Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Poiuytrewq]

.... the German consortium

Does anyone know if this is a Meko A-200 variant?

[Ron5]

.... the German consortium

Does anyone know if this is a Meko A-200 variant?

All a bit vague. As far as I know, the mythical German 3rd consortium was revealed in a report on the USNI website.

A stretched Sa'ar 6 corvette perhaps?

[Ron5]

Bothered me a bit so having a couple of spare hours this afternoon, I donned the old deerstalker and attempted to sniff out the story. I expect that there are folks that read here that really know what happened so I ask them not to laugh too loudly.

But for what it's worth, here's my research so far. Help yourself to the salt:

I think there were at least 5 in the Type 31 competition at the beginning of the year: Babcock's Team 31, Cammell Laird & Bae, a German group lead by ThyssenKruff marine, Damen, and one other.

Around the time Babcock's announced that the Danish company OMT had joined their consortium, there appears to have been a shake up. OMT (the Danish design group with very pertinent skills in building Lego ships) may have been close to joining one of the European teams but both TKMS & Damen dropped out for the same reasons. Neither could find a suitable UK shipyard that would build their designs under license, and perhaps more importantly, they refused to hand over IP rights such that the UK could export further examples. In other words, both declined the opportunity to help create a UK competitor for themselves.

Maybe they had just joined to hear and see what was going on, knowing full well they would not qualify to compete for real.

OMT then signed with the only team left that was interested in their contributions, Babcock's (Cammell Laird is not really that interested in Lego building, they want to build & fit out most of the ship at their yard on Merseyside), and as we saw, that partnership resulted in the Arrowhead 140.

It seems three teams were left dueling for design contracts. The MoD was hoping for four and was extremely nervous that the competition would come down to a two horse race between Babcock's and CL/Bae. Politically very messy. As reported by Athelwolf, it appears two of the three teams didn't comply with the Type 31 criteria so the MoD was left looking extremely silly with just one compliant bid left on the table. Time for them to blow the whistle to give time to arm wrestle the recalcitrant two into compliance. Or do the British thing and just change the rules.

So, I hear you ask, who is this mysterious 5th then 3rd team. Well I dunno. I suspect they very much a creation of the MoD encouraging somebody different to team up to widen the field. But that's just my guess. My search will hopefully continue tomorrow. Unless someone out there spills the beans pronto

[Tempest414]

it was interesting that Babcocks hovered up Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine along side there own yards and BAE picked up the rest

[donald_of_tokyo]

Very much interesting discussions, but I'm afraid discussions on ship design may be moved to Fantasy thread or Escort thread, when the site admin wakes up?

Again, are there any news on T31e? (This is "news only" thread)

I see some coming out in "ukdefencejournal", showing that Camell Laired is actively moving forward.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/cammell ... igate-bid/
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/70-per- ... ish-built/

But, anything else?

[Ron5]

So, I hear you ask, who is this mysterious 5th then 3rd team. Well I dunno.

I have given up.

The Times a month ago said the 3rd competitor was Atlas Electronik (UK). In its favor, that's a UK company but it's an offshoot of a ThyssenKrupp Marine wholly owned subsidiary. A company that more than one source are sure left the competition some months ago.

If the Times is correct, what could Atlas offer? As far as I know, all UK shipyards are now in either Babcock's or CL's groups. So where would Atlas build? I suppose they could say here's a design we would license (and oversee the build) to a UK shipyard to be named later that we know could be built in Germany for 250 million. But that's not compliant with Type 31 program rules, either then or now.

So maybe there is no third bidder any more and the MoD is getting its arms around the idea of a two horse race? I think that's what we all expected when this thing got started. So maybe we were correct.

[Halidon]

They really need to offer more concrete intentions to support the class beyond the initial 5-hull buy if they want to broaden the appeal to the industry.

Surely it will depend on what they turn out like?

If they turn out to be a very lightly armed patrol frigate how many would RN really want? Other priorities might start to take precedence.

