Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Repulse]

Ron5, I’ve read the current specs which is why in its current form I’d kill it at birth, and buy 2 T26s.

donald_of_tokyo, I would actually settle for 3 T31s if they were decent first rate specialist ASW ships for use in the UK EEZ - any money left over I’d put on a Point Class upgrade to a RM/SF platform

[donald_of_tokyo]

Repulse-san, I understand your point, as I myself is a lover of "1 more T26 and 2-3 River B3" or "2 more ASW-focussed T26" idea.

At the same time, I think Leander with current form is "not bad".

I think the 250M GBP version will be

"a 57mm gun, 12 CAMM, Wildcat hangar and Merlin-flight deck. No ASW, no CIWS (only wiring), no Mk41".

With its long range and endurance, I think this ship at 250M GBP cheap cost is very nice. It can cover almost all of the T23GPs current tasking (ASW threat is quit limited in area, and we know some of them deploys without ASW crew). And it is "only" 250M GBP!

If needed, let's add a ship torpedo defense system (STDS). This will not cost much, 10-20M GBP.

If needed, let's add a BlueWatcher small hull sonar = equivalent to FLASH. This will not cost much, 10-20M GBP. Commonality with FLASH will make the maintenance/logistic cost smaller.

If needed, let's add a CAPTAS-4CI (I understand it is CAPTAS-2 with CAPTAS-4 VDS part). This will cost large, say 50-100M GBP each. In this form, the ship will be "full" = not easy to add more armaments. It will be nothing more than "a ship with self defense, towing a CAPTAS-4CI".

But, multi-static ASW tactics means, there will be many other assets (T31eASW, T26, or even Merlin, and sonobuoys) listening at her ping. The first target, an enemy SSK identifies, will be T31eASW's ping. One of the most "un-interesting target" in the CVTF. Because T31eASW is equipped with STDS, the SSK needs to maneuver to tactically good position to be confident that the boat's torpedo can avoid soft-kills. Or just avoid the detection range of T31eASW+multi-static ASW. Very difficult maneuver.

(Ups, this starts to be on fantasy??).

But, in short; yes, I think T26 will be better, but if T31e program is to go, Leander is a good answer.

[Ron5]

Ron5, I’ve read the current specs which is why in its current form I’d kill it at birth, and buy 2 T26s.

donald_of_tokyo, I would actually settle for 3 T31s if they were decent first rate specialist ASW ships for use in the UK EEZ - any money left over I’d put on a Point Class upgrade to a RM/SF platform

Donald-san says he understands your point in this post, damned if I do.

[jedibeeftrix]

i've lost track in this debate of the provenance of some of the designs.
is the leander the result of the BMT design, or is it a khareef mk2? or something else entirely...

[RetroSicotte]

Keep the ship design chatter out of the news thread, please.

[CameronPerson]

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... -type-31e/

Article hidden behind a paywall but states that although the competition hasn’t officially restarted the programme is still on going. Nothing new or anything we didn’t know as far as I can tell

[CameronPerson]

[Ron5]

I wonder if it will remain a competition or just transition into a single source program.

[benny14]

From the contract, it seems they have both simplified the contract process, and have now included "Government Furnished Equipment" within the £1.25bn price.

I reckon that Babcock breached the price cap, so the government are now including refurbished equipment from the T23s, which would keep the price below £1.25bn and make Babcock compliant. Given BAEs recent confidence, I would say they likely came in below it, so now have an even better chance.

This will put more risk on the MOD, but might be good for us. What we were discussing before, getting a £250m base, with £100m or so of equipment added on from the Type 23s, giving us a £350m+ ship.

[shark bait]

https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/08 ... hipacq182/

I can see one change in the T31 contract;

"cost not to exceed £1.25 billion inclusive of Government Furnished Equipment"

Previously the MOD wanted industry to hold all the risk, now they're willing to accept some and become and equipment supplier. Cost reality hitting home?

Taking procurement of new systems out of the project certainly seems a little more realistic this time around Typically the combat systems account for 40% of the total cost, so this is a significant change. I expect the difference to the T31 will be 20-40% = 50-100m.

[Poiuytrewq]

From the contract, it seems they have both simplified the contract process, and have now included "Government Furnished Equipment" within the £1.25bn price.

This will put more risk on the MOD, but might be good for us. What we were discussing before, getting a £250m base, with £100m or so of equipment added on from the Type 23s, giving us a £350m+ ship.

If that is now the case there should be no reason not to increase the CAMM numbers up to 36 or even 48.

The cost of Leander may also drop, could it now be 6 Leander or 5 Arrowhead 140's for £1.25bn?

[Gabriele]

I don't see including GFE in the price cap as a good thing. It will entirely depend on what monetary value comes attached to ex-Type 23 kit put forwards by the MOD. If they try to full-price it, it will never fit.

