FlubbaAhhh! Thanks for correcting me Swerve. You see to have some knowledge in this area?
Are there huge differences between UK and Danish rules that would prevent us from Adopting something like Absalon not that im saying we should. I gathered that there was a diffrence between an Absalons toughness and that of an F125 due to the price.
I know diffrent rules make for huge price diffrences i remeber something on another Forum, the point class for the RFA cost £40mn a pop as they were commercial vessels and a Naval vessel of the same tonnage would be 4-5 times the price
I would imagine that there would be general rules for all ships and the specific rules for classes of ship such as Frigates, OPV’s and larger vessels.
What im on about is that i dont think the C2 should be overly designed, It could be designed to cope with the specific threats it would face.
Jonesy, So my figures are as much BS as i was begining to think?
The way i see the RN Surface Combatant fleet is not as one but 2 fleets. The high end comprised of T45 and C1 as you said to do the escorting etc and be the glory hulls. The next being C2 and C3 the workhorses doing all the stuff that is not sexy. A bit like the Marine Nationale that is almost 2 seperate fleets as someone put it.
I agree with Swerve your post does make sense Hmm! ok hopefully i can post this before i get more e-mails saying there are new posts??
FlubbaGrim yes i suppose it is fair to assume that it will break the £400mn i would like to see one cost and think it should. But i dont think it will be over by too much given that the RN still both need and want numbers.
Would costs drop much further if by some miracle the Tories looked at a map. Bought another batch of T45’s maybe as little as 2 or if they had any brains another 6 giving the RN what it said it needed??
Mind you it would be seen more as a Job Sustainment idea for the Goverment and helping Manufacturing which frankly is essential.
Anyhow that was OT.
FlubbaExcellent comments as usuall Jonesy.
Cost wise mine were just guesses at what might be the costs. With the public finances they way they are etc we may end up with some less than ideal ships.
In regards to the C2 you have very good points. I think a hybrid between the 2 would be ideal as i’ve said but now that you’ve pointed out to me that the C2 would face more pop-up threats then a more stringent design would be needed. The problem with cost then rears it’s ugly head if the cost goes up numbers go down. I dont know much about damage control i can only guess along the lines of common sense such as redundancy of key systems, the use of non-flammable materials and the quality of the materials. Watertight compartments and careful planning of the ships layout.
Im wary of using too many commercial practises, the Falklands War comes to mind. But hopefully those lesson will be well incorporated into the design.
FlubbaYeah my figures are probably wrong im no program manager. Does anyone have any better ideas of cost?
I’ve broken my thoughts down
C1: I think the way things are going a lot of stuff will be re-used from de-commed vessels. If the T45 hull is used keeping stuff the same or slightly different will a lot of R&D need done though?? If a new hull is chosen for commonality between C1 and C2 then yes my figures would be BS.
C2: This is probably where the most R&D will need done if a new hull is used that is not an existing design.
C3: Depending what they choose a modified version of the OPV for Oman like people have suggested should come in on budget VT have already designed and built the Hull a slight stretch shouldnt cost too much.
FlubbaGrim if you look at reply #603 then it gives a T45 cost breakdown.
I think £400million a pop is realistic enough Harpoons will be coming off de-commed T23’s unless newer missiles are procured, CAMM will be coming off T23’s upgraded with it and if Artisan is used as the Radar that as well will be coming off the de-commed T23’s.
The hull cost for the Steel and fitting out of any kit comes to £190 million less as C1 will be less complex. The prices will further come down as more will be built. If you re-add the expensive combat mission system which is maybe much larger than you need. Your costs go up but they will come back down in-line with hull numbers. I think the C1 combat system will be an evolved version of what will be fitted on T23’s when they are fitted with CAMM. IIRC HMS Montrose was fitted with a version of the T45’s combat system which will no doubt be updated etc. (http://www.deagel.com/news/HMS-Montrose-Fitted-with-Type-45-Destroyer-Command-System_n000005572.aspx)
Anyhow they were just rough estimates plucked from my head. So yes i may be completely unrealistic.
FlubbaFrosty, Kitted out prices. Seems ok in my head especially if kit is coming off old ships.
FlubbaIt’s ok i didnt know it was as high as £480mn each thats a boot in the privates. I think that would even be above the C1 budget.
Just at a guess i would say for budgets:
C1: Around the £400mn mark
C2: Around the £250mn mark if possible for a well kitted out C2
C3: Ideally around £120mn maybe a tad higher for better capabilities
I think these figures are abtainable if numbers are gd enough and things are bought in bulk. I also may be being too generous 😐
Thanks, Flubba
FlubbaSorry swerve i didnt mean to imply that the F125 was cheaper i knew it wasnt. As it’s built to a Naval Rules set it would be more expensive. I dont think it will be that much bigger than an Absalon class Naval Technolgy the website puts the diffrence at 500t’s.