On the other hand if they turn out well....

I think at this stage it is too early to say and RN would be unwise to commit to higher numbers until the final design becomes a lot clearer.

Our two points aren't contradictory. I don't disagree that their is or may be wisdom in the RN playing it safe until they know how much ship they can get in T31e. Especially if the alternative is somehow making more money for better ships happen.

However, I'm responding to the comments/rumors about the RN/gov being unhappy with how few bidders they have, and how those bidders have pushed back on some of the wish list. They can not expect the industry to get more aggressive with this program if they're unwilling to make a firm commitment beyond 5. Especially given that the last 2 major combatant programs were cut short of the numbers envisioned when they were bid upon. A field of bidders like that of Canada's or Australia's programs isn't going to show up.

[Poiuytrewq]

Our two points aren't contradictory. I don't disagree that their is or may be wisdom in the RN playing it safe until they know how much ship they can get in T31e. Especially if the alternative is somehow making more money for better ships happen.

I think that is the crucial point. From the bidders point of view for such a low unit price with presumably low profit margins is it worth the risk?

Raising the unit price up to around £400m would blow the competition wide open but that won't happen and instead we will have to carry on with the current T31e pantomime.

[Ron5]

They really need to offer more concrete intentions to support the class beyond the initial 5-hull buy if they want to broaden the appeal to the industry.

Surely it will depend on what they turn out like?

If they turn out to be a very lightly armed patrol frigate how many would RN really want? Other priorities might start to take precedence.

On the other hand if they turn out well....

I think at this stage it is too early to say and RN would be unwise to commit to higher numbers until the final design becomes a lot clearer.

Our two points aren't contradictory. I don't disagree that their is or may be wisdom in the RN playing it safe until they know how much ship they can get in T31e. Especially if the alternative is somehow making more money for better ships happen.

However, I'm responding to the comments/rumors about the RN/gov being unhappy with how few bidders they have, and how those bidders have pushed back on some of the wish list. They can not expect the industry to get more aggressive with this program if they're unwilling to make a firm commitment beyond 5. Especially given that the last 2 major combatant programs were cut short of the numbers envisioned when they were bid upon. A field of bidders like that of Canada's or Australia's programs isn't going to show up.

I don't think the fleet size (5) is an issue for the shipbuilders. There's been no public complaints but there have been a few comments that said the program is big enough to get their interest.

The issues that folks have said that has kept them away away are the rules that the ship must be built entirely in the UK and must have sufficient IP rights that further ships can be sold on as exports. That seems to have kept away all the southern European companies like DCNS, Fincantieri & Navantia. The last thing they want is a resurgent UK shipbuilding industry to re-enter the marketplace armed with a weak pound.

That's apart from the usual moans and groans about the MoD being way too specific on detailed specifications, it must have this and must have that, at the same time as insisting on the 250 million limit. Hard to tell if these are justifiable complaints or just BAU.

[Aethulwulf]

Bothered me a bit so having a couple of spare hours this afternoon, I donned the old deerstalker and attempted to sniff out the story. I expect that there are folks that read here that really know what happened so I ask them not to laugh too loudly.

But for what it's worth, here's my research so far. Help yourself to the salt:

I think there were at least 5 in the Type 31 competition at the beginning of the year: Babcock's Team 31, Cammell Laird & Bae, a German group lead by ThyssenKruff marine, Damen, and one other.

Around the time Babcock's announced that the Danish company OMT had joined their consortium, there appears to have been a shake up. OMT (the Danish design group with very pertinent skills in building Lego ships) may have been close to joining one of the European teams but both TKMS & Damen dropped out for the same reasons. Neither could find a suitable UK shipyard that would build their designs under license, and perhaps more importantly, they refused to hand over IP rights such that the UK could export further examples. In other words, both declined the opportunity to help create a UK competitor for themselves.

Maybe they had just joined to hear and see what was going on, knowing full well they would not qualify to compete for real.

