Germans new Frigate

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by WhizzbangDai, Jun 12, 2009.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


    Same size as the T45 - only thing that strikes me, is why is it (around) £500m each as opposed to the £1bn each T45 costs? Especially as it seems quite the capable vessel. Wonder if the FCS will look anything like it?
  2. Probably because they haven't amortised the development of an AAW system across six platforms........that and the boxheads knowing how to build half-decent ships.....
  3. Unless I'm misreading the spec - she doesn't seem to have any area air defence weapons. I don't think you can compare the two vessels.
  4. It wasn't a direct comperison, but their both about the same size, power, and (apart from area air defence) capability - I just don't see how ASTER and it's systems can account for the extra £500m of the cost.
  5. tiddlyoggy

    tiddlyoggy War Hero Book Reviewer

    No they're not. At 145m this is slightly smaller than a T22, therefore I would say it's quite a bit smaller than a T45.
  6. Can we still use them as targets?
  7. tiddlyoggy

    tiddlyoggy War Hero Book Reviewer

    What, Germans or T22's? :wink:
  8. Germans of course,sorry just remembered we're friends now.Bother! :lol:
  9. Even introducing a couple of extra systems in addition to a basic spec (i.e. roughly when comparing the F125 with our T45's) can cost a fortune in terms of software/hardware, manufacturing/materials and especially when you consider the qualities a new design requires, could see each of these individual items being produced in brand-new ways/methods. The cost of R&D and revision alone can (and usually does) outweigh the cost of labour and materials development , e.g. Analysis, requirements elicitation, specification, design, [development] & testing just for software.

    For examples, look towards the end of the scale of the ridiculous: The Nimrod AEW3 system was plagued by cost-overruns leading eventually to the cancellation of the project in '86 having wasted an utter fortune. Initially had we accepted the US radar system rather than spend excessively to develop from scratch, this would most likely have been avoided. Although comparatively we seem to have excelled with development of the T45's in all respects.

    If the germanians have developed their new frig from tried and tested designs with modest variations and have not went overboard with new systems, instead incorporating current systems on a new platform, then they will no doubt save a considerable percentage.

    I agree though that it does seem excessive when given the basis for comparison. I can only assume that some in-depth reading of the tech spreads for each would reveal a lot more than speculation on their basic capabilities/visible systems..

    Could also be something to do with the fact that Officer decks are gold-plated in the T45's though.. 8O

    EDITED for being a spack.
  10. On another point, you have to admit the evolution of the F125 looks very similar to the T45.. Similarly, the planned USS Gerald Ford (CVN 78) looks remarkably like the CVF carriers, omitting a slight deck shape and spare tower :wink:

    And they say imitation is the best form of flattery :lol:

    Of course, this is just the way future ships evolve based on operational needs.. Aye right! :roll:
  11. Thanks - well, in that case, for our FSC, would it not make sense to go with current systems weapons etc, as opposed to developing new ones....? Or, better yet, just use the T45 platform with a different weapons fit?
  12. That would make great sense, but then BAE wouldn't be able to swindle the MOD out of billions for shite that's only half as good as what's available off the shelf.
  13. Weapons systems become obsolete fairly quickly. If the platform can't perform its role because its systems are too old then we might as well not have any systems on her. Obviously the T23s do still contain some state of the art systems, and we might even see some of these used on FSC, but we still need to be always looking to the future.

    I believe this is being considered and is (or amongst) the front runner(s) because we don't have any bloody money left to try out anything else.
  14. I have no idea how they decide on what capabilities are necessary for a modern frigate.. If cost takes the front, then the best option is new ships, 'old' weapons so to save money. If taking centre-stage as the ultimate in a fighting ship is the predominate goal, then I assume more money will be spent on new ship-to-ship weapons/comms systems and improved defence/attack capability based on the most modern weaponry available and of course the specification for the ship (whether it is leaning more towards amphibous ops/support or ship-to-ship/land fighting). There may be, for example, a necessity for new frigates to integrate seamlessly, sharing data and battle statistics with new ships such as the T45's in order to gain a much desireable advantage overall in communications.. Plenty of room for conjecture, though I personally would like to see a frigate that could take the fore and be deemed as novel and able as the T45.

