UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

What will be the result of the 'Lighter Frigate' programme?

Programme cancelled, RN down to 14 escorts
51
11%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
13
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
120
26%
An LCS-like modular ship
21
4%
A modernised Type 23
22
5%
A Type 26-lite
65
14%
Less than 5 hulls
21
4%
5 hulls
63
13%
More than 5 hulls
91
19%
 
Total votes: 467

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1977
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 30 May 2019, 15:27

Interesting looks to me a 57mm gun and 24 CAMM launchers - no other VLS. Could this be the RN version?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 May 2019, 15:52

RichardIC wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:...I feel more and more that, UK is just one of the "importer" of Iver Huitfeldt-class as Arrowhead 140 and not in the exporter market of the design. Even if it were selected as T31e for RN, there will be no export from UK, as expected. No merit for customer, nor OMT.
It's going to depend entirely on what agreement is reached regarding intellectual property etc if the Iver Huitfedt is selected for T31e. And it hasn't been yet.
In the meantime OMT continue to try and export what is still their design and I don't think we can have any problem with that.
At least we know any future Iver Huitfeldts can't be built in Denmark.
Do you think those sells activity is associated with a disclaimer as; "note if RN selects Arrowhead 140, you will be force to build these hull at UK, or build by your own under Babcock's technical support". Sorry, I cannot imagine such a thing to happen.

I guess it will be just
1: you can build by your own yard with support from Team Denmark
2: or any other yards can be used. As one of such candidate, UK ship yard can also do it.

I'm no saying "build in UK" option is zero. But, why customers will prefer to build it in UK? Note that Team Denmarks approach to Indonesia has a longer history than Babcock's Arrowhead 140.

inch
Member
Posts: 599
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby inch » 30 May 2019, 15:57

Mmh Let's hope with new pm they go for more t26 instead eh

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 558
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RichardIC » 30 May 2019, 15:58

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Do you think those sells activity is associated with a disclaimer as; "note if RN selects Arrowhead 140, you will be force to build these hull at UK, or build by your own under Babcock's technical support". Sorry, I cannot imagine such a thing to happen.

I guess it will be just
1: you can build by your own yard with support from Team Denmark
2: or any other yards can be used. As one of such candidate, UK ship yard can also do it.


Dunno, I'm not party to the negotiations. None of us on here are as far as I'm aware.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 May 2019, 16:05

RichardIC wrote:https://twitter.com/BAES_Maritime/status/1134086781530443779
Great info.
- As Repulse-san says, 12 CAMM at bow, 12 CAMM amidship.
- A 57 mm gun at bow, and 2x 30 mm guns aside the hangar.
- no Phalanx CIWS
- 2 small radomes on the mizzen mast is the CAMM data links?
- ~1m extension astern on the flight deck.
- carrying 3 20ft ISO containers, and 2 RHIBs, and one 11m(?) alcove is empty.
- FCS for 57 mm gun is not shown. (why?)
- amid ship deck arrangement has been changed.

Overall, it looks very practical design, following the T31e RFI "requirements+FTRs". For example, if it carries CAMM, there is no need for CIWS. No requirement for Mk 41 VLS. It is good as it is. But if "more" is required, not much margin she has. No problem, she is only 3600t small ship, optimized for the original T31e RFI requirement.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 30 May 2019, 16:09

RichardIC wrote:Dunno, I'm not party to the negotiations. None of us on here are as far as I'm aware.
Agreed. I am just guessing. My first point is, Babcock is still not "within" the Team Denmark (looks like a fact).

