Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[indeid]

It will depend on the commercial scorecard that will be used. It’s usually drafted when the tender is put out so it will depend how it’s weighted and worded.

Common sense (oh dear...) would say a standard CMS should be the aim, not really for the operators, as modern systems are easy to convert onto, but for the techs and the support systems. Main savings would be common upgrade paths, also meaning reduced validation, and as already mentioned the training, especially as MCTS won’t need massive changes.

Mind you, how much Combat equipment will the T31 have to need a System to Manage it?.....

[Aethulwulf]

Interesting, politically, ticks the boxes for the distributed modular build. Also helps the "vow" with both modular building and final assembly of blocks in Scotland. Does anyone have access to the text beyond the paywall?

Here are the key bits of text extracted from beyond the paywall...

Danish ship design consultancy Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) has joined the Babcock-led industry group bidding for the United Kingdom’s Type 31e frigate programme, heightening expectations that the team will bid a design based on the pedigree of the Royal Danish Navy’s Absalon-class support ships and Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates. In a separate but associated development, Babcock has confirmed that it is pursuing a distributed modular build strategy for Type 31e that would see pre-outfitted modules from yards in England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland brought together for final integration at the company’s Rosyth dockyard facility in Fife, Scotland...

...Following a period of value-management dialogue with potential bidders, the MoD's Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation is expected to award several competitive design phase (CDP) contracts in mid-year. The 37-week CDP is a funded phase of the T31e programme, where suppliers will develop their designs to a required maturity point; a single contractor or consortium will subsequently be downselected for design and build.

Babcock’s Team 31 had previously been working up a bid based on a variant of Babcock’s own Arrowhead 120 design, with some additional features from BMT’s Venator-110 concept, to meet the Type 31e requirement. However, Jane’s understands that concerns emerged within Team 31 earlier this year as to the maturity and capability of the Arrowhead 120 design in light of the MoD’s maturing requirement, leading Babcock to look again at Venator-110 and also explore options for an alternative platform solution. OMT’s recent addition to Team 31 strongly suggests this alternative is a design based on the Absalon-class/Iver Huitfeld-class platform.

Babcock insists that it has not yet reached a decision on its preferred option. “We are nearly there on a final platform design [but] we will wait until the final requirements release [from the MoD],” said Mark Harvey, the company’s Type 31 bid director, on 5 April. He added, “OMT joined our team very recently – four weeks ago. We’re trying to marry the design expertise of BMT and OMT, and Babcock’s own capability, to zero in on the best design option. “A key question for us has been, what is the right platform design option to meet the UK customer’s maturing requirements, while also balancing the fundamental need to deliver an exportable product that will also be attractive to our international customers? We will go public with that in due course.”...

...Comment: While Cammell Laird/BAE Systems settled on the Leander design for its Type 31e bid some months ago, the addition of OMT to the Babcock bid reflects the challenges which the rival Team 31 has latterly faced in identifying a design solution that best fits key competitive criteria of maturity, capability, cost, and exportability. At the same time, Jane’s understands that many within the UK defence acquisition community see OMT’s inclusion as a positive move, regarding the Absalon-class to be a proven example of a versatile warship designed to cost.

[Poiuytrewq]

It looks from that text that Arrowhead 120 is not going to cut the mustard and it's back to Venator or possibly a mini Absalon like Caribbean suggested.

The phrase 'the MOD's maturing requirements' is intriguing.

Could this be a shift away from the baseline RFI requirements to a higher spec?

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm afraid if you require higher specs, you will go further away from "maturity". Complex somethings need more time/cost/man-power to develop, compared to simple ones, to "be mature".

[Poiuytrewq]

Maybe the spec is getting lower then, hard to see how that would be possible

It's hard to see what would have ruled out Arrowhead as it seems pretty similar to Venator and Leander.

Maybe that's the problem, Babcock, BMT and now OMT are trying to find a unique design that really stands out.

[Ron5]

Nothing to worry about. The plan from the get go was for the builders and buyers to discuss what could be built for 250m and to develop the spec accordingly.

It was this phase that generated the Bae comments about not indulging in a race to the bottom i.e. Bae would not be part of any non-profitable offering just to win the contract. Either they (& partners) would win the contract and built a ship that makes money for them, or they would lose.

Exactly opposite to Treasury tactics which in the past has awarded under-cost contracts to companies desperate to stave off bankrupcy. A practice that has always ended badly for all concerned.

