UK Defence Forum

Caribbean wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 08:31 The thought drifts across my mind that, as this seems to have been accomplished fairly "easily" (I'm sure it wasn't as easy as they make it sound), the Hunter class design variant might yet become the basis for the T83, perhaps with a further bit of "fattening up" (i.e. beam and draft) and a bit of a stretch, pushing it into the > 10k < 12k tonne region

It would be very interesting to see how this has been done. Perhaps BAE always intended to increase the beam dimensions for future classes so the Aussies ended up with a T26/T83 hybrid.

I was expecting the T83 to end up in the 22m to 23m range. A second 600mm to 800mm increase may indeed be possible if it has been planned in advance but perhaps the T83 beam dimension was always going to be 21.4m.

Conversely, it is entirely possible the Hunter Class is now just a T26 Batch 2 and completely unconnected to whatever the T83 ultimately becomes.

I know surely it will be the original hull design, but I "hope" the 5 batch2s be the 0.6-m broad beamed version...

It will give large growth margin, to be pursuit for coming 30-35 years.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 14:57 I know surely it will be the original hull design, but I "hope" the 5 batch2s be the 0.6-m broad beamed version...

It will give large growth margin, to be pursuit for coming 30-35 years.

Donald - can you supply any verification that the “broad beamed” Type 26 exists? We’ve all seen it mentioned in one Tweet from an unofficial source. Is there anything from an official source or anything that isn’t using that Tweet as it’s source.

I hope you can because I’d like it to be a fact but am sceptical.

RichardIC wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 15:38

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 14:57 I know surely it will be the original hull design, but I "hope" the 5 batch2s be the 0.6-m broad beamed version...

It will give large growth margin, to be pursuit for coming 30-35 years.

Donald - can you supply any verification that the “broad beamed” Type 26 exists? We’ve all seen it mentioned in one Tweet from an unofficial source. Is there anything from an official source or anything that isn’t using that Tweet as it’s source.

I hope you can because I’d like it to be a fact but am sceptical.

Not a single tweet anymore.

I do not know how you judge it, but APDR is very much reliable site, to my experience. Of course, we all are waiting for official announcement. But, I understand it will come out anyhow.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 00:37 "Australian Hunter class is with wider beam", new info. Not yet official, but for me APDR is a good source. So, I think it is true. VERY interesting.

In August last year an additional 18-month delay was agreed by all parties. This was caused by several events, most noticeably the global disruption of Covid. The factors directly related to the platform included the complexity of the Australian-specific changes – especially the radar and combat system that necessitated a slightly fatter hull of 0.6 of a metre – delays to the parent Type 26 program and a shipyard being developed. Nevertheless, work had already started as promised on the prototype sections.

See https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/ ... celerated/

The new build hall at Govan is going to be:

The investment for the Govan yard is focused around a new assembly facility measuring 175meteres by 85metres

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/208 ... e-decades/

"decades".
Not if you're not in the UK they won't.

I will be interested to see if they can get the unit costs down for the next batch of ships. £3.7 billion for 3 ships is a bit steep, even if they turn out to the best Frigates ever made.

Jdam wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 17:20 I will be interested to see if they can get the unit costs down for the next batch of ships. £3.7 billion for 3 ships is a bit steep, even if they turn out to the best Frigates ever made.

I am expecting the cost to be in the region of £5bn.

The big question remains, what would be the cost of a 9th hull if the remaining batch is completed as efficiently as possible?

This question is even more relevant now that BAE is now investing in the Infrastructure at Govan. Even if this investment only increases building efficiency by 10% the ultimate cost of a 9th hull may be roughly comparable to a T31.

From my point of view, I am more interested in 9 hulls and onwards. Hopefully then a window of opportunity to acquire T26 in sufficient numbers, so that they can indeed become the Global Combat Ships that they were always intended to become.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 04:40 This question is even more relevant now that BAE is now investing in the Infrastructure at Govan. Even if this investment only increases building efficiency by 10% the ultimate cost of a 9th hull may be roughly comparable to a T31.