And if so, common sense says any sells activity under Team Denmark banner is independent of Babcock. So, Iver Huitfeldts itself will be a rival for Arrowhead 140. I see no strong evidence against thinking so, following common sense. This is my second point.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 30 May 2019, 16:25

for me if they want to put 24 CAMM on Leander fit 2 EXLS in place of the tubs and clean the hole thing up those horrid tubs make the ship look cheap and now they have added another cheap tub

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1977
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 30 May 2019, 17:33

Tempest414 wrote:for me if they want to put 24 CAMM on Leander fit 2 EXLS in place of the tubs and clean the hole thing up those horrid tubs make the ship look cheap and now they have added another cheap tub


Perhaps the RN has offered up the existing T23 tubes for free?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1977
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 30 May 2019, 17:49

donald_of_tokyo wrote:~1m extension astern on the flight deck


I saw that, seems strange as the flight deck already looked to be Merlin capable and it’s not meant to be there for carrying any weight - any ideas?
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Location: Denmark

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby MikeKiloPapa » 30 May 2019, 18:09

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Zero smell of UK company, Babcock, involved in Iver Huitfeldt-class sales around Asia, in IMDEX Asia 2019.


"Asia" here really only meaning Indonesia, which have been eyeing the IHs at least since 2014-15 , so as you yourself notes , that offer to them predates OMT/Naval Team Denmarks involvement with Babcock by several years.....and is probably to far along by now to involve the latter. It should also be noted that the Indonesians are looking for a specification closer to the Huitfeldts, as opposed to those of the A140( if they can afford it is another matter though) .



I think Indonesia is a special case though,..... like DK , they are relatively cash-strapped , and they also want to bolster there own shipbuilding industry. Here the smaller danish companies is a perfect fit, because they are cheaper and much more flexible to work with.....another little known advantage is that OMT has substantial know-how and experience in upgrading and optimizing ship yards, something the Indonesians are likely to utilize and which is probably a part of OMTs offer.

But i also think this is the last shot for a pure Danish bid......what the last 10-15 years have aptly demonstrated , is that the Danish defence industry and its companies TERMA, OMT , NTD etc are simply too small to properly compete on the international market ....and further handicapped by the lack of our own shipbuilding yard(s).......Hence the tie-up with Babcock.

Just an impression, I agree, but I feel more and more that, UK is just one of the "importer" of Iver Huitfeldt-class as Arrowhead 140 and not in the exporter market of the design

http://navalteam.dk/index.php?id=25&tx_ ... 080aed4032

This news blurb from last year strongly suggests that you are wrong Donald-san. In fact i think you will see that any future bid or offer involving OMT will be as a part of Team 31, pitching the A140 and NOT the Huitfeldts.

Even if it were selected as T31e for RN, there will be no export from UK, as expected.


Perhaps, but what makes you think it would be any different with Leander ? ...Countries who are going to want to build A140 themselves, are also likely to insist on building Leander in their own yards......Regardless of which design is finally selected for T31 , i think the best UK can hope for in terms of export is selling the design but with a high level of UK content( propulsion systems,IPMS, CMS , Weapons and Sensors etc)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3611
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 30 May 2019, 18:18

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
RichardIC wrote:https://twitter.com/BAES_Maritime/status/1134086781530443779
Great info.
- As Repulse-san says, 12 CAMM at bow, 12 CAMM amidship.
- A 57 mm gun at bow, and 2x 30 mm guns aside the hangar.
- no Phalanx CIWS
- 2 small radomes on the mizzen mast is the CAMM data links?
- ~1m extension astern on the flight deck.
- carrying 3 20ft ISO containers, and 2 RHIBs, and one 11m(?) alcove is empty.
- FCS for 57 mm gun is not shown. (why?)
- amid ship deck arrangement has been changed.

Overall, it looks very practical design, following the T31e RFI "requirements+FTRs". For example, if it carries CAMM, there is no need for CIWS. No requirement for Mk 41 VLS. It is good as it is. But if "more" is required, not much margin she has. No problem, she is only 3600t small ship, optimized for the original T31e RFI requirement.


No "dedicated" FCS. However, RN ships don't usually carry one. Mainmast EO plus Artisan will supply target co-ords.

Phalanx is FTR?

Are you sure about the flight deck change? I doubt adding 1m is worthwhile.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Location: Denmark

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby MikeKiloPapa » 30 May 2019, 18:32

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
RichardIC wrote:Dunno, I'm not party to the negotiations. None of us on here are as far as I'm aware.
Agreed. I am just guessing. My first point is, Babcock is still not "within" the Team Denmark (looks like a fact).

