Subscribe
Notify of
guest
79 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Simon Clark

Sorry to be picky…anchor is on the Starboard side.

X

There was a time when grey war canoes had two anchors. 🙁

ATH

This ship does, the locations are explained in the article.

X

One knew one should have added at the bow.

Cam

I meant anchor nit wan..r

Jim

Can anyone explain why BAE didn’t build its planned frigate factory for these 8 x £1billion pound ships, but Babcock was willing and able to build its frigate factory to allow indoor building of two £250 million similar sized (but significantly cheaper and likely less profitable) ships at once?

Is this Babcock trying to get new contracts by being more nimble against BAE’s profit taking, or is there something I’m missing?

Surely Babcocks methos is more efficient and cost effective

ATH

Babcocks had limited facilities at Rosyth. To build the T31 they had to invest in facilities. BAe had the facilities on the Clyde with a bit of juggling. To either close the steelworks yard or the fitting out yard and replace them with one big yard with lots of undercover space would probably cost more than a T31. I bet the savings wouldn’t be more the £5m a ship. If you were a BAe shareholder would you see a big comment to reorganisation as best use of your money?

X

As a shareholder of UK Plc yes I would.

ATH

Thats the point. You often see comments the such and such company should do this or that, the explanation of why is that it would be good for the RN or the U.K.
But defence contractors in the U.K. aren’t nationalised industries. They have owners that want a return both profits and share price growth. That’s what drives the management.
If the U.K. plc wants a “frigate factory” on the Clyde it will need to find a way to pay for it.

Darren

It was two hundred million quid for the development, which considering the development was far more impressive than Rosyth’s, seemed low. Can be found on the Glasgow City Council planning portal. I think BAE should have let go of Govan to someone else to use. BAE don’t own Govan, they do own Scotstoun.

Darren

The problem was that the new owner of Fergusons who was eyeing the Govan facility was making suggestions of competition to BAE, which likely explains Portsmouth’s demise too from not allowing a company to use the facility, but see it divested of it’s steel production facility and now used only for maintenance, by BAE.

N-a-B

Fergies are and were a joke – no competition feasible. The choice for BAES was always Portsmouth or the Clyde.

Portsmouth was discounted because no-one had the bottle to be the one to end Upper Clyde shipbuilding. The excuse used was the allegedly complex and expensive launch method in Portsmouth, which is now strangely the method of choice on the Clyde…..

Supportive Bloke

Which might all have to be reversed back to Portsmouth if wee Nicola gets her way.

Mind you they could always build frigates for the Scottish Navy 🙂

It might also have more to do with the batch size and no guarantee for the 8 ships. Whereas T31 is a fixed 5 ship order.

BAES would have looked pretty silly with a frigate factory and only three frigates to build in it.

Also begging bowl politics: BAES asked for money to build the Frigate Factory “as it was uneconomic under TOBA” so it was hard to turn around and say “we will build one anyway”.

TOBA needs to take some of the blame as it does featherbed inefficiencies into the BAES model. But then thank TOBA for us actually having the capacity to build any naval ships in the UK. Take your pick.

Building things for a living I suspect that reorganising the BAES yard would have been cost effective for the T26 BUT it would have meant shutting it down and redeploying people and the risks of people walking off to other work as get got bored. OK nobody knew that North Sea Oil was going to tank so spectacularly or that COVID-19 would make that even worse but even so that was not really going to happen but it will have been a real factor in the though process.

Darren

I think it is more the owner of Fergies at the time making noises to that effect and others having interest in Govan. Yes that was BAE’s main excuse for Pompey. Other parties had lets say, allegedly shown interest in the Portsmouth Facility. Obviously the New Scotstoun facility would have been from a dry dock.

Supportive Bloke

@Darren

Do you mean by filling in an existing dry dock?

Would be a very interesting design project!

Stephen Ball

Think the Type 26 is 1 billion vessel with everything fitted. Including Bell’s and Whistle’s. More Missiles, More sensor’s etc.

The Type 31 more standard, but with room to add the Bell’s and Whistle’s.

As kit get’s better replace on Type 26, give to Type 31, buy 3-5 more kits for the Type 32 depending on cost.

New Zealand and Chilean navy both got Sea Ceptor but cant really see them buying 2-3 Type 26 but could see them buying 3-4 Type 31.

And with the Container’s for the Royal Navy being able to be fitted to both Type 26 and Type 31.

Last edited 3 months ago by Stephen Ball
AlexS

Prob with British Type 26 is their radar. It is a bad choice for a ship of this size that will need to do AAW.