[shark bait]

Yes, common sense would say free issue the equipment, but im sure the accountants have other ideas.

[donald_of_tokyo]

https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/08 ... hipacq182/

I can see one change in the T31 contract;

"cost not to exceed £1.25 billion inclusive of Government Furnished Equipment"

Previously the MOD wanted industry to hold all the risk, now they're willing to accept some and become and equipment supplier. Cost reality hitting home?

Taking procurement of new systems out of the project certainly seems a little more realistic this time around Typically the combat systems account for 40% of the total cost, so this is a significant change. I expect the difference to the T31 will be 20-40% = 50-100m.

Sorry, it is "inclusive" of GFE, no change from T31e RFI.

The only difference is, the sentence saying "as less GFE is preferred" is not shown. But, it does not mean it has gone out. I think it is the same. (I think Shark-Bait-san pointed out here).

I don't see including GFE in the price cap as a good thing. It will entirely depend on what monetary value comes attached to ex-Type 23 kit put forwards by the MOD. If they try to full-price it, it will never fit.

Agreed.

But, used-system are typically sold very cheap. See HMS Ocean. Camell Laired will push a lot.

On the other hand, are we really "scrapping" T23GPs or hoping for further export? If export, there will be no "re-used" equipments available.

[RichardIC]

On the other hand, are we really "scrapping" T23GPs or hoping for further export? If export, there will be no "re-used" equipments available.

Reusing equipment would also mean the OSD for at least the first Type 23 to be replaced would have to be seriously brought forward in order to act as donor vessel.

[clinch]

I wonder if it will remain a competition or just transition into a single source program.

Well you would have to suspect that if Cammell and BAe met the target in the tender and if the contract eventually goes to Babcock after subsequently scrapping the tender and moving the goalposts, Cammell and BAe would be within their rights to do a Richard Branson and haul the Government through the courts.

[Poiuytrewq]

https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/08 ... hipacq182/

I can see one change in the T31 contract;

"cost not to exceed £1.25 billion inclusive of Government Furnished Equipment"

Previously the MOD wanted industry to hold all the risk, now they're willing to accept some and become and equipment supplier. Cost reality hitting home?

Taking procurement of new systems out of the project certainly seems a little more realistic this time around Typically the combat systems account for 40% of the total cost, so this is a significant change. I expect the difference to the T31 will be 20-40% = 50-100m.

Sorry, it is "inclusive" of GFE, no change from T31e RFI.

The only difference is, the sentence saying "as less GFE is preferred" is not shown. But, it does not mean it has gone out. I think it is the same.

Could this be one way of overcoming the problem of installing CMS-1 in the A140?

If it is a used system transferred from the T23's can BAE really object?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Could this be one way of overcoming the problem of installing CMS-1 in the A140?
If it is a used system transferred from the T23's can BAE really object?

Yes and No,

1: Yes, they can, I think. If it is healthy competition, BAE need not to "help" Babcock for their bid. Babcock must ask/propose it to BAE = pay money.

2: No, they cannot, if Navy requires BAE to do so. This is because, CMS-1 onboard T23mod is bought by RN.

This is my guess.

[EDIT] If we want many re-used equipments transferred to T31 from T23GP, it must be done under RN/MOD's strong leadership. This is what I meant.
- RN/MOD/HMS must decide not to export decommissioned T23GPs.
- RN/MOD/HMS must "pack" the decommissioning "ripping-off" contract and the T31e building contract. (or "sell" the decommissioned T23GP to T31e winner prime.)

[Ron5]

I agree with Donald-san in asking why is everybody getting so excited about GFE, the 1.25 billion has to include GFE and that has been true since day one.

What folks here and elsewhere have been hoping for is that GFE would be provided at a cost exclusive to the 1.25b i.e. free. That has not happened.

I'm amused by the media circle jerk. Reports breathlessly repeat what others have said and added their own hot button speculation which is then picked up and breathlessly repeated ....

Seems the two reliable sources of info are the new contract request: https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/08 ... hipacq182/ and the article from Janes earlier in the week that said "at least two of the potential bidders regarded the (original) terms and conditions set by the MoD as unworkable, citing both commercial aspects and intellectual property rights"

[Ron5]

Could this be one way of overcoming the problem of installing CMS-1 in the A140?
If it is a used system transferred from the T23's can BAE really object?

Yes and No,

1: Yes, they can, I think. If it is healthy competition, BAE need not to "help" Babcock for their bid. Babcock must ask/propose it to BAE = pay money.

2: No, they cannot, if Navy requires BAE to do so. This is because, CMS-1 onboard T23mod is bought by RN.

This is my guess.

[EDIT] If we want many re-used equipments transferred to T31 from T23GP, it must be done under RN/MOD's strong leadership. This is what I meant.
- RN/MOD/HMS must decide not to export decommissioned T23GPs.
- RN/MOD/HMS must "pack" the decommissioning "ripping-off" contract and the T31e building contract. (or "sell" the decommissioned T23GP to T31e winner prime.)