No not as far as we know , but OMT is very much a part of Team 31...( and its VERY likely that Babcock will become an affiliated member of NTD.... like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.....but only if they win the T31 selection of course)

And if so, common sense says any sells activity under Team Denmark banner is independent of Babcock.

Common sense says that ANY "sells activity" wrt to the IH under NTDs banner is EXTREMELY unlikely.......OMTs best bet of getting anything out of the Huitfeldt IP , is handing it over or sharing it with Babcock. Also a rather obvious fact which i think everyone misses here is that Iver Huitfeldt does NOT = Arrowhead 140 .....and likewise IHs IP is not the same as A140s .

So, Iver Huitfeldts itself will be a rival for Arrowhead 140.

No it wont. That Team 31 is also showing the A140 (export) in a configuration mirroring the Huitfeldt's but under Babcocks banner is indicative of that.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 May 2019, 02:50

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
RichardIC wrote:https://twitter.com/BAES_Maritime/status/1134086781530443779
Great info.
- As Repulse-san says, 12 CAMM at bow, 12 CAMM amidship.
- A 57 mm gun at bow, and 2x 30 mm guns aside the hangar.
- no Phalanx CIWS
- 2 small radomes on the mizzen mast is the CAMM data links?
- ~1m extension astern on the flight deck.
- carrying 3 20ft ISO containers, and 2 RHIBs, and one 11m(?) alcove is empty.
- FCS for 57 mm gun is not shown. (why?)
- amid ship deck arrangement has been changed...
Ron5 wrote:No "dedicated" FCS. However, RN ships don't usually carry one. Mainmast EO plus Artisan will supply target co-ords.
Phalanx is FTR?
Are you sure about the flight deck change? I doubt adding 1m is worthwhile.
Repulse wrote:I saw that (~1m extension), seems strange as the flight deck already looked to be Merlin capable and it’s not meant to be there for carrying any weight - any ideas?
1: 57mm with full kit of 3P ammunition, primarily for AAW precision 240 rounds per minute fire, may need a dedicated FCS because of the refresh rate? (Gun for NGFS (and anti-ship) do not need it.). EO can do it, but only if not in fog.

2: My point is, location used for Phalanx in the original plan are now used for communication antennas. This is "OK" if Leander carries CAMM, I think.

3: Adding 1 m was also done in Al Khareef class, although the shape of the extension slightly differs. So, may be they just "copy-and-pasted" the stern design, while extension (for Merlin) is at near the hangar? Not sure.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 May 2019, 02:57

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
So, Iver Huitfeldts itself will be a rival for Arrowhead 140.
No it wont. That Team 31 is also showing the A140 (export) in a configuration mirroring the Huitfeldt's but under Babcocks banner is indicative of that.
Hopefully. Anyway, my point is the license issue is one of the biggest concern to Arrowhead 140, as well as the MEKO A200 proposal. I hope clear announcement to be provided from the two teams.

P.S. Babcock has a license to sell Vard7 80 and 90 OPVs. But, RNZN Otago-class OPV = Vard7 85, virtually a sister of them, were not built in Babcock nor under the technical support of them. On the other hand, in Vard7 110 = USCG Heritage class cutter, Babcock won the detailed engineering support contract for its design. As Vard7 is a merchant ship hull (it is advocated to be so), licensing will be more easy. So, licensing agreement for Arrowhead 140 (and MEKO A200) is of great interest, one of the top concern, I think.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1657
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 31 May 2019, 07:27

Since "exportability" is the main focus of both the NSS AND the T31 RFI, I doubt Babcocks would have wasted more than a few minutes on the A140 if they hadn't got the IP issues nailed down from day 1.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3297
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 31 May 2019, 09:12

Caribbean wrote:Since "exportability" is the main focus of both the NSS AND the T31 RFI, I doubt Babcocks would have wasted more than a few minutes on the A140 if they hadn't got the IP issues nailed down from day 1.
Sorry, you miss my point. I should have written it more directly.

