Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Gabriele]

From the letter of nomination of rear admiral Chris Gardner as senior responsible owner of the Type 31e programme:

Competitive design phase contracts by 30 June 2018
Main Gate by 31 march 2019
Design and build contract by 30 June 2019

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SROT31.pdf

[donald_of_tokyo]

Gabriele-san

Sorry can you correct the link? Very interested in, but look like doesn't work... Sorry..

[EDIT] I got it from your post in the Fantasy thread..

Thanks
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SROT31.pdf

[Ron5]

From the letter of nomination of rear admiral Chris Gardner as senior responsible owner of the Type 31e programme:

Competitive design phase contracts by 30 June 2019
Main Gate by 31 march 2019
Design and build contract by 30 June 2019

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... SROT31.pdf

Slipped 12 months already. Or are the dates a typo?

[NickC]

"Babcock announces industry team for Type 31 frigate bid"

Babcock and Thales have joined forces with BMT, Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine to form ‘Team 31’.

Babcock will lead program and Thales will have responsibility for the development of the mission system solution.

Ferguson Marine on the Clyde, Harland & Wolff in Belfast and the Babcock facilities in Fife and Devon will all have key roles to play, while much of the equipment provided by Thales

https://navaltoday.com/2018/01/08/babco ... igate-bid/

[shark bait]

Scoring some big political points, its theirs to loose now.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Scoring some big political points

Do you just mean spreading the work to so many (diverse) locations?

[shark bait]

Yes, playing the same game as LM; engineer the project to get as many MP with a vested interest as possible, and that will defeat a technically superior proposal.

[Tempest414]

By team up with BMT it will be intresting to see which design they go for the Arrowhead 120 or Venator 110-20 on paper I prefer the Arrowhead 120

[dmereifield]

Including build work at both Scottish and NI sites is very strategic. Allows HMG to still argue work going to Scotland and thus mitigating (along with the 5 OPVs) the bad PR of breaking the promise to build 13 ships in Scotland and work going to Belfast will certainly please the DUP. If BAE and CL are serious about winning the contract they need to include some work in Scotland....

[donald_of_tokyo]

Too many members to join, it means HMG is to support not 2, but 4-5 ship builders using the T31e program. All overheads, all inefficiencies, all must be payed by reducing the capability of T31e. I feel very negative here.

1: On the other hand, if this means, Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine will be merged with Babcock, become a "British Shipbuilder Alliance (BSA) " to fight with "BAES", I think it is reasonable.

2: The other way for such a "3 ship-builder alliance" to be competitive, is only when ALL the ship builders are "strong" in stand-alone. In other words, has many "other" incomes and just think T31e as "one of the many incomes". In this case, T31e shall be more a "civilian ship standard", so that the workers can build other ships along with T31e. As I understand, they are not that strong, so there is no hope here.

In this point of view, BEAS + CL team is much stronger. Some parts shall be built in Clyde, to say "at least partly Scottish", and all the other works are focused on CL. If CL is BAD, BAES can simply do it.

Sorry being negative, but I think "supporting industry" does need money. Even in Japan (investing more on ship building, because we do not have nuclear weapons), we have only 2 escort builders and 2 SSK builders. Actually, 1+1 is the same, so there is only 3 builders in Japan.

[marktigger]

I would agree with that Donald however then its easier for a future government to merge it all into BAe like Blair/Brown did.

[shark bait]

None of it makes good sense, its all politics, that's what politicians want.

[Poiuytrewq]

I am surprised at the negativity here. This looks to me to be a well balanced consortium with the clout to start to dismantle the BAE monopoly which has certainly not been good for the Royal Navy in recent years. I agree that the geographical locations of these yards are politically advantageous but is that a negative? The only reason so much of the recent ship building has taken place on the Clyde is purely political as we all know so any rival bid would be mad not to take this into account.

[Aethulwulf]

Too many members to join, it means HMG is to support not 2, but 4-5 ship builders using the T31e program. All overheads, all inefficiencies, all must be payed by reducing the capability of T31e. I feel very negative here.

1: On the other hand, if this means, Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine will be merged with Babcock, become a "British Shipbuilder Alliance (BSA) " to fight with "BAES", I think it is reasonable.

2: The other way for such a "3 ship-builder alliance" to be competitive, is only when ALL the ship builders are "strong" in stand-alone. In other words, has many "other" incomes and just think T31e as "one of the many incomes". In this case, T31e shall be more a "civilian ship standard", so that the workers can build other ships along with T31e. As I understand, they are not that strong, so there is no hope here.

