UK Defence Forum

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2023, 16:46 But increased capacity!

I doubt the capacity would be increased in any way with a dry dock, one of the primary objectives is to get all welding and painting undercover, the only way this would be possible with a dry dock is by either craning blocks in which makes a roof very difficult or by floating them in which is also not ideal. The arrangement being constructed enables blocks to be transported in from the existing sheds and then joined.

Of course in an ideal World it would be the new shed plus a ship lift so the completed ships could be lowered directly into the Clyde, the existing site however probably has insufficient room for this even it were affordable

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2023, 16:46 But increased capacity!

What increased capacity? The new build hall gives you increased build capacity.

Steel cut on Birmingham this morning.

And just like that we have 4 type 26's at various stages of construction. It didn't seem that long ago that nothing was happening with this class.

Story in Navy news for above.....

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... -laid-down

bobp wrote: ↑04 Apr 2023, 17:00 Story in Navy news for above.....

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... -laid-down

Identical to the first batch, but incorporating lessons learned in their construction and exploiting a new assembly hall which will shield the vessels from the Scottish elements unlike the first three Type 26s, the second batch represents a £4.2bn investment in the future of the Royal Navy and the shipbuilding/defence industry.

So Belfast will catch a cold too.

Classic thread: No-one knows for certain why Australia selected the Type 26/Hunter for a multi-billion $ order because the minutes of key meetings have been lost.

I can personally relate to this. No-one knows why big decisions were made because everyone who was at the meeting has left and we can’t find the records.

RichardIC wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 09:15

Classic thread: No-one knows for certain why Australia selected the Type 26/Hunter for a multi-billion $ order because the minutes of key meetings have been lost.

I can personally relate to this. No-one knows why big decisions were made because everyone who was at the meeting has left and we can’t find the records.

Reading that numbers will be cut I would suspect considering they’re reviewing surface fleet requirements.

Capability with no thought for cost wonder where they learnt that from…

SW1 wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 10:20 Reading that numbers will be cut I would suspect considering they’re reviewing surface fleet requirements.

Capability with no thought for cost wonder where they learnt that from…

Thats the problem, the political ambition was and still is bigger than the budget envelope.

The simple fact remains that they picked the best Sub Hunter and then tried to bolt a lot of Australian tech on it for internal political reasons.

The Australian Government then insisted that as much as possible was built or procured in Aus.

Whichever bid won it was never going to be the cheapest, most efficient and fastest way to procure Frigates.

Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 11:29

SW1 wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 10:20 Reading that numbers will be cut I would suspect considering they’re reviewing surface fleet requirements.

Capability with no thought for cost wonder where they learnt that from…

Thats the problem, the political ambition was and still is bigger than the budget envelope.

The simple fact remains that they picked the best Sub Hunter and then tried to bolt a lot of Australian tech on it for internal political reasons.

The Australian Government then insisted that as much as possible was built or procured in Aus.

Whichever bid won it was never going to be the cheapest, most efficient and fastest way to procure Frigates.

Focusing on specific tech areas to include in a local build design isn’t really the problem. The problem is over specification without any thought to the cost and supportability of the program or what that does to other programs you can have to start scaling back push back to fund this one. It’s all silos. Not to mention little or no documentation as to why those specifics were selected and there justification.

Best example maybe the US cancelling sea wolf and building Virginia instead.

So who has done the best procurement job on their T26s? UK, Australia or Canada?

tomuk wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 17:50 So who has done the best procurement job on their T26s? UK, Australia or Canada?

The UK has got four ships actually under construction. Don't think Aus or Can have yet started any?

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 19:03

tomuk wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 17:50 So who has done the best procurement job on their T26s? UK, Australia or Canada?

The UK has got four ships actually under construction. Don't think Aus or Can have yet started any?

But Aus and Canada aren’t building “Type 26” ships. They’re both building ships based on a BAE Global Combat Ship hull and propulsion machinery, but substantially different. The Hunter class is still in the design phase. Not sure about the CSC.

I suspect both are also holding back a little as well, to see what issues crop up during sea trials of the first RN vessels.

tomuk wrote: ↑10 May 2023, 17:50 So who has done the best procurement job on their T26s? UK, Australia or Canada?

I’m not sure you can answer that question yet because you need to see how something has been delivered against agreed cost, time and capability at contract signature.

If your talking configurations and fleet configuration then that is a more subjective discussion.

The Australians did not order Type 26 - they signed up for a project to create an Australian Burke-lite, using the BAE Global Combat Ship as a starting point. That's a 5 year design phase, minimum, whichever ship was chosen as the base. TBH I don't think they're terribly troubled about design maturity as one of the main objectives is to create a local sovereign ship design capability. It's more important that they ship CEAFAR radar than get the ship in the water quickly.

