Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Posted: 30 May 2019, 15:27
Interesting looks to me a 57mm gun and 24 CAMM launchers - no other VLS. Could this be the RN version?
News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.
https://ukdefenceforum.net/
Do you think those sells activity is associated with a disclaimer as; "note if RN selects Arrowhead 140, you will be force to build these hull at UK, or build by your own under Babcock's technical support". Sorry, I cannot imagine such a thing to happen.RichardIC wrote:It's going to depend entirely on what agreement is reached regarding intellectual property etc if the Iver Huitfedt is selected for T31e. And it hasn't been yet.donald_of_tokyo wrote:...I feel more and more that, UK is just one of the "importer" of Iver Huitfeldt-class as Arrowhead 140 and not in the exporter market of the design. Even if it were selected as T31e for RN, there will be no export from UK, as expected. No merit for customer, nor OMT.
In the meantime OMT continue to try and export what is still their design and I don't think we can have any problem with that.
At least we know any future Iver Huitfeldts can't be built in Denmark.
Dunno, I'm not party to the negotiations. None of us on here are as far as I'm aware.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Do you think those sells activity is associated with a disclaimer as; "note if RN selects Arrowhead 140, you will be force to build these hull at UK, or build by your own under Babcock's technical support". Sorry, I cannot imagine such a thing to happen.
I guess it will be just
1: you can build by your own yard with support from Team Denmark
2: or any other yards can be used. As one of such candidate, UK ship yard can also do it.
Great info.RichardIC wrote:
Agreed. I am just guessing. My first point is, Babcock is still not "within" the Team Denmark (looks like a fact).RichardIC wrote:Dunno, I'm not party to the negotiations. None of us on here are as far as I'm aware.
Perhaps the RN has offered up the existing T23 tubes for free?Tempest414 wrote:for me if they want to put 24 CAMM on Leander fit 2 EXLS in place of the tubs and clean the hole thing up those horrid tubs make the ship look cheap and now they have added another cheap tub
I saw that, seems strange as the flight deck already looked to be Merlin capable and it’s not meant to be there for carrying any weight - any ideas?donald_of_tokyo wrote:~1m extension astern on the flight deck
"Asia" here really only meaning Indonesia, which have been eyeing the IHs at least since 2014-15 , so as you yourself notes , that offer to them predates OMT/Naval Team Denmarks involvement with Babcock by several years.....and is probably to far along by now to involve the latter. It should also be noted that the Indonesians are looking for a specification closer to the Huitfeldts, as opposed to those of the A140( if they can afford it is another matter though) .donald_of_tokyo wrote:Zero smell of UK company, Babcock, involved in Iver Huitfeldt-class sales around Asia, in IMDEX Asia 2019.
http://navalteam.dk/index.php?id=25&tx_ ... 080aed4032Just an impression, I agree, but I feel more and more that, UK is just one of the "importer" of Iver Huitfeldt-class as Arrowhead 140 and not in the exporter market of the design
Perhaps, but what makes you think it would be any different with Leander ? ...Countries who are going to want to build A140 themselves, are also likely to insist on building Leander in their own yards......Regardless of which design is finally selected for T31 , i think the best UK can hope for in terms of export is selling the design but with a high level of UK content( propulsion systems,IPMS, CMS , Weapons and Sensors etc)Even if it were selected as T31e for RN, there will be no export from UK, as expected.
No "dedicated" FCS. However, RN ships don't usually carry one. Mainmast EO plus Artisan will supply target co-ords.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Great info.RichardIC wrote:
- As Repulse-san says, 12 CAMM at bow, 12 CAMM amidship.
- A 57 mm gun at bow, and 2x 30 mm guns aside the hangar.
- no Phalanx CIWS
- 2 small radomes on the mizzen mast is the CAMM data links?
- ~1m extension astern on the flight deck.
- carrying 3 20ft ISO containers, and 2 RHIBs, and one 11m(?) alcove is empty.
- FCS for 57 mm gun is not shown. (why?)
- amid ship deck arrangement has been changed.
Overall, it looks very practical design, following the T31e RFI "requirements+FTRs". For example, if it carries CAMM, there is no need for CIWS. No requirement for Mk 41 VLS. It is good as it is. But if "more" is required, not much margin she has. No problem, she is only 3600t small ship, optimized for the original T31e RFI requirement.
