Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

The Mk 8 will never get a guided round, they will not make such a large investment in a legacy weapon.

@RichardIC is correct, at some point there will be little opportunity for the use of unguided rounds, bringing me back to my point about the Mk 8 becoming increasingly unusable. Better off with a 30mm.

That wont stop the MOD, they want a colonial gun boat so they'll probably get one.

[ViscountViktor]

I think CL are definitely in the winning position at the moment, their reported conversations with export markets is just what the MoD wants to hear.

Babcock have gone completely silent, worrying for their yards without the work.

[Pongoglo]

It's perfectly good for NGS. Far more so than a smaller calibre like 76mm (I'm totally discounting 57mm). Those long ranged precision guided rounds may get fielded, but until they are the 4.5 inch is perfectly acceptable, its better for AA work as well (and that matters with more and more drones) and for anti-FIAC work due to its higher ROF. Unlike 57mm and 76mm its also capable of stopping a ship...

As to long range guided munitions for medium calibre guns, for the foreseeable these will be rare as hens teeth. Vulcano or other isn't going to be turning up in RN service for at least 10 years. But the 4.5 inch could be adapted to a cheaper, slightly less accurate guided round very easily. The M1156 PGK could be very easily adapted to 4.5inch if we so wished (as it could for 105mm as well).

I suspect within the T31 budget it will be re-used 4.5 inch or nothing. Thats better than 76mm or 57mm in my book, which if you've got DS30, Phalanx and Sea Ceptor are utterly unnecessary for close in work and outclassed by 4.5 inch for any heavier or at range work required.

Spot on - and here here ! And that's why CL/BAE are clearly championing it in their latest brochure, finally, maybe, some ones seen sense? How many of you have seen a 4.5 Mk 8 doing its stuff ? I have , many a time, (clue is in my pseudonym ) and as the few of you on here who know me will confirm. For NGS it is the absolute DB , especially where airburst is concerned. When it comes to AAW I am equally certain 57mm (3M ammo?) would be better, but the downside is its cr*p at NGS. The Oto 76 being second rate at both, which is why the RN canned it before. All comes down to what we think the big gun up front is there for I guess , however if it's AAW, CAMM plus a modern CIWS is better , leave the gun to NGS and secondary anti-ship. Keep the MK8 for T31 (RN version) - does it for me.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Pongoglo-san, thanks. I'm afraid you cannot answer because of your duty, but;

1: Can you compare how much maintenance load is needed to operate 4.5inch gun, and compare it with 57mm or 76mm guns?

I'm afraid of the additional onboard crew to support it. Its mechanics is becoming old, and not much hope for modernization.


2: How many ammo is needed for "efficient" NGFS without guided ammo (4.5inch gun will never have it), to be effective? I'm afraid arsenal on Leander will not be so large.

I'm primarily looking at these 57/76mm guns as for AAW and ship blockades. If added with guided ammo, 57/76mm gun will be efficient on NGFS (aiming at direct hit, not blast/splinter), but because of its high cost, I'm reserving this option as "future growth margins". If it is simple version, it is cheap to procure, maintain and operate. It also has a large future growth margin (57mm Orca rounds, 76mm Volcano and DARTS rounds), is why I like these 57/76mm guns. Also it is cheap to mount, because the type-ship (Khareef) already carries a 76mm gun.

[AndyC]

Surely even the Leander needs to maximise the use of equipment from the T23s if it is to keep to the £250m price tag?

That must mean at the very least transitioning the Artisan 3D radar, sonar, 4.5 inch gun, eight Harpoon missile launchers and the full 32 CAMM mushroom farm silo!

If there isn't room behind the gun for the whole CAMM silo then put it in the middle of the ship where Cammell Laird have located the Mk 41 VLS silo.

Then if the budget will stretch that far put the Mk 41 silo behind the gun with four launchers for quad packed CAMM-ER and four for VL-ASROC!

[Ron5]

Not news so apologies for that but I find myself a tad obsessed with the Type 31 program.

