UK Defence Forum

Pongoglo wrote:

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Pongoglo wrote:...to my mind for a forward based 'stand alone' both Leander and the Meko are just too small

Agreed.

Pongoglo wrote:Question is if Babcock/Thales are still in the game whose yard are they going to use, thought they were teaming up with Harland & Wolfe and Ferguson but now seems theyve both been gobbled up by the Meko team ?

I don't think it's a problem as long as Babcock still has a lead yard for final assembly which of course it has with Rosyth.

The rest of the yards currently affiliated to other bids could still bid for blocks when the winner is announced. I suspect the management of the competing yards won't care who wins as long as they get a slice of the action in the end.

Even Camell Laird ? Of course the pro Leander lobby will still argue that the RFI stated 4,000 ton so that's what the RN want, funny old thing not what you hear when propping up the Wardroom bar ! In any case there's a massive difference between 4,000 ton 'light' and 4,000 ton FLD , and at 3,600 FLD both Leander and the Meko are even smaller than that. To my mind one good thing ( and not the only) about the Meko bid is that it puts rest to the claim that Leander have it in the bag because theirs is the only true UK design, intellectual rights blah blah blah etc, perhaps now 'Team Meko' are on the pitch we might just have a level playing field once again?

Reads like you were leaning against said bar when you wrote this. And had been for a while.

a. Forward deployment has zero to do with ship size

b. The MoD RFI clearly states around 4,000 ton displacement

c. Leander remains the only UK design in the competition

d. No one thinks any one of the teams has it "in the bag"

Ooops ! Me thinks thou doth protest too much? 'Rounds on target - fire for effect' as we Brits would say !

Me thinks you write rubbish.

Ron5 wrote:The model of the Venator is the joint SAAB/BMT submission to Columbia. So stuffed with Swedish systems & armament.

Thanks for the photos.

Caribbean wrote:when you factor in that the initial batch of T31e will be primarily intended as "demonstrators" for export sales and the client may well have their own ideas about equipment

Today's DID story gives some perspective (and the intended use is BS as the land-based model of Barak-8 is Barak-2):
"Defense contractor Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) is in talks with Colombia for the sale of Barak-8 missile systems. Barak-8 is an Indian-Israeli surface-to-air missile designed to defend against any aircraft, helicopters, anti-ship missiles, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as well as ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and combat jets. Barak-8 incorporates a state-of-the-art phased array multi-mission radar, two-way data link, and a flexible command and control system, enabling users to simultaneously engage multiple targets day and night and in all weather conditions. The missile was tested for the first time in mid 2018 when it intercepted a small drone simulating an enemy craft. The system extends the range of Israel's aerial defense. It is being jointly developed by the Defense Research & Development Organisation, IAI, Israel's Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure, Elta Systems, Rafael and other companies. According to reports, one of the catalysts for Colombia’s interest in advanced air defense systems is the crisis in Venezuela. IAI did not want to comment on the issue."

It is a good piece of kit but pricey compared to Sea Ceptor. How does this link in to the T-31e programme?

Lord Jim wrote:It is a good piece of kit but pricey compared to Sea Ceptor. How does this link in to the T-31e programme?

I think the point is around T31e ideally having capability to support other country's missiles - e.g. Barak-8. Barak-8 is designed to deal with similar threats as Aster - but is not nearly as good.

The model of the Venator is the joint SAAB/BMT submission to Columbia

One may also remember that the opening shots for what became the T31e programme were
- the conceptual Black Swan study (for affordability and restoring numbers), and
- BMT's much more flesh-on-the-bones Venator design for flexibility

So as in artillery ranging shots, the target is (now) somewhere in the middle
- Venator having dropped off as too expensive
- and Black Swan was never meant to be built, but rather set the floor in rqrmnts/ cost trades

If the Columbia thing proceeds, Venator would not have died, after all. Ron's view, at the time, was that the Swedes would capture the highest value-add parts of the military fitting out
- the newspiece attests to even further flexibility (and that's what the 'e' in our prgrm requires, too)

Pongoglo wrote:The Leander brochure also implies this ' quoting a 'large stern handling space with anti submarine customisation in mind'. Just noticed the Leander site has been updated with a bit more of an RN focus, pics of QE and RN crew, especially in the Roles and Habitability bits. Sorry, this post is not in the escort thread and I apologise from the start but I was responding to the points raised by P above.

