UK Defence Forum

It makes a lot of sense, the budget is very tight so surely the best value will come by recycling th kit that still has years of life left in it?

However its a situation the MOD have said they want to avoid in the past because that makes them a supplier to the project. That makes the MOD an owner of risk, whereas they wanted it all to lie with industry. It's difficult to tell from the working of the contract notice, but maybe that attitude has softened this time around which can only be a good thing.

Tempest414 wrote:I think what would help in terms of the type 31 program as a hole would be for the MOD to say type 31 will be fitted with new BAE CMS plus Artisan radars from type 23s for fleet commonality and logistics

Agreed, Artisan plus CAMM, in fact all the weapon systems should be ported across. Looking at the latest BAE/CL CGI on the Leander site this would also include the 4.5 inch gun, and probably the Harpoon canisters too. My only concern with this is that it massively tilts the competition in favour of the Leander bid and probably why Babcock appear to have gone off in a huff.

In fact this would have faced them with a considerable dilemma, they could hardly have proposed their competitors (ie BAE's) CMS for Arrowhead, and so whilst they knew it would be the most sensible ( and favoured) option for the RN, were forced to go down the Thales route. What in effect the MoD are saying is that there is no point anyone else bidding against BAE and Leander, as in reality they will only consider bids that include a BAE CMS ....

However if the MOD states from the outset that Artisan and the BAE CMS are to fitted and that it wants the ships to be built out side BAE shipyards there is no problem that still leaves a lot of design and other work for those in the competition for me it is the same as saying it must have CAMM

Under the conditions that the Type 31 must use a UK combat system and UK radars, why would Thales stay a partner of Babcocks?

Interesting that my spell checker keeps insisting Babcocks be spelled ballcocks.

Bids due by 19th Oct.

Unfortunately the attached FT article adds nothing new just regurgitates old news and old quotes.

https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/10 ... frigate-2/

The indicative procurement timeline, which the Authority reserves the right to amend at its sole discretion is as follows:
1. PQQ Issue Date: 28 September 2018
2. PQQ Submission Deadline:19 October 2018
3. CDP ITN Issue Date: 29 October 2018
4. CDP Bid Submission Deadline: 30 November 2018
5. CDP Contract Award: 21 December 2018
6. D&B ITN Issue Date: 21 December 2018
7. D&B Bid Submission Deadline: A date which is seven (7) months from the effective date of the CDP Contract
8. D&B Contract Award: Q4 2019

--
Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (“PQQ”)
Competitive Design Phase (“CDP”)
CDP Invitation to Negotiate (“CDP ITN”)
Design and Build (“D&B”)
Design & Build Invitation to Negotiate (“D&B ITN”)

chinook88 wrote:1. PQQ Issue Date: 28 September 2018

The prgrm restart has been stated to have been earlier. Was that, then, just confirming interest (in order to receive the PQQ)?
- asking as that defence portal (linked) needs registering; might be in the info on it

chinook88 wrote:https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/10 ... frigate-2/

The indicative procurement timeline, which the Authority reserves the right to amend at its sole discretion is as follows:
1. PQQ Issue Date: 28 September 2018
2. PQQ Submission Deadline:19 October 2018
3. CDP ITN Issue Date: 29 October 2018
4. CDP Bid Submission Deadline: 30 November 2018
5. CDP Contract Award: 21 December 2018
6. D&B ITN Issue Date: 21 December 2018
7. D&B Bid Submission Deadline: A date which is seven (7) months from the effective date of the CDP Contract
8. D&B Contract Award: Q4 2019

--
Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (“PQQ”)
Competitive Design Phase (“CDP”)
CDP Invitation to Negotiate (“CDP ITN”)
Design and Build (“D&B”)
Design & Build Invitation to Negotiate (“D&B ITN”)

Thank you very much @chinook88 for posting this.

Just a couple of thoughts:

Going by my memory (usually a bad idea) this schedule shows a significant shift to the right from the original. More than 6-9 months. Probably no bad thing, the more they can figure out before the production contract signed, the better for everyone. Puts the in-service date at an even greater risk tho'.

I wonder if Babcocks's needed the extra design time seeing they have the most to do.

I also wonder what's the value of the design contracts, a years worth of development & design can run kinda pricey.

