Register here

Author Topic: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate  (Read 53599 times)

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1034
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #90 on: August 02, 2017, 04:10:46 am »
As Ron5 says, there is no incentive. Who actually backs the government stumping up the cash for all the remaining five ships in 3-5 year's time? I foresee the second order being trimmed.
Even if some exports were achieved they would be built locally in the export nation, so that removes another potential source of funds to recoup the capital costs. 

I agree on the madness of the procurement system and the short-term-ism inherent in it, but there's no hope of that ever being fixed and its endemic across all sectors the government has any involvement with.

Offline DWG

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 227
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #91 on: August 02, 2017, 05:13:41 am »
I think the criticism of BAE Systems is ignoring the reality that its investment decisions have been incredibly smart. I still have mixed feelings over the Airbus divestiture and exiting civil aerospace, but the fact is it then used that cash to pivot from being the major player in the UK and a minor player in the U.S., to the major player in the UK, and a major player in the U.S. in everything but being an airframe and naval prime (including the below the waterline growth in support, C4ISR and cyber security), while turning a local UK missile capability into joint ownership of the second largest missile prime in the world and making major acquisitions in Sweden (Bofors and Hagglunds) and Australia (Tenix) along the way. If FCS had happened as intended the ROI would have been even greater.

Compared to that, UK shipbuilding is an albatross around its neck it picked up in the 1999 MES acquisition that turned BAe into BAE Systems and which it would likely sell in a moment if it could get both a decent offer and UK government agreement. The problem is the UK drip feeds armament programmes rather than being strategically smart enough to use them to pump-prime wider success that would flow back to the government in long term tax revenues, and the low volume nature of Naval programmes makes that doubly so for shipbuilding. UK shipbuilding essentially operates on a shoe string and the smartest thing BAE Systems has been able to do with it, short of selling it, is to tilt the business balance into through life support. Major investment in shipbuilding infrastructure just doesn't have any likelihood of a decent ROI under the current and foreseeable political conditions, both national and international. So building the Type 26s the way they propose may not be the locally optimal way of doing it, but is strategically smart.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3137
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #92 on: October 03, 2017, 03:37:36 am »
This appears to be the latest configuration for the Australian competition, note the 32 cell VLS forward and the Harpoon launchers immediately aft of the main stack in addition to the mast for the CEAFAR radars.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #93 on: October 03, 2017, 04:25:09 am »
This appears to be the latest configuration for the Australian competition, note the 32 cell VLS forward and the Harpoon launchers immediately aft of the main stack in addition to the mast for the CEAFAR radars.

Not sure if they mean ballistic missiles as there is no mention of SM3 missiles.
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/marise-payne/media-releases/joint-media-release-new-approach-naval-combat-systems?linkId=100000001262822
"Under the plan, the combat management system for Australia’s fleet of nine Future Frigates will be provided by the Aegis Combat Management System, together with an Australian tactical interface, which will be developed by SAAB Australia.

This decision will maximize the Future Frigate’s air warfare capabilities, enabling these ships to engage threat missiles at long range, which is vital given rogue states are developing missiles with advanced range and speed."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2820
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #94 on: October 03, 2017, 09:16:38 am »
Since they refer only to air warfare and not missile defense, it sounds more like SM-6 than SM-3.  And SM-6 is just now being offered for export, so having a version of AEGIS Baseline 9 that supports it would make sense.  (It would likely also be needed to support Standard Active, which might be a more economical alternative when it becomes available.)

https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/sm-6-cleared-international-sale-australia-japan-korea-early-customers
« Last Edit: October 03, 2017, 09:28:43 am by TomS »

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 857
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #95 on: November 23, 2017, 07:40:05 pm »


Additional pitch to land Australian Future Frigate (SEA5000) Program.

http://www.janes.com/article/75901/bae-systems-proposes-unprecedented-technology-transfer-for-australia



Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 857
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #96 on: November 25, 2017, 04:52:36 am »
It would seem as though the Type-26 has been written out of the running for the USN FFG(X) program.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44972.pdf

“Guided Missile Frigate (FFG(X)) Conceptual Design, Solicitation Number: N0002418R2300,” October 16, 2017, updated October 20, 2017, posted at https://www.fbo.gov, accessed October 26, 2017
Emphasis below mine.

"
The purpose of this update is to provide clarification with respect to the parent design definition and prime contractor requirements noted within the original synopsis posting as follows:

The parent design, from which an offeror's FFG(X) solution would be developed, must have been constructed and demonstrated at sea. A “clean sheet”, “paper”, or developmental parent design would not qualify under this definition and would not be accepted for consideration under the Conceptual Design solicitation.

There is no requirement for the prime contractor to be a US shipyard for purposes of Conceptual Design. A US shipyard may participate as a part of multiple teams consistent with the prime and subcontractor restrictions outlined within the original synopsis.
"

That's a shame.  It would be nice to see a push to have an exception made for the Type-26.  There are only a few ships being built that are good candidates for the FFG(X) program. 

It would have been good for the US to have a common platform w/the UK for myriad reasons.

1.  Forward basing
2.  Crewing/training flexibility
3.  Worldwide logistical support
4.  Design cost mitigation
5.  ...

Imagine a common platform shared by UK, US, Australia, and potentially, several other countries.  Costs would be shared over 75-100 ships rather than 10-20.




