Don't start that shyt again. Quote clearly says costs to provide GFA.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The transfer value of which being subject to MoD accounting policies... no need to say which (as I have stated the case ' a couple' of times).Aethulwulf wrote:wider programme costs to provide government furnished assets
Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I was commenting on how this part of the budget (Transfer values) are determined; not sure how the comment on my comment relates to that.Aethulwulf wrote:wider programme costs to provide government furnished assets
As the T31 contract is not in public domain, I took another one where the applicable stds/ procedures are quoted:
" All Assets that are transferred between the Authority and the Contractor in accordance with this Condition shall be subject to the provisions of DEFCON 611 (Edn 07/10) and DEFCON 694 (Edn 06/06), and to audit of the required Asset register by the Public Accounting Authority (DEFFORM 111, Box 8 refers).
At the start of the Enabling Contract an initial inventory of GFE is to be carried out by the Contractor in conjunction with the Authority. An Annual inspection will be undertaken and any losses, fair wear and tear excepted, shall be at the expense of the Contractor. Replacement articles are to be provided or cash payment to the equivalent value offered to the establishment suffering the loss."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Pedaling backwards leads to falling off yer bike.
We both know you were trying to drag in your ridiculous argument about MoD book value for existing equipment having to be taken out of the Type 31 budget. It was bollox and still is bollox.
We both know you were trying to drag in your ridiculous argument about MoD book value for existing equipment having to be taken out of the Type 31 budget. It was bollox and still is bollox.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
ArmChairCivvy wrote:the provisions of DEFCON 611 (Edn 07/10) and DEFCON 694 (Edn 06/06)
My argument (?? Have you read 611 and 694, and how there should be compliance with index-based revalutions?) is solely about GFE/ GFA valuesRon5 wrote:your ridiculous argument about MoD book value for existing equipment having to be taken out of the Type 31 budget
... once we agree on the principle, then we can start to discuss the impact/ interpretation effect on the figures being bandied around the T31 prgrm
It is not that we have to agree: the accounting policies have been published (call NAO and ask). I am not defending them: If you happen to have single-use military equipment, why on earth would you revalue their values up... because if they are cheap (historic cost minus depreciation) then that would be an incentive to reuse them
- is it perhaps for the cases when their likely transfer is to outside parties (i.e. those not funded by UK tax payers)? Not to be a complete gift, but somehow equate, for our Forces, the question whether to keep them, or buy new (something else)
- don't ask me . Just read the accounting policies and DEFCONS...
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
when I first tried to get my head around Mr Browns new accounting polices my headaches crippled me. I came to the conclusion was the M.O.D. paid from the procurement budget while the operational budget paid back the deprecation moneys. So you have to be an accountant to make head or tail of the double accounting. It also explains the taxpayer paying double cost as quoted by the BBC for the carrier. Its like having your car purchasing it. Then paying the yearly deprecation as tax. The car having a life of ex years therefore its book value. Effectively this what the cost of G.F.E. transferred to the type 31 procurement costs. Unless it a pooled asset.ArmChairCivvy wrote:- don't ask me . Just read the accounting policies and DEFCONS...
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I fully understand what you are saying guys but it's bollox sorry b-o-l-l-o-c-k-s.
Transfer of imaginary money from one MoD program (type 23?) to another will not be counted against the Type 31's program budget of 1.98 billion of real money.
It would however be counted against the book value of the Type 31's when they enter into service.
Repeat after me:
Book value = imaginary money.
Program budgets = real money.
Can't mix them.
In type 31 terms: the cost of removing, refurbishing, reinstalling, & retesting old kit is real money and that will come out of the Type 31 program budget. The residual value of the item will not because that is imaginary money.
By the way, single use military equipment means ammunition/missiles/decoys. You get to use it once then it's gone.
Not arguing anymore, I've done it enough to be tired of the whole question.
Transfer of imaginary money from one MoD program (type 23?) to another will not be counted against the Type 31's program budget of 1.98 billion of real money.
It would however be counted against the book value of the Type 31's when they enter into service.
Repeat after me:
Book value = imaginary money.
Program budgets = real money.
Can't mix them.
