UK Defence Forum

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Ron5 wrote:Not sure where you are getting those specs from.

I am simply looking at the realistic growth potential of the Arrowhead 120 design in the same way that you maximised the Leander with the Super Leander (TM).

At present,
A120 can mount 16 Mk41 cells so thats 64 CAMM quad packed.
A120 can mount Mk45, 8 Harpoon or equivalent, Phalanx, 2x 30mm's

I am proposing that Arrowhead 120 could be simplified by rearranging the amidships configuration and installing simple port and starboard boat bays. The hanger layout could also be maximised with a double hanger design, one of which could be used as a mulpurpose mission space. This would allow the stern ramp to be removed and replaced with a stern optimised for 2087. By removing the stern ramp it would allow the height of the flight deck to be lowered thereby making a Merlin capable hanger more straightforward. It's the 19m beam that makes so many things possible.

Is this the brochure you are quoting Ron?
https://www.babcockinternational.com/-/ ... 0AB5DC5A58

Sorry, misread your post.

Take a look at this from Euronaval 18. This is very different to the CGI we saw before. Forward, middle and rear cells. Looks like there is still a Harpoon space, although pretty tight. No boat bays?

Shes a fugly girl isnt she?

This is from the same event... Seems this is the BAE stand, the one above is the CL stand.

So it looks to me that there is 3 cells in each of the tubs + room for 3 more per tub a group of cells behind the first funnel and 3 more behind the rear funnel even taking away the ones behind the first funnel would give 9 cells plus room for 6 more in the tubs which could give her 36 to 60 CAMM without the middle cells

For me they need to pick a design one funnel or two

It's just an old model, we've been over this many times now.

Last time was on page 217...

Poiuytrewq wrote:Last time was on page 217...

Ah... I missed that. If people would stop spamming this thread with their fantasy fleet posts.

Tempest414 wrote:For me they need to pick a design one funnel or two

Yes; but are the two models of the same length, or is the boat/ container space allowed for by a mid-hull extension?

Good News!

NavyLookout is reporting that the Arrowhead 140 bid is still very much alive!

Poiuytrewq wrote:Good News!
NavyLookout is reporting that the Arrowhead 140 bid is still very much alive!

Interesting. Appledore is closed, so build program will be more "focusses", good to reduce cost. If the ship can really built within 250M GBP, it will be a good proposal, although it is still Thales TACTICOS CMS and "non-Artisan" 4D radar? Waiting for further info.

I going to guess it will return with British system.

I'm told that's the reason it was thrown out in the first place, because a Danish ship full of French systems will hardly "Maximise the UK prosperity footprint", like the MOD are asking for as one of their "6 TOP MESSAGES".

shark bait wrote:I going to guess it will return with British system.

I'm told that's the reason it was thrown out in the first place, because a Danish ship full of French systems will hardly "Maximise the UK prosperity footprint", like the MOD are asking for as one of their "6 TOP MESSAGES".

Then, it must be written in the contract. HMG/MOD also must negotiate with BAE to provide CMS. Leaving it to Babcock is insane. Of course, HMG/MOD must pay something for BAE to do that. If we stick to "competition", this is of course mandatory. Leaving everything to "competition" and then blaming "it is not British" is just foolish.

# Ship Building Strategies' idea of "growing 2nd ship builder for escort" itself is totally foolish, though.

Why is it insane?

And I do agree, 1 frigate factory is the best solution, but then politics happened.

shark bait wrote:Why is it insane?

"Make it British" means, BAE CMS is needed. As BAE is with Camell Laired, there is no reason BAE to provide there CMS to Babcock team, if it is pure competition. Only answer will be "Camell Laired wins". Competition works this way.

Asking competition, while asking for common CMS, is just insane. If you want that, HMG must specify it in the contract, and it is of course not for free. This is what I mean.

By that logic BAE would have won the Belgian fighter competition because they they're in competition with LM who BAE supply.

Likewise on Crowsnest, LM is prime but awarded a contract to Thales who we're competing against another LM division.

These kind of conflicts happen all the time in industry. There is only one British radar, one British combat system, and one British air defense system. I don't know why the MOD haven't already mandated these.

It begs the question, why the disappearing act on Babcocks website?

Could the design be evolving?

Might we actually get an Iver Huitfeldt variant optimised for RN service rather than the cut and paste design we have seen up to now with a couple of boat bays and bridge wing extensions added to meet the basic requirement? Hopefully....

The Arrowhead 140 is a fantastic design with a healthy margin for future growth but the current concept (posted above) is full of wasted space and missed opportunities. Hopefully sense prevails and the purse strings are loosened as the programmes progresses to allow something like an optimised A140 to actually hit the water. Cutting holes in virtually new ships with unnecessary early refits to bring the T31 up to standard would be a pointless cash burning exercise in my view.

Even an extra £50m a hull would make a big difference to something like the A140, an extra £100m a hull and we would probably get a very credible escort with the A140. Fantasy I know.