Babcock DO HAVE an export license of Vard7 80, and they sold it to Irish Navy. With the experience, I guess they even designed Vard7 90 OPVs, also sold to Irish navy. Good. But, it did not stopped Tennix Australia (now BAE) to build two Vard7 85 OPV for RNZN which is another development of Vard-7 80 OPV. In this case,
- Babcock DO HAVE an export license
- but it was not exclusive license (not forced to include Babcock in all future program)
I think this is the common way. Similarly, if Atlas-UK win T31e, I do not expect them to have an exclusive license of MEKO A200. If it were exclusive license, then it is very special case, and I want to know if it is the case.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10883
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 31 May 2019, 11:01

MikeKiloPapa wrote: the Danish defence industry and its companies TERMA, OMT , NTD etc are simply too small to properly compete on the international market ....and further handicapped by the lack of our own shipbuilding yard(s).......Hence the tie-up with Babcock
Sensible as the other Nordic defence companies are pretty much consolidating in just two... long tradition for the Danes to look this way; across the sea
FCS for 57 mm gun is not shown. (why?)
First thought that this is the "e" as the RN is unlikely to intro a new calibre for a class of 5. Even the US (when you total USN+ USCG) have pretty much halved their initial 57 mm order... so why would we put a "coastal craft" / Coast Guard weapon onto a blue-water asset? And the likeliest answer is Ron's, below. Just like for the same gun on the Hamina FACs... just an integrated system, nothing extra.
Ron5 wrote:No "dedicated" FCS. However, RN ships don't usually carry one. Mainmast EO plus Artisan will supply target co-ords.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 558
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RichardIC » 31 May 2019, 11:57

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Hopefully. Anyway, my point is the license issue is one of the biggest concern to Arrowhead 140, as well as the MEKO A200 proposal. I hope clear announcement to be provided from the two teams.

P.S. Babcock has a license to sell Vard7 80 and 90 OPVs. But, RNZN Otago-class OPV = Vard7 85, virtually a sister of them, were not built in Babcock nor under the technical support of them. On the other hand, in Vard7 110 = USCG Heritage class cutter, Babcock won the detailed engineering support contract for its design. As Vard7 is a merchant ship hull (it is advocated to be so), licensing will be more easy. So, licensing agreement for Arrowhead 140 (and MEKO A200) is of great interest, one of the top concern, I think.


Bottom line is that none of us know what terms of business have been agreed, or whether they are still negotiating, and we're speculating.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby SKB » 31 May 2019, 13:08

Some new T31e concepts from BAE: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bae-sy ... e-concept/

Btw. No anchor?

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1260
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Pseudo » 31 May 2019, 21:21

SKB wrote:Some new T31e concepts from BAE: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bae-sy ... e-concept/

Btw. No anchor?

It uses a revolutionary braking mechanism based around a series of extending, tensile "air brakes" constructed of a durable, environmentally-friendly fabric material, which also doubles as an auxiliary propulsion system that harnesses the very latest in renewable energy technology. :)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby SKB » 14 Jun 2019, 11:42

Some BAE Leander T31e images:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
(BAE Maritime)

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 421
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby whitelancer » 14 Jun 2019, 21:51

Looks nice enough but not much in the way of offensive capability.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Jun 2019, 10:58

There is simply no money in the budget for offensive weapons and the only offensive punch comes from the Helicopter so instead of a GP frigate it should be looked at as global patrol frigate.

I think more can be done to Leander to make it a good local area defence escort like change the two 30mm for 40mm Mk-4s with 3P ammo plus add LMM. It now looks like Leander will now get 24 CAMM but if the RN wanted more swap out the two front tubs for two 3 cell EXLS giving the ship 36 CAMM.

This would mean the ship could engage air threats at 25+ km plus air & surface threats at 8.5km with a mix of CAMM , 57mm, 40mm , LMM , and small arms

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1657
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 15 Jun 2019, 11:02

Hopefully there will be money in the guided weapons budget to allow for adding some deck-mounted launchers for an anti-ship missile (once the future strategy is decided).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1405
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 15 Jun 2019, 11:25

Looking at the images above is the hangar taller than before maybe Merlin capable ?


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Big_Roger, Poiuytrewq and 18 guests