In type 31 terms: the cost of removing, refurbishing, reinstalling, & retesting old kit is real money and that will come out of the Type 31 program budget. The residual value of the item will not because that is imaginary money.
By the way, single use military equipment means ammunition/missiles/decoys. You get to use it once then it's gone.
Not arguing anymore, I've done it enough to be tired of the whole question.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
We've been over this before: that is not what it means. It means that there is no dual civil/ warfighting use.Ron5 wrote:By the way, single use military equipment means ammunition/missiles/decoys. You get to use it once then it's gone.
However, as there does not seem to be any keenness to read how the guidelines for these things read, I will copy-paste it:
[MoD, DE&S included, project managers] validate with their contractors their GFE holdings. Valuation 8. Where possible prices are obtained from the Integrated Stock Ownership and Pricing System (ISOPS) and a consolidated Pricing table is created. This Pricing table is then run against the main DB to update the prices. Where necessary the prices are adjusted for inflation by DE&S Fin FA IAET, based on uplift factors supplied by Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA).
- there is no need to argue whether historic costs are revalued or not
- it is there (above) in black and white. Mr Brown came and went. IFRS came and is still with us (in the MoD, like any other gvmnt dept), just that MoD's 'special cases' that are many need their own guidelines... which are in place; believe it or not - Free choice
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Forgive me I am new to this debate, but how does the above prove what you are saying?ArmChairCivvy wrote:We've been over this before: that is not what it means. It means that there is no dual civil/ warfighting use.Ron5 wrote:By the way, single use military equipment means ammunition/missiles/decoys. You get to use it once then it's gone.
However, as there does not seem to be any keenness to read how the guidelines for these things read, I will copy-paste it:
[MoD, DE&S included, project managers] validate with their contractors their GFE holdings. Valuation 8. Where possible prices are obtained from the Integrated Stock Ownership and Pricing System (ISOPS) and a consolidated Pricing table is created. This Pricing table is then run against the main DB to update the prices. Where necessary the prices are adjusted for inflation by DE&S Fin FA IAET, based on uplift factors supplied by Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA).
- there is no need to argue whether historic costs are revalued or not
- it is there (above) in black and white. Mr Brown came and went. IFRS came and is still with us (in the MoD, like any other gvmnt dept), just that MoD's 'special cases' that are many need their own guidelines... which are in place; believe it or not - Free choice
Please explain.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
As you are new to the long running dispute about how the value of GFA/ GFE items is set and (over time?) revised, I have over the years provided plenty of references to the relevant docs/ policies, just to be shouted down... without any such evidence to the contraryValuation 8. Where possible prices are obtained from the Integrated Stock Ownership and Pricing System (ISOPS) and a consolidated Pricing table is created. This Pricing table is then run against the main DB to update the prices. Where necessary the prices are adjusted for inflation by DE&S Fin FA IAET, based on uplift factors supplied by Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA).
- there is no need to argue whether historic costs are revalued or not
- this is a yes/ no question, and there is a right answer
- deflecting the discussion to how contract values relate to budgets, once items that have been contracted for have been accepted into service is very welcome (also more relevant!)
.. but let's get the basics right first, for that wider discussion
Especially as this has never been my argument (but rather: how such GFA/GFE values might play into the wider decision making process):REF
Editor's note: Ron5 has nailed his colours (over many years, and many discussions) to there NOT being any form of indexed revaluations of equipment that might be transferred to contractors, or brought out of storage, for the same purpose)Ron5 wrote:Pedaling backwards leads to falling off yer bike.
We both know you were trying to drag in your ridiculous argument about MoD book value for existing equipment having to be taken out of the Type 31 budget
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
No need to put dumb words into my mouth, I can do that very well on my own.
Anyhoo, back to the thread. Here's two slides from Babcock's half yearly financial report:
Anyhoo, back to the thread. Here's two slides from Babcock's half yearly financial report:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Thanks Ron, published on Nov 20, which probably explains the timing of order announcement five days previously.Ron5 wrote:Anyhoo, back to the thread. Here's two slides from Babcock's half yearly financial report:
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Just asking for a quick guestimation, how much do those with a learned eye estimate this version of A140 + Systems would cost?
