Royal Navy Carriers 2015

The ships sold to Brazil were cheap because they’d already been built for & rejected (because of internal politics) by Trinidad & Tobago. The price was less than originally, & I think below cost. The new Rivers have also had some redesign & fitting of additional equipment which would legitimately make them more expensive. Still expensive IMO, but not as insanely expensive compared to the Amazonas class as it first appears.

The T26 contracts awarded aren’t all for development.

So we give BAE a £472 million ‘demonstration phase’ contract, & BAE uses some of that money to commission equipment for ships from other firms.

For me it is countability I think the taxpayer has the right to know how the money brakes down i.e. with the Rivers something like each ship costs 66 million a 5 year support package at 100 million and 48 million ship yard improvements. Its like the type 26 what is the new cost per ship

The ships sold to Brazil were cheap because they’d already been built for & rejected (because of internal politics) by Trinidad & Tobago. The price was less than originally, & I think below cost. The new Rivers have also had some redesign & fitting of additional equipment which would legitimately make them more expensive. Still expensive IMO, but not as insanely expensive compared to the Amazonas class as it first appears.

The T26 contracts awarded aren’t all for development.

To date, there are 27 companies across the maritime supply chain working with BAE Systems to deliver the Type 26 ships, including seven firms with contracts underway to manufacture key equipment for the first three ships. This includes manufacturing contracts with Babcock for the ships’ air weapons handling systems, GE Power Conversion for the electric propulsion motor and drive systems and Rolls-Royce for the gas turbines, the first of which passed its factory acceptance test in January.

Under the extended demonstration phase, BAE Systems expects to award manufacturing contracts to a total of approximately 50 companies

So we give BAE a £472 million ‘demonstration phase’ contract, & BAE uses some of that money to commission equipment for ships from other firms.

We all know that the MOD has been wasteful for far to long and that the UK taxpayer knows nothing when it to Defence spending. If we take the Batch 2 Rivers we know that the MOD paid 348 million pounds for 3 90m OPV’s we are told that the money is for 3 Ships and on going support plus some for ship yard improvement. We also know that 3 ships of this design was sold to Brazil for 133 million pounds. When it comes to the Type 26 we know that the MOD has signed contracts for 980 million pounds for development which means the taxpayer has paid 123 million pounds for each of the 8 ship and no steel has been cut which means BAE has only 277 million pounds per ship to bring them in at 400 million per ship as was the brief my guess is these ship will end up costing 600 million each

I’m not sure where the big problems with ship and wider procurement lie. Is it the navy don’t know what they want or how to ask for it, is it the MOD can’t order what is needed or write a contract, is the shipbuilders can’t actually build a ship for a decent cost and are needing to relearn skills everytime they build something.
I don’t think it should’ve so hard. Engines are available to order, radar is ready, CAAM is very nearly ready. Main gun is ready, secondary guns are ready, towed array is ready, internal fitting of crew areas etc can be ready and use the experience of fitting out cvf to type 26. Ship design has been going on for ages at God knows how much cost. Am I missing something here. I think the MOD/Navy don’t have any money to buy the ships is the main reason for the delay and that they want to know exactly how much will 8 ships cost and where costs can be cut (which normally ends up costing more than is saved). It’s hard to give a price for that level of time procurement length etc. Maybe they are waiting till EU vote is over but I fear that will then be after the summer break. The ship building schedule a few years ago actually looked sensible but I knew that wouldn’t be stuck to.
On a positive note I must say the carriers look very impressive. If they work well I would say order another. Having enough equipment to use them usefully is the next challenge. I think I read the carrier will have 14 merlins in anti submarine role and that only leaves 11 for the type 23/26 never mind training etc. I see the escorts getting cut to 8-11 by the time the type 26 comes into service then we will hear how great the type 26 is that 1 ship can do the job of 3 older ships so we don’t need as many and it’s a huge capability increase for the navy blah blah blah.

Sadly, that’s true.

Yeah, that Damen Crossover 131 looks a sensible basic (by modern standards) frigate. I saw it not long ago & thought that if you were looking for something to fit what the cheaper-than-T26 frigate is supposed to be, it’s spot-on.

Of course you’ve hit the red button question there….be it Venator, Damen or god-help-us some BAE cooked up bag of ‘gold plated cheapness’ is it actually going to be so much cheaper-than-T26 if its got nearly all of T26’s systems save for the towed array and the quiet drive…….especially seeing T26 is on hand-me-downs from the 23’s.

Whole thing is beyond absurd……!