I think the RN would like something like that as it looks like a frigate etc but can perform the missions that need to be done but the bean counters might appreciate a cheaper more flexible option.
In my mind whatever is chosen for C2 must have the space and endurance to support C3’s in their roles. In other words if the RN needs to do some minehunting somewhere they can send along 2 C3’s with a C2 and an RFA fleet tanker. The C2 would provide space and facilities not on the smaller ships and could carry ISO containers to re-role C3’s in theatre. Furthermore it should carry a large aviation complement so that larger helicopters could be used when they would be useful. (Merlins for minehunting anyone?) It should also be well enough armed to protect the C3’s from the Air, Sea and Land and of course act as an escort for shipping where needed. In the escort role i know that the space and flexibility of an Absalon Type ship would be wasted. But how often would it be called upon to do this role. Basically i support the Absalon class as it fits what i see a C2 doing. I may be blind however.
If the Type 2087 sonar was modularised then it could be fitted to a C2 when needed therefore turning C2 into an ASW platform to support C1’s. People may call this capability creep which it is but if done after the ships have been procured then the C1 should be safe.
Basically C1 should be a proper Frigate built to proper warship standards therefore it would be better to use a T45 hull as the design work has been done. C2 should have a different hull with more space, the hull should also be a Hybrid design to lower costs i think it could get away with it on the Survivability front as it shouldnt be in high threat locations without cover. The CVF is built to a set of Hybrid rules to save cash so i dont see why the same could not be done here.
Anyhow thank you again for reading sorry i rambled a bit.
FlubbaC1:
The reasons i would support the T45 being the hull for C1 is that:
1. It’s already designed and in the water.
2. The hull is built to Naval Rules and since C1 is a warfighter this is ideal.
3. IEP gives low fuel consumption and should be very quiet.
4. The cost per hull should come down with numbers built.
C2:
I dont think C2 needs to be built to the same stringent naval standards as C1. A hybrid between the 2 rule sets would be more suited as this keeps cost down and simplicity, maintainabilty up. But i may be wrong.(Absalon is a mixture but more commercial) From what i’ve grasped the C2 would only be going into higher threat enviroments with some help from C1’s or T45’s. Therefore this is why a diffrent hull design would be better IMHO.
I like the idea of space on the Absalons very much as they could do lots of things. I mainly see them in a support role for C3’s also with their large hangar capacity they could possibly help with ASW as they could carry merlins. Maybe ever a modular Type 2087 sonar could be developed and installed on the flex deck when needed. I agree they may be a bit large but “Steel is cheap and air is free” and Absalon according to what i can find online is cheap to run as she uses commercial diesel engines, however this does make her a wee bit slow 26 knots max IIRC.
How much is the F125 design is it much cheaper that £160 Million a hull?? (less if more than 2 were built.)
Naval Strike Missile:
I am indeed aware that the US is looking at NSM especially as they know Kongsberg make good kit. If the USN bought it i would have no objections to buying it. It would also be attractive to the bean counters.
In Relation to TLAM we could share US stocks if we needed to do so. My reasoning is that i doubt the RN stocks many of them where as the USN probably does. So if we needed to we could borrow some rather than having new missiles produced which would take a while.
Thanks again guys.
FlubbaThe only thing i would say against TLAM is that it is an old design but it’s still getting updated as time goes on. Plus it’s cheap and has a longer range IIRC than Scalp Naval.
I get ur point about using the T45 hull but the hull design is getting on a bit and i like the Absalon class as it is so verstile and for a good price. The Danes have also started producing the Iver Huitfield class which is based on the Absalon hull so maybe we could do the same??
Or we could do the made in the UK soloution and design the C1 and a derivative that is the same concept as the Absalon for C2.
The Type 45 will get Harpoon at some point maybe once they round off all the testing etc. They will most likely be nicked off another vessel in the fleet when they retire.
Flubba1) 20km+, IIRC, which probably means 20-25 km in optimal conditions.
2) No. I think a 4-cell A35, capable of holding 16 CAMM, should be lighter than one of the 6xSea Sparrow/12xESSM launchers they already carry.
Thanks Swerve most appreciated. I just wanted to make sure what i could find corresponded to what others could find to do with CAMM’s range. I would quite like to see the T45’s Quad Packing some CAMM’s would certinally increase missile numbers.
What are your opinions on the Absalon class do you think it would be useful for the C2 role or unsuitable?