Cheers
Cheers
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
No claim to learned eye, apples to oranges comparison to the new Spanish F110 ASW frigate following the announcement in the last few days the Spanish Government is set to sign for a maximum of 1,638 million euros for the development programme of the F110 over 7 years (from 2019 to 2025), total F110 budget 4,317 million euros for the five frigates. IF figures accurate, a big assumption as no breakdown, build cost approx £460 million each.
Compared to Arrowhead 140 as in graphic the F110 is an ASW frigate fully fitted out, no FFBNW, a new design H,M&E with quiet HED propulsion, new radar and CMS. F110 looks similar to earlier T26 design variant of new gen T23 before increased in size for large amphib/mission bay and large Chinook flight deck etc., 145m; 6,100t; ASW (CAPTAS 4 & HMS plus LWT tubes for Mk54s); AAW (16x Mk41s with SM-2s & ESSMs); CIWS (Meroka 12 barrelled 20 mm)?; AShM Deck Launchers (Harpoon); NGFS (127 mm main gun); helo; mission bay etc. Points of note is the new gen Indra S-band four panel AESA GaN radar, new Navantia CMS and the electric motors 3.4 MW, exactly the same rating as the new T26 GE Power Conversion fourth gen advanced induction motors, co-incidence or same motor?
Both ships approx same displacement, Spanish vessel is a full fat quiet ASW frigate which costs as does the four panel radar and would assume the more sophisticated CMS, CAPTAS 4 etc , don't expect the noisy diesel A140 would fit top of the range CAPTAS 4. Would have thought cost of A140 frigate as in graphic would be substantially lower than the £460 million F110, nearer to cost of the £250 million T31 OPV, maybe £300+ million, your thoughts.
You could compare costs to the new French FDI/FTI but as far as know development costs haven't been broken out from the build costs.
Compared to Arrowhead 140 as in graphic the F110 is an ASW frigate fully fitted out, no FFBNW, a new design H,M&E with quiet HED propulsion, new radar and CMS. F110 looks similar to earlier T26 design variant of new gen T23 before increased in size for large amphib/mission bay and large Chinook flight deck etc., 145m; 6,100t; ASW (CAPTAS 4 & HMS plus LWT tubes for Mk54s); AAW (16x Mk41s with SM-2s & ESSMs); CIWS (Meroka 12 barrelled 20 mm)?; AShM Deck Launchers (Harpoon); NGFS (127 mm main gun); helo; mission bay etc. Points of note is the new gen Indra S-band four panel AESA GaN radar, new Navantia CMS and the electric motors 3.4 MW, exactly the same rating as the new T26 GE Power Conversion fourth gen advanced induction motors, co-incidence or same motor?
Both ships approx same displacement, Spanish vessel is a full fat quiet ASW frigate which costs as does the four panel radar and would assume the more sophisticated CMS, CAPTAS 4 etc , don't expect the noisy diesel A140 would fit top of the range CAPTAS 4. Would have thought cost of A140 frigate as in graphic would be substantially lower than the £460 million F110, nearer to cost of the £250 million T31 OPV, maybe £300+ million, your thoughts.
You could compare costs to the new French FDI/FTI but as far as know development costs haven't been broken out from the build costs.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Hmmm, they don't need the Global Cruiser, do theyNickC wrote:F110 looks similar to earlier T26 design variant of new gen T23 before increased in size for large amphib/mission bay and large Chinook flight deck etc., 145m
- do we?
- I think we do. Esp. as the next batches can be optimised to be "leaning into" different roles. Not saying "AAW"... as that will come later, but: possibly before the 8th unit
Err, onto the right thread... plenty quick!
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I suppose it would be too naive to think that more details will emerge on the Type 31 contract now that the election is over.
By the way, many congratulations for getting the correct answer.
By the way, many congratulations for getting the correct answer.
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Yeah well, this is a bit dull, but it's news of sorts
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... intenance/
Going forward, iFrigate is set to become an integral part of the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate programme, as Babcock plans to embed the system into its winning design for the ship. By building data analytics and smart maintenance into future ship designs on a fundamental level, the iSupport360 platform aims to create a step-change in how navies look at their vessels.
