Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Poiuytrewq]

They already have Venator and Arrowhead. If they come up with Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt derivatives as well, they can go for all four

To be fair, given the choice between Leander, Venator, Arrowhead, Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt, Leander might not make it through to the last 4

Trying to envisage what an Arrowhead or Venator design would look like with a Flex Deck.

[Tempest414]

just because they have Arrowhead 120 a and Venator 110 dose not mean they have to put them forward

[R686]

Here's an idea, you get some Absalon's and give us Largs Back (Choules) back.

Nah, we still need her for strategic sealift now that Toobroken has been put out of her misery

Absalon is a good concept, for UK use I would tailor it away from amphibious assault, and focus on using its facilities elsewhere. @MikeKiloPapa points out Absalon has excellent command and control facilities, which make it a grate candidate for our contribution to Nato fleets so we can keep the T45 with our carrier group. The expanded boat and aviation facilities make it a great special forces or counter piracy platform. Even taking amphibious warfare out of its role we are still left with a capable flexible platform.

That highlights the different needs of each Navy

[Poiuytrewq]

This is news to me but it may not be to everyone else.

image.jpg

The model shown appears to have had a mission bay redesign as well as small changes in other areas, certainly compared to the image below. Strike length Mk41 cells perhaps?

image.jpg

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks, good spot!

I guess it is a rather "older" design?

Your photo is from May 1 2018 news:
https://www.clbh.co.uk/cammell-laird/ca ... delegation

In Feb 22 2018 news, it looks like the same model is there, to the right:
https://www.clbh.co.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 67694.jpeg

Cammell-Laird-Type-31e-supplier-conference-e1519320367694.jpeg

Personally I think it resembles the original "two funnel" concept of "Cutlass" design, but anyway I agree it is just a guess...

[Poiuytrewq]

Personally I think it resembles the original "two funnel" concept of "Cutlass" design, but anyway I agree it is just a guess...

That was my first impression also, but the two shapes do not appear to be identical. If it was a second funnel you expect them to be identical. Other areas do not appear to correspond to the earlier Cutlass design either.

image.jpg

Maybe someone who has seen the model can enlighten us?

[inch]

when are we supposed to be getting the final design options from each bidder ?

[Caribbean]

Thanks, good spot!

I guess it is a rather "older" design?

Your photo is from May 1 2018 news:
https://www.clbh.co.uk/cammell-laird/ca ... delegation

In Feb 22 2018 news, it looks like the same model is there, to the right:
https://www.clbh.co.uk/wp-content/uploa ... 67694.jpeg

Cammell-Laird-Type-31e-supplier-conference-e1519320367694.jpeg

Personally I think it resembles the original "two funnel" concept of "Cutlass" design, but anyway I agree it is just a guess...

Not really a T31 issue, so apologies for raising it in this thread, but in that photo there is a model on the far right of the picture. Is that a model of the RRS in Grey Funnel line livery, or something different? If so, are they pitching it for a future project?

[Ron5]

Excellent detective work gentlemen!!

I agree with Donald-san, the model appears to be of the older Bae stretched Khareef concept with two funnels.

Which brings up an interesting question, where did the second funnel go? A diesel downtake can be seen at the foot of the mainmast in the newest drawing and maybe the protuberance at the top of the mast facing aft, is the uptake. But a MACK? that is soooo passe. Not seen one on a design for many moons.

Why the second funnel disappeared is easier to answer: to make room for the mission bay.

Or maybe I am overthinking, after investigation (& pricing) maybe they decided the stretch doesn't need another powerplant.

[js44]

[CameronPerson]

LINK TO ARTICLE BELOW

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... ition.html

[Aethulwulf]

https://www.babcockteam31.com

From the Arrowhead140 brochure...

Proven multi-mission reconfigurable space able to host a number of TEU containers for capability including anti-piracy detention facilities, disaster relief stores or additional accommodation. Spaces can be rapidly and simply used for HADRO through to war fighting operations, with volume spaces able to accommodate role-specific equipment in a modular form. The ability to fit the existing systems and equipment from the parent design is retained to provide flexibility in the capability supplied at build and through the life of the platform. For example, this retained capability means that the 32 cell Mk41 Strike Length silo can be fitted to incorporate a combination of a larger number of anti-air missiles, vertical launch anti-surface missiles, precision land strike missiles or ASW weapons such as ASROC. This particular adaptability feature, alongside the ability to install a 127mm (5”) medium calibre gun, host an organic helicopter such as AW-101 Merlin, install sensors such as a towed array/variable depth sonar and re-introduce a magazine-launched torpedo system, amongst other proven features, will allow the platform to be tailored on build and through-life to suit operational requirements from low-threat
maritime security to warfighting in task group operations.

[ArmChairCivvy]

suit operational requirements from low-threat
maritime security to warfighting in task group operations.

they saved (in the vid) the best till last: delivered in 2023... I am starting to believe that

[CameronPerson]

I think it’s promising, but all that ship for £250million?... what parts of the brochure would be sacrificed to meet that cost?

