UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

What will be the result of the 'Lighter Frigate' programme?

Programme cancelled, RN down to 14 escorts
51
11%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
13
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
117
26%
An LCS-like modular ship
20
4%
A modernised Type 23
21
5%
A Type 26-lite
65
14%
Less than 5 hulls
21
5%
5 hulls
61
13%
More than 5 hulls
88
19%
 
Total votes: 457

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5670
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 13 Mar 2019, 15:13

Caribbean wrote: that even being considered for an RN design, raises the international profile and awareness of said design considerably.

This is delusional Britishness at it's best. Shake the white ensign and the Admirals of the world will come running! :crazy:
@LandSharkUK

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 13 Mar 2019, 17:01

Poiuytrewq wrote:Are we now able to conclude with any certainty that Babcock has not purchased the Iver Huitfeldt IP after all?

Does this confirm that Babcock are, as many suspected simply building a Foreign design under licence?

It is possible, but there are so many forms that a deal between Team 31 and OMT could take that they could have anything between a basic "building a Foreign design under licence" type deal, all the way up to Babcocks actually owning the IP, with OMT paying a license fee to Babcocks! Personally, I suspect (and this is just a personal opinion) that the most likely arrangement is somewhere in between, with both parties having the right initiate and close sales, with agreed work-sharing/ fee payment between them.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1098
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Mar 2019, 17:10

Could the IP be under Team 31 rather an OMT or Babcock and there for a possible sale for this team

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 13 Mar 2019, 17:28

shark bait wrote:This is delusional Britishness at it's best. Shake the white ensign and the Admirals of the world will come running!

Don't travel much, do you (and I don't include a few weeks in wherever on holiday as travelling - that's just visiting and staying in the tourist bubble)? Having spent a fairly major part of my life living (as in years at a time) in the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean and the USA, I can say with some certainty that, love us or loath us, other countries certainly take notice of what the UK and it's institutions do. Not always in a positive way, I grant you, but they take notice.

There again, I suppose that, after years of trying to sell the design, with no interest beyond "OK, thanks for the info", it's purely co-incidental that OMT have finally got their first nibble after the RN takes a look at the design.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 815
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Aethulwulf » 13 Mar 2019, 23:12

Nice overview from Naval News of Tacticos CMS (which is part of the Team 31 bid).

https://youtu.be/H7la0frBOfE

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1039
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Pseudo » 13 Mar 2019, 23:13

Caribbean wrote:There again, I suppose that, after years of trying to sell the design, with no interest beyond "OK, thanks for the info", it's purely co-incidental that OMT have finally got their first nibble after the RN takes a look at the design.

You could equally assume that after the flaws in Navantia's F100 designs were made apparent by the loss of HNoMS Helge Ingstad countries are looking for affordable alternatives.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2948
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 Mar 2019, 00:08

Poiuytrewq wrote:Are we now able to conclude with any certainty that Babcock has not purchased the Iver Huitfeldt IP after all?

Does this confirm that Babcock are, as many suspected simply building a Foreign design under licence?
We cannot conclude now. What is clear is, at now still IP is owned by OMT. UK only paid a very little amount of money to Babcock, so this is not surprising.

I guess, if any license transfer take place, it shall surely be at/after the MOD contract for 1.25B GBP signed.

But anyway, I personally think it is highly possible that, Babcock is just building foreign design in UK. Babcock may get "permission" to bid it for export, but still OMT will retain all rights. I understand similar agreements were there for, RAN Collins class submarine (Swedish design), and Babcock's Vard-7 80m/90m OPV designs (was Canadian (and now is Italian?) owned design). These agreement do not omit the original license holder to bid by themselves.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1098
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 14 Mar 2019, 18:25

Given that we don't know who has the IP for A140 if we say that the IP is under Team 31 could a export order of any type in the run up to the Type 31 contract have any bearing or not

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3480
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 14 Mar 2019, 20:25

Tempest414 wrote:Given that we don't know who has the IP for A140 if we say that the IP is under Team 31 could a export order of any type in the run up to the Type 31 contract have any bearing or not


Seems rather improbable that anyone one buy a Type 31 (of any species) before the RN does.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3480
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 14 Mar 2019, 20:28

RichardIC wrote:And some sort-of T31 related news.