[indeid]

Exactly opposite to Treasury tactics which in the past has awarded under-cost contracts to companies desperate to stave off bankrupcy. A practice that has always ended badly for all concerned.

Really? I thought the standard was to offer a low price knowing that the MOD would want to change its requirements constantly, but not have the cash to alter the deliverables, so have to agree to lower acceptacnce criteria or dump selected requirements.

Obviously these would never be the requirements which resulted in a bespoke and not MOTS procurement in the first place.........

[dmereifield]

Interesting, politically, ticks the boxes for the distributed modular build. Also helps the "vow" with both modular building and final assembly of blocks in Scotland. Does anyone have access to the text beyond the paywall?

Here are the key bits of text extracted from beyond the paywall...

Danish ship design consultancy Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) has joined the Babcock-led industry group bidding for the United Kingdom’s Type 31e frigate programme, heightening expectations that the team will bid a design based on the pedigree of the Royal Danish Navy’s Absalon-class support ships and Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates. In a separate but associated development, Babcock has confirmed that it is pursuing a distributed modular build strategy for Type 31e that would see pre-outfitted modules from yards in England, Northern Ireland, and Scotland brought together for final integration at the company’s Rosyth dockyard facility in Fife, Scotland...

...Following a period of value-management dialogue with potential bidders, the MoD's Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation is expected to award several competitive design phase (CDP) contracts in mid-year. The 37-week CDP is a funded phase of the T31e programme, where suppliers will develop their designs to a required maturity point; a single contractor or consortium will subsequently be downselected for design and build.

Babcock’s Team 31 had previously been working up a bid based on a variant of Babcock’s own Arrowhead 120 design, with some additional features from BMT’s Venator-110 concept, to meet the Type 31e requirement. However, Jane’s understands that concerns emerged within Team 31 earlier this year as to the maturity and capability of the Arrowhead 120 design in light of the MoD’s maturing requirement, leading Babcock to look again at Venator-110 and also explore options for an alternative platform solution. OMT’s recent addition to Team 31 strongly suggests this alternative is a design based on the Absalon-class/Iver Huitfeld-class platform.

Babcock insists that it has not yet reached a decision on its preferred option. “We are nearly there on a final platform design [but] we will wait until the final requirements release [from the MoD],” said Mark Harvey, the company’s Type 31 bid director, on 5 April. He added, “OMT joined our team very recently – four weeks ago. We’re trying to marry the design expertise of BMT and OMT, and Babcock’s own capability, to zero in on the best design option. “A key question for us has been, what is the right platform design option to meet the UK customer’s maturing requirements, while also balancing the fundamental need to deliver an exportable product that will also be attractive to our international customers? We will go public with that in due course.”...

...Comment: While Cammell Laird/BAE Systems settled on the Leander design for its Type 31e bid some months ago, the addition of OMT to the Babcock bid reflects the challenges which the rival Team 31 has latterly faced in identifying a design solution that best fits key competitive criteria of maturity, capability, cost, and exportability. At the same time, Jane’s understands that many within the UK defence acquisition community see OMT’s inclusion as a positive move, regarding the Absalon-class to be a proven example of a versatile warship designed to cost.

Thanks

[Aethulwulf]

It looks from that text that Arrowhead 120 is not going to cut the mustard and it's back to Venator or possibly a mini Absalon like Caribbean suggested.

The phrase 'the MOD's maturing requirements' is intriguing.

Could this be a shift away from the baseline RFI requirements to a higher spec?

I'll stick my neck out and try a little reading between the lines...

MOD has stated that they received 20 responses to the RFI back in October. Even counting all the players in the Leander bid and the Babcock bid, that doesn't come near to 20. The obvious conclusion is that other responses were received based on adapted international designs but these have avoided publicity. OMT could have been one of these, with a design based on the Absalon-class support ships and Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates - which was then taken through the recently finished Value Management phase.

Babcock's Arrowhead 120 design was first unveiled in September 2017. As such it was unlikely ever to be as mature as the Venator design, which has been developed over many years. However it would appear that even the Venator design could struggle to be matured quickly enough to meet the T31 production schedule.

MOD has also said that up to 4 designs would be taken forward into the Competitive Design Phase. Could this mean that they were interested in one or two designs in addition to the Leander and Babcock offerings. Even though these 2 other designs do not yet appear to have a UK build strategy, it is possible that MOD wanted to give them the time within the CDP to see if UK build strategies could be agreed for these designs.