I scour the web & print for references and I think this is the current situation. Well, current situation for hot rumors anyhow:

1. There were 3 contenders for the design contracts: only Leander passed the criteria.

2. Babcock's were told that Arrowhead 140 was out of the question. Too big, too expensive.

3. The program was stopped to give time to Babcock's to come back with a compliant bid for a design contract.

4. Babcock's reentered with Arrowhead 120 and showed enough to restart the program.

5. Two design contracts will be awarded fairly soon: Babcock's Arrowhead 120 & Cammel Lairds' Leander

6. Winner will be announced in Spring 2019 and will have the first shot at agreeing a design, build, service & support contract for 5 ships. Seeing that the winner will be decided on the basis of firm costings & build schedule, this is not anticipated to be a lengthy process.

7. If contract negotiations do break down, the loser will be offered the same chance to agree a contract.

9. Program cost and delivery dates unchanged but may be modified in build contract negotiations.

[dmereifield]

5. Two design contracts will be awarded fairly soon: Babcock's Arrowhead 120 & Cammel Lairds' Leander

I'm a bit confused about this, how much are the designed contracts worth? Presumably, these contracts are not included in the £250 million price cap?

[clinch]

Not news so apologies for that but I find myself a tad obsessed with the Type 31 program.

I scour the web & print for references and I think this is the current situation. Well, current situation for hot rumors anyhow:

1. There were 3 contenders for the design contracts: only Leander passed the criteria.

2. Babcock's were told that Arrowhead 140 was out of the question. Too big, too expensive.

3. The program was stopped to give time to Babcock's to come back with a compliant bid for a design contract.

4. Babcock's reentered with Arrowhead 120 and showed enough to restart the program.

5. Two design contracts will be awarded fairly soon: Babcock's Arrowhead 120 & Cammel Lairds' Leander

6. Winner will be announced in Spring 2019 and will have the first shot at agreeing a design, build, service & support contract for 5 ships. Seeing that the winner will be decided on the basis of firm costings & build schedule, this is not anticipated to be a lengthy process.

7. If contract negotiations do break down, the loser will be offered the same chance to agree a contract.

9. Program cost and delivery dates unchanged but may be modified in build contract negotiations.

Not sure I follow the logic of this. The Type 31 programme was suspended this summer:

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/type-3 ... suspended/

Arrowhead 120 was already the Babcock offering long before then.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/babcock ... 1-frigate/

[ArmChairCivvy]

When trying to assess the small fragments of information coming out as a drip feed, it may be useful to refer to this list, which all of those still in the game must have filled in, with the required detail:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1e_RFI.pdf

That is not to say that the design contract phase is not going to bring any changes... as "value trading" is an integral part of the design phase.
- Exactly the bit that, with the single sourcing prevailing for too long, has gone wrong.

[Ron5]

5. Two design contracts will be awarded fairly soon: Babcock's Arrowhead 120 & Cammel Lairds' Leander

I'm a bit confused about this, how much are the designed contracts worth? Presumably, these contracts are not included in the £250 million price cap?

The design contracts will undoubtedly have to come out of the Type 31 budget but I'd be surprised if they are large and, of course, for the winning bid, it's not wasted money.

[Ron5]

Not news so apologies for that but I find myself a tad obsessed with the Type 31 program.

I scour the web & print for references and I think this is the current situation. Well, current situation for hot rumors anyhow:

1. There were 3 contenders for the design contracts: only Leander passed the criteria.

2. Babcock's were told that Arrowhead 140 was out of the question. Too big, too expensive.

3. The program was stopped to give time to Babcock's to come back with a compliant bid for a design contract.

4. Babcock's reentered with Arrowhead 120 and showed enough to restart the program.

5. Two design contracts will be awarded fairly soon: Babcock's Arrowhead 120 & Cammel Lairds' Leander

6. Winner will be announced in Spring 2019 and will have the first shot at agreeing a design, build, service & support contract for 5 ships. Seeing that the winner will be decided on the basis of firm costings & build schedule, this is not anticipated to be a lengthy process.