Personally I think the only drawback to the A140 proposal (apart from the fact that very few believe it can actually be built in the UK for £250m) is the amount of funding it would require to give it credible ASW performance. I suspect OMT know exactly how much it would cost to give the A140 decent ASW performance, and IF a second batch of T31 ASW Frigates is planned to grow the fleet a lot could depend on how complicated and expensive a ASW optimised A140 would be.

benny14 wrote:Take a look at this from Euronaval 18. This is very different to the CGI we saw before. Forward, middle and rear cells. Looks like there is still a Harpoon space, although pretty tight. No boat bays?

I believe those photos are from last night's Maritime Media Award:

Check out @AC_NavalHistory’s Tweet: htt ... 22242?s=09

But that rear 3-cell EXLS launcher is really curious. If matched at the front of the ship by another 2 x 3-cells (which the top-down shot would seem to suggest), that's 36 Sea Ceptor and 8-cell MK41 on a 3,700te ship. Similar to what has been discussed on the Escort thread, and more firepower than that shown for Arrowhead 140.

This then raises the question of whether, despite being the older version of the ship, is this the one that Cammell Laird are running with? It seems to be the only model at this event.

Jensy

Poiuytrewq wrote:Good News!

NavyLookout is reporting that the Arrowhead 140 bid is still very much alive!

Dq6Yan_X4AEFWcF.jpg

From the same site that can't figure out that the Cammell Laird model was from an old design iteration?

A40 is dead, stone cold dead.

As noted on several occasions previously, the model is identical with the model Cammell Laird displayed when it first announced its partnership with Bae. It's basically the Cutlass design.



The easiest ways to tell it apart from the latest design are a) two funnels , b) the sloped vs flat superstructure forward of the bridge, and c) the large mission bay doors.

Jensy wrote:

benny14 wrote:Take a look at this from Euronaval 18. This is very different to the CGI we saw before. Forward, middle and rear cells. Looks like there is still a Harpoon space, although pretty tight. No boat bays?

I believe those photos are from last night's Maritime Media Award:

Check out @AC_NavalHistory’s Tweet: htt ... 22242?s=09

But that rear 3-cell EXLS launcher is really curious. If matched at the front of the ship by another 2 x 3-cells (which the top-down shot would seem to suggest), that's 36 Sea Ceptor and 8-cell MK41 on a 3,700te ship. Similar to what has been discussed on the Escort thread, and more firepower than that shown for Arrowhead 140.

This then raises the question of whether, despite being the older version of the ship, is this the one that Cammell Laird are running with? It seems to be the only model at this event.

Jensy

If that is what the T-31e ends up like I will be both converted form a nay sayer and be happy

Lord Jim wrote:

Jensy wrote:

benny14 wrote:Take a look at this from Euronaval 18. This is very different to the CGI we saw before. Forward, middle and rear cells. Looks like there is still a Harpoon space, although pretty tight. No boat bays?

I believe those photos are from last night's Maritime Media Award:

Check out @AC_NavalHistory’s Tweet: htt ... 22242?s=09

But that rear 3-cell EXLS launcher is really curious. If matched at the front of the ship by another 2 x 3-cells (which the top-down shot would seem to suggest), that's 36 Sea Ceptor and 8-cell MK41 on a 3,700te ship. Similar to what has been discussed on the Escort thread, and more firepower than that shown for Arrowhead 140.

This then raises the question of whether, despite being the older version of the ship, is this the one that Cammell Laird are running with? It seems to be the only model at this event.

Jensy

If that is what the T-31e ends up like I will be both converted form a nay sayer and be happy

Presumably, that is not the fit out of the £250 million variant that we will be getting

dmereifield wrote:Presumably, that is not the fit out of the £250 million variant that we will be getting

Ron5 wrote:If that is what the T-31e ends up like I will be both converted form a nay sayer and be happy

It is not. As pointed out this is a very old model. They have had it since before April. Its older than Leander.

Happy with that piddly little hanger?

How hard can a full width hanger be? Whilst we're at it can we have a UAV operations deck on the hanger roof too?

Surely all these models and CGi images show a fully kitted out T31 proposal. Wouldn't the winning design be built initially in a less capable 'fitted for but not with' entry to service level. If that is the case surely that just highlights the need to scrap this Trojan Horse and build more T26, fitted for but not with?

shark bait wrote:Happy with that piddly little hanger?

Yes I am.

How hard can a full width hanger be? Whilst we're at it can we have a UAV operations deck on the hanger roof too?

It is a 250M GBP cheap cheap very cheap vessel. Each and every design modification make the risk higher, and hence expensive. As an engineer, I think you see many cases what is said to be "easy it can be done!", turned out to be a disaster elsewhere. (For example, how about Center-of-Gravity? How about the trim balance? Turbulence on flight deck?)

And if we look at T23GP, (almost) 100% of its deployment carries 1 Wildcat. At least in RN use, there is no need for such a hangar.

Leander is already a well-balanced light-light frigate (in my view, "a well-balanced long-range heavy corvette"). If a little money is there, I shall prefer 57mm gun to be added with guided rounds, torpedo-defense added, hull sonar added, and 12 CAMM increased to 24 using ExLS.