I’ll look forward to a side by side comparison between the Arrowhead 140 design and BAE’s offering

[Aethulwulf]

I wonder if Babcock can sell the Arrowhead 140 design to the Irish Navel Service, to replace LÉ Eithne.

And of course, as it is based on a parent design that is in the water, could it be a contender for the US FFG(X)?

Will Huntington Ingalls Industries reveal their FFG(X) design to be a version of Arrowhead 140...

[Halidon]

Will Huntington Ingalls Industries reveal their FFG(X) design to be a version of Arrowhead 140...

Speculation as to that possibility has increased of late. So far, I've not seen anything firm on what HII actually bid, and they won't talk to Xav or any other reporters about the details of those bid. I was initially quite skeptical, even as someone who was in favor of the Danish design getting a good look, but sitting here today I wouldn't be shocked.

Also worth noting that the Canadians pushed back their Frigate downselect. Suddenly, there are 3 major Frigate programs nearly in alignment and with at least some bidder cross-pollination. 4 counting Oz, though their process still seems a bit of it's own thing at the moment.

[Lord Jim]

Can someone remind me how much a core Absalon costs, without any modules just the main gun and the Millennium mounts.

[benny14]

Can someone remind me how much a core Absalon costs

Absalon was $225m in 2003.
Iver was $325m in 2008

[Pymes75]

https://www.babcockteam31.com

From the Arrowhead140 brochure...

Proven multi-mission reconfigurable space able to host a number of TEU containers for capability including anti-piracy detention facilities, disaster relief stores or additional accommodation. Spaces can be rapidly and simply used for HADRO through to war fighting operations, with volume spaces able to accommodate role-specific equipment in a modular form. The ability to fit the existing systems and equipment from the parent design is retained to provide flexibility in the capability supplied at build and through the life of the platform. For example, this retained capability means that the 32 cell Mk41 Strike Length silo can be fitted to incorporate a combination of a larger number of anti-air missiles, vertical launch anti-surface missiles, precision land strike missiles or ASW weapons such as ASROC. This particular adaptability feature, alongside the ability to install a 127mm (5”) medium calibre gun, host an organic helicopter such as AW-101 Merlin, install sensors such as a towed array/variable depth sonar and re-introduce a magazine-launched torpedo system, amongst other proven features, will allow the platform to be tailored on build and through-life to suit operational requirements from low-threat
maritime security to warfighting in task group operations.

I like it a lot! ...All except for the choice of TACTICOS CMS. Nothing against the system itself, but I would have thought that BAe CMS-1 would reduce through-life costs by maintaining commonality with the other surface combatants in the navy.

[Mercator]

Perhaps the worry is that the CMS needs to be exportable. I imagine there are restrictions on your top-of-the-line CMS.

[Spinflight]

I think it’s promising, but all that ship for £250million?... what parts of the brochure would be sacrificed to meet that cost?

I’ll look forward to a side by side comparison between the Arrowhead 140 design and B

I'd quite like to see Usain Bolt and Roseanne Barr in a 100m sprint, just for the lols.

Is it wrong for the Arrowhead to actually give you wood?

[Pymes75]

Perhaps the worry is that the CMS needs to be exportable. I imagine there are restrictions on your top-of-the-line CMS.

Don't see any reason why TACTICOS couldn't be selected by other navies in lieu of CMS-1.

I do wonder if this is a conscious decision by the consortium to bring the vessel in under budget. If TACTICOS is considerably cheaper than CMS-1, then selecting it will have helped to keep the cost down thus enabling the consortium to offer a considerably bigger and heavier armed vessel (with all the advantages this offers). The MOD can then decide if they're happy with the choice of CMS or want to opt for their preferred system that will cost more.

[Clive F]

Is it just me or is it a sad day when the Royal Navy has to pay the Danes for a "warship" design because we haven't got / can't do one. The last time we were concerned with their ship designs they were made of wood, long and thin with shields down the side and a had a single sail. (oh and it was 952 years ago and the UK hadn't been invented). As a country had we got our act together we wouldn't be trying to sell "fighting ships" to other country's we would be selling designs. Dyson dosn't make any money our of "manufacturing" vacuum cleaners etc, he makes his money out of the Technology and gets them put together in the far east. Sorry, end of rant.

[shark bait]

Royal Navy have designed what will likely be one of the most capable surface combatants at sea, everything will be proper hardened top shelf kit, and now the Royal Navy cant afford many.

The Danish Navy have done things differently, and are breaking the cost/capability death spiral. They have designed what may well be the best value combatant at sea.

There may well be some lessons to learn from the Danes that the more 'traditional' RN would refuse to learn.

[ArmChairCivvy]

pay the Danes for a "warship" design because we haven't got / can't do one. The last time [...] it was 952 years ago and the UK hadn't been invented).

Well, King Canut is still remembered - at least once a year.

There may well be some lessons to learn from the Danes that the more 'traditional' RN would refuse to learn.

Like instead of having Design&Build contracts, which then become impossible to control as all cards have been dealt to one player, have enough separation of Design (that includes providing for future options and modularity) from Build?

Don't see any reason why TACTICOS couldn't be selected by other navies in lieu of CMS-1.

The project started with the T-31e moniker, though the "e" is less in use now... so v true.