No not as far as we know , but OMT is very much a part of Team 31...( and its VERY likely that Babcock will become an affiliated member of NTD.... like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.....but only if they win the T31 selection of course)donald_of_tokyo wrote:Agreed. I am just guessing. My first point is, Babcock is still not "within" the Team Denmark (looks like a fact).RichardIC wrote:Dunno, I'm not party to the negotiations. None of us on here are as far as I'm aware.
And if so, common sense says any sells activity under Team Denmark banner is independent of Babcock.
No it wont. That Team 31 is also showing the A140 (export) in a configuration mirroring the Huitfeldt's but under Babcocks banner is indicative of that.So, Iver Huitfeldts itself will be a rival for Arrowhead 140.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Great info.RichardIC wrote:
- As Repulse-san says, 12 CAMM at bow, 12 CAMM amidship.
- A 57 mm gun at bow, and 2x 30 mm guns aside the hangar.
- no Phalanx CIWS
- 2 small radomes on the mizzen mast is the CAMM data links?
- ~1m extension astern on the flight deck.
- carrying 3 20ft ISO containers, and 2 RHIBs, and one 11m(?) alcove is empty.
- FCS for 57 mm gun is not shown. (why?)
- amid ship deck arrangement has been changed...
Ron5 wrote:No "dedicated" FCS. However, RN ships don't usually carry one. Mainmast EO plus Artisan will supply target co-ords.
Phalanx is FTR?
Are you sure about the flight deck change? I doubt adding 1m is worthwhile.
1: 57mm with full kit of 3P ammunition, primarily for AAW precision 240 rounds per minute fire, may need a dedicated FCS because of the refresh rate? (Gun for NGFS (and anti-ship) do not need it.). EO can do it, but only if not in fog.Repulse wrote:I saw that (~1m extension), seems strange as the flight deck already looked to be Merlin capable and it’s not meant to be there for carrying any weight - any ideas?
Hopefully. Anyway, my point is the license issue is one of the biggest concern to Arrowhead 140, as well as the MEKO A200 proposal. I hope clear announcement to be provided from the two teams.MikeKiloPapa wrote:No it wont. That Team 31 is also showing the A140 (export) in a configuration mirroring the Huitfeldt's but under Babcocks banner is indicative of that.So, Iver Huitfeldts itself will be a rival for Arrowhead 140.
Sorry, you miss my point. I should have written it more directly.Caribbean wrote:Since "exportability" is the main focus of both the NSS AND the T31 RFI, I doubt Babcocks would have wasted more than a few minutes on the A140 if they hadn't got the IP issues nailed down from day 1.
Sensible as the other Nordic defence companies are pretty much consolidating in just two... long tradition for the Danes to look this way; across the seaMikeKiloPapa wrote: the Danish defence industry and its companies TERMA, OMT , NTD etc are simply too small to properly compete on the international market ....and further handicapped by the lack of our own shipbuilding yard(s).......Hence the tie-up with Babcock
First thought that this is the "e" as the RN is unlikely to intro a new calibre for a class of 5. Even the US (when you total USN+ USCG) have pretty much halved their initial 57 mm order... so why would we put a "coastal craft" / Coast Guard weapon onto a blue-water asset? And the likeliest answer is Ron's, below. Just like for the same gun on the Hamina FACs... just an integrated system, nothing extra.FCS for 57 mm gun is not shown. (why?)
Ron5 wrote:No "dedicated" FCS. However, RN ships don't usually carry one. Mainmast EO plus Artisan will supply target co-ords.
Bottom line is that none of us know what terms of business have been agreed, or whether they are still negotiating, and we're speculating.donald_of_tokyo wrote:Hopefully. Anyway, my point is the license issue is one of the biggest concern to Arrowhead 140, as well as the MEKO A200 proposal. I hope clear announcement to be provided from the two teams.
P.S. Babcock has a license to sell Vard7 80 and 90 OPVs. But, RNZN Otago-class OPV = Vard7 85, virtually a sister of them, were not built in Babcock nor under the technical support of them. On the other hand, in Vard7 110 = USCG Heritage class cutter, Babcock won the detailed engineering support contract for its design. As Vard7 is a merchant ship hull (it is advocated to be so), licensing will be more easy. So, licensing agreement for Arrowhead 140 (and MEKO A200) is of great interest, one of the top concern, I think.
It uses a revolutionary braking mechanism based around a series of extending, tensile "air brakes" constructed of a durable, environmentally-friendly fabric material, which also doubles as an auxiliary propulsion system that harnesses the very latest in renewable energy technology.SKB wrote:Some new T31e concepts from BAE: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bae-sy ... e-concept/
Btw. No anchor?