Intriguing.In this sense, the RN is not seeking a replacement for Type 45 as such, but an upgrade to its capabilities.
LIFEX for T45? Not a problem due to light use of the T45’s.
Govan would need a third batch of T26 to maintain the drum beat.
Intriguing.In this sense, the RN is not seeking a replacement for Type 45 as such, but an upgrade to its capabilities.
They never learn…..Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 10:13 Very interesting, especially this part.Intriguing.In this sense, the RN is not seeking a replacement for Type 45 as such, but an upgrade to its capabilities.
LIFEX for T45? Not a problem due to light use of the T45’s.
Govan would need a third batch of T26 to maintain the drum beat.
It's blatantly obvious to us the RN require a third batch of T26 to take the ASW fleet to 12....Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 10:13 Very interesting, especially this part.Intriguing.In this sense, the RN is not seeking a replacement for Type 45 as such, but an upgrade to its capabilities.
LIFEX for T45? Not a problem due to light use of the T45’s.
Govan would need a third batch of T26 to maintain the drum beat.
Why not? If the T45 works for FADS why reinvent the wheel?
Normally I would be highly resistant to such a move but it actually helps the Govan drum beat if 30 years is the target rather than 25years.mrclark303 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 10:51 T45 have so far spent a proportion of their lives tied up alongside, they could easily carry on for decades yet if progressively modified and upgraded.
The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 11:09Normally I would be highly resistant to such a move but it actually helps the Govan drum beat if 30 years is the target rather than 25years.mrclark303 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 10:51 T45 have so far spent a proportion of their lives tied up alongside, they could easily carry on for decades yet if progressively modified and upgraded.
From a drumbeat perspective it really doesn’t matter what design is built but RN know the T45, it’s an excellent design and it would be cheaper to build than the T26 with comparable weapons and sensors.
The reason it supposedly wasn’t an option was due to the lack of potential power generation for directed energy weapons. Is RN moving on from that now?
As an aside, to reach 12x T26 and 9x T45/T83 the Govan drum beat would need to increase from 25 years to around 32 years. The Treasury would just love that.
RN would also have to find the crew which could be the biggest hurdle to overcome.
The T31 isn’t the only way to grow the fleet.
Whether or not there is anyone left who built the originals is completely irrelevant, frankly. Old tooling probably wouldn't be re-used, as production technology has changed substantially.SW1 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 11:46 The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.
So you’re going to take an old design, you need to redesign to remove obsolescence and fix all the issues with the original design. Release new process and tooling engineering because all the old stuff is well old or no longer exists. Do you bring it up to current production/health and safety/environmental standards or grandfather them to.Caribbean wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 12:18Whether or not there is anyone left who built the originals is completely irrelevant, frankly. Old tooling probably wouldn't be re-used, as production technology has changed substantially.SW1 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 11:46 The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.
As for the poor elements of the original build & design, I think they have largely been addressed & fixed. This is a mature design. There will be some subsystems that will be obsolete, true, but I do not see that as an unsurmountable problem
Likely the major obstacle will be whether the original plans can be digitised at reasonable cost
Yes and no.
We have a simple, non ASW-optimised, CODAD, AAW design in build, albeit not specified as such, and it's called Type 31. Babcock even propose a configuration with:Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 15:47Yes and no.
If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option.
Without knowing what RN want from a T83, it’s difficult to say for sure what is the most rational way to proceed.
Good news that the cruiser plan appears to be firmly in retreat.
https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/Missiles: Infrastructure to support up to 64 x SAM for local and mid area defence and up to 16 x SAM against ballistic missile threat.
SSM: Up to 8, customer selected, canister launched weapons.
The issue with resurrecting T45 isn't the WR21, as MT30 would be a relatively straightforward drop in replacement, it is the IEP electrical gear.Jensy wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 16:16 As for resurrecting Type 45, you immediately constrain all future FAD technology to the space, mass and power requirements of a ship designed in the 1990s. Not to mention I doubt you could pay R-R enough to restart WR-21 production. At which point you're talking about a ship with everything different apart from the external shape of the hull and superstructure.
I would agree with great swaths of this post.Jensy wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 16:16We have a simple, non ASW-optimised, CODAD, AAW design in build, albeit not specified as such, and it's called Type 31. Babcock even propose a configuration with:Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 15:47Yes and no.
If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option.
Without knowing what RN want from a T83, it’s difficult to say for sure what is the most rational way to proceed.
Good news that the cruiser plan appears to be firmly in retreat.
https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/Missiles: Infrastructure to support up to 64 x SAM for local and mid area defence and up to 16 x SAM against ballistic missile threat.
