Canada Also Chooses T26

[4scourge7]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-26-frigate-wins-canadian-frigate-competition/

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by 4scourge7

[rio]

Lovely. More work for Rolls. 

 

Rio

[PF Naughton]

Hi,

Thanks for the heads up on this news & the link.

PF

Edited October 20, 2018 by PF Naughton

[Whitewolf]

Interesting thought - all these additional orders will surely lower the price of the vessel, scrap Type31 and order more Type 26?

[Paul E]

23 hours ago, Stealthman said:

Interesting thought - all these additional orders will surely lower the price of the vessel, scrap Type31 and order more Type 26?

In answer to your question the answer is no.

Each of the three countries ship designs are different enough such that the None Recurring Engineering costs cannot be spread so easily. Also each country has its own budgets. Any savings in cost per ship will go back to BAe the UK government will get a cut of that in Tax but it won't pay for any more Type 26s

[Whitewolf]

I'm thinking along the lines of Hull construction. 

[Paul E]

8 hours ago, Stealthman said:

I'm thinking along the lines of Hull construction. 

That's not the major cost driver, although efficiencies are made between the first and subsequent vessel builds. Whilst the hull shape may be the same, altering the mast and fitting new combat system equipment impacts on weight and stability. Also each customer may have different space requirements, so there may be changes inside the hull which although not visible change the construction.  New equipment will need more cooling and electricity too, all these changes to design add up.

 

Don't worry Governments also think that if they use someone else's design then it would be cheaper. Then they chuck in their own wish list from the sweetie shop and discover it wasn't such a bargin after all! The reason why I think the Type 26 has been successful is because BAe when it started the design considered export opportunities and hedged their bets hence the GCS (Global Combat Ship) variant of the Type 26. Australia having been burnt by the Air Warfare Destroyer programme would have understood that. Canada has also an unfortunate record with the Cyclone helicopter and wouldn't want a repeat with a ship programme. Anyone who presented a design that specfically enabled customisation was on to a winner in my mind. I also think a large dose of politics came into play from UK Plc, we just weren't as blatant as the French who got disqualified from the competition.

 

The RN will still need the Type 31 Frigates because they are supposed to fulfil a different role to the Type 26. Although I personally feel that the driver behind the design (cost) is the wrong one. However there is an export opportunity to New Zealand who do not need a high end Anti Submarine frigate that the Type 26 GCS offers, so who knows?

[GMK]

Plus, both Canada & Australia are building their hulls locally. Australia is also using the US 5” gun & Mk41 VLS (SM3 & SM6 missiles), and an Australian phased array radar. 

[Seahawk]

12 hours ago, Paul E said:

The RN will still need the Type 31 Frigates because they are supposed to fulfil a different role to the Type 26. 

Wonder what that role is and whether in a future conflict the enemy will obligingly respect those differing roles and allow a navy with so few hulls to have the right type of frigate in the right place at the right time.  As far as I can see, the roles of the Type 31 are to be cheap and to float.  And I suspect the latter is negotiable. 

[Matthew Spence]

It seems the Type 31 is being designed as good enough for things that we currently need frigates for, small regional conflicts, shipping proection, anti terrorism etc. The Type 26 is good enough for hypothetical large scale future conflicts. Do you shell out for a limited number of 26s in preparation for such a conflict and limit your self in the now? Or do you get a larger number of 31s for now but leave your self vulnerable to actors with submarines? Hedging bets and having a mixture seems smart to me. Especially since even in a larger conflict having more hulls, (albeit some with limited capability) offers more flexibility. 

The other smart move with the 31 is that the last spec that I saw called for the ability to be adapted into a more capable ship (specifically active sonar array, and ship launched anti ship missiles and torpedos). Which means we don't pay for those capabilities now on the off chance that we need them later. But we can upgrade the ships if and when tensions with Russia (or others) get to a point where it is deemed necessary.

[PF Naughton]

Hi,

The whole Type 31 concept has really grown on me.  Although there size will obviously make them less capable than a vessel like the Type 26, as you note they seem to be well suited to a lot of basic roles that a navy vessel may need to do in peacetime as well as being able to support blockades, embargos, and a lot of other low naval-intensity conflict duties, while still retaining the ability to do some useful roles in a higher intensity full scale war setting too.

PF

[4scourge7]

I agree, there are policing roles that do not require a billion pound warship to fulfil. And I disagree with some who say that this is money down the drain. British warships built by British workers to fill both warfighting and humanitarian roles, and maybe gain export orders, is surely win-win all round, particularly if it enjoys export success among navies whose pockets don`t stretch to the Type 26.

And then there is the ongoing manpower and recruitment fiasco. But that`s another matter......

 

Cheers, Ian