UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Scratch

Captain
After much speculation about the cost of the Type 26, we now have a ballaprk figure. Around £12B for 13 ships. Not in current, but future pounds.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LONDON — Until last week the likely cost of the Royal Navy’s new Type 26 frigate was a closely held number known only to a few at the Ministry of Defence and shipbuilder BAE Systems.

That changed Sept 16 when a top military officer gave the first hint of the likely huge cost of the Type 26 program during a speech to an audience at the DSEI defense exhibition in London.

Defense News wasn’t present at the speech but one industry official who was said the number popped out when Rear Adm Alex Burton, the Assistant Chief of Naval Staff, (Ships) was comparing the magnitude of the Type 26 to other programs.

Burton put a price tag of £12 billion on what is currently a 13 frigate program aimed at replacing the Royal Navy’s aging Type 23 anti-submarine/general purpose fleet starting 2023 when HMS Argyll is retired.

The figure is not the exact cost for the program but was meant to give the audience a feel for the size of the program versus other projects, said a MoD source.

The figure had been rounded up by Burton and the true cost was closer to £11.5 billion, they said.

The source said the figure was an outturn price for a program expected to run into the 2030’s and not the cost at current prices.

The MoD doesn't dispute Burton used the figure.

Asked to give more details. a MoD spokeswoman said: “The MoD has adopted an incremental approach to financial commitment on the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program. The program entered its demonstration phase in April 2015. The program’s cost will be subject to future investment decisions.”

Building the Type 26 is part of an expected huge upcoming investment in Royal Navy platforms.

In the 10-year equipment program rolled out last year, the MoD said it would spend £18.2 billion buying and maintaining surface ships over the next decade and around £40 billion on submarines.

The total 10 year equipment and support plan is costed at £163 billion. ...

KDx7gFO.jpg
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jura, I believe the Type 26 has a good chance of getting some foreign orders...I know the British would like to see that.

After much speculation about the cost of the Type 26, we now have a ballaprk figure. Around £12B for 13 ships. Not in current, but future pounds.
Scratch, given the size and all of the really great capabilities they are talking about for the Global Combat Ships (Type 26 FFGs)...I personally believe the Type 26 FFGs are going to coast a least one billion US dollars each before all is said an done.

With an 8,000 tons displacement, with 8 x 6 CAMM VLS Cells, and 3 x 8 MK-141 full length VLS cells...that's a total of 72 VLS cells right there...with a 4.5 inch main gun, 2 x 20mm CIWS, 2 x 30mm auto cannons, 2 x mini-guns, 4 x general MG mounts, with two torpedo launchers, an oversized flight deck and enclosed hanger for 1 or 2 ASW helos, and then with the Type 997 Artisan Radar, the Type 2050 Bow sonar array, the 2087 towed sonar array...heck, 1 billion will be a bargain!

Time will tell...but these are really, IMHO, going to be destroyers with destroyer armament capabilities.
 

Scratch

Captain
Scratch, given the size and all of the really great capabilities they are talking about for the Global Combat Ships (Type 26 FFGs)...I personally believe the Type 26 FFGs are going to coast a least one billion US dollars each before all is said an done.

With that I think you are really close to the £12B for 13 ships projection given above. And if the Type 26 will really look like what you describe, it will indeed be a properly strong destroyer. Easily outclassing the various destroyer like FFGs in some european navies. But therein lies the issue, I believe. If the UK does intent to export that design to european and/or other navies, whom do they see as having such requirenments?
I can't see anyone right now. Even in the RN, that vessel would stand right besides the Type 45.

And so I'm still puzzled by this whole GCS story. Initially, over a decade ago(?), it was a 6.850t, 141m warship costing around £500M.
Then, maybe 5-7 years back, due to financial concerns, the target became £250-300M, resulting in a 5.400t, 148m vessel.
And then, recently, it somehow morphed into a large, full up destroyer. Construction is to start next year, yet a final design doesn't seem to be available anywhere.