Babcock are clearly doing everything they can to maximise their chances of winning. From what was learnt during the Value Management phase of the MOD's requirements and priorities, perhaps they were worried that the OMT design will win over theirs. Jane's is clearly hinting that MOD likes the OMT concept. So instead Babcock may have acted to turn a competitor into a partner. (Much as they did with BMT.)

So Babcock have gained a very mature Absalon based design, that appears to a firm fit to MOD's requirements with a proven record of low build costs.

[dmereifield]

It looks from that text that Arrowhead 120 is not going to cut the mustard and it's back to Venator or possibly a mini Absalon like Caribbean suggested.

The phrase 'the MOD's maturing requirements' is intriguing.

Could this be a shift away from the baseline RFI requirements to a higher spec?

I'll stick my neck out and try a little reading between the lines...

MOD has stated that they received 20 responses to the RFI back in October. Even counting all the players in the Leander bid and the Babcock bid, that doesn't come near to 20. The obvious conclusion is that other responses were received based on adapted international designs but these have avoided publicity. OMT could have been one of these, with a design based on the Absalon-class support ships and Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates - which was then taken through the recently finished Value Management phase.

Babcock's Arrowhead 120 design was first unveiled in September 2017. As such it was unlikely ever to be as mature as the Venator design, which has been developed over many years. However it would appear that even the Venator design could struggle to be matured quickly enough to meet the T31 production schedule.

MOD has also said that up to 4 designs would be taken forward into the Competitive Design Phase. Could this mean that they were interested in one or two designs in addition to the Leander and Babcock offerings. Even though these 2 other designs do not yet appear to have a UK build strategy, it is possible that MOD wanted to give them the time within the CDP to see if UK build strategies could be agreed for these designs.

Babcock are clearly doing everything they can to maximise their chances of winning. From what was learnt during the Value Management phase of the MOD's requirements and priorities, perhaps they were worried that the OMT design will win over theirs. Jane's is clearly hinting that MOD likes the OMT concept. So instead Babcock may have acted to turn a competitor into a partner. (Much as they did with BMT.)

So Babcock have gained a very mature Absalon based design, that appears to a firm fit to MOD's requirements with a proven record of low build costs.

Is it possible that the Babcock consortium may be working up (to submit) two bids? One for the Venator 120 and one for the mini Absalom (or even the Iver Huitfeldt)? Does the programme allow multiple bids per consortium?
Would certainly be interesting to see how the MoD requirements are firming up relative to the original RFI...

[Poiuytrewq]

So Babcock have gained a very mature Absalon based design, that appears to a firm fit to MOD's requirements with a proven record of low build costs.

Let's be honest, we're all guessing here but given the information available I would say your analysis is pretty much spot on.

I think if the Babcock consortium is going in the Absalon direction it can only be a good thing for the T31. A budget of £250m was never going to allow for a credible Frigate built in the conventional way but it may go a long way to building an excellent multipurpose support/patrol ship with Absalon genetics.

From my point of view the attraction of the Absalon design is space and lots of it. With a hull that large that can be stretched if necessary and with various different superstructure configurations the possibilities are almost endless. Using a common hull form with an ability to tailor multiple aspects of the vessel design to meet the customer requirement could potentially be very attractive for export. Sir John Parker asked for a world class design and with OMT on board he might just get it.

Fitted with a Mk45 an Absalon based design could fulfill the NGFS role but it doesn't address the lack of ASW capability in the fleet, this remains at present the insurmountable problem.

[Caribbean]

@Aethulwulf - yes - I would agree with that line of reasoning. If OMT have a preferred design, it would make sense for them to seek an alliance with a consortia that has both UK goodwill and established industrial capacity, and so that they can also deliver on the UK built and IP criteria. Derivatives of the Iver Huidfeldt/ Absolon designs could bring a range of differing capabilities to the RN.

it doesn't address the lack of ASW capability in the fleet

Very true - but I don't think that the GP "lighter frigate" program was ever intended to directly address that issue (which brings to mind a comment I made a long time ago in this debate -"what is the "lighter frigate" lighter than, T23 or T26?"). We have the T26 for ASW and I suspect that the RN does not want to risk the T26 build program by developing a competitor design (at least until the last T26 is safely in the water).