OMT then signed with the only team left that was interested in their contributions, Babcock's (Cammell Laird is not really that interested in Lego building, they want to build & fit out most of the ship at their yard on Merseyside), and as we saw, that partnership resulted in the Arrowhead 140.

It seems three teams were left dueling for design contracts. The MoD was hoping for four and was extremely nervous that the competition would come down to a two horse race between Babcock's and CL/Bae. Politically very messy. As reported by Athelwolf, it appears two of the three teams didn't comply with the Type 31 criteria so the MoD was left looking extremely silly with just one compliant bid left on the table. Time for them to blow the whistle to give time to arm wrestle the recalcitrant two into compliance. Or do the British thing and just change the rules.

So, I hear you ask, who is this mysterious 5th then 3rd team. Well I dunno. I suspect they very much a creation of the MoD encouraging somebody different to team up to widen the field. But that's just my guess. My search will hopefully continue tomorrow. Unless someone out there spills the beans pronto

What I hear is there were actually 6 different ship designs submitted back in December to the original RFI.

With eventual the joining together of Babcock, BMT and OMT (Arrowhead 120, Venator 110 and IH) into one Arrowhead 140, the total number of different designs dropped to 4. This is why it was stated that upto 4 designs would be taken forward into the competitive design phase.

What happened next... who knows.

But Jane's has also reported that it is 'rumoured' that one of the bidding teams was Atlas/TKMS.

[Ron5]

Maybe Stellar Systems with Spartan was the 6th? Just guessing.

Certainly had the best project name. Sums up the program very nicely. I still have no idea what a Venator is, maybe a relation of a Minotaur? And Arrowheads at sea? Where did that come from? Did Nelson get an arrow through his eye, I thought that was somebody else

I know Leander tho, an ancient horny but bad, swimmer.

[abc123]

Maybe Stellar Systems with Spartan was the 6th? Just guessing.

Certainly had the best project name. Sums up the program very nicely. I still have no idea what a Venator is, maybe a relation of a Minotaur? And Arrowheads at sea? Where did that come from? Did Nelson get an arrow through his eye, I thought that was somebody else

I know Leander tho, an ancient horny but bad, swimmer.

It's good to see that classical education is still strong in the UK.

[Caribbean]

I think Venator is "hunter" - it's a long time since "O" level Latin, though

[SKB]

Venator (latin), a hunter. Feminine form is a venatrix.
Venatio (Roman) a type of Roman gladiator.

[Ron5]

Venator (latin), a hunter. Feminine form is a venatrix.
Venatio (Roman) a type of Roman gladiator.

Thought that was Nimrod. Anyhoo, shouldn't the ship really be Venatrix?

[Ron5]

"It's good to see that Hollywood education is still strong"

Fixed that for you

[Aethulwulf]

Venator (latin), a hunter. Feminine form is a venatrix.
Venatio (Roman) a type of Roman gladiator.

Thought that was Nimrod. Anyhoo, shouldn't the ship really be Venatrix?

Venator is a latin word that means hunter.

Nimrod is the name of a hunter, from the Bible. He was the great-grandson of Noah and the Bible states that he was "a mighty hunter before the Lord".

Perhaps the Australians should name one of their T26 Hunter class "Nimrod" or, my favourite, "Elmer Fudd"

Or maybe the UK should name the Type 31 as the Fudd class

[Ron5]

Venator (latin), a hunter. Feminine form is a venatrix.
Venatio (Roman) a type of Roman gladiator.

Thought that was Nimrod. Anyhoo, shouldn't the ship really be Venatrix?

Venator is a latin word that means hunter.

Nimrod is the name of a hunter, from the Bible. He was the great-grandson of Noah and the Bible states that he was "a mighty hunter before the Lord".

Perhaps the Australians should name one of their T26 Hunter class "Nimrod" or, my favourite, "Elmer Fudd"

Or maybe the UK should name the Type 31 as the Fudd class

HMS Wellie, another famous hunter.