The first two concepts would have made sense for an (internationally saleable) multi-purpose / ASW FFG. But that last one, ... really not, IMO.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
With that I think you are really close to the £12B for 13 ships projection given above. And if the Type 26 will really look like what you describe, it will indeed be a properly strong destroyer. Easily outclassing the various destroyer like FFGs in some european navies. But therein lies the issue, I believe. If the UK does intent to export that design to european and/or other navies, whom do they see as having such requirenments?
Well, if the time frame were right for the replacement of the Sachsen vessels, or other potential European DDGs (ie.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
class for the Spanish) maybe that would work.

The first Sachsen was commissioned in 2003...so a 2030 date might work. Simialry, the first
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[/URL]was commissioned in 2002, so a 2030 date might work there too. But then again, the air radar sensor fit on the Type 26 would seem to be inferior to these others..

Italy and France are building their FREMM designs so I do not see either of those nations having any interest and the FREMM will already be competition on the foreign market because it is beginning to get some foreign sales itself.

Scratch said:
I can't see anyone right now. Even in the RN, that vessel would stand right besides the Type 45.
Agreed...except for the heavier sensor fit for the Darings, these new frigates are going to be of similar capabilities (and in some cases more)
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
The question is not how much they cost but how many they will build

First was meant to be 12 x Type 045 DDG then they cut it to 10 then 8 then built only 6

Now it's 13 x Type 26 DDG which is one for one on the FFG replacement

How many will they actually build 6 or 7

SDR does not include any freeze on the numbers of Type 26 units to be built which means it's subject to change

Royal Navy "critical mass" is so thin even a single break down, damage or loss of a ship will severely restrain missions of the RN

6 x DDG and 13 x DDG will only give 21 DDG

The number could be lower, that's is a terrible number compared to 1982 Falkland where the number was over 50
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Agreed...except for the heavier sensor fit for the Darings, these new frigates are going to be of similar capabilities (and in some cases more)

Type 45 is set for area defence, defending itself, it's escorts and a fixed land mass like a landing zone simultaneously

Type 26 is a multi purpose which I now call a DDG after the revised tonnage

The mission profile could be counter narcotics, special missions deployment, under water mine clearing, attack and defence basically all operations of a naval mission on one platform

Problem with that is that because it does so many missions split over a very small fleet the critical mass issue will keep coming up again and again

Currently RN missions are about to get another addition that is carrier escort, with such a low number of vessels there is no way RN can guarantee a continued presence in oceans, you cannot be in two places at once

Now I see a tonnage gap as someone said earlier, we need a 4000-5000 ton FFG for home waters , this would be for Russian counter, national water sea lanes and illegal operations

RN cannot afford to tie down a billion pound warship for chasing some trawlers or escorting a lost Russian warship

Not good use of tax payers money
 
Jeff, Scratch, liked your recent posts here :) have questions:

...

The first two concepts would have made sense for an (internationally saleable) multi-purpose / ASW FFG. But that last one, ... really not, IMO.

so you rule out all "Germany, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India and Turkey all require new frigates and are known to have an interest in the Type 26 design." as mentioned in the blog I posted
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?

... the Type 997 Artisan Radar,
would you guess how does it compare to the SAMPSON?

Plus here
...

Italy and France are building their FREMM designs so I do not see either of those nations having any interest ...

... I concur :)
 

Scratch

Captain
so you rule out all "Germany, Canada, Australia, Brazil, India and Turkey all require new frigates and are known to have an interest in the Type 26 design." as mentioned in the blog I posted
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
?

Well no, certainly not per se. I do, however, think that in it's latest 8.000t DD(G) iteration the Type 26 will not fullfill what is the "most nearby" need of most of those navies. Unless perhaps it is massively scalable.

If we look at it the way Jeff did, replacing Sachsen and Alvaro de Bazan type ships in the 2030s, essentially after all the RN vessel would already have been built, there might be a point for the larger navies to replace their top-end vessels. However, to me it would seem odd to be a foreign partner willing to keep the production line going after home requirenments have been fullfilled in 15 years.

The Indians are just building their 15A and B destroyers, six of them, replacements are decades into the future. Same for the Aussies who just decided for Hobert class ships.
Canada perhaps for their Iroquios DDGs, I can't really talk about Brazil or Turkey, they might in fact be candidates. That is the class in which I see the current Type 26.

What, on the other hand, is really on the table right now - I believe - are replacements for the OHP type (ASW) FFGs in different navies. Adelaide, maybe Halifax, Santa Maria, the Brandenburgs, etc.

