Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Spinflight]

Stellar Systems has proposed an interesting design..

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-cont ... Public.pdf

Not many details but large hangar and mission deck with stern ramp. Looks very interesting..

[Jensy]

BMT/SAAB proposing Venator 110 for the Colombian Navy: http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6684660/B ... oposal.pdf

https://mobile.twitter.com/BMT_Defence/ ... 3953694720

Since I saw this design I thought it was ideal for S.America, perhaps Brazil, Chile and Peru at a push.

Places where they aren't flooded with SSNs and other high-end threats but like Frigates.

(P.S I'm new to posting. Apologies if this is not the right thread)

Jensy

[marktigger]

Stellar Systems has proposed an interesting design..

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-cont ... Public.pdf

Not many details but large hangar and mission deck with stern ramp. Looks very interesting..

agree nice looking vessel. 2x nh90 size hanger gives good export potential reconfigure the hanger slightly it'll take a merlin.

[ArmChairCivvy]

reconfigure the hanger slightly it'll take a merlin

Can you say which dimension falls short?

[marktigger]

it would need single door and the gantry moved to the side to generate the height/width to get merlin into the hanger

[ArmChairCivvy]

to generate the height/width

Not much impact, whereas increasing length might have.

A single door: up&over?

[Timmymagic]

The UK Treasury has, and will continue, to attempt to do this but are greatly handicapped by their inability to set an appropriate price for the desired capability, and then completely lacking any mechanism to apply financial discipline to the subsequent design/build process. In other words, they totally suck at their jobs.

I'm not trying to trivialize this, it's a very, very difficult thing to do for industrialists with decades of experience (build acceptable solutions to a tight, fixed budget for very complex requirements). The 20 something oxbridge lovies "led" by nitwit politicos stand zero chance.

Ron,
You're way off the mark there. It's not the 'Treasury'. The UK Gov has a portfolio called the GMPP (Government Major Projects Portfolio). Anything over £50m or 'novel or contentious' goes in. The individual departments manage the programmes within. However, they have to report on progress and seek approval to proceed at various Gateways/assurance points. This is done through the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA, used to be called MPA, Major Projects Authority, but it merged recently with Infrastructure UK) who are a part of the Cabinet Office. The departments themselves manage the requirements/specification after the usual kickoffs. The Treasury are the last point of approval. In my experience of dealing with them they're very supportive, but they will ask for evidence/proof and make demands. When they've refused to sign something off its usually because something is going wrong. They get the blame but they're only reacting to evidence presented. The biggest issue in the past has been over optimism on the programme teams part, a failure to properly assess the risks or bad contractual management. Most of these issues are in the past as the framework is very tight now. That causes problems in itself as what flew before won't fly now. A lot of the issues that presented themselves in the past get picked up a lot earlier. It's not all plain sailing as the assurance demanded from the centre can strain your resources but it is public money you're spending.

[marktigger]

to generate the height/width

Not much impact, whereas increasing length might have.

A single door: up&over?

yeap or roller
looking at the CGI there is the space to take a longer helicoper

[Little J]

Stellar Systems has proposed an interesting design..

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-cont ... Public.pdf

Not many details but large hangar and mission deck with stern ramp. Looks very interesting..

Don't know if the design is right for RN (I'll leave that to better people on here), but I do agree with the business plan.


Oh and just to clarify, I do like the design

[ArmChairCivvy]

done through the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA, used to be called MPA, Major Projects Authority, but it merged recently with Infrastructure UK) who are a part of the Cabinet Office.

Good that someone clarified it, as the Treasury hate around various defence blogs sometimes grows out of proportion. Now

- even though The Top Level Budget (TLB) holder organisations within the MOD are:

Air Command
Central TLB
Chief of Joint Operations
Defence Equipment and Support
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
Land Forces
Navy Command
... leaving Air - Land - Sea in a minority, it was judged that "nuclear" as in subs and the warheads for the SSBN variety was just too big & specialist for either any of these lines (note "Central" AKA Strategic Projects) or the IPA to handle, so we have a new agency to do that. As I am not qualified for the Chief Naval Architect post (abt £100k pa) I thought I might apply for that new £500k pa post.
- these things are really simple - if you can see through the chaff
- and as the MoD cannot, they are trying their utmost best to make it difficult for outside observers (so the Kremlinologist effort becomes directed at ourselves when it could be put to better use)

[Aethulwulf]

BMT/SAAB proposing Venator 110 for the Colombian Navy: http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6684660/B ... oposal.pdf

https://mobile.twitter.com/BMT_Defence/ ... 3953694720

Since I saw this design I thought it was ideal for S.America, perhaps Brazil, Chile and Peru at a push.

An interesting move by BMT and Saab. To win in Colombia, the Venator design is going to be up against major competition from France, Spain, Germany, etc. Good luck.

However, this is the first time I have heard of any of the contenders for Type 31 bid their design in competition. Even if they do not win in Colombia, BMT are sending a strong signal to UK MOD that the Venator 110 is an exportable ship.

[marktigger]

However, this is the first time I have heard of any of the contenders for Type 31 bid their design in competition. Even if they do not win in Colombia, BMT are sending a strong signal to UK MOD that the Venator 110 is an exportable ship.

yeap maybe into africa to nigeria?, kenya? Libya?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Are there any information about who are going to build this Venator 110?
I mean, ship builder.

The ship builder will provide the detailed design/building plan. If it is not good enough, it shall be "very" different from future possible RN version...

[Aethulwulf]

Are there any information about who are going to build this Venator 110?
I mean, ship builder.

The ship builder will provide the detailed design/building plan. If it is not good enough, it shall be "very" different from future possible RN version...

The BMT Saab proposal mentions that it would be locally built in Colombia and that they are collaborating with the COTECMAR shipyard.