SD67 wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 13:57 The Australians did not order Type 26 - they signed up for a project to create an Australian Burke-lite, using the BAE Global Combat Ship as a starting point. That's a 5 year design phase, minimum, whichever ship was chosen as the base. TBH I don't think they're terribly troubled about design maturity as one of the main objectives is to create a local sovereign ship design capability. It's more important that they ship CEAFAR radar than get the ship in the water quickly.

If you read the auditors report it isn't clear what they signed up for and exactly what they have signed up for varies depending on who they ask. As Aus MoD have lost the paperwork the answer to why an ASW frigate was chosen as a base for a mini Burke AAW destroyer is lost to the ether.

We shall see how much redesign happens but fitting a different radar, CMS and hosting different missiles in the Mk41s doesn't make it a different vessel it will still be a version of T26.

tomuk wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 16:50

SD67 wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 13:57 The Australians did not order Type 26 - they signed up for a project to create an Australian Burke-lite, using the BAE Global Combat Ship as a starting point. That's a 5 year design phase, minimum, whichever ship was chosen as the base. TBH I don't think they're terribly troubled about design maturity as one of the main objectives is to create a local sovereign ship design capability. It's more important that they ship CEAFAR radar than get the ship in the water quickly.

If you read the auditors report it isn't clear what they signed up for and exactly what they have signed up for varies depending on who they ask. As Aus MoD have lost the paperwork the answer to why an ASW frigate was chosen as a base for a mini Burke AAW destroyer is lost to the ether.

We shall see how much redesign happens but fitting a different radar, CMS and hosting different missiles in the Mk41s doesn't make it a different vessel it will still be a version of T26.

The point I'm making is that one of the objectives was always to create an Australian Naval Design / building Industry. Hence why the site is owned by the Australian government and leased to BAE and why the plan is for ASC to revert to Australian ownership by the end of the contract. And 5 years to set up a local supply chain from scratch and recruit / train a workforce that hasn't built a frigate for a while, during a pandemic - that's not bad going.

In terms of the auditors report - well read into it what you will. My take is a new government is clearing the decks by throwing some mud at their predecessors in case anything goes wrong from here. Normal political insurance. But the fact is the Responsible Minister in the previous government made the decision to buy T26 and the responsible minister in the new government made a decision to continue with the program.

tomuk wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 16:50

SD67 wrote: ↑11 May 2023, 13:57 The Australians did not order Type 26 - they signed up for a project to create an Australian Burke-lite, using the BAE Global Combat Ship as a starting point. That's a 5 year design phase, minimum, whichever ship was chosen as the base. TBH I don't think they're terribly troubled about design maturity as one of the main objectives is to create a local sovereign ship design capability. It's more important that they ship CEAFAR radar than get the ship in the water quickly.

If you read the auditors report it isn't clear what they signed up for and exactly what they have signed up for varies depending on who they ask. As Aus MoD have lost the paperwork the answer to why an ASW frigate was chosen as a base for a mini Burke AAW destroyer is lost to the ether.

We shall see how much redesign happens but fitting a different radar, CMS and hosting different missiles in the Mk41s doesn't make it a different vessel it will still be a version of T26.

So far it also looks like the Hunter class will have substantially greater displacement.

I'd be pretty sure the Aus Department of Defence knew exactly what it was signing up for, regardless of how other parties may view the process from their own perspectives and "world views."

This is the BAe perspective on the relationship between the different designs.: https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/g ... ombat-ship It looks like they designed a hull with three competitions in mind, which may be why these are the first RN ships to be designed around the Mk41 VLS and Mk45 gun, both of which have been in RAN service for decades. Perhaps that hull was a little large for the RN's needs, but it is starting to look like it may have been a little too small for the RAN. Time will tell.

When the intended roles of the three variants, and the combat systems and sensors used to deliver on that, differ so much, there's not really much point in referencing everything back to the Type 26. It would make just as much sense to call the Type 26 a cut down, limited capability variant of the Hunter class or CSC.

SouthernOne wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 09:33 It would make just as much sense to call the Type 26 a cut down, limited capability variant of the Hunter class or CSC

I think I prefer "more focussed"

SouthernOne wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 09:33 It looks like they designed a hull with three competitions in mind

Not mindful enough given their design makes it so difficult to stretch (Length/Depth at its limit).

It would appear some of the 'Bobs' up at Govan are rather disgruntled:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/alleged ... s-glasgow/

CAT 9 “Tails” for them would be very least that they should get !

Scimitar54 wrote: ↑12 May 2023, 17:56 CAT 9 “Tails” for them would be very least that they should get !

Set an example for future sabotage of HM ships, public removal of a body part, after the above flogging. Data cables especially fibre optics do not come cheap.

First superglue now cable sabotage, what’s next?

It’s time to get a grip.