23, without 2087 & probably without Artisan & CAMM. The first several T26 will therefore have to have new sets of CAMM/Artisan, in addition to those fitted to upgraded T23s. The 2087 sonars will be swapped across later, either at refits of T23s, or as upgraded T23s retire.

The first two T26 will enter service as T22s retire, & presumably are to replace T22s directly, taking on their C&C role. This perfectly explains the difference in C1/2087 numbers.

What I worry about most is how many C2 we might get, not C1. I can see C2 numbers being cut back, or even dumped in favour of OPVs. Ah well, that’s a long way off.

Have you read nothing on the C1 concept? Some of the emphasis has shifted to land attack, with several options requiring a larger VLS than CAAM requires. Serious consideration is going into adding Tomahawk or SCALP-N.

I really don’t believe any “requirement” should be read too literally. In this case, it seems unlikely that the RN can afford a real land attack capability for the Type 26. Perhaps CAMM will come to fruition, as it is mostly a domestic make-work project, and if the timescales are to be believed, CAMM will replace the current Sea Wolf VL systems fitted to the Type 23s and then will be transplanted to the Type 26s.

Except . . . that the first Type 26 is expected to enter service before any of our current T23s retire, & the first few T23s to retire are unlikely to get the updated systems. Allowing for the first batch receiving new weapons & radars, we’ll have to build more than 10 new frigates just to have hulls to transfer all the updated systems from the remaining T23s to.

Only 8 Type 23 frigates will have received the Type 2087 sonar, meaning that there is only a requirement for a total 8 Type 26 frigates as direct replacements.

In effect, the supposed requirement for 10 Type 26 hulls is a fiction, and no doubt, the intention is to “cut” the extra 2 hulls as a meaningless sacrifice to future budget pressures.

As far as the remaining 5 Type 23 frigates and 4 Type 22, these ships have effectively been reduced from the status of ASW escorts to general purpose patrol vessels, meaning that they would be replaced by C2, if at all.

90infirst –

T45 including R&D is ca £1000 million each, but R&D is a big chunk of that, & PAAMS R&D is the bulk of R&D. Take that away, & you get Obi Wan Russels £700 mn each. Take out PAAMS (Aster, Sampson, S1850M & the associated expensive C&C) & the cost plummets. Adding in design costs for T26 doesn’t add much: £127 million for design, spread over even 10 units, is only £12.7 mn each. Weapons, sensors & C&C system will be much cheaper than T45.

And to add to that lets keep in mind a lot of systems will come off T23’s.

90infirst –

T45 including R&D is ca £1000 million each, but R&D is a big chunk of that, & PAAMS R&D is the bulk of R&D. Take that away, & you get Obi Wan Russels £700 mn each. Take out PAAMS (Aster, Sampson, S1850M & the associated expensive C&C) & the cost plummets. Adding in design costs for T26 doesn’t add much: £127 million for design, spread over even 10 units, is only £12.7 mn each. Weapons, sensors & C&C system will be much cheaper than T45.

Hi swerve. you hit the nail on the head. I’ll try and post an intelligent idea in the near future. But T45 minus Sea Viper is £650 million a unit( please correct me if I’m wrong) so T26 in 10 years time based on T45 hull plus weapons and sensors comes out at £400 million. My ****! And i’m on drugs suggesting there wont be some 20 of these type of hulls. Give the RN 10 type 26 and then say “would you like 2 35,000 ton LPH and the aircraft to fly of them or another 10 T26” we all know what the correct answer is.

T45 with PAAMS is around £700million minus R & D costs for the class, PAAMS (including Samson) is said to account for 48% of the cost of a T45, and the R&D costs have now been amortised over the first six units. Re using the design for a new class can still see major savings, depending on what changes are made…

Then it’ll be C2, not C3. There’s been a lot of confusion over this, with people defining ships that fit the C2 description & calling them C3. It baffles me. If it fits the C2 description, then why not call it C2?

C3 is mine hunters & survey, as well as minor patrol vessels of the sort some countries assign to coastguards, for fisheries protection & the like. And it’s no longer called C3. Also, it’s been shifted into the future. The minehunters have loads of hull life left, & the OPVs & survey ships are fairly new.

Hi swerve. you hit the nail on the head. I’ll try and post an intelligent idea in the near future. But T45 minus Sea Viper is £650 million a unit( please correct me if I’m wrong) so T26 in 10 years time based on T45 hull plus weapons and sensors comes out at £400 million. My ****! And i’m on drugs suggesting there wont be some 20 of these type of hulls. Give the RN 10 type 26 and then say “would you like 2 35,000 ton LPH and the aircraft to fly of them or another 10 T26” we all know what the correct answer is.

Yes I do! I think 10 c1, 10 c3, 12 mine hunters + survey. Yes I know thats not the plan but the c1 c2 thing never made sense to me. I’m happy for you to put me right about c2 but it appears to be c1 but “some how” cheaper. I think c3 will be given a good dose of steriods in the design phase.

Then it’ll be C2, not C3. There’s been a lot of confusion over this, with people defining ships that fit the C2 description & calling them C3. It baffles me. If it fits the C2 description, then why not call it C2?

C3 is mine hunters & survey, as well as minor patrol vessels of the sort some countries assign to coastguards, for fisheries protection & the like. And it’s no longer called C3. Also, it’s been shifted into the future. The minehunters have loads of hull life left, & the OPVs & survey ships are fairly new.

I think you’ve been doing too much mescaline, so only 20 ships to replace 17 frigates, 18 minehunters, 3 river class, HMS clyde etc, you do realise that this is a 25 year+ procurement plan

Yes I do! I think 10 c1, 10 c3, 12 mine hunters + survey. Yes I know thats not the plan but the c1 c2 thing never made sense to me. I’m happy for you to put me right about c2 but it appears to be c1 but “some how” cheaper. I think c3 will be given a good dose of steriods in the design phase.

I’m not a doom laden **** I allways thought the carriers would be built and I think we will get 60+ jump jets for them. I’m just a realist, when people on this board rant on about having 12 T45’s you need to ask them about their drug habits…………..;)