UK Defence Forum

FuNsTeR wrote:

abc123 wrote:

hovematlot wrote:Defence debate in the House of Lords, Earl Howe the Defence Minister is now calling it the T31E as per the Sir John Parkers review.
He also stated the 'intention was to expand the destroyer frigate fleet above 19 hulls from the 2030s...'

In situation when we don't know when will work start on Type 26 ( and it should start supposedly in a few months ), that's same as saying that they will never increase it.

Honourable Earl really has talent for stating alternative facts.

i have serious doubts we will build any type 26 the costs continue to spiral, unless BAE reduces the cost some how i reckon the type31 will end up as the replacements for the type 23, i hope i am proved wrong

Surely we will get at least 3 given that they have already started purchasing the long lead items....

Work on the Type 26 starts during July.

https://www.ft.com/content/3f2e15c4-408 ... 6b95f30f58

be nice to see Babcock getting the contract but would BaE make the necessary savings and hand it over to Babcock

marktigger wrote:https://www.ft.com/content/3f2e15c4-408 ... 6b95f30f58

be nice to see Babcock getting the contract but would BaE make the necessary savings and hand it over to Babcock

Might help to describe the article as its a subscription news site, so we have no idea what you are talking about - sorry

Refer to the previous page, my post at 13:33.

I just Googled "Babcock Type 31" and went to News and the article was top item and no paywall.

Business pages of the Sunday Times last week had a story suggesting that the T31 contract is a choice between Babcock and BAe.

It was described as a £2bn contract and they specifically mentioned a "fleet" of six.

Also described block building similar to CVF.

6 initial with the option for more later or a whole program of 6?

Zero Gravitas wrote:Business pages of the Sunday Times last week had a story suggesting that the T31 contract is a choice between Babcock and BAe.

It was described as a £2bn contract and they specifically mentioned a "fleet" of six.

Also described block building similar to CVF.

6 for £2 billion including design costs, and Babcock in the running, would indicate pimped OPV territory rather than light Frigate, wouldn't it?

Well look at the contenders. Babcock and BAE are the ones that have the least ambitious designs.

Using Donald-san's metric of 2 units for design costs, that would give a total of 8 units from £2b, so a unit cost of £250m. The Vard designs from Babcock's came in at around 70m euros (so approx. £60m), so I guess if Babcocks build them they could get a lot of pimping for the extra £190m each. If Bae build them, not so much.

Caribbean wrote:Using Donald-san's metric of 2 units for design costs, that would give a total of 8 units from £2b, so a unit cost of £250m. The Vard designs from Babcock's came in at around 70m euros (so approx. £60m), so I guess if Babcocks build them they could get a lot of pimping for the extra £190m each. If Bae build them, not so much.

In addition, for 5 of them at least, some of the kit will be recycled from the upgraded T23s. Still, it is going to be some way off the Spartan and Venator 110 designs that seemed to be what many were hoping for....

would be better off not bothering , spend the money on something useful instead.

It does seem a lot to pay for something that does provide a presence but one that probably won't be able to effect much in a peer on peer conflict. Lots of discussion on that on the other thread of course. Seems cost-led not value-led.

Would they be useful in a post-brexit fisheries protection role?

shark bait wrote:would be better off not bothering , spend the money on something useful instead.

Yep, build additional T26 cant see the point either

Could we benefit in anyway from economies of scale if going with the VARD as as the base design given that the US coast guard is buying 25?

If we went with the VARD, modified to accomodate the the following from the upgraded T23s:
8 canister ASM (those that will hopefully replace Harpoon in due course), 24 (or 32) camm, hull mounted sonar, artisan, and whatever else of value that can be salvaged

So the cost would mainly be the basal platform and integration of the kit that has already been purchased as part of the T23 upgrade programme.

Could this platform with the above kit, along with the flight deck and hangar (not sure if Merlin capable) and main gun, be something somewhat useful for ca. £250 million?

The T31 seems to me like a desperate way of retaining escort numbers at 19. Like others have said for the price range we are looking at is pimped up OPV's. If that is really the case then why aren't we just churning out more River Class. I know the BAE design is more or less just that but it seems pointless designing a newer class of vessel as an inbetween Type 26 & River. If the T31 is more towards T26, we may not get many and may as well built a couple more T26. If the T31 is closer to the River class we may as well just stretch the river class and stick CAMM & Phalanx on it. I really don't know why we didn't just go with 13 T26 and strip down the last 5 FFBNW to redunce cost. But i suspect if this had been agreed there would always be a risk that the numbers would be cut later. It seems the T31 is just one big compromise.