[Zero Gravitas]

I would have thought that 8 T26s and 5 Absalon would provide a significant capability uplift in almost every domain when compared to 13 T23.

All that space is, in principle, excellent future proofing too.

[NickC]

It could be that BMT is bringing in OMT not for their knowhow on the Absalon support class ships but their more recent design the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates.

Noticeable that Iver Huitfeld has no mission bay, just room below flight deck for two ISO containers, which is what understand Type 31e RFI specifies to enable to embark and store emergency relief stores leaving the weapons deck for weapons, who would have thought of that.

[Caribbean]

It could be that BMT is bringing in OMT not for their knowhow on the Absalon support class ships but their more recent design the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates.

Noticeable that Iver Huitfeld has no mission bay, just room below flight deck for two ISO containers, which is what understand Type 31e RFI specifies to enable to embark and store emergency relief stores leaving the weapons deck for weapons, who would have thought of that.

I think there is a strong possibility that they are interested in the Iver Huitfeldt design - it is, after all a pretty decent, proven frigate - slightly too big for the RFI requirements (easily fixed), but in the right price range. Also built with a view to getting hulls in the water, THEN adding the firepower (I guess Stanflex helped with the latter). Also has already demonstrated adaptability and alternative development paths (i.e. the Absalon). Designs based on/ adapted from/ incorporating concepts from either (or both) variants would make useful additions to the RN, each in their own way.

[Repulse]

It could be that BMT is bringing in OMT not for their knowhow on the Absalon support class ships but their more recent design the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates.

Noticeable that Iver Huitfeld has no mission bay, just room below flight deck for two ISO containers, which is what understand Type 31e RFI specifies to enable to embark and store emergency relief stores leaving the weapons deck for weapons, who would have thought of that.

I think there is a strong possibility that they are interested in the Iver Huitfeldt design - it is, after all a pretty decent, proven frigate - slightly too big for the RFI requirements (easily fixed), but in the right price range. Also built with a view to getting hulls in the water, THEN adding the firepower (I guess Stanflex helped with the latter). Also has already demonstrated adaptability and alternative development paths (i.e. the Absalon). Designs based on/ adapted from/ incorporating concepts from either (or both) variants would make useful additions to the RN, each in their own way.

If the T31e turns out to be a mini Iver Huitfeldt frigate what would be the big sell for the UK ship building industry? Also, still don’t get its ultimate role, the IH is an air defence frigate which is not what the UK is aiming for, Absalon style would be a Michele better choice.

[Poiuytrewq]

It could be that BMT is bringing in OMT not for their knowhow on the Absalon support class ships but their more recent design the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates.

What does the Iver Huitfeldt class offer that the Absalon class doesn't bearing in mind that large numbers of VLS cells aren't a requirement for the T31?

Is the Iver Huitfeldt design much different from Absalon? I thought both were based on the same hull. For a general purpose vessel Absalon with its double Merlin capable hanger and flex deck would appear to offer a lot more capability than the Iver Huitfeldt. I expect lessons were learned with the Absalon vessels and improvements made on the IH class but maybe it was more of a structural redesign?

I think the main attraction of the Absalon genetics is the multiple superstructure configurations and tonnages that can be based on a single hull form whilst maintaining a high degree of commonality across the T31 class.

The RFI did state that HMG should retain the intellectual property rights of the T31 design, would that be possible if it was heavily based on an existing OMT design?

[Tempest414]

So if we could start again with the RFI as a opening brief would a 130 m multi mission patrol ship with a top speed of 26+ knots and range of 10,000 nm at 18 knots and 12,000 at 12-14 knots be better stating point

I have to say the flex deck and twin Merlin hangar lay out is so much better than a mission bay if type 31 ended up at 130 meters with this lay out with a 5 inch gun 4 x 3 cell ExLS = 48 CAMM plus as Phalanx costs $16 -20 miilion opting for 2 57mm at a cost of $20 million fitted a mid ships and if the RN took on the new RBS-15 ASM which also has a land attack capability ( this would also give Type 45/26 a common land attack capability) fit 2 x 4 we could end up with a very good second tier ship which could aid amphib operations there for having a war fighting role

[shark bait]

interested in the Iver Huitfeldt design - it is, after all a pretty decent, proven frigate*

*proven by a Navy that has never been to war....