The Indians might seek assistance in the 17A project.

Going from the aforementioned to the 26 would be a massive modernization and then some, plus a rudimentary amphib capability. That will mean a lot of capacity in a few units due to money.

The german MKS180, that I think came out of the K131 ASuW corvette, and hopefully also a long term replacement for the F123 ASW FFGs, is now already at 5.500t I believe, and supposed to top out at €300M. And the Type 26, that intents to compete is 2.500t heavier still.

All of the above keeps me puzzled as what to make of the whole thing.

We certainly do need new ships, but I do think even the FREMMs are at the very top of what fits the bill here.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
RAF A400M stretches legs on US detachment

With four operational Airbus A400Ms in use, the UK Royal Air Force is working overtime to “unlock” the potential of the service's new tactical transport, with one aircraft now in the USA to assess carriage of the US Army's Stryker armoured fighting vehicle.

The A400M from RAF Brize Norton, in Oxfordshire, has deployed to Fort Bliss in Texas to participate in a 27 September “network integration evaluation exercise”, and will conduct checks with the armoured Stryker, as well as other heavy military equipment.

During a brief stop-off in Washington DC, the RAF's officer commanding 70 Sqn, Wg Cdr Simon Boyle, told Flightglobal that the first four aircraft are currently capable of deploying to prepared airstrips in “benign” operating environments. The challenge now, he says, is to grow the aircraft’s capability with the goal of fully tactical operations, including night operations, from rough and unprepared airstrips, in 2017.

The A400M is a "pleasure to fly", thanks in-part to its Airbus A380-based flight controls, Boyle says, but transporting combat vehicles, helicopters and paratroops into a war zone demands a more mature airlift system. Those improved capabilities are slowly being unlocked, as new systems and software loads are installed and aircrews gain experience.

“Our experience with the aircraft is limited at the moment,” Boyle says. “We’re very much in the development phase with the RAF and the programme in general, in terms of how we’re working with Airbus Defence & Space to unlock what are going to be the very considerable capabilities of the aircraft. It’s very much an incremental process.”

Of the 22 A400Ms being delivered up to 2018, the first four RAF aircraft are operating as an interim strategic air transport capability. Three more are currently with the manufacturer in Spain, receiving their defensive aids sub-system (DASS) equipment which includes defensive flares, radar warning receivers and infrared missile countermeasures.

“Incrementally, over the coming months and years, we’ll move from the strategic air transport aircraft it is now into the tactical airlifter that it’s supposed to be,” starting with the DASS-equipped units in mid-2016, says Boyle. “In the mid-2017 timeframe, that’s when we really start unlocking the tactical capability A400M should offer us.

“In the early part of 2017, that’s when we should be able to deploy a limited number of aircraft and sustain them away from their home base. Then, toward the end of 2017, that’s when we’re starting the initial tactical roles, which we would define as low-level flight and delivery of personnel and stores, landing on rough and unprepared strips and so on.”

Through that period, the Atlas will cycle through hardware and software upgrades as it becomes a war-ready, tactical transport capable of airdropping personnel and equipment, including lights-out operations with night vision goggles in 2017. By 2022, the aircraft should be developed enough to replace the RAF's combat-proven Lockheed Martin C-130J, says Boyle, including for special operations use.

Boyle says the RAF's Atlas programme has not been overly delayed by the fatal A400M crash in Spain earlier this year, nor has it significantly changed its operating procedures.
The A400M is not currently scheduled to receive in-flight refuelling from the RAF’s Airbus A330 Voyager tanker-transport fleet because of its long range but the capability will be used later, if deemed necessary.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

navyreco

Senior Member
Group of British Naval Companies Unveiled their Warship of the Future: Dreadnought T2050
8dVBeJv.jpg

At DSEI 2015, a series of futuristic concept images on what a new surface ship for the Royal Navy could look like in 2050 has been released by a group of leading British naval electronic systems companies, working alongside Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S – part of the MOD) and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL – part of the MOD).

Speed of light weapons; graphene coated, ultra-strong acrylic hull which can be made see through; tethered quad-copter radar; locally 3-D printed drones; supercavitating torpedoes and a floodable rear docks all feature.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top