SSM: Up to 8, customer selected, canister launched weapons.
That should be the starting point if we want to take the budget route.
However if we don't design and develop a new class of ship then we likely never will again. At least not without expending vast amounts of time, money and effort, which will probably benefit a foreign company, to regain the capability.
Size seems to concern the treasury and some people here, however one of the biggest cost multipliers of Type 26 is the relative density of systems in the optimised ASW hull form. This was alluded to by Vice Admiral Chris Gardner last year and why he argued the Navy wouldn't want any more even if offered them.
Such issues would apply more so to an AAW variant, with far greater demand for VLS space and top weight (which rules out turning the mission bay into a weapons deck). A single glance at the Hunter Class shambles should be enough to discount this idea.
As for resurrecting Type 45, you immediately constrain all future FAD technology to the space, mass and power requirements of a ship designed in the 1990s. Not to mention I doubt you could pay R-R enough to restart WR-21 production. At which point you're talking about a ship with everything different apart from the external shape of the hull and superstructure.
A big, simple hull is a lot more flexible and doesn't require excessive miniaturisation of systems. It just needs to be fast enough to keep up with the rest of the CSG.
For some maddening reason we always seem to need to reinvent the wheel in this country. Usually as a cynical ploy to push financial outlays into later budgets, at greater overall cost, rather than any true pioneering spirit.
With the 2030s dominated by Dreadnought into AUKUS Class; Merlin replacement; and whatever survives from [Type 32/MRSS/MROSS/OPVs etc.], plus the other two rather forgotten services, there's going to be some serious competition for funds and some very tough decisions.
From memory, was n't the T26 the first RN escort class that was trumpeted as being completely computerised in it's design? If so, then by logical inference, the T45 was NOT completely computerised in it's design. Thereby it may be quite inefficient to try to update the T45's design to remove such obsolesences and fix issues with the original design.SW1 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 15:19So you’re going to take an old design, you need to redesign to remove obsolescence and fix all the issues with the original design. Release new process and tooling engineering because all the old stuff is well old or no longer exists. Do you bring it up to current production/health and safety/environmental standards or grandfather them to.Caribbean wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 12:18Whether or not there is anyone left who built the originals is completely irrelevant, frankly. Old tooling probably wouldn't be re-used, as production technology has changed substantially.SW1 wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 11:46 The type 45 was last built 15 years ago it will be more than 25 years when the start the next one do all the sub systems that went into it still exist does all the tooling that supports it’s build? Would there be anyone left who actually built the last one? I don’t think given its issue you can class the type 45 as an excellent design it’s been poor.
As for the poor elements of the original build & design, I think they have largely been addressed & fixed. This is a mature design. There will be some subsystems that will be obsolete, true, but I do not see that as an unsurmountable problem
Likely the major obstacle will be whether the original plans can be digitised at reasonable cost
Then launch it into production with people who have never built it or have no knowledge of it just like as if it was a brand new design. But then claim it’s mature and well known. Sounds to me like the same line of thinking that selected that in production wedgetail
Just continue building the hulls you already have in production it will be cheaper in the long run.
It really isn’t. It’s just a question of priorities.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 22:43 Also any thought that RN could afford to build and crew 12*ASW + 9*AAW escorts is pure fantasy. At best it would be one additional batch of one or the other, not both.
I believe it was trumpeted as such with videos of digital 'Bob' avatars slipping between bulkheads and pipe ways without banging his head and being able to wield his virtual spanner. However in the recent Australian select committee hearing on the Hunter class the twirling of large 'blueprints' on the Clyde was mentioned.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 22:43
From memory, was n't the T26 the first RN escort class that was trumpeted as being completely computerised in it's design?
Hunter class a "shambles". Why? Yes its running behind the originally promised schedule (as do most if not all large defence programs), but seems to be progressing at the same pace as the Canadian CSC program which is also using the BEA GCS hull as the basis for a full spectrum warship. Had the BAE GCS design been more mature (ie already constructed with sea trials finalised) when it was selected for these programs, both would probably be more advanced, but that's a separate issue, as is BAE's lack of experience with AEGIS and CMS330.Jensy wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 16:16We have a simple, non ASW-optimised, CODAD, AAW design in build, albeit not specified as such, and it's called Type 31. Babcock even propose a configuration with:Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑21 Sep 2023, 15:47Yes and no.
If the T45 replacement just needs to be a basic hull form with zero regard for acoustic optimisation and a CODAD propulsion system building more T26 will not be the cheapest option.