Yeah, that Damen Crossover 131 looks a sensible basic (by modern standards) frigate. I saw it not long ago & thought that if you were looking for something to fit what the cheaper-than-T26 frigate is supposed to be, it’s spot-on.

Damen seem good at well-thought-out concept series, like their amphibs.

The Venator110 is actually a decent stab at the job of getting key sensor/weapon/offboard effector packaged into a light frigate. As I understood it though Type31 is being funded to give BAe something to design. If we were looking for an off-the-shelf cheap design you’re on the phone to Damen for a license to the XO131A and you tinker with it to fit systems that tie in with T26. Job done.

Where was that presented as a possible new RN frigate?

I share your anxiety about having a Khareef-like ship foisted on the RN. Too small, too little range, no growth potential & not (after changing sensors, weapons, CMS, etc.) as quick or cheap as some imagine. ?The original Khareef looks fine for Oman or any navy in a similar situation, but not the RN.

UK Defence Journal for one

Where was that presented as a possible new RN frigate?

I share your anxiety about having a Khareef-like ship foisted on the RN. Too small, too little range, no growth potential & not (after changing sensors, weapons, CMS, etc.) as quick or cheap as some imagine. ?The original Khareef looks fine for Oman or any navy in a similar situation, but not the RN.

I said I would like to see a replacement for Ocean I did not say when. I agree we need to get the QE class up and running plus and the type 26/31 right. when I say something like a Juan Carlos 1 I was thinking something that could operate 6 to 8 F-35B if needed in low end ops. my fear over the Type 31 is it will be a bigger Khareef and when we see the first image it looks like that’s what we might get

[ATTACH=CONFIG]246569[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]246570[/ATTACH]

I think the one thing I fear over the frigate issue is the navy ending up with a revamped Khareef class ship. as for the Carriers I would like to see a replacement for Ocean something like a Juan Carlos 1 which cost 450 million Euros in 2005

I think we have to keep a context here to be honest. The need to replace Ocean isnt essentially a very urgent one compared, for example, to getting T26/31 right. Replacing her with a vessel thats actually bigger than the Albions and with a completely unnecessary well deck represents an investment thats quite hard to justify.

Swerve asked the question ‘what happens if we need to run full strike carrier configuration and LPH configuration simultaneously’. The answer clearly is that, unless we can deploy both carriers, we dont. The question has to be asked though how frequently thats going to be an operational limitation?.

Even if we assume a full 3 squadron fastjet airgroup on the QE as a maximum effort component how long will we need that at max sortie generation rate?. At what point would we look to push an element ashore, if some austere short strip facility could be established, similar in concept to what we did in San Carlos?. Likewise with full LPH configuration how long, in an amphibious sequence, before we had put ashore all resources that needed air mobility to put ashore?. If we’ve established a beachhead and are operating rotaries between austere shore, LSD(A)’s and the carrier how much capacity is actually being tasked on the carrier deck?.

In the meantime, for the routine lower intensity and peacetime ops, the Tailored Air Group or ‘golfbag’ concept of some fastjet and some Jungly stuff looks optimal. A dozen -35B’s plus a wokka det and a squadron each of HM2’s and HC4’s and a few Apache and Wildcats thrown in is a very adequate platform for Libya, Sierra Leone, Mog type operations….which are more the norm than scenarios where we have to generate 100 plus strike sorties per day and, simultaneously, be prepared to put 3Cdo ashore in its entirety.

Refitting the Bays to add the basic, permanent, hangaring that should have been in place from the start shouldn’t be particularly difficult or expensive. The Bays were very carefully computer modelled when the exhaust system was redesigned and spaces were left empty after that work. Other than that the demountable hangar fit shows how a permanent structure could fit and what bunkerage is necessary and practical in cost terms to deliver an austere organic chopper capability. To my mind that….plus the QE’s ticks the box without the need for a 27000ton LHD. Especially when we already have, arguably, the most capable LPD’s in Europe in the fleet already.

I think the one thing I fear over the frigate issue is the navy ending up with a revamped Khareef class ship. as for the Carriers I would like to see a replacement for Ocean something like a Juan Carlos 1 which cost 450 million Euros in 2005

The equipment reused from Type 23 doesn’t impose any limits on either increased numbers or exports.

Firstly, it’s all stuff of which more can be made. The 2087 towed sonar, for example, is a version of the Thales CAPTAS-4, which has been sold to at least seven navies & is still selling. The CAMM missile will continue in production, & so far has two export customers for fitting on other classes of ship. AFAIK the Artisan radar has not been exported as is, but Brazil has selected a customised variant with local input. And in any case, other radars, missiles, & sonars can be fitted.