Buy another ASW T26 and spend the 1bn left on another 5 pimped Rivers.

Or a T26 and 6 of the older Venator 90 design with CAMM.

More T26 or more P8 would be a greater boost to our maritime security than some more patrol boats that only exist to maintain numbers on Wikipedia.

shark bait wrote:More T26 or more P8 would be a greater boost to our maritime security than some more patrol boats that only exist to maintain numbers on Wikipedia.

Suspect this is the reality. T31 principally exists to give politicians the ability to plausibly say that they are maintaining escort numbers to people who don't know or care about the difference between a warship and a battleship (e.g. c.98% of journalists)...

Firstly, River B2 (my estimate 83M GBP) and T26 (my estimate 730M GBP) is 9 times different. So, there is a huge gap between these two. Something "in between" includes many of the exiting escorts.

Secondly, 6 for 2B GBP means, if new design, 2000/(6+2 [design]) = 250M GBP/unit. In cost difference, it is 1/3 of T26 and 3 times that of River B2. So, it will be right in the middle of T26 and River B2. (In other words, confusing River B2 with a 250M GBP T31 is similar to confusing 250M BGP T31 with T26).

If we have existing (= already built) design and just modify it, the unit cost will be 2000/(6+1) = 285M GBP. This means, we shall go with Khareef mod (Cutlass) or River B2 (Avenger) in BAE case, and mod Samuel Beckett (VARD7 90), or (cooperate with Eastern Shipbuilding and) modify the Offshore Patrol Cutter (VARD7 100 significantly improved) in Babcock case.

If ASW is the top priority, this T31 is not a good choice. But, if we can let T26 concentrate on ASW while T31 taking all the other tasks, maybe T31 will become "good", hum..., "so so good". All will depend of how "other tasks" will be needed. At least in this decade, tasks other than ASW was the main part of the RN job.


< personal opinion >
Among them, OPC is actually very large vessel. 110m long, 16.5m wide, 10,000nm range and 60 days endurance (see https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg9/opc/pdf/OPC.pdf). May be as large as 3500-4000t FL. May be we shall reduce its range to 7000nm and endurance to 35days to make space for additional armament to be carried.

With this hull, it can do all of the T23's task, other than ASW. I guess. But, it is expensive, as well. May be we can omit 127mm gun and start with a ship with 1x 57mm gun/CIWS, 24 CAMM with 2 datalink, Merlin-capable flight-deck and hangar (will only carry a Wildcat and 1-2 UAV, never a Merlin, as you know), small hull-sonar, torpedo-defence system, decoy launcher with ESM. At the stern, may be able to carry something (USV or ORC), as well.

<speculation>
As a "FFBNW", we can add 127mm gun (in place of 57mm), and 8x SSMs. Interestingly, the propulsion is DODADE, with electric propulsion up to 6 kts (at least in the original Vard7 100 design). If we can improve it to 10 kts, and add CAPATAS2 or so (of course as FFBNW, when built), it will make a "so so good" shallow water ASW vessel.

People here are putting a lot of faith in a speculative press report. But:

1. If BAe and Babcock are favourites, it could mean that they are favourites for the role of lead contractor/ship Integrator. It does not have to mean that their designs are also favourite.

2. The £2b figure may not be the cost of the whole project, but just the amount for construction.

I think all we can tell from this article is that BAe face stiff competition, the RN are hopeful that they will end up with 6 Type 31 and the T31 is still progressing along quickly.

I would guess that all the various choices are going to be boiled down into two options. Two designs. Two build strategies. Two consortia with two different leads. These two options will then be quickly walked through a competitive assessment during the rest of 2017.

If at this stage they just took forward one option through assessment, while saving money and time, it would eliminate competition from the process very early and could be high risk if there turned out to be problems with the chosen option.

Just buy the French FTI frigate like we should of done with the French fremm asw frigate. They'll be in service quicker maybe we could build some blocks for them and float them across the channel for final assembly.

Zero chance. The Government have stated that they want the Type 31 to be exportable. Not going to happen if the RN just buy French.

(Assuming that the UK still has the same Government in 10 days time.)