Ron5 wrote:

chinook88 wrote:https://www.defenceonline.co.uk/2018/10 ... frigate-2/

The indicative procurement timeline, which the Authority reserves the right to amend at its sole discretion is as follows:
1. PQQ Issue Date: 28 September 2018
2. PQQ Submission Deadline:19 October 2018
3. CDP ITN Issue Date: 29 October 2018
4. CDP Bid Submission Deadline: 30 November 2018
5. CDP Contract Award: 21 December 2018
6. D&B ITN Issue Date: 21 December 2018
7. D&B Bid Submission Deadline: A date which is seven (7) months from the effective date of the CDP Contract
8. D&B Contract Award: Q4 2019

--
Pre-Qualification Questionnaire (“PQQ”)
Competitive Design Phase (“CDP”)
CDP Invitation to Negotiate (“CDP ITN”)
Design and Build (“D&B”)
Design & Build Invitation to Negotiate (“D&B ITN”)

Thank you very much @chinook88 for posting this.

Just a couple of thoughts:

Going by my memory (usually a bad idea) this schedule shows a significant shift to the right from the original. More than 6-9 months. Probably no bad thing, the more they can figure out before the production contract signed, the better for everyone. Puts the in-service date at an even greater risk tho'.

I wonder if Babcocks's needed the extra design time seeing they have the most to do.

I also wonder what's the value of the design contracts, a years worth of development & design can run kinda pricey.

And, surely such funds are not part of the £250 million per hull. 3 weeks from CPD submission to CPD ITN sounds optimistic. Is it possible, pending the MDP decisions and priorities, that at the ITN stage the RN might say "Thanks for the base hull covering the minimum requirements, but how much extra to add X or Y?" ?

Looks like the Brazilians have said no thanks to type 31

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... oject.html

SW1 wrote:Looks like the Brazilians have said no thanks to type 31

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... oject.html

Maybe not. TKMS have made the Brazilian short list and are also thought to be one of the bidders for T31.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -navy.html

This is the corvette-end fleet replacement round:
"Since 1982, 82 MEKO corvettes and frigates have been delivered to Navies in 14 different nations, 37 built outside Germany, and all these vessels are still in full operation – offering a lifecycle of more than 40 years. This class flaunts the benefits of five generations of vessels thanks to its design iteration"

Shouldn't we get more excited about the 6k frigates?

Aethulwulf wrote:

SW1 wrote:Looks like the Brazilians have said no thanks to type 31

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... oject.html

Maybe not. TKMS have made the Brazilian short list and are also thought to be one of the bidders for T31.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -navy.html

Well that would be a turn up for the books!!

ArmChairCivvy wrote:This is the corvette-end fleet replacement round:
"Since 1982, 82 MEKO corvettes and frigates have been delivered to Navies in 14 different nations, 37 built outside Germany, and all these vessels are still in full operation – offering a lifecycle of more than 40 years. This class flaunts the benefits of five generations of vessels thanks to its design iteration"

Shouldn't we get more excited about the 6k frigates?

Acc

But the 6k frigate would likely mean type 26 the proper frigate we’ve already exported......

SW1 wrote: would likely mean type 26 the proper frigate we’ve already exported......

That's what I mean
- light... in one way or another (in spec)

SW1 wrote:Looks like the Brazilians have said no thanks to type 31

A newcomer in a crowded market get overlooked. Surely no one is shocked?

Yes a newcomer that isn't even a firm design let alone an actual ship. Cannot see any real orders until the first its the water, there are just too many alternatives out there. T-26 was different, it was a world beating ASW escort design with few equals regarding its spec.

SW1 wrote:But the 6k frigate would likely mean type 26 the proper frigate we’ve already exported

Or possibly the A140. It, at least has the benefit of having a near cousin already in the water, so we can point to them and say "it'll be something like that, but without the Stanflex stuff"

Caribbean

I like the a140 and think it’s the way we should off done type 26, however I just can’t see it winning the uk type 31 contest, if it did and delivers there would be serious pressure on type 26 numbers a situation the RN will not want to arise.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:This is the corvette-end fleet replacement round:
"Since 1982, 82 MEKO corvettes and frigates have been delivered to Navies in 14 different nations, 37 built outside Germany, and all these vessels are still in full operation – offering a lifecycle of more than 40 years. This class flaunts the benefits of five generations of vessels thanks to its design iteration"

Shouldn't we get more excited about the 6k frigates?