    Should bloody hope so too, considering they've axed two of the T45's to make up the budget for the new frigates.

    So then, will the amount of destroyers and new frigates and the two CVF carriers (assuming each survives the budget bumming) be enough to truly deem the surface fleet a 'modern fleet'?

    EDIT: Sorry, to answer the "Re-use design of T45 for frigate" point I'd have to agree, unless there are marked necessities such as e.g. a denser ship (considering it could be directly in the firing line), inter-cont missile capability, a much larger heli capability etc, etc. In this instance I would assume then that the new frigates could well end up as chunky as the T125, even perhaps with the notable launch ports for skimmers and more than likely slower than the destroyers, save introducing more power where I’d imagine it critical to the abilities of a modern battleship, blah blah Time will tell and I’m eager to see preliminary designs
  15. FSC is currently shrinking in an attempt to make it fit into 6 dock in Guzz and is now considerably smaller than T45. As FSC is supposed to be the sub-hunter, you'd also have to do somthing signature-wise beyond T45, which ain't that easy. Also, elements of the complicated bits on the Great White Turbine may or may not be subject to some long-term supportability issues (allegedly) and building more is not entirely high on RR priorities.

    Last but not least, Scotstoun quoted substantially north of £100M four years ago to do anything to the T45. Some of the pollies and many in the Treasury would love it if a 45-mod could be made to work and it is one of the options for the IA submission, but practicalities militate against it.
  16. Link 22 ;)

    There are still very few fleets in the world (USA, France, Britain) who could pull off something like Op TAURUS without major assistance. (Although we had accompanying foreign ships, we could have supplied our own in an emergency). Even with the reduced overall size we'll still be quite a large player.

    My major worry is about the postponement of (at least part of) the MARS program. It is our RAS capability that maintains us as a blue water navy and without it we'd be sh1t.
  17. 1. Bobbins. Ships 7 & 8 were always vulnerable because AIUI only part of the ships (the platform element I think) had been included as an option in the contract with BAE Marine. The weapons systems would have been either GFI or an addition to the contract - either way extra bunce that in these times just wasn't there. The "saving" did not go to "FSC", it went over the maritime EP line as a whole, so could equally have serviced the Astute, CVF, JCA, V-LOP, or more likely just removed a peak in expenditure between 2012-14. Given FSC projected ISD, the years of peak spend are right of 2020.
    2. Pedant mode on - there are T45s and D32 HMS Daring, D45 is a new one on me.. Mode off
  18. Don't know about 'Large' Player. 'Capable' more like but as we get lose more and more ships we lose the hull's to cope with global committments. I mean, taking into account leave, re fits and various things, how many of the T45's would be available at any given time compared to the total number of T42's? More hulls = more places covered, despite the massive drop in capability.

    Or am I talking rubbish? (always ready to learn)
  19. Got the info regarding ship cancellation from this:

    "The Future Surface Combatant is a Royal Navy programme to replace Britain's Type 23 frigates and a variety of smaller escort/patrol ships. The FSC concept has proceeded in fits and starts since the late 1990s, but it has been brought forward in the 2008 budget, at the expense of two Type 45 destroyers being cancelled."

    Duly noted in all respects, however. Shall amend the post, I always always end up putting D45 instead of T45 :?
  20. You're not talking rubbish, although the spin doctors in MB would of course have everyone believe that "more capable ships" = need fewer of them. this is of course utter b0ll0cks and ultimately leads to the notion that some sort of one-off "Death Star" type of ship (of which we could only afford one) would be just what's needed. Particularly as you'd only need to pay for one crew as opposed to several and as all are told ad nauseum "manpower costs are the biggest driver in Through Life Costs", ergo any way of reducing overall number of matelots is "a good thing".

    Common sense is not something that MB scrutineers are usually blessed with.........

Share This Page