In this point of view, BEAS + CL team is much stronger. Some parts shall be built in Clyde, to say "at least partly Scottish", and all the other works are focused on CL. If CL is BAD, BAES can simply do it.

A few corrections:

1. Of the various shipyards, only BAE Clyde is 100% reliant on MoD work. CL, A&P, Babcock, Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine all undertake work for other clients to a greater or lesser degree. Outside of BAEs yards, most also undertake some ship refit work. Ship refit (commercial and military) is more plentiful, reliable and potentially profitable than ship construction.

2. Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine businesses are currently run as fully 'stand-alone' with zero funding from MOD. They already have "other" incomes and will just think T31e as "one of the many incomes". Babcock, CL and A&P undertake a lot of refit work for the RN, and were/are also involved in the construction of the carriers.

3. For the CL + BAEs team, no construction work will be undertaken at Clyde; nor could it even if CL is 'bad'. There is no capacity for construction at BAEs Clyde sites until after the T26 work is finished. The proposal to upgrade to a digital frigate factory at Clyde to construct 13 T26s was rejected years ago as too expensive. Which is why we have the T31 programme.

The carrier programme at its peak took up nearly 100% of (and even expanded) the UK's ship construction capabilities in terms of skilled workers. Lots of skilled workers moved between Portsmouth, Barrow, Clyde, Rosyth etc. as the work required.

Without major investment, there is no physical spare capacity at BAEs yards. Clearly there is some capacity at CL, A&P, Babcock, Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine. For Harland & Wolff this would mean applying their heavy engineering skills to ship construction for the first time since some of the Point class ships were built there.

However, given the required speed of construction for the T31 ( first ship in service in 2023, and then one ship delivered every year for the next 4 years), I doubt any single UK yard currently has the capacity to take on this work alone.

Whoever wins or loses, I would not be surprised to see the loser making a strong bid for the FSS project in the next couple of years.

[Aethulwulf]

Defence Secretary visits Appledore yard as warship competition ramps up

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defe ... n-ramps-up

Clearly the Defence Secretary is keeping himself strictly impartial over the T31 competition...

(And he must have known he was not being moved in today's Government reshuffle. )

[dmereifield]

Even this shower couldn't move him after appointing him so recently!

[andrew98]

No need to do anything to a department with no money or votes.....

[donald_of_tokyo]

I am surprised at the negativity here. This looks to me to be a well balanced consortium with the clout to start to dismantle the BAE monopoly which has certainly not been good for the Royal Navy in recent years. I agree that the geographical locations of these yards are politically advantageous but is that a negative? The only reason so much of the recent ship building has taken place on the Clyde is purely political as we all know so any rival bid would be mad not to take this into account.

A few corrections:
1. ... Outside of BAEs yards, most also undertake some ship refit work. Ship refit (commercial and military) is more plentiful, reliable and potentially profitable than ship construction.
2. Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine businesses are currently run as fully 'stand-alone' with zero funding from MOD. They already have "other" incomes and will just think T31e as "one of the many incomes". Babcock, CL and A&P undertake a lot of refit work for the RN, and were/are also involved in the construction of the carriers.
3. ...

...However, given the required speed of construction for the T31 ( first ship in service in 2023, and then one ship delivered every year for the next 4 years), I doubt any single UK yard currently has the capacity to take on this work alone.

Whoever wins or loses, I would not be surprised to see the loser making a strong bid for the FSS project in the next couple of years.

Thanks for comment.
- First of all, I think T31e program is aiming at "(re-)building alternative (not BAES) escort builder in UK". Because UK is NOT investing enough to support 2 "escort shipyards", this is impossible without other resources = "export".
- In other words, T31 program must be aligned to "invest and grow-up" a competitive and skilled (in warship building) ship builder(-alliance). Looking at modern UK ship export history, they are NOT competitive nor skilled (in warship building. Note this is not only there fault, there are many reasons there. They are good at other issues (hence they survive), but not getting any warship export, except for Babcock's OPV (they are great there, I agree)). So, T31e program must not utilize/keep the existing shipyards, but re-form/train/invest and grow up them.

If not, right after the T31e program, "the BAES monopoly" will just continue. No difference. I think this means "failure of the T31e program". It's much better to increase 1 T26 (BAES can surely do this (they proposed so)), and buy several more OPVs (from Babcock?).