Indonesia leans towards Iver Huitfeldt class for frigate acquisition

Image

https://www.janes.com/article/87175/indonesia-leans-towards-iver-huitfeldt-class-for-frigate-acquisition


Seems a tad bit sad that Indonesia has a higher budget (per ship) than the UK does.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2948
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 14 Mar 2019, 22:12

1: Danish and Indonesian deal date back to, at least May 2017. They are front-runner than Babcock.


2:
Ron5 wrote:Seems a tad bit sad that Indonesia has a higher budget (per ship) than the UK does.
Not sure. 720M USD is 543M GBP, 271M GBP per hull. Yes it is slightly higher then UK 250M GBP per hull. But,
- it is for 2 hulls vs 5 hulls. Detailed-design and initial cost can easily reverse it. (no)
- as "what is included" differs a lot, direct comparison is not easy. In many case, UK budget looks like including more, and hence price looks higher, which leads to, yes "Indonesian IH class will be better invested than UK Arrowhead 140". (yes)

So, in conclusion, I agree to Ron5-san. :D

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1098
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Mar 2019, 09:33

donald_of_tokyo wrote:which leads to, yes "Indonesian IH class will be better invested than UK Arrowhead 140". (yes)


However it should also be said that the Indonesian IH will be there tier 1 ship where A140 will be the UK tier 2 ship this is not to say the UK should not be spending more on T-31

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Mar 2019, 16:01



Can't see TACTICOS taking over from BAE CMS-1 any time soon, is it even likley that the T31's would get it if Arrowhead 140 wins? Seems unlikley at this stage.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 22 Mar 2019, 16:03

Poiuytrewq, agree - it would need a really compelling argument to cover the increase in training and maintenance/ support, none of which will be supportable under the T31 budget.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Jake1992 » 22 Mar 2019, 16:07

Poiuytrewq wrote:https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1109041728995147776?s=20

Can't see TACTICOS taking over from BAE CMS-1 any time soon, is it even likley that the T31's would get it if Arrowhead 140 wins? Seems unlikley at this stage.


Surely if arrowhead 140 is chosen it’ll be on the condition that BAE CMS-1 is used, I can’t it being any other CMS no matter the design chosen.

I was under the impression that the whole point of BEA CMS-1 is that the whole fleet in the end from OPV to QEs will have the same system.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Mar 2019, 16:20

Repulse wrote:it would need a really compelling argument to cover the increase in training and maintenance/ support, none of which will be supportable under the T31 budget.
Could it be more of an export angle that THALES is pushing? For future Arrowhead orders even if the vessels end up being constructed abroad?

If Leander is selected BAE can claim to have a British owned vessel design with a British Combat Management System. At present Babcock/Thales has a foreign owned vessel design with a foreign Combat Management System, it's a negative for an otherwise attractive bid.

Is this new centre of excellence an attempt to level the playing field?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 22 Mar 2019, 16:24

Jake1992 wrote:Surely if arrowhead 140 is chosen it’ll be on the condition that BAE CMS-1 is used, I can’t it being any other CMS no matter the design chosen.

I was under the impression that the whole point of BEA CMS-1 is that the whole fleet in the end from OPV to QEs will have the same system.
I think it's highly unlikely but maybe Thales is looking at the long game. If so it could be a very very long game....

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Jensy » 22 Mar 2019, 23:33

Poiuytrewq wrote: Thales is looking at the long game. If so it could be a very very long game....


It's not just the CMS they're pushing. The only radar options mentioned so far for A140 are all fresh from the Thales catalogue.

On balance, I would think Artisan is more important to retain as we have already paid for the sets, and buying an entirely new mid-market radar seems very wasteful.

Admittedly this is not an area I know much about: but having some of our escort ships operating a different CMS must surely improve redundancy in these days of cyber shenanigans?