7. If contract negotiations do break down, the loser will be offered the same chance to agree a contract.

9. Program cost and delivery dates unchanged but may be modified in build contract negotiations.

Not sure I follow the logic of this. The Type 31 programme was suspended this summer:

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/type-3 ... suspended/

Arrowhead 120 was already the Babcock offering long before then.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/babcock ... 1-frigate/

Babcock's consortium dropped the Arrowhead 120 from the competition a few months ago and made the Arrowhead 140 their submission.

In hindsight, a silly mistake on their part. My guess is they were taken in by the low, low, prices quoted on the web and by OMT, for the baseline Iver Huitfeldts. These claims have been investigated more than once (most notably during the Canadian frigate competition) and found to be bogus.

I wouldn't be surprised if OMT were not quietly dropped from their consortium.

Anyhow, not fatal. The MoD would lose so much face if they were only left with one compliant bid, so they hit the pause button for long enough for Babcocks to recover. Lucky for Babcocks. Maybe having some Irish in their bid paid off

[Poiuytrewq]

Babcock's consortium dropped the Arrowhead 120 from the competition a few months ago and made the Arrowhead 140 their submission.

In hindsight, a silly mistake on their part. My guess is they were taken in by the low, low, prices quoted on the web and by OMT, for the baseline Iver Huitfeldts. These claims have been investigated more than once (most notably during the Canadian frigate competition) and found to be bogus.

You are probably right but could there be another explanation for the sudden inclusion of the IH design.

Around the time of the announcement of Arrowhead 140 a lot of pressure was being applied by various parties including the Defence Select Committee for the MDP to address the 'North Atlantic Problem'. One of the main areas of focus was giving the T31 a credible ASW capability.

Could Babcock have gotten wind of a change in direction of the T31 programme and decided to introduce a more capable and therefore more expensive design?

Now that the initial draft of the MDP has been deemed unaffordable and is currently being rewritten to make the outcomes match the available budget has Babcock had to revert back to plan A?

Whether there is any truth in this or not, personally, I don't buy the argument that Babcok simply got its sums wrong.

[dmereifield]

5. Two design contracts will be awarded fairly soon: Babcock's Arrowhead 120 & Cammel Lairds' Leander

I'm a bit confused about this, how much are the designed contracts worth? Presumably, these contracts are not included in the £250 million price cap?

The design contracts will undoubtedly have to come out of the Type 31 budget but I'd be surprised if they are large and, of course, for the winning bid, it's not wasted money.

If I recall correctly, the aim was to award up to 4 design contracts. If the design contracts come from the £1.25 bn budget, then then the winning bidder will not actually have a budget of £250 million per ship...so, presumably there are separate funds for the initial design contracts, and therefore the winning bidder will actually have a £250 million per ship plus the design contract funds

[Ron5]

Babcock's consortium dropped the Arrowhead 120 from the competition a few months ago and made the Arrowhead 140 their submission.

In hindsight, a silly mistake on their part. My guess is they were taken in by the low, low, prices quoted on the web and by OMT, for the baseline Iver Huitfeldts. These claims have been investigated more than once (most notably during the Canadian frigate competition) and found to be bogus.

You are probably right but could there be another explanation for the sudden inclusion of the IH design.

Around the time of the announcement of Arrowhead 140 a lot of pressure was being applied by various parties including the Defence Select Committee for the MDP to address the 'North Atlantic Problem'. One of the main areas of focus was giving the T31 a credible ASW capability.

Could Babcock have gotten wind of a change in direction of the T31 programme and decided to introduce a more capable and therefore more expensive design?

Now that the initial draft of the MDP has been deemed unaffordable and is currently being rewritten to make the outcomes match the available budget has Babcock had to revert back to plan A?

Whether there is any truth in this or not, personally, I don't buy the argument that Babcok simply got its sums wrong.

In my world, the juniors are sent into to negotiate deals and sometimes teams on both sides get a bit carried away and are quickly shot down when the seniors come in to review the final offering. Very easy to lose sight of the forest when you're up close to a tree.