[Ron5]

It's been revealed in the Daily Mail who instigated the Type 31 program:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... risis.html

[dmereifield]

That's thinking outside the box! Odd tone and content of the article, sounds like a hatchet job. All the press releases regarding Williamson, the MDP and defence funding generally have been rather positive re Williamson - that he was well intentioned and fighting for extra funding....whoever leaked these comments and wrote the piece have the opposite agenda...

[Caribbean]

It seems he has May and Hammond (and probably several other wannabes) rattled, doesn't he? He's vulnerable with the voters using the "Private Pike" jibe, so I would expect a lot more attacks along those lines in the future.
He needs to keep up the pressure to get the extra budget. The figures published a few days ago show an somewhat better financial position than anticipated earlier this year, so there might be a little money available to plug the "black hole" (in part, if not entirely)

[Tempest414]

Yet another piss poor article from the Mail I think it is time they got some real work done poor poor poor

[Aethulwulf]

Cost - Accumulated Depreciation = Net Book Value

An Asset is Depreciated over it's useful economic life. So the assumption I expect all to have made is that the CAMM parts fitted to the type 23s will be depreciated over a longer period than the ship's life because it is known that they are intended for the type 26s (and probably the T31e).

There is nothing stopping an asset being sold for more or less than it's book value but the calculation is Sale Proceeds - NBV = Profit or Loss on Disposal. What is relevant for the T31e discussion, or more specifically the A160 bid is the rate of depreciation. If the CMS is not going to be reused that means the rate of depreciation is wrong. Whether you can sell a CMS on the second hand market is also in play, but I think we can be fairly sure that as soon as the Accountants know the decision has been made to reduce the economic life they will need to change the depreciation rate.

So Babcock's bid could have failed for accounting reasons. Another point to consider is the transfer of the equipment from one ship to another.

The asset will be carried at the lower of NBV and Net Realisable Value if it is disposed of. Is the handing of the equipment to the winning bidder for fitting a disposal? If it is could there be a book Loss on Disposal? I can't think of a good reason why the accountants would not pay the NBV thereby doing away with this problem but there might be in the world of public sector accounts.

Interesting comment. I checked the recent MoD audits and it seems that they depreciate ships over their expected 24 to 30 year life. If they indeed depreciate CAMM & Artisan over the same extended period (in my world I've never seen any equipment depreciated for more than 5 years however expensive) and given they are relatively new, they will have a high book value when they become available for transfer to a new ship. As much as 80-85% of original purchase price. But of course it's not real money so as Jim says, it will be up to the accountants whether they take the virtual book value out of the 1.25 billion or not. If they don't, it will just come down the cash needed to transfer, refurbish, and re-warranty the kit. A still significant cost.

As for CMS, if I am right that it's use is acquired on an annual license/maintenance fee, depreciation will not apply. The old license would be terminated with the disposal of the old ship and a new license taken out for the new one (to be taken out of the 1.25b). Of course, the actual CMS will not be ported over, just the latest version downloaded from Bae into the new Type 31.

If Team Leander are looking to cross deck Artisan, CAMM and 4.5" Mk8 mod 1 from the T23, then they will need to buy at least one new ship set of Artisan and CAMM.

MOD has a number of the 4.5" Mk8 mod 1 in storage (being looked after by Babcock). So it should be no problem taking one of these from storage and fitting to the first Leander.

However that is not the case for Artisan and CAMM - these will have to come from the ones aboard the T23. But for the first Leander, as the first T23 doesn't decommission until mid-2023, this would put the delivery schedule at risk. So they will need to buy one new Artisan and one new set of CAMM launchers.

Of course, this applies to any of the teams wanting to cross deck Artisan and CAMM.

[Ron5]

Are all Type 23's scheduled to be fitted with Artisan & CAMM? I seem to remember reading that they weren't.

[Gabriele]

There are always 3 extra sets of radars and CAMM purchased for Type 26 which seem way too many now, considering the sluggish pace of Type 26 constructions.