I doubt very much if the RN "bought" the CMS-1 on the Type 23's. It's like Microsoft Windows, nobody actually "buys" the software, you merely buy the license to use it on a particular computer. Transfer it to another one and your license is invalidated. I expect Bae licenses each copy of CMS-1 to a particular ship. Maybe under a leasing agreement with an annual fee that includes maintenance.

[Ron5]

Yes, common sense would say free issue the equipment, but im sure the accountants have other ideas.

There would be significant costs involved in removing the equipment, checking it out and applying any needed refurbishment before re-installing in a new ship along with required guarantees and service. Could be mucho denaros.

As I've mentioned before, it might be a cleaner arrangement to invite the OM to buy back the kit and the buy it again from them as refurbished. Just like Mk 45's and Phalanx.

[dmereifield]

I agree with Donald-san in asking why is everybody getting so excited about GFE, the 1.25 billion has to include GFE and that has been true since day one.

What folks here and elsewhere have been hoping for is that GFE would be provided at a cost exclusive to the 1.25b i.e. free. That has not happened.

I'm amused by the media circle jerk. Reports breathlessly repeat what others have said and added their own hot button speculation which is then picked up and breathlessly repeated ....

Seems the two reliabe sources of info are the new contract request: https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/08 ... hipacq182/ and the article from Janes earlier in the week that said "at least two of the potential bidders regarded the (original) terms and conditions set by the MoD as unworkable, citing both commercial aspects and intellectual property rights"

If it's much the same as before then what else has changed? Something else must have changed to warrant the pause in the programme. I agree that the GFE aspect doesn't seem to be a reat leap from the previous position, other than the fact that it appears that HMG/MoD/RN now seem to be more willing to include GFE whereas previously the RFI suggested that using GFE was less desirable.

What is yet to be seen is how the MoD/RN value the equipment to be furnished....full retail value or heavily discounted (if so, to what extent)? Surely the depreciation costs will have already been factored into the T23 programme and thus the cost of the equipment should, hopefully, be heavily discounted when used in the T31 programme....

Some other questions, does this bring the 4.5" guns back into the mix? Will the Leander now be able to increase the CAMM loadout to more than 12?

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Arrowhead website comes back online....

[bobp]

Having a deadline of 20th August leaves very limited room for new bids

[Halidon]

The Authority’s high level requirement for Type 31e, in accordance with the NSbS, is for:
• five (5) Type 31e ships with a target of the first ship entering into service in 2023 and the fifth ship entering into service in 2028;
• a cost to the Authority (inclusive of GFE) of £1.25BN;
• an open and adaptable whole ship and combat system design;
• a UK focused Design and Build strategy which maximises UK prosperity and is built in a UK shipyard; and
• a ship design with export potential to the global market.

Nothing about this seems to exclude an A140-type bid, if they believe they can hit the cost target in a UK shipyard. They could have inserted language into the combat system or "UK-focused" lines to cripple that bid, but did not.

[Ron5]

I agree with Donald-san in asking why is everybody getting so excited about GFE, the 1.25 billion has to include GFE and that has been true since day one.

What folks here and elsewhere have been hoping for is that GFE would be provided at a cost exclusive to the 1.25b i.e. free. That has not happened.

I'm amused by the media circle jerk. Reports breathlessly repeat what others have said and added their own hot button speculation which is then picked up and breathlessly repeated ....

Seems the two reliabe sources of info are the new contract request: https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/08 ... hipacq182/ and the article from Janes earlier in the week that said "at least two of the potential bidders regarded the (original) terms and conditions set by the MoD as unworkable, citing both commercial aspects and intellectual property rights"

If it's much the same as before then what else has changed? Something else must have changed to warrant the pause in the programme. I agree that the GFE aspect doesn't seem to be a reat leap from the previous position, other than the fact that it appears that HMG/MoD/RN now seem to be more willing to include GFE whereas previously the RFI suggested that using GFE was less desirable.

What is yet to be seen is how the MoD/RN value the equipment to be furnished....full retail value or heavily discounted (if so, to what extent)? Surely the depreciation costs will have already been factored into the T23 programme and thus the cost of the equipment should, hopefully, be heavily discounted when used in the T31 programme....

Some other questions, does this bring the 4.5" guns back into the mix? Will the Leander now be able to increase the CAMM loadout to more than 12?

It will be interesting to see what happens when the Arrowhead website comes back online....

I agree that something must have changed otherwise why have the pause. I just don't think that has been made public yet.

I suspect Babcock's has more to worry about than their website.

Thinking about it some more, maybe the emphasis on GFE equipment not being free was in response to requests from industry that the MoD make it so. If true, I think that makes it worse news for Babcock's than CL.