I can imagine some crusty old admiral saying "we wanted a small, cheap, patrol frigate and you've come back with a proposal for a 7 thousand ton destroyer, are you effing kidding me?"

[ArmChairCivvy]

some crusty old admiral saying "we wanted a small, cheap, patrol frigate and you've come back with a proposal for a 7 thousand ton destroyer, are you effing kidding me?"

Last time around we did not have that Admiral, but ended (will end) up with three times the target price per piece.

This is not to say that, this much later, we might not be headed for a better mix within the surface fleet.

[Ron5]

three times the target price per piece.

The Type 26 UPC is nowhere near 3 times the original target. I don't think it will be even be double.

The betting pool is open for the final cost of the Type 31's.

My money is on 300m per including all the overheads. Given the MoD/treasury penchant for pointless secrecy, it will be a while before we know for sure.

[Tempest414]

I will go with 350 per ship all in and with ported over kit from the Type 23s including the Mk-8 4.5"

[ArmChairCivvy]

The Type 26 UPC is nowhere near 3 times the original target. I don't think it will be even be double.

Albeit I agree with your closing paragraph, here is a tracker from TD for the 2 or 3 times the target (TD cannot be held responsible for the GB announcement about the £250m target, when the vessel was supposed to be much smaller, ie. not globally deployable... which the RN soon "torpedoed"):

"The weight and size of Type 26 has changed, and possibly will continue to change until the detailed design is frozen and steel cut.

This original baseline was reportedly 141m long, displacing 6,850 tonnes and costing an estimated £500m each.

As part of the ongoing cost/capability trade-offs, it was repeatedly reported that this cost was undesirable to the MoD and capabilities (and size) pared down to achieve a target cost of £250 million to £350 million each.

The displacement was reduced to 5,400 tonnes and the ship dimensions, 148m length with a beam of 19m. Sharp-eyed readers will note that the length had actually increased from the baseline.

Cast your mind back to the history of Type 26 and the C1 (Versatile Surface Combatant) was expected to displace about 6,000 tonnes and the C2 (Medium Vessel Derivative), 4-5,000 tonnes."

Would T31 be the latter, and the £50m shaved off (let's not bring in inflation... we'll be here all night ) by the Gvmnt-provided kit?

[Ron5]

Of course it all comes back to when you want to start the calculation.

I believe, based on a number of reliable sources, that when the T26 program started and the budget was set, the budget was based on a 13 ship program with an average UPC of 2/3 of the Type 45 UPC plus all of the one time overheads. So approx 400m UPC for each Type 26.

I also believe that the Type 26 contract negotiations dragged on and on and finally reached an impasse with Bae unable (or unwilling) to meet the budget. Bae, to end the deadlock, suggested breaking out the requirement & money for the GP Type 26's to fund a new program for a cheaper ship. The MoD agreed and ran with it from there. I'm sure the history of the C1, C2 & C3 concepts helped sell the idea.

That was 1.25b and 5 ships so that's where the Type 31 parameters were born i.e. the amount of the original Type 26 budget minus Bae's price for 8 ASW Type 26.

[ArmChairCivvy]

an average UPC of 2/3 of the Type 45 UPC plus all of the one time overheads. So approx 400m UPC for each Type 26.

I also believe that the Type 26 contract negotiations dragged on and on and finally reached an impasse with Bae unable (or unwilling) to meet the budget. Bae, to end the deadlock, suggested breaking out the requirement & money for the GP Type 26's to fund a new program for a cheaper ship. The MoD agreed and ran with it from there. I'm sure the history of the C1, C2 & C3 concepts helped sell the idea.

That was 1.25b and 5 ships so that's where the Type 31 parameters were born i.e. the amount of the original Type 26 budget minus Bae's price for 8 ASW Type 26.