Too rich for their budget, surely?

dmereifield wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:This is the corvette-end fleet replacement round:
"Since 1982, 82 MEKO corvettes and frigates have been delivered to Navies in 14 different nations, 37 built outside Germany, and all these vessels are still in full operation – offering a lifecycle of more than 40 years. This class flaunts the benefits of five generations of vessels thanks to its design iteration"

Shouldn't we get more excited about the 6k frigates?

Too rich for their budget, surely?

Agreed, but you omitted the next line, with "light" in it. Even that only comes into play if a120/ a140 never get built... a distinct possibility

SW1 wrote:I like the a140 and think it’s the way we should off done type 26, however I just can’t see it winning the uk type 31 contest, if it did and delivers there would be serious pressure on type 26 numbers a situation the RN will not want to arise.

I like the A140 too but really it should be better optimised for RN use. At a £250m unit price I suspect it's a take it or leave it deal.

I'm still not convinced the A140 is doable in the UK for £250m.

If HMG is really adamant that a £250m 'vessel' has to be built and if a scalable series of vessels for both the MHPC and T31programmes isn't an option at this stage why not look at Absalon?

It's massively practical, cheaper than an Iver Huitfeldt and its multipurpose nature wouldn't really tread on the toes of the T26 quite as much as an A140.

Five Absalons would be a great asset for RM to work from as making them CB90 and LCVP capable shouldn't be that difficult and they might even be able to double as a Mothership in the Gulf. Embarking multiple off board systems would be a breeze and the large double Merlin capable hanger would be a massive ASW asset.

Should Babcock move to Absalon if the pennies are pinching?

Poiuytrewq wrote:and if a scalable series of vessels for both the MHPC and T31programmes isn't an option

Well put. As no one has said that it isn't an option. It is just that one prgrm is being driven in a time-boxed (a good technique!) way, while the other one is in "slumber" mode.

Poiuytrewq wrote:

SW1 wrote:I like the a140 and think it’s the way we should off done type 26, however I just can’t see it winning the uk type 31 contest, if it did and delivers there would be serious pressure on type 26 numbers a situation the RN will not want to arise.

I like the A140 too but really it should be better optimised for RN use. At a £250m unit price I suspect it's a take it or leave it deal.

I'm still not convinced the A140 is doable in the UK for £250m.

If HMG is really adamant that a £250m 'vessel' has to be built and if a scalable series of vessels for both the MHPC and T31programmes isn't an option at this stage why not look at Absalon?

It's massively practical, cheaper than an Iver Huitfeldt and its multipurpose nature wouldn't really tread on the toes of the T26 quite as much as an A140.

Five Absalons would be a great asset for RM to work from as making them CB90 and LCVP capable shouldn't be that difficult and they might even be able to double as a Mothership in the Gulf. Embarking multiple off board systems would be a breeze and the large double Merlin capable hanger would be a massive ASW asset.

Should Babcock move to Absalon if the pennies are pinching?

I really like the Absalon as the T31 like you say it offers a lot more flexiblity and has greater growth potential than the Leander.
My concer though would be HMGs axe then waving over the Albions or even some of the bay's.

If the Albions and bays could be in some way made complety safe then an Absalon style vessel would be the best way for the T31 with out a doubt.

Not sure if this is news?

"Engineering giant Babcock International is poised to announce the closure of its Appledore shipyard next month, despite last-ditch efforts by ministers to save the north Devon site.

A dearth of orders has in effect signed the shipyard’s death warrant, with no more work lined up once it finishes a patrol vessels order for the Irish navy. The FTSE 250 engineer, which repairs the Royal Navy’s submarines and warships, is to discuss Appledore at a strategy day before a board meeting next month, where its fate will be decided.

Closing Appledore could cost Babcock £20m in exceptional charges, analysts at Liberum Capital said. Work on a new light warship has been delayed and Appledore recently missed out on a contract to build a vessel for the Maltese military."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busi ... -d0bltzcrk