Jensy

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2948
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 23 Mar 2019, 09:42

Poiuytrewq wrote:https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1109041728995147776?s=20

Can't see TACTICOS taking over from BAE CMS-1 any time soon, is it even likley that the T31's would get it if Arrowhead 140 wins? Seems unlikley at this stage.
Why not? T31e RFI did not require CMS-1. Looking the Arrowhead 140 page, they are still with TACTICOS, which means even now (one year after RFI), still CMS-1 is not mandatory. Also, T31e RFI did state the cost of introducing "something new" to RN (clearly written in the excel file), so the cost of introducing TACTICOS is evaluated there. Even so, Babcock team is still pushing TACTICOS. At least, the team thinks introducing TACTICOS to RN is competitive enough, compared to introducing CMS-1 into Arrowhead 140.

chinook88
Member
Posts: 45
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Location: Chile

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby chinook88 » 23 Mar 2019, 16:04

The Type 31e frigate candidates compared
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-ty ... -compared/

Image
-
P.S. Is it possible that the CMS of T31-export may be different from that of the RN?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 23 Mar 2019, 16:35

Clearly the cheapest and most realistic will be the Leander - all the others are stating numbers that are cloud cuckoo land for £250mn. If there is more money, then buy more T26s, the cost of operating multiple classes / systems will outweigh any benefits.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 23 Mar 2019, 16:41

Is enough known about the Atlas bid to even try a comparison with the Arrowhead 140 and Leander?

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 214
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Pongoglo » 24 Mar 2019, 12:07

Repulse wrote:Clearly the cheapest and most realistic will be the Leander - all the others are stating numbers that are cloud cuckoo land for £250mn. If there is more money, then buy more T26s, the cost of operating multiple classes / systems will outweigh any benefits.


Cloud cuckoo land - surely we have heard this here before? Do we really believe a company with the success profile of Babcock and backed up by BMT wont have done the maths ?

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1632
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 24 Mar 2019, 12:36

Pongoglo wrote:
Repulse wrote:Clearly the cheapest and most realistic will be the Leander - all the others are stating numbers that are cloud cuckoo land for £250mn. If there is more money, then buy more T26s, the cost of operating multiple classes / systems will outweigh any benefits.


Cloud cuckoo land - surely we have heard this here before? Do we really believe a company with the success profile of Babcock and backed up by BMT wont have done the maths ?


No, but what they are stating (or this comparison is showing) is the potential of each design, not what £250mn buys. Buying a £400-500mn design and cutting it back to a £250mn budget is a bad way to go about things, better to design something that fits the budget.

If said budget was increase to say £400-500mn per Hull my position would be to buy more T26s as the hidden training/support costs would negate any benefits over 20-30 years.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1433
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 24 Mar 2019, 13:12

Also, for those that persist with the "glorified OPV" label - please bear in mind that one of the designs is a current NATO partner's Tier 1 frigate design, that has been fully shock-tested, meets current NATO noise standards for ASW warfare, design and survivabiliy and is RN FOST-approved (for the same design standards). Also consider that the same Nato partner's related logistic derivative of the same design is currently deployed with one of the NATO standing groups (SNMG1) and their Tier 2 "frigate" is operating in MCM "command ship" mode to SNMCMG1.
Another of the designs is in service with two Five-eyes allies. three NATO partners and two other allied Navies, for most of them as their Tier 1 (or only) class of frigate.
The third is a new design, but built to ANEP warship standards (the MOD is a founder member of that standards organisation, so we had a big say in agreeing those standard). It's unproven, but BAE is a very capable ship-builder and designer, when it chooses to be. It has, however contributed to the perception that naval construction costs are much higher than they need to be.

Repulse wrote:Buying a £400-500mn design and cutting it back to a £250mn budget is a bad way to go about things,

And yet, so many propose that that is exactly what we do with the T26 design (only in that case it's a £750-850m design that we would have to cut back to £250m)
And I notice that you haven't answered the point that the companies proposing these designs don't feel that it's an issue. They went into this process knowing the cost parameters (and the actual build costs) and felt that they could not only take part, but make a profit.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sea_eagle and 21 guests