You are right! Also many more images.
Thanks a lot!

Landerfrigate.com

An example:

I was looking at the Leander site all day on and off yesterday thinking it is starting to look like it could be a useful ship if it had a little more money spent on it i.e CAPTAS 4 CI and the 2 CAMM tubs swapped for 2 3 cell ExLS

Leander CIC has 8-console (?) CMS-1. In the River B2 thread, posted on 30 Nov 2018, 17:34, ArmChairCivvy-san said

ArmChairCivvy wrote:...The CMS on early Rivers you can count as a 'training facility':
"CS-1 is inherently scalable, over 25 consoles are being fitted in Type 45, a single console variant has been delivered to the Royal Navy's Offshore Patrol Vessel (Helicopter) program (HMS Clyde) and a five console variant will be fitted to RFA Argus"
from BAE in 2007 (, as there was only one OPV prgrm at the time)

So, 8-console (?) CMS-1 will have 3-more consoles than those on RFA Argus.

Firstly, I was not much impressed, but it is not much different from the TACTICOS CMS onboard Damen 10514 light frigate/large corvette.

See https://youtu.be/g1ybiJyH2TA?t=43 and https://youtu.be/AgkesT8YHhY?t=53 or

I woudn't put too much store into that Leander graphic if I were you.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Leander CIC has 8-console (?) CMS-1.

Apparently CMS-1 / DNA(2) has been renamed as INTeACT Combat Management System. News to me until I stumbled across the product page. I think it would be an easy assumption that INTeACT will be the CMS for all the T31e designs - given that it is the RN mandated system for all vessels. How does one measure the number of consoles to the capability of the ship though?

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/c ... nt-systems

Although it was fairly well accepted that this was the Babcock/Thales design, the Arrowhead 140 site is now back up:

https://www.arrowhead140.com



The site seems to have been updated, though there is very little new information, with the following exceptions:

- Confirmation that the design is compatible with Sonar 2087, though only expected for export variants.
- NS100 Radar shown in pictures but not so in the 'UK Spec' section, It's mentioned by name in combat systems instead
- Still Tacitos CMS with the note that it is "sustainable in the UK through technology transfer". Seems a very loose statement

Also a slightly updated video:



Very similar to the old one, it has now removed any reference to Appledore and has lots of big flashy buzzwords at the end.

All the rest looks to have been taken from back in the Autumn when they announced the OMT partnership.

Jensy

The Arrowhead 140 web site also states:

Lightweight Multi-role Missile – this missile has been designed and developed in the UK to combat the modern threats of UAVs and Fast Inshore Attack Craft, a next generation capability delivering a flexible, targeted and proportionate response. Already qualified by the Royal Navy for naval air platforms such as the AW159, its use in a surface to surface mode will be validated by the Royal Navy during 2019.

I woukd like to find out more about the validation of LMM in surface to surface mode by the Royal Navy during 2019.

Aethulwulf wrote:I woukd like to find out more about the validation of LMM in surface to surface mode by the Royal Navy during 2019.

It jumped out at me too. I had to read it twice to understand why MARTLET was being listed under the Combat Systems.

With the Mk8 directly mentioned it looks like this will be the T31's only contribution to NGFS.

I also found this interesting,

Does anyone know how stringent these noise requirements are?

The 2087 compatibility is very welcome.

so I think we are starting to see what the RN would like from T31 both A140 & Leander are talking about a Mk-8 gun , 12 to 24 CAMM , 2 x 30mm

Didn't think we'd ever see that site re-emerge. I'm amazed. Thanks for posting Jensy.

LMM is of course a Thales product, hence the inclusion.

Mk 8 is of course now a Babcocks product, hence the inclusion.

The build map seems a tad jaundiced now, the "all over UK" build strategy comes down to build in Northern Ireland and Scotland only. Sir John Parkers confident assertion that every big metal box builder would be frothing at the mouth for part of the action has totally failed.

The LMM was fired from a modified DS30 mount as far back as 2013, actually, at Eskmeals. The Royal Navy interest in it for beefing up close range defences is actually pretty ancient.

They even tested the gliding, mini-bomb adaptation of it by launching it from a Lynx 5000 feet up in the air. Wonder if there will be renewed interest in this with the "VENOM kinetic strike capability" for ISTAR aircraft...