D J

Thankfully, both Australia & Canada are using different (but high end) radars on their T26 versions, so comparison’s can be made. I am sure all three nations are paying a great deal of attention to what each is doing. There could well be a change in radar after this batch of 3 is done. A fixed panel Sampson or CEA radar would be my prediction.

Ron5

The T26 contract was single source (no competition) so under MoD/Treasury rules, Bae had to open its books, show how every penny is being spent, and gain Treasury approval for that expense. Bae added in enough money to the plan to rebuild Scotstoun into an up to date warship building facility (aka a frigate factory) so that the T26’s could be built totally undercover with enough efficiency, that the rebuild would pay for itself by the time all 8 of the class were built. Bae started to clear the Scotstoun site in preparation for the rebuild using its own money before the Treasury refused to approve the expense. So Bae was left having to half build the ships in two pieces at Govan, with some of the build in the open air, before floating the half completed hull down to Scotstoun to have the build completed. A thorough waste of taxpayer money.

But hey, the Treasury reduced the cost of the first contract so all’s good right? Who cares that the second would have been lower? Not their money.

borg

When do the Sails get fitted ?

X

🙂

Duker

When do the Sails get fitted “

Americas cup style are much faster then these frigates can do 50 kts in light to moderate windscomment image

criss whicker

is their 2 sections or 3,
thanks

Phillip Johnson

The intention was 2 sections, bow and stern, plus the forward mast.

David

At just shy of 150m the first half really does not like 75m’s long, does it?

Gavin Gordon

Common perception since T45 due to lack of tradtional structural reference points e.g. compared to T23. Not until you see a person in the pic that you adjust perspective. Does not seem to matter to mental assumption even though you know you’re being fooled.

Another ‘amusement’. The glacial rate of manufacture clearly justified as our potential opponents are pussy cats only churning half a dozen a year to pass the time. Same as Exercises mobilising tens of thousands of troops whilst telling US to get the hell out if it knows what’s good for it 😂

N-a-B

It’s not. The block boundary is around Frame 80. There’s another 100 frames aft of that.

borg

Two, Unequal Sections maybe ?

Meirion X

I definitely agree forward section is Not 75m, more like 60m of so.

Last edited 3 months ago by Meirion X
Patrick Goff

Momentum?

N-a-B

The vast majority of the main machinery and equipment referred to as “lockout” is in the after section. I’d expect the forward section to have a relatively high level of it’s outfit (modular cabins, electrical distribution centres and major pipework systems) installed at this point.

The real hard yards is in the installation checks for systems (pipes, hangers, fuse panels, cable ways all in place and not fouling), followed by progressive test and commission (pressure tests, flushing, cable running and termination etc).

This is where access and deconfliction of trade activities is vital.

Sebastian

Hallo,

i have to ask a question to experts here.
In the last week i read many articels saying, that the estimatet costs for die 15 canadian Type 26 will be around $77.3 billion. Additionally runnig costs, maintain, personal for 30 years.

For me the canadian program semes to be very expensive. What is the reason?

For example:
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/williams-under-this-plan-canadas-new-warships-will-never-be-built

ATH

One part of this is the desire to have the ships built in Canada using as much Canadian equipment as possible. This will involve both the build yard and hundreds of suppliers investing money to set up or improve facilities. This all cost a lot of money.
You see this on an even bigger scale with the Australian submarine contract. There is a Hugh cost to set up national facilities to build complex defence equipment.

Duker

Most of the expensive internal equipment, weapons and sensors come from overseas- and the Canadians have gone for an’ almost Burkes’ fitout.
Structurally and minor shipboard systems like electrical, water purification, kitchens etc will be Canadian

Michael

They are building the ship so slowly, by the time the stern section is ready, it will be time to decommission the bow section.

N-a-B

The stern section for Glasgow is in one of the adjacent build hall bays (the third one has the deckhouse) and will be out on the hardstanding in a few months tops.

The unit for HMS Cardiff in the picture is going into the bay vacated by Glasgows fore-end.

Just demonstrates how cramped Govan is as a yard.

Last edited 3 months ago by N-a-B
Meirion X

I am sure the aft section for Cardiff is already in build, in the middle shed?

Last edited 3 months ago by Meirion X
N-a-B

Nope. Bow for Cardiff starting in the one vacated by Glasgow, stern of Glasgow in another, deck house of Glasgow in third.

Last edited 3 months ago by N-a-B
Spellchecker

Forgive me, but isn’t the deckhouse already attached? Glasgow’s main mast was pictured being delivered to the yard today.

(Unless you meant the deckhouse was in the middle shed.)

Last edited 3 months ago by Spellchecker
Cam

How taps the main mast in type 45 comparison.

DaveyB

Ina time of war, where replacement of lost ships will be key to staying in the war or capitulating. How quickly could a vessel like a T26 actually be built?