Anti-Ship Missile:
The discussion over a new Anti-Ship missile for the RN is a complex one and simply would come down to money at the end of the day. Of the missiles out there i quite like the Naval Strike Missile as it seems like one hell of a missile. Another thing that might support it’s adoption is it’s bigger relative that is in development the Joint Strike Missile this has been designed to be carried and used by the F-35.
This might help if there was commonality between the 2 missiles and buying from the one company and in bulk would be cheaper. Furthermore if the Scalp Naval was given an anti-shipping role we would have an excellent ASuW capability.
If the NSM and JSM were chosen as well as the Tomahawk replaced with Scalp Naval it would represent a shift away from US weaponry which might be bad for interoperability with the USN the primary ally. Therefore in some ways i agree with Stan.
If cost was the main driver which it usually is i think the RN would stick to US weaponry as they are produced in much larger numbers and are therefore cheaper.
Thanks for reading.
FlubbaRandom Points
I’m pretty sure C1 and C2 will have the Artisan Radar. The Artisan radar and CAMM would work well together.
I think they would work well together as well. The only reason i raise the point is the plain fact that C1’s will have to escort other ships and provide AAW cover as unless there are more T45’s built then coverage would be extremely limited. If BAE managed to produce the SPECTAR radar at a reasonable cost (the single faced version of SAMPSON) then i would hope that would be considered.
A wee question what is the effective range for CAMM i’ve seen various figures and im not sure, i would imagine it’s quite short as it’s based on ASRAAM??
C2:
Would there be any weight problems with fitting the A35 launcher on the weapons deck of an Absalon class?
I ask as i like the design of the Absalon class as it would be my choice for C2, no doubt people will provide points against. Such as it’s not a Frigate. The problems i see with the design is that it may be too big, too slow and not built to full warship standards. But it’s not really that expensive compared to how useful they could be. I would envisage them being used to support deployed C3’s by providing some extra firepower and also carrying extra equipment.
Costs according to CSAR would be in the region of £160 million per ship based on the total programme cost in Canadian Dollars converted to £’s at the current rate (Using google) and divided by hull numbers. No doubt we could get them cheaper if we bought around 10 or more. To me that seems reasonable. (I realise these figures would be a bit off but it’s a rough guide. From what i’ve been able to read the total program costs include other expenses such as tooling up costs for the shipyard etc)
“Prices as low as 1.256 billion Kroner (Cdn $263M) have been quoted. The actual cost for the entire Absalon class program, completely equipped, is quoted as 2.7B Kroner (Cdn $565M).”
That was taken from this page (http://www.casr.ca/id-danish-naval-projects-absalon.htm)
If this option has been discussed in great detail could someone link me to it:) Im a noob.
Type 45:
BTW, I found this on another forum (http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/10563/t/Could-the-RN-get-the-likes-of-this-past-the-treasury.html?page=4) i dont know if people have seen it before but it certinally shows where the money goes.
It shows a breakdown of the cost per unit of T45. It’s worked out using the Numbers in Defense industrial strategy can be found on page 71 IIRC.
T45 elements % Value (assumes total is £1bn each)
Design 8% £80m
Management 14% £140m
Production-steel 3% £30m
Production – outfit 7% £70m
Production-mataerials 9% £90m
Combat mission systems 11% £110m
PAAMs 48% £480m
If this has already been seen before or the information is inaccurate sorry. But i thought it would help for those that support using the T45 platform for C1.
Thanks for reading. I await the comments and replies.
FlubbaYeah sorry Grim i could have worded that better what i mean is that the A70’s are most likely to have Land Attack in them and nothing else. Maybe something else later.
Using them for AAW would be a misuse of them IMHO. But i think the only other VLS cells on board would end up being A35’s as they would be all thats needed for CAMM. But the problem comes if you want or need to use other SAM’s that dont fit in the A35 launcher.
I would definitely advocade a better radar for C1 as currently the OPV’s built for Oman have Thales SMART-S radar’s which are similar to the Artisan radar (Im only basing this on the fact they look similar etc and they both competed for the T23 upgrade and other info i’ve seen about the place) so for a much larger, more expensive and front line warship having a similar sensor suite as OPV i think that would be bonkers.
Maybe BAE would have developed some sort of smaller cheaper MFR by the time comes for orders to be placed??
FlubbaC1 and C2 options.
I would definatly like to see quite a few VLS cells on the C1 especially with so few T45’s that have been built. But if the C1 is only due to be fitted with an Artisan radar, then sensor wise that would be Insufficent for AAW should it need to provide cover for other assets. Therfore i suspect that there would be a mixture of A70 cells for land attack and A35 if they are quad packable for CAMM.
I dont think larger launchers would be chosen unless a better radar is chosen to enable the use of larger SAM’s or there was some significant cost benefit.
Sign In