Tempest414 wrote:so I think we are starting to see what the RN would like from T31 both A140 & Leander are talking about a Mk-8 gun , 12 to 24 CAMM , 2 x 30mm

If it ends up with a mk8 gun, 24 CAMM, 2 x 30mm, HMS, some reasonable level of noise reduction (as both Leander & AH140 seem to indicate), FTR CIWS, FTR box launched ASM and damage control in line with that of typical UK frigates/destroyers, wouldn't that be a bargain for £250 million?

All of that can be ported over from T23s, and the CIWS and ASMs can be added as and when from the pools available.

Would that not be a real light frigate, as opposed to a patrol frigate?

dmereifield wrote:Would that not be a real light frigate, as opposed to a patrol frigate?

Nope.

Really? What's missing? I didn't list them but it's safe to assume it will have artisan, various devote, gpmg's, miniguns etc too. What else do you consider to be necessary?

dmereifield wrote:Really? What's missing? I didn't list them but it's safe to assume it will have artisan, various devote, gpmg's, miniguns etc too. What else do you consider to be necessary?

Mostly just when looking at what constitutes a light frigate in today's world. You look at things like FTI, PPA, FFG(X), Admiral Grigorovich, Daegu, Valour. The overall standard is much higher than it used to be. Particularly FTI.

We can say "Yeah but T31 is cheaper" but that doesn't matter a damn when someone's shooting at you. We have to be honest and call it what it is. In that configuration, it's basically an OPV with token CAMM and an outdated gun that looks big to the unknowing public so the Gov can call them a frigate to pretend it's an escort.

Ron5 wrote:Didn't think we'd ever see that site re-emerge. I'm amazed. Thanks for posting Jensy.

LMM is of course a Thales product, hence the inclusion.

Mk 8 is of course now a Babcocks product, hence the inclusion.

The build map seems a tad jaundiced now, the "all over UK" build strategy comes down to build in Northern Ireland and Scotland only. Sir John Parkers confident assertion that every big metal box builder would be frothing at the mouth for part of the action has totally failed.

How long will Scotland and Northern Ireland be in the UK after Brexit?

clinch wrote:Northern Ireland be in the UK after Brexit?

Northern Ireland stays as long as the rest of the UK continues to transfer billions in every year.

If there was a border poll as soon as they realised that 50% of their public services and the entire NHS in Northern Ireland would disappear I suspect even the nationalists would be voting to stay...problem is the rest of the UK when they find out might be wanting them to go..

RetroSicotte wrote:

dmereifield wrote:Really? What's missing? I didn't list them but it's safe to assume it will have artisan, various devote, gpmg's, miniguns etc too. What else do you consider to be necessary?

Mostly just when looking at what constitutes a light frigate in today's world. You look at things like FTI, PPA, FFG(X), Admiral Grigorovich, Daegu, Valour. The overall standard is much higher than it used to be. Particularly FTI.

In very simple terms I would list it like this in terms of UK unit costs.

Destroyer: £1Bn+
Frigate: (Tier1) £750m
Frigate: (Tier2) £500m
Corvette: £250m
OPV: £125m

These prices could be lowered if UK naval shipbuilding and the wider procurement process were to become more efficient in future.

Effectively HMG is trying to use a Corvette budget to build a Frigate.

As the T31 requires a longer range than a standard Corvette, it looks likely that the T31 (at least initially) will be a long range but underarmed Corvette, however the outcome could be more positive than that with the cross decking from the T23's.

A pragmatic approach would be to spend the £250m on the hull and propulsion and then transfer everything across from each T23 like for like. In the case of Arrowhead140 for example that would make for an effective frigate.

Length: 138m
Beam: 19.8m
Range: 9000nm @15knts
Top Speed: 30knts
Armament: Mk8, 32 CAMM, 8x Harpoon, 2x 30mm's, single Phalanx
Sensors: Artisan, 2050 HMS, (2087 compatible)
Aviation: Merlin capable hanger and flightdeck
Other: Four RHIBs and space for multiple ISO's.

The viability of Babcock being able to build The A140's for £250m is still somewhat unproven given the available data from other countries but if the T31 programme ended up delivering a vessel such as outlined above I don't think there would be too many complaints.