Without knowing what RN want from a T83, it’s difficult to say for sure what is the most rational way to proceed.
Good news that the cruiser plan appears to be firmly in retreat.
https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-sy ... fic-roles/Missiles: Infrastructure to support up to 64 x SAM for local and mid area defence and up to 16 x SAM against ballistic missile threat.
SSM: Up to 8, customer selected, canister launched weapons.
That should be the starting point if we want to take the budget route.
However if we don't design and develop a new class of ship then we likely never will again. At least not without expending vast amounts of time, money and effort, which will probably benefit a foreign company, to regain the capability.
Size seems to concern the treasury and some people here, however one of the biggest cost multipliers of Type 26 is the relative density of systems in the optimised ASW hull form. This was alluded to by Vice Admiral Chris Gardner last year and why he argued the Navy wouldn't want any more even if offered them.
Such issues would apply more so to an AAW variant, with far greater demand for VLS space and top weight (which rules out turning the mission bay into a weapons deck). A single glance at the Hunter Class shambles should be enough to discount this idea.
As for resurrecting Type 45, you immediately constrain all future FAD technology to the space, mass and power requirements of a ship designed in the 1990s. Not to mention I doubt you could pay R-R enough to restart WR-21 production. At which point you're talking about a ship with everything different apart from the external shape of the hull and superstructure.
A big, simple hull is a lot more flexible and doesn't require excessive miniaturisation of systems. It just needs to be fast enough to keep up with the rest of the CSG.
For some maddening reason we always seem to need to reinvent the wheel in this country. Usually as a cynical ploy to push financial outlays into later budgets, at greater overall cost, rather than any true pioneering spirit.
With the 2030s dominated by Dreadnought into AUKUS Class; Merlin replacement; and whatever survives from [Type 32/MRSS/MROSS/OPVs etc.], plus the other two rather forgotten services, there's going to be some serious competition for funds and some very tough decisions.
The maturity of the design is not the issue it has only been picked up as an audit problem by the Australian Audit Office because the DOD set it as a requirement during the procurement process and then decided it wasn't a problem. The Audit Office aren't happy because the proverbial dog seems to have eaten the DODs homework detailing the decisions\changed requirements. The Audit Office aren't expert in ship design they are experts in paperwork, processes and following them correctly.SouthernOne wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 03:16
Hunter class a "shambles". Why? Yes its running behind the originally promised schedule (as do most if not all large defence programs), but seems to be progressing at the same pace as the Canadian CSC program which is also using the BEA GCS hull as the basis for a full spectrum warship. Had the BAE GCS design been more mature (ie already constructed with sea trials finalised) when it was selected for these programs, both would probably be more advanced, but that's a separate issue, as is BAE's lack of experience with AEGIS and CMS330.
Tomuk has answered you better than I could. I was referring almost entirely to the integration of CEAFAR, which seems to have been poorly planned.SouthernOne wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 03:16 Hunter class a "shambles". Why? Yes its running behind the originally promised schedule (as do most if not all large defence programs), but seems to be progressing at the same pace as the Canadian CSC program which is also using the BEA GCS hull as the basis for a full spectrum warship. Had the BAE GCS design been more mature (ie already constructed with sea trials finalised) when it was selected for these programs, both would probably be more advanced, but that's a separate issue, as is BAE's lack of experience with AEGIS and CMS330.
The Italian Navy's FREMM variant is also a well rounded ship using a hull "optimised" for ASW, as will be the USN Constellation class.
The MT30 is twice as powerful. Not a drop in.
What is this supposed to mean? No ships have DC generators, and all IEP ships convert from AC to DC and back to AC again to make it work.
I generally agree this should the the starting objective for the project, but shouldn't cling on to the idea too tightly if the size a power requirements start to diverge.
I’d make it really simple if you want another clean sheet then numbers reduce by 50% every time you want it. Should focus the mind on “requirements”.shark bait wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 08:36I generally agree this should the the starting objective for the project, but shouldn't cling on to the idea too tightly if the size a power requirements start to diverge.
This could work if the lean 'arsenal ship' concept plays out, but if the direction heads for a traditional cruiser/destroyer design it'll probably need a clean sheet.
What I think is going to define the dimensions of Type 83 most will be the weight/mass of the array, and the optimal height vs stability arguments.shark bait wrote: ↑22 Sep 2023, 08:36 This could work if the lean 'arsenal ship' concept plays out, but if the direction heads for a traditional cruiser/destroyer design it'll probably need a clean sheet.