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... intenance/
Going forward, iFrigate is set to become an integral part of the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate programme, as Babcock plans to embed the system into its winning design for the ship. By building data analytics and smart maintenance into future ship designs on a fundamental level, the iSupport360 platform aims to create a step-change in how navies look at their vessels.
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I actually found the article very interesting, and the system would appear to be extremely valuable for the reasons given.RichardIC wrote:Yeah well, this is a bit dull, but it's news of sorts
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... intenance/
Going forward, iFrigate is set to become an integral part of the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate programme, as Babcock plans to embed the system into its winning design for the ship. By building data analytics and smart maintenance into future ship designs on a fundamental level, the iSupport360 platform aims to create a step-change in how navies look at their vessels.
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
RichardIC wrote:Yeah well, this is a bit dull, but it's news of sorts
https://www.naval-technology.com/featur ... intenance/
Going forward, iFrigate is set to become an integral part of the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate programme, as Babcock plans to embed the system into its winning design for the ship. By building data analytics and smart maintenance into future ship designs on a fundamental level, the iSupport360 platform aims to create a step-change in how navies look at their vessels.
Assuming similar to concept to commercial shipping which is moving to the next stage with Predictive Maintenance with sensors built into the equipment to give real time condition at component level, eg to monitor noise/vibration. The idea is to detect the early symptoms of an impending breakdown and prevent it, by doing the right maintenance on exactly the right component at exactly the right time. You don’t waste money on unnecessary preventive replacement/maintenance even though based on statistical analysis/prediction or letting the equipment break and then trying to fix it.
Commercial ships life usually averages just over 20 years, some shorter before going to ship breakers yards, not like some navy ships of 30 years plus, eg T23, commercial shipping companies find it more economical to operate newer ships with the latest kit giving them lower operating and maintenance costs (O&M for navy ships can be three times the build cost). New commercial ships now using new gen tech with AI/software capability built in rather than RN policy which fund expensive long re-build/upgrades and that cannot take full advantage of the new tech.
-
- Member
- Posts: 217
- Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Now that we seem to be going to spend 400m per frigate , is the type31 now our future frigate in further batches ?
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I hope not in the sense that I hope we don’t stop improving and evolving the T26 design as it has far more to offer in the tier one bracket but the T31 could evolved in to a good tier 2.PAUL MARSAY wrote:Now that we seem to be going to spend 400m per frigate , is the type31 now our future frigate in further batches ?
I just hope not at the expense of the T26, were already ordering the least and most poorly armed.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
It is or rather was, respectfully NOT “the most poorly armed” T26.
If changes were to be made now, to the original T26 spec. ..... The result would be increased cost (not just the extra weapons cost), additional delays and possibly leading to fewer T26 still.
If there is a possibility of increasing the armament with the second batch of vessels (and hopefully there will also be a batch 3) and because any redesign work has had time to be effected to avoid further delay, then by all means up-arm them. Far more important though, to get them built, commissioned and operational.
If changes were to be made now, to the original T26 spec. ..... The result would be increased cost (not just the extra weapons cost), additional delays and possibly leading to fewer T26 still.
If there is a possibility of increasing the armament with the second batch of vessels (and hopefully there will also be a batch 3) and because any redesign work has had time to be effected to avoid further delay, then by all means up-arm them. Far more important though, to get them built, commissioned and operational.
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Less likely I would have thought. Nobody likes cost overruns.PAUL MARSAY wrote:Now that we seem to be going to spend 400m per frigate , is the type31 now our future frigate in further batches ?
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
With both the T-26 and T-31 we need the hulls in the water before we start thinking of upgrades. I would love to see the remaining T-26 built to an improved design, leveraging some of the ideas that have come out of the Australian and Canadian competitions but not at the cost in numbers. The Navy has got its two carriers and will have fourteen tier 1 escorts. It needs to keep its head down now and concentrate on keeping what it has both in service and in the pipeline, but it should consider giving up at least a couple of the GP T-23s to earn a few Brownie Points come the next SDSR.