I would have thought highly unlikely that the T26 would ever be roughly comparable in cost to the T31, apples to oranges.

The T26 designed for ASW and Special Forces Operations, a very quiet ship eg with its hybrid propulsion diesels/generators on rafts and shaft mounted motors, no noisy gearboxes, plus expensive GT/MGR, in addition the large mission bay sized for four 12m RHIBs and a landing deck to take Chinooks, all that costs big time and increases the size/displacement, before the Australians increased the beam of the Hunter they were quoting 8,800t FLD.

The Iver Huitfeldt/T31 design by OMT the design house of the Maersk one of the world's most successful container shipping lines used all their expertise to keep costs low and it shows with all diesel propulsion, would note that the benefits of diesels, low cost and relatively high speed, IH achieved 31 knots in its North Sea trials and with range of 9,000 nm plus, the disadvantage of diesels/gears not on rafts, a noisy ship compared to the hybrid T26 and so not best for ASW. Iver Huitfeldt 6,600 FLD

Mentioned before V.Adm Gardner Director General Ships at Defence Equipment and Support in interview stated he would not be procuring anymore £1 billion T26s beyond the current eight.

NickC wrote: ↑31 Aug 2022, 10:21 I would have thought highly unlikely that the T26 would ever be roughly comparable in cost to the T31, apples to oranges.

I think Poiuytrewq meant the marginal cost of adding a ninth hull to the program, after the efficiencies/ savings realised from a) a fully optimised build method and b) building indoors in a better environment, might only push the whole program cost from £8.7b for 8 to £9b for nine hulls, so approximately an additional £250-300m (i.e. equivalent to an extra T31).

Holy shit we might be making progress here. Keep it up Bob

When is HMS Glasgow due to be completed and ready for trials?

Jdam wrote: ↑08 Sep 2022, 12:38

Holy shit we might be making progress here. Keep it up Bob

It's been lovely weather in Scotland the last couple of months, summer overtime - happy days

Here's a video showing how the RCN's Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels (AOPV) are launched. This may be of interest as I suspect HMS Glasgow's launch will be very similar.

Here is the launch of HMS Forth from Govan.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑09 Sep 2022, 04:14 When is HMS Glasgow due to be completed and ready for trials?

Think i read that she would be handed over to the RN mid 2025 !! builders trials befor that maybe ? comissioned in 2027....but could be wrong

https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/9 ... ff4537f636

In evidence on 5/9/22 to Scottish Affairs Committee, Sir Simon Lister (BAE) confirmed the build schedule of the second batch of T26 will be accelerated by the addition of the new build hall at Govan.

The new facility is due to be operational within two years so could also impact the Batch 1 build to a lesser degree.

First time I have heard this confirmed.

It looks like they plan to fill the dock area in. Would it not make more sense to build a dry dock with a hall over it? Otherwise they need that barge for every launch.

I asked the same question, see response below.

Current thinking says moving them about on Self-Propelled Modular Transporters SPMTs and then lowering them into the water on boat lifts or submersible barges is preferable saving on the maintenance and logistic issues of maintaining and working in a dock.

Makes sense, do see the point of having the barge there till December.

Jdam wrote: ↑30 Aug 2022, 13:27

Let's see what the cost is. If not under a billion per unit there's something going wrong

Jdam wrote: ↑14 Sep 2022, 21:32 I asked the same question, see response below.

Current thinking says moving them about on Self-Propelled Modular Transporters SPMTs and then lowering them into the water on boat lifts or submersible barges is preferable saving on the maintenance and logistic issues of maintaining and working in a dock.

I would have thought a dry dock would give more options moving forward, especially T26 refits, as the Devonport Frigate Facility is too small.
Hey Ho.

SD67 wrote: ↑15 Sep 2022, 09:23Let's see what the cost is. If not under a billion per unit there's something going wrong

Although I totally agree to your point, but, recent inflation caused by Ukrainan war could be a "good" smoke and screen... Anyway, let's see..