[shark bait]

BMT/SAAB proposing Venator 110 for the Colombian Navy: http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6684660/B ... oposal.pdf

Nice! The fit out they are proposing in the brochure looks spot on, Sea Ceptor, VDS, 40mm CIWS, Cruise missiles. We might end up with the bloody Columbia outdoing the RN!

Also notice 'build in Columbia' is a requirement of the project, something we will see everywhere, meaning this bullshit about export and expanding ship building in the UK is little more than a distraction to lure us away from the real issues.

Don't know if the design is right for RN (I'll leave that to better people on here), but I do agree with the business plan.

Like BMT's proposal, its an empty shell ready to accept a bunch of systems. Both appear to be a good starting point, but fitted with just CAMM and a gun both will be shitty. If the MOD specifies them with some specialists capabilities both could develop into highly valuable platforms.

It all depends on how the empty reference design is applied, that's up to the MOD, and so far things aren't looking promising.

The ship builder will provide the detailed design/building plan. If it is not good enough, it shall be "very" different from future possible RN version...

Exactly, we saw the same thing with the tide class design. BMT provide the top level design, and then Daewoo and MOD apply that reference design, and work out how to actually build the thing.

[seaspear]

It would be ineresting to know the program cost of this class of vessel built there ,would it be less than in the U.K perhaps

[ArmChairCivvy]

this class of vessel built there

There? Norgies have had their (CG) vessels built in Chile for a handsome $100m as the military fit out is "light".

In this case the same could be done. then you just sail up to Canada (same ocean) where they have been doing frigate refits *with high Saab content* for Canada (and less so for the Kiwi frigates).

[marktigger]

Don't know if the design is right for RN (I'll leave that to better people on here), but I do agree with the business plan.

Like BMT's proposal, its an empty shell ready to accept a bunch of systems. Both appear to be a good starting point, but fitted with just CAMM and a gun both will be shitty. If the MOD specifies them with some specialists capabilities both could develop into highly valuable platforms.

It all depends on how the empty reference design is applied, that's up to the MOD, and so far things aren't looking promising.

this is where UK warship design has gone wrong in recent years designing round specific systems instead of desigining flexible platforms capable of taking a variety of systems on an almost plug in and play basis.

[shark bait]

I think you're right, payloads should be entirely disconnected from the platform.

It's positive we do seem to be heading that direction with this generation, a little after designs like the Meko or Sigma frigates have done so.

[Little J]

Don't know if the design is right for RN (I'll leave that to better people on here), but I do agree with the business plan.

Like BMT's proposal, its an empty shell ready to accept a bunch of systems. Both appear to be a good starting point, but fitted with just CAMM and a gun both will be shitty. If the MOD specifies them with some specialists capabilities both could develop into highly valuable platforms.

It all depends on how the empty reference design is applied, that's up to the MOD, and so far things aren't looking promising.

this is where UK warship design has gone wrong in recent years designing round specific systems instead of desigining flexible platforms capable of taking a variety of systems on an almost plug in and play basis.

My worst fear is that they copy past UK civil aircraft manufacture - spec'd to specifically to one customer that it becomes useless to any other.

[marktigger]

thats what they have done in past eyes only on Royal Navy and not at potential of design.

I think about British civilian aircraft there were some superb designs in the last generation of British Aircraft like the BaE 146 series or the shorts 330 & 360 all very well sold and have proven to be flexible platforms

[donald_of_tokyo]

this is where UK warship design has gone wrong in recent years designing round specific systems instead of desigining flexible platforms capable of taking a variety of systems on an almost plug in and play basis.

I am not sure what you mean.

Type-45:
- can be added with Mk.41, 16 cell. It is ASTER, not type-45, which was sticking to Silver. If RN decided to go with SM6, and not ASTER30, Type-45 should have had Mk.41.
- Harpoon SSM can be replaced with any canistered SSM, 20mm CIWS and 30mm guns can be replaced with any such cannons, and 114 mm gun can be replaced with 127 mm gun.
Isn't it flexible enough? If it looks not flexible, it is not the ship/vessel, it is the armaments.

Type-26:
- 24 cell Mk.41 VLS can handle many types of missile. It is MOD/RN, who do not decide to accept many american missiles, waiting for Perseus SSMs to come, which shall be very expensive than any of American alternative.
- guns, CIWS, helicopter, sonar, radar, every thing can be changed.
What is the problem?

Type-23:
- SeaWolf is being replaced with CAMM. Chilean navy also (once) considered to replace it with ESSM. (now they are back again on CAMMs).
- guns, CIWS, SSM, helicopter, sonar, radar, every thing can be changed. TASS was replaced, radar as well.
What is the problem?

In Japan, we developed an AAW missile (ASM-4) which has the same interface with AMRAAM. Our SSM system can also fire Harpoon. I do not think Japan's weapon development is good, but we just keep our ships system as common as possible to those of USN, and try to introduce "made in Japan" stuff, only as an addition.

So again, I shall say, it is NOT the ship/vessel, which makes UK warships looks so specific, it is the weapon system, I believe.

[marktigger]

correct donald but could the t45 have been designed so you could have had a selection of weapons options for the export market, Same with type 22 & 23 and option to fit LM2500 or a variety of systems like dutch or american radar/sonar etc?
The germans showed the utility of this with the MEKO 200 ship the ship was a platform into which the customer could fit what they required.

[RetroSicotte]

Getting a little bit "escorts chat" here. Not gonna call the stop right now, but I do request that people be wary of letting this get away from just immediate news in this thread.

[RichardIC]

http://www.wirralchamber.co.uk/Press-an ... rts-drive/

Camell Laird make some positive noises about Sir John Parker and the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which is, as we all know, a euphemism for Type 31e.