ATH

To get an extra set of all the equipment and then assemble it into a working ship would I guess be 3/5 years.
To up the tempo of ships in build a bit would be much easier but would still be limited be the most difficult parts to get hold of sooner the planned.

borg

I guess another way to see it is in terms of GDP. In the latter part of WW2, the % of GDP that the UK spent on Defence/offence as up to @70%…. not an exact figure but never the less a very telling one.

Last edited 3 months ago by borg
borg

Are you asking Decades or Years ? lol.

X

We are no longer in the age of Industrial War. We won’t fight WW2 again.

Meirion X

You have The cheek to post on here, of what you said in the previous article to oppose war, and Not to defend allies and to appease aggressors!

And to call posters Warmongers, bloodly Cheek!

Go back to the Peacenik site, Mr Taylor!

I will say again, defence becomes War occasionally, when necessary!

And to use the warpons you got to fight a war!

Last edited 3 months ago by Meirion X
X

You speak rubbish. You continue to speak rubbish.

You are an ignorant small thinker.

We are no longer in a era where we build mass armies and take to the field to fight other mass armies for years and years. Won’t happen. As soon as more here realise that, perhaps do some reading beyond the specification charts for weapons the sooner comments on sites like this will improve.

As much as I hate you using the web for references…………

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_warfare#:~:text=Industrial%20warfare%20is%20a%20period,forces%2C%20through%20the%20process%20of

Last edited 3 months ago by X
Meirion X

You are continuing to make a Fool of yourself, by commenting on warpons issues, of which you are really a Peacenik, with No intention of wanting warpons used, when necessary!

Just proves who is really the small thinker, here!

It is really laughable!

Last edited 3 months ago by Meirion X
Merlot

I’m confused.
What exactly are these “warpons” you keep referring to, or is it some obscure regional dialect?

Meirion X

The previous poster implied he was opposed to using any warpons in a previous post, and in a previous article, to me.
Sorry about the confusion!

Can you imagine a peacenik like J. Corbyn commenting on this site?

Last edited 3 months ago by Meirion X
DaveyB

I agree, we are unlikely to fight a prolonged war like WW2. But will it be that simple though? Do we have the capability to be able to fight a war of attrition? The quick answer to that would be no!

Just because a side has lost the majority of its modern weapons, will it immediately capitulate? The UK doesn’t keep hold of past systems, but rather recycles them through the scrapper. Whereas Russia, will hold on to its past generations of weapons and put them in storage for just this kind of scenario.

There have been a couple of scenarios played out against a Russian armoured thrust through the West. With either Russia leading with its modern weapon systems, or leading with older last generation systems, using them as sacrificial bait to burn through NATO’s limited stocks of modern systems.

Once you’ve exhausted your supply of Chally 2s, Javelin, Brimstone/Hellfire etc after knocking out the majority of the leading elements of an armoured thrust. What will stop the remaining stuff that was either hiding or kept in storage from just ploughing through? Russia’s plan is quite simple as they have determined its quicker and easier to bring stuff out of storage rather than build from scratch. Even though a 1980’s T72 wouldn’t put up much of a fight against a Challenger 2, M1A3 or Leopard 2. NATO and the European countries would have very little left in stock to stop them. They would be totally reliant on the US ferrying munitions across the Atlantic. But also on the remaining few munitions factories in Europe remaining open to churn out equipment as fast as possible. Which will probably be too little too late.

This is the context behind the question. If it takes a minimum of 3 years to build a T26 from scratch. Is there a back up plan to build a “basic ship” much quicker, which is “good enough” to perform a limited ASW role? Much like the Flower class corvette at the start of WW2. It wasn’t a great ship, but it was good enough to deter and hunt subs.

Duker

UK doesnt keep its old weapons because of its budget system. The Treasury levies a capital charge every year on the book value of its equipment. Broken up or sold means no charges are sent back to Treasury but are kept in Defence budget, mostly consumed by capital charges for new equipment coming into service.
Its a legacy of Nott I believe … who thought the City accounting would mean the Armed forces would be more efficient over its spending

DaveyB

That’s just bonkers. It’s like paying VAT on military equipment, where’s the rationale?

Supportive Bloke

The VAT on military equipment is just another way of clawing back 20% of the equipment budget!

N-a-B

Resource Account Budgeting courtesy of one G Brown. Although to be fair the idea had been floated under his predecessor.

Duker

Resource accounting yes, but the capital charges was indroduced in 1992 – so was a decade after Nott.

borg

War is a game of Numbers.

Meirion X

It looks like the UK Gov. would be asking for warpons from the USA on lend-lease again from the boneyards for aircraft and warships.