I have to say the flex deck and twin Merlin hangar lay out is so much better than a mission bay if type 31 ended up at 130 meters

That would be very good, it might finally turn this shit show around, with the Absalon class being the only example of a GP Frigate done well.

Way out of the RN's price range though, so I'm not reading too deep into the OMT link, they just need more engineers.

[Caribbean]

*proven by a Navy that has never been to war....

I would say the Danes had a proven heritage of amphibious warfare dating back to around 600AD

I was talking more about the design - seems to be able to operate in conjunction with other nations, perform well in exercises, conduct routine patrols, arrest pirates etc. etc. without breaking down because the water's too warm - that sort of "proven"

[NickC]

It could be that BMT is bringing in OMT not for their knowhow on the Absalon support class ships but their more recent design the Iver Huitfeldt class frigates.

What does the Iver Huitfeldt class offer that the Absalon class doesn't bearing in mind that large numbers of VLS cells aren't a requirement for the T31?

Is the Iver Huitfeldt design much different from Absalon? I thought both were based on the same hull. For a general purpose vessel Absalon with its double Merlin capable hanger and flex deck would appear to offer a lot more capability than the Iver Huitfeldt. I expect lessons were learned with the Absalon vessels and improvements made on the IH class but maybe it was more of a structural redesign?

I think the main attraction of the Absalon genetics is the multiple superstructure configurations and tonnages that can be based on a single hull form whilst maintaining a high degree of commonality across the T31 class.

The RFI did state that HMG should retain the intellectual property rights of the T31 design, would that be possible if it was heavily based on an existing OMT design?

The 6,000T Iver Huitfeld class frigate though based on the Absalon hull is substantially different as one would expect from a later design and lessons learned. Iver Huitfeldt class frigates have one deck less, the Flex Deck was omitted, and the internal layout and WT compartments different, optimised for twice the power and incorporated the Stanflex concept for interchangeable, containerised modules for guns and missile launchers and a mini-flexdeck. The funnel was relocated to reduce the effect of exhaust on the SMART-L radar, increased headroom between decks, deeper and longer engine compartments for overhead gantry and crane, and wider equipment pathways. Access ports for loading and unloading equipment also facilitate quayside maintenance.
 
They shaped and inclined hull and superstructure minimise strong reflections and the above deck arrangements are radar cross section optimised, the deck canister missile launchers are installed in wells for signature reduction, the foc'sle and stern are covered and the RHIBs hull access covered with RCS optimised roller blinds. The infra red signature is reduced by insulated machinery spaces and with a pre-wetting system, acoustic signature has been reduced to for silent operations at speeds of up to 15 or 16 knots.

The 6,000T Iver Huitfeldt has 32 Mk41 VLS cells plus 24 Mk 56 VLS cells for ESSM (the larger 6,900T Type 26 has only 24 Mk41 VLS cells), the 4,000T Type 31 RFI specifies none.

[abc123]

*proven by a Navy that has never been to war....

Yeah, far better to take ships from the RN that has excelled with such glorious ships like Type 42 destroyers ( proven by HMS Sheffield back in 1982 ), not to mention propulsion on Type 45- great thing to have in war- to have your electricity shut down when you need her the most ( not to mention earlier deathtraps like battlecruisers at Jutland or 2 RN battleships/cruisers that couldn't handle single German battleship in Danish Strait etc. )...

[abc123]

*proven by a Navy that has never been to war....

I would say the Danes had a proven heritage of amphibious warfare dating back to around 600AD

I was talking more about the design - seems to be able to operate in conjunction with other nations, perform well in exercises, conduct routine patrols, arrest pirates etc. etc. without breaking down because the water's too warm - that sort of "proven"

[Poiuytrewq]

Way out of the RN's price range though, so I'm not reading too deep into the OMT link, they just need more engineers.

How much more than £250m do you think an Absalon based design with almost no offensive weaponry would cost if built by Babcock?

[Caribbean]

How much more than £250m do you think an Absalon based design with almost no offensive weaponry would cost if built by Babcock?

On a base cost of $225m in 2007, a straight 3% inflation (probably appropriate for a COTS/MOTS design) would give a modern price of around £230m @ 1.4 USD/GBP. 6% inflation (more towards the leading edge) would give a price of c. £300m. Pick your own price point out of that range. I think the Absalons came into service with little more than the guns in place at first