That all makes sense. Almost too much to be true

In the published EPs the only trace of T31 (so far) is the T26 budget, for the first 5 years, shrinking by £0.5 bn
- moving the vessels "to the right"
- in order to make space for the T31s
- half a bn does not take you too far; where will the rest be coming from? Is this the (MDP connected) crisis that called a temporary halt to the prgrm?

[Ron5]

Is this the (MDP connected) crisis that called a temporary halt to the prgrm?

I don't think so, I really think its the lack of Type 31 compliant bids that temporarily halted the program. Which to me says that the Type 31 program will survive the MDP unscathed.

Of course, if the Type 31 program reaches the manufacture contract phase and no one is willing to sign a fixed price 1.25b contract, who the hell knows what will happen. The MoD and Treasury seem to have neatly boxed themselves into a corner with a program that they cannot allow to fail. There would be a lot of people at Bae laughing their asses off if that happened. But my money is still on Camell Laird getting the work, they seem to have a good set of execs that won't bet their company on the outcome.

[Halidon]

Interesting rumor roundup, Ron. I'd be pretty shocked if a shop like Babcock ran all the way to bids based on something as flimsy as prices on a website, but then again it's 2018...I see dumber decision-makimg every time I watch the nightly news. My concern WRT a return to 120 is how confident they are they can contain clean-sheet costs. I'm all but expecting BAE/CL to be above their cost target for stretching their existing hull, becuase stretches are real easy to mess up, but I'd be even more concerned with a new hull. Wonder if they found a new donor hull to help contain the problem.

[Ron5]

Interesting rumor roundup, Ron. I'd be pretty shocked if a shop like Babcock ran all the way to bids based on something as flimsy as prices on a website, but then again it's 2018...I see dumber decision-makimg every time I watch the nightly news. My concern WRT a return to 120 is how confident they are they can contain clean-sheet costs. I'm all but expecting BAE/CL to be above their cost target for stretching their existing hull, becuase stretches are real easy to mess up, but I'd be even more concerned with a new hull. Wonder if they found a new donor hull to help contain the problem.

One way to view it is that the web pricing usually has OMT as the primary source. OMT is part of the Babcock's consortium.

I have zero reason to think that that company is in any way unethical and I'm sure every quoted cost incurred by the commercial yards is 100% accurate.

But, and it's a huge but, the way the Iver Huitfeldts were acquired is that the commercial designers and builders delivered ships without any military equipment to the Danish Navy who then spent a couple of years acquiring and fitting out the military systems. Some salvaged from older ships. Even then, the ships didn't have all their kit and had to go back for further installations.

So how do you cost out the part of the build that was performed by the Danish government and not by the commercial shipbuilders?

The Canadians had a go and they concluded the IH's were no bargain and the web prices were off by at least a factor of two.

You can argue how much or how little the IH's would be to replicate, but I think the bottom line is that the reputation of the Danes has taken a big hit. They've been eliminated from the Canadian competition and I believe that their design been eliminated from the Type 31 as well.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Annual GDP [+] 2017 324,872M.$ vs. 2,622,434M.$ 2017 Annual GDP [+]
Defence Expenditure (M.$) [+] 2017 3,811.2 vs. 47,364.1 2017 Defence Expenditure (M.$) [+]

GDP comparison to us 12% and defence expenditure 8% => I round the composite index to 10%

Hence, we should have, in our surface fleet
- 10 times as many general purpose, frigate sized vessels, compared their Absalons
- and 10 times as many ABM capable ships, compared to their IHs.

No doubt that the unit price comparisons have not been like for like, but something has still been done right... e.g. a centralised/ nationalised yard for the military fitting out (and testing of the results), while competing the building of the hulls and fitting for propulsion and basic navigation?

[Opinion3]

As an island nation we should have a Navy that can handle the current and future threats that can be reasonably foreseen.

I see a Russia with a President who is very keen to reassert the Old Power of the USSR. There is more than a passing semblance to Putin's Russia and Hilter's Germany. Even down to the youth camps.

The Navy is an insurance against these possible threats, but I am still to see a T31e design that is plausible and effective for the budget provided. It is still a waste of money.