At least the U.S. has had the sense to keep most of their old equipment in the boneyards!

Mind you, a lot of those old Russian kit & equipment in storage will have reliability problems!

Cam

A few F16s knocking about in the usa, shame they are using them as target drones now, maybe better than rotting in the desert though.

Cam

And to think the UK alone has a bigger economy than Russia….

Duker

never use currency exchange rates to compare
With purchasing power parity some say the Russian defence budget is $150 bill per yr
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/03/russian-defense-spending-is-much-larger-and-more-sustainable-than-it-seems/

Meirion X

And now that Putin has said this week ‘you will regret it’ is a direct threat to all of us in the West. We really need to up our defences quickly!

Cam

Duno, Russians always fool us into thinking they are stronger than they really are…

borg

Nah, just Take him out and be done with it. should have done that to Adolf truth be known, it would have saved Millions of lives.

Cam

For all Adolfs Faults (many) he did have an amazing ability, seriously, look at what he personally approved and asked for… first jet fighter, first intercontinental missile, first first first first…

Cam

Looks a total beast, shame the canadians and ozzies 26s will be better armed and will both have more….its mad,

Supportive Bloke

The Canadian ones also cover AAW – we have T45 for the AAW role.

The more of the battle space you try and fight in one ops room the more confused that ops rooms gets until it overloads and becomes paralysed by the information flow. OK, CMS takes some of that away but that is the general thrust of having highly specialist platforms that have very specific tasks.

You also get to a point where when you fully load up a ship with every weapons system you can think of that tiny compromises are made on things like; overlapping frequencies – so you have dead bands; arcs of fire; one system emits some EMS that interferes a tiny bit with another. It all adds up to degrade the package at bit at a time.

I do wish we would realise on here just how good the UK is at doing this stuff: there is a really good reason two other major powers are buying T26. There is a reasons what South Korea and Japan are interested in QEC tech. People are very impressed at how smoothly QEC has gone into service and F35B has been integrated. Apart from the recuperator issues, people are very impressed with the performance of T45.

If T32 & T32 can be anywhere near as good as the other classes we have in service or are launching RN will be in a superb place in 10 years time.

I’m not saying the Canadians and Australians are idiots for doing what they are doing, far from it, but their requirements are subtly different as they are fighting ships in isolation and not aiming for a CSG/Task Force which is where RN thinking is.

RobB

Actually, Aussie T26’s are not ‘fighting ships in isolation’. They will all have AEGIS and Co-opertive Engagement Capability, ready to slot into a US task force.

Duker

Not really a full ‘AEGIS’ system, they will use aegis common source library software for their CMS, a different thing
The much maligned LCS uses the same CSL, so you see what I mean

Last edited 3 months ago by Duker
Phillip Johnson

Australia has had to make major structural changes to the T26 design to accommodate the planned combat system which seems to have added 2 years to the build. It is now unlikely the Australian line will deliver the first vessel much before 2030.
As Duker pointed out it is not ‘the AGEIS’ system it is the domestic CEAFAR radar system, displayed through a user interface built by SAAB Australia using US software and interfaces, so time for lots of fun yet.

RobB

Except that some would say that AEGIS isnt just the radar. e.g. you can have AEGIS with passive SPY-1 or active SPY-6. Aussies will swap out SPY for active CEAFAR2, and they will use SAAB interface to the AEGIS system, but it is still AEGIS CMS with CEC. Here’s the shopping list:

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/5449-us-approves-1-5-billion-fms-to-support-ran-s-major-surface-combatants

Which includes  ‘Aegis Weapon System (AWS) in the MK 6 Mod 1 configuration’ for both Hobarts (with SPY1) and Hunters.

CEAFAR2 will have to track targets for ESSM, SM2, and probably SM6 i.e. It can do area defence so I would think a Hunter is closer to an Arleigh Burke than an LCS. Too bad there are only 32 VLS.

Meirion X

I agree, it will be most likely be some fun yet!

Cam

Hmmm, thanks

Grant

Which makes the decision to do a ‘Type 82’ all the more foolish….

Duker

Its both a concept and proposed. No decision yet
Anyway whats wrong with specialised AAW version of the T26 to replace the T45 sometime in the future….’continuous’ build is a good thing

Last edited 3 months ago by Duker
Supportive Bloke

I totally agree with that.

Meirion X

It is Not foolish to eventually replace the T45 with T83. It will be a multi-role AAW escort.

Last edited 3 months ago by Meirion X
Cam

It’s not, we need a type 83 even if for development creativity and funds… why keep using same designs we will get no where…we need an even more modern type 26 /45 design.

Andy G

Why does the skin look so beat up?, shouldn’t it be a lot smoother than this.