I really hope your correct about type 26. I don’t want to see the 8 get cut to 6 with the promise of some fantastic better future ship. Even if the navy get the 8 type 26 and 7 general purpose ships (which I’m doubtful over or what they will have on them) and I really hope they do the navy is still going to be short as it is now. We will have to wait and see on the export potential. Hopefully £350-£400 million cost but there is only a limited number of the reuse able bits mentioned which I think takes out any export or increase in numbers. Then will they role straight into the type 45 replacement.
I struggle to see what the UK’s plan is for its navy or armed forces in general. Still I have hope.
Back to the carriers I actually think and hope they have done a good job with them. I really hope the navy are given the chance to use them to there potential. Still not that happy about all the roles that they are expected to fulfil.

… a type 45 and most likely type 26 cost a billion each(£1000,000,000!!)

Type 45 cost a billion each including design costs & the development of PAAMS. That was a lot of development cost. Build cost was a lot less, about £6-700 million IIRC.

If Type 26 costs anything near £1 billion each everyone involved in the programme should be shot. There’s no high-priced air defence system development included in the programme cost, no innovative & complicated gas intercooled & recuperated power source, etc. A great deal of what’s going into T26 is off the shelf, including the entire air defence system (lifted from refitted Type 23s), towed sonars (refurbished from Type 23), & the main engines. Development should cost a fraction of what it did for T45, some of the equipment will be recycled (thus reducing purchase costs), & engines used on ships for the S. Korean, Italian & US navies (so far) as well as the RN should be cheaper than something built only for Type 45.

The huge estimated T26 programme cost oft-quoted includes estimates of inflation out to the 2030s, BTW, & it’s uncertain what else it covers.

Ocean was underbid. The builders probably lost money, & she needed money spent on her after completion. She was cheap for an LPH of her size, but not as cheap as a frigate, especially a Type 23, which were a bargain.

Crew numbers aren’t a hard limit. A bit of money & some sanity in those controlling terms of service & training provision, & current crewing problems could be fixed. A basic LPH need not have a large crew – & helicopter support personnel would follow the helicopters from ship to ship. At present they’re earmarked for QE because that’s where the helicopters are going.

So is Ocean replacement really off the cards? Such a ship doesn’t cost much, less than a frigate, surely RN is not that cash-strapped after carriers are done? RAF gives up 4 Eurofighters and you’re pretty much set.

The reason why Ocean cost the same as a T23 are complex but the major point is they built her to a more relaxed set of build regulations accepting a shorter life span as a result.

British ship yards as it stands would struggle to build a vessel that size down to a cost now, there has been significant shrink in British ship building since the 90’s leaving us with the ability to build Submarines, Frigates/Destroyers and OPV.

Finally there is the crew to put on a replacement for Ocean, her current crew are earmarked for the QE class.

So is Ocean replacement really off the cards? Such a ship doesn’t cost much, less than a frigate, surely RN is not that cash-strapped after carriers are done? RAF gives up 4 Eurofighters and you’re pretty much set.

Going by previous fleet reductions there will be a very small fleet in 10 years and I don’t even want to think about 20 years time. 32 escorts never thought I would say those were the days lol. Right now the navy are at if not past the critical number of ships/manpower to have skills. Over 1/3rd of staff wanting to quit a sad state. Is money really the problem? I can’t help feeling the MOD are terrible at managing the money. There is a large defence budget and procurement budget and it just seems to get wasted and spent badly.
On the ocean replacement I think it is needed. £400million for a replacement should do it. Mind you is there many helicopters to put on it. I saw type 23 (HMS iron duke I think) going to be playing the enemy in the Baltic with a Seahawk on the flight deck. Has it been deployed without a helo on the back?
The Danish seem to have done quite well at making ships for a decent price. I think the RN have to go down a high/low mix of ships just to have enough. As a type 45 and most likely type 26 cost a billion each(£1000,000,000!!) if we could get 3 decent frigates for this price definitely worth it. I would take 6 type 26 with six cheaper frigates all the time rather than 8 type 26 only. Only SSN’s should cost over a billion ££ which 8-12 is really needed.
I really think numbers are just as important as high end fleet. You aren’t scared of something you have never seen.
Getting back to the carriers I think had they been ordered and the ship builders told to build it as cheaply as possible they would both be in service at 2/3rds the price. When I say cheaply I mean in construction methods not in materials.