Monopoly is not itself bad. We see many many efficient/strong monopoly industries in the world. However, it does have a tendency to stop innovation and investment. And, "innovation and investment" is the ONLY reason why a ship can be built cheap. Therefore, "breaking monopoly" is NOT the prime aim of T31e but just the "tool". Invoking innovation and investment is the prime aim.

# Do you understand, T31e program "exclusion" of BAES is clearly a kind of (government-driven) cartel? I am positive to this fact, not negative. But, using this kind of "trick", T31e must be strategic = thinking long term.

On this regard, Babcock +1 ship builder will be better (in due course, even Babcock will purchase that ship yard) than "many" members. It means "using existing technology/skills" and not investing nor training.

This is why I am negative to the "too many members".

In this point of view, T31e build in such a hurry is not good. "10 years investment and 15 years gap" is not a way to grow technology. Also, if there is no innovation/investment here, "making a strong bid for the FSS project" is clearly impossible. They are exposed to market, and not winning the contract for long. This means they are simply "unable" to bid cheap. If they bid too cheap, the builder will eventually collapse (as the Danish builder did). We sometimes even see the builder collapse results in long delay or even cancellation of the ship (without getting back the money).

[jonas]

Even this shower couldn't move him after appointing him so recently!

There was never any danger that he would be moved. He is a staunch supporter of the PM, helped to get her elected and opposed the election of Boris. If ever Boris, spreadsheet Phil, or Gove the snake get into No 10 then his days will be numbered. Until then he is rock solid safe.

[marktigger]

I do hope the consortium led by babcock get the contract and put work into Harlands and Plymouth (like the herald is reporting)

[Ron5]

Donald makes the most sense here.

The fundamental problem in the UK is there isn't enough surface warship work to keep one shipyard in business, let alone two. That's why Bae was paid money under TOBA to keep their skilled workforce in place waiting for the Treasury to cough up a few pennies for the Type 26 program.

The only reasonable solution is the one proposed and started by Drayson. That is to concentrate in one place in one shipyard, and do some proper planning to allow that one shipyard to invest in order to become more efficient. A long term, reasonable, strategic solution.

Yes, it means planning for warships with shorter lives.

Yes, it means one class of ship follows the previous without decade long gaps.

Yes, it means building warships at an economic pace and not dragged on forever to save annual spends.

Yes, it means spending more money on the Navy.

Yes, it means single supplier contracts with suitable safeguards to avoid rip off. But still allowing for incentives & decent profits for decent performance.

Yes, it means a long term commitment to buid in Scottish yards regardless of any future referendum.

Yes, it means buying non escorts from low cost foreign yards.

Would it work? Isn't that exactly how the RAF gets its fighter aircraft? Isn't that how the navy gets its nuclear submarines?

Isn't that how the USA buys its major warships? Isn't that how France & Italy buy theirs?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yes, it means building warships at an economic pace and not dragged on forever to save annual spends.

Yes, it means single supplier contracts with suitable safeguards to avoid rip off. But still allowing for incentives & decent profits for decent performance.

You summarised nicely the two biggest mistakes (too early in the morning to look for the culprits; will do it later).

Legoships are coming, regardless. How Thales (a key part of the consortium) will get around the fact that there is a critical concentration of skills and expertise to one and only military fitting-out yard in the country (and none in the Rump-UK)... that will be the part of the story to watch.

[shark bait]

Ron; that's exactly what it should be, 1 combatant per year from a modernized Clyde yard, everything else goes to international tender.

The RN already has to fork out of patrol vessels it doesn't want or need because we cant support a single yard, now the government wants to support another.

Distributed shipbuilding is inherently less efficient, which the government is hoping will be offset through wider economic benefits that is entirely out of its control. It's a bit of a gamble, one I'm not convinced by.

[abc123]

Yes, it means a long term commitment to buid in Scottish yards regardless of any future referendum.

As much as I like to see Scotland as part of the UK, that would be a huge strategic error. Same thing like Russian reliance on gas turbines ( and other things ) from Ukraine.

[The Armchair Soldier]

This topic has been labeled News Only meaning only discussions related to news items is permitted. Any extended and more generalised discussions must be held elsewhere. All off-topic posts beyond this notification will be deleted and their author's penalised. Please read the opening post for more information.

Please shift the discussion over to the general discussion thread:
http://ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopic.php ... start=4440