Offline Foo Fighter

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
  • I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #97 on: November 25, 2017, 09:22:44 am »
That would be a sensible solution.  Sadly.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 874
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #98 on: November 25, 2017, 05:27:52 pm »

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 857
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #99 on: November 25, 2017, 07:21:30 pm »
Well its not without precedent.

Thanks for that Moose.  I wasn't aware.  It seems they learned something from this since the model's been used for the F-35.

e.g.  F-35 final assembly is happening in US, Italy and Japan.
e.g.  F-35 receives 300k parts from 1500 international suppliers.





Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2820
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #100 on: November 26, 2017, 05:53:58 am »
Well its not without precedent.

NFR highlights the massive problems with trying to standardize on ship design.  Trying to come up with a common standard ship between the US and UK would run into all the same basic issues.  The two navies use different anti-aircraft missiles, different launchers, different radars, different combat systems (and even combat system philosophies). Approaches to propulsion systems are different (the US does not like combined plants, for instance, especially after LCS).  Standards for damage control are different.  Even basic things like accommodation and habitability standards differ.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 857
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #101 on: November 26, 2017, 10:24:49 am »
Well its not without precedent.

NFR highlights the massive problems with trying to standardize on ship design.  Trying to come up with a common standard ship between the US and UK would run into all the same basic issues.  The two navies use different anti-aircraft missiles, different launchers, different radars, different combat systems (and even combat system philosophies). Approaches to propulsion systems are different (the US does not like combined plants, for instance, especially after LCS).  Standards for damage control are different.  Even basic things like accommodation and habitability standards differ.


And yet, we have the F-35.  Evidently massive problems can be overcome when there is a common objective and the will to see it through.  The US and UK work "very" closely on the submarine front as well.

There needs to be another push for commonality where it can be found.  Lord knows the Americans don't know what's best.  It's always messy.  Look at the CF of the LCS program.

This needs to be tried again.  Perhaps not via NATO but between countries such as the UK, Australia, Japan and the US.  Or perhaps there can be work between Commonwealth countries.

As an aside, there's a chance that the T26 will be disqualified from the Canadian program as well since a ship has not yet been built.

 




Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2820
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #102 on: November 26, 2017, 01:38:13 pm »
Aircraft are easier, honestly.

 F-35 is a terrible example.  It's a US design that everyone else is being allowed to buy and do some work on.  But the other partners have nearly zero input on the core design, which was set before any of them joined in.  What little non-US input there is is either weapon integration or swapping one electronic system for another. 

Joint shipbuilding is closer to Eurofighter or Tornado development, where competing national preferences led to noticable performance compromises.  Imagine trying to do a joint aircraft program where one partner preferred turbojets and the other wanted props.  One wants a single crew and the other wants two. 

US-UK submarine cooperation will never lead to a common ship design.  Just standardizing the missile compartment is a heroic effort, and it's only happening because the USN is desperately short of cash to design the Columbia and the RN can't possibly afford new Trident without some cost sharing.

Offline NeilChapman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 857
  • Interested 3rd party
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #103 on: November 28, 2017, 11:22:22 am »
Aircraft are easier, honestly.

 F-35 is a terrible example.  It's a US design that everyone else is being allowed to buy and do some work on.  But the other partners have nearly zero input on the core design, which was set before any of them joined in.  What little non-US input there is is either weapon integration or swapping one electronic system for another. 

Joint shipbuilding is closer to Eurofighter or Tornado development, where competing national preferences led to noticable performance compromises.  Imagine trying to do a joint aircraft program where one partner preferred turbojets and the other wanted props.  One wants a single crew and the other wants two. 

My point had more to do with the changing climate (financial pressure, perceived threats, etc) and the willingness to cooperate.  In this case it is agreement to purchase a system toward which the participants had zero input.

The difficulties surround the political ramifications of purchasing billion dollar ships from another country. Even if building locally costs 25-50% more.  Canada, Australia, the UK, European and Scandinavian countries are prime examples of those needing/wanting capable heavy frigates/destroyers but their scale of purchase is too small to get past the labor learning curve.

At some point, the threat and financial pressure will escalate such that the decision is made for them. 



US-UK submarine cooperation will never lead to a common ship design.  Just standardizing the missile compartment is a heroic effort, and it's only happening because the USN is desperately short of cash to design the Columbia and the RN can't possibly afford new Trident without some cost sharing.

Perhaps.  My perception is that they've started with a common ballistic missile.  This make sharing the dev cost by standardizing the compartment a no brainer. 





Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10936
Re: Royal Navy Type 26 Frigate
« Reply #104 on: November 28, 2017, 11:37:02 am »
Aircraft are easier, honestly.

 F-35 is a terrible example. 

Joint shipbuilding is closer to Eurofighter or Tornado development, where competing national preferences led to noticable performance compromises.  Imagine trying to do a joint aircraft program where one partner preferred turbojets and the other wanted props.  One wants a single crew and the other wants two. 

Or one wants to operate off a runway, another guy wants to trap on a CVN, and the last guy wants to do vertical landings?  ;)  The F-35 was worse than the Typhoon or Tornado. At least they all wanted to land on a runway, and generally had the same concept of operation. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.