UK Defence Forum

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Ron5 wrote: in the graphic labelled as Vigile-D ESM is in fact Thales Gatekeeper.

Ohh...

Sep 2019 write up on Thales Vigile D ESM on sale to Dutch for upgrade to Damen 3,300t M/Karel Doorman class frigates.

selected Thales’s innovative digital wideband Radar Electronic Support Measures product Vigile D, as part of an equipment upgrade for three Royal Netherlands Navy warships, and two Portugues Navy frigates undergoing retrofit in the Netherlands.

Vigile D will detect multiple signals simultaneously across a wide frequency range with 100% multi-signal probability detection.

Thales' digital technology provides the earliest possible warning of radar guided weapons, targeting systems or covertly operating forces, with greater reliability and accuracy than conventional systems even where the electromagnetic spectrum is congested.

From <https://www.adsadvance.co.uk/netherland ... ile-d.html>

Thales launched its new Radar Electronic Surveillance system VIGILE DPX for worldwide export at Euronaval 2012.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... cle&id=702

type 31:



thales gatekeeper:

[Notes] This is T31 thread, I know. But, T13 program itself, and for the Rosyth yard to "survive", export is essential. So, export discussion must be deeply related to T31. But, wait. This is NEWS thread. So, I shall move to..... where? --> Sorry, help me admins.

-----------------------------

On T26 thread, Brasil-san linked very nice movie of Tamandaré Class corvettes.
https://youtu.be/aRmPiu_wS9s
Remarkably "similar" to T31, except for hull-size and standard, and even better in ASW and SSM.

In this movie, many good info is there.
1- CAMM number looks like 12 (1:33), using mushroom. (But LM says Brazil adopted ExLS. Not in this corvette?)
2- It carries 4 ISO containers (1:43)
3- 107.2 x 16 m, 3500t weight
4- Other weapons are, 1x 76mm gun (looks not with DARTS), 4x Exocet SSM, and a few guns.
5- It does NOT carry 40 mm gun (which was common to Brazilian warships to date. Not sure it is final, though).
6- No range/endurance info, as far as I know, but the failed Damen-10514 proposal states, "5000nm and 20 days". So, may be similar.

So, 12-SAM, 1-mid-cal-gun, 4-to-8-SSM and hull-sonar with helicopter, looks like common armament level as a typical heavy corvette / light-light frigate of the day. T31 is armed as a "typical heavy corvette of the day, but without ASW". Looks very similar to French Floreal-class. Only difference is better hull standard and lack of SSM. (SAM difference is important, but it just reflects the difference of era = 1990s vs 2020s). Floreal hull is significantly enhanced merchant ship standard, which I understand is comparable to current OPV standard, like adopted in Mexican Damen 10514.

For Arrowhead 140 to get export, MEKO A100/A200, Damen 10514, Gowind2500 is clearly a good rival. "NATO frigate standard-hull" is good, but it is expensive and not popular in export market. So, Arrowhead 140 must be "one rank higher" assets = with less export chance (because higher ranked nations tend to have their own shipbuilding industry).

- New Zealand is very very important.
- Portugal: ENVC Shipyard is building their OPV = not much different from Babcock. Not easy, because they will think "if Babcock can build Arrowhead 140 by their own, ENVC Shipyard might be able to do it as well". Logical.
- Chili ASMAR ship yard is the same = not much different from Babcock. Not easy, again.
- Gulf states. May be, for example, Oman. But, other nations are already "booked" by French and Italian ships, look like.

I really really think T31 MUST aim at New Zealand as much as possible. Delaying the build program to enable RNZN to join in 2033-2035 (delivery) or finding a stop-gap (several MHC?) to "save the day" on Rosyth, between 2028 to 2033, will be of very high priority. I can see no other big chance, at least for now.

The Tamandaré class will presumably fill the low-end requirement for the PROSUPER program (though with a larger hull than originally planned). The T31 would probably make a decent base for the larger ships of the high-end requirement (i.e. 6000t vessels), particularly as Brazil wants to develop it's own ship-building capabilities and the T31 would make a good follow-on program for them

Caribbean wrote:The Tamandaré class will presumably fill the low-end requirement for the PROSUPER program (though with a larger hull than originally planned). The T31 would probably make a decent base for the larger ships of the high-end requirement (i.e. 6000t vessels), particularly as Brazil wants to develop it's own ship-building capabilities and the T31 would make a good follow-on program for them

Yes, IH-class (or if possible its sister = Arrowhead140 class) can be a good candidate design for Brazilian Navy, no objection. The problem is, these are ship designs "even an OPV-only builder = Babcock can build". If so, Brazilian shipyard building Tamandaré class can build it by their own for sure.

Babcock may be able to provide Arrowhead 140 design only if OMT agrees (which is unlikely, I'm afraid), but anyway Rosyth has almost no chance to build it.

This is my point.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Babcock may be able to provide Arrowhead 140 design only if OMT agrees (which is unlikely, I'm afraid), but anyway Rosyth has almost no chance to build it.

Donald, all the intellectual property for Arrowhead 140/T31 now lies with the UK was my understanding. OMT has zero ownership of the design.

RichardIC wrote:OMT has zero ownership of the design.

Correct; at the same time they have a lot of expertise to modify it... were they asked to.

RichardIC wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Babcock may be able to provide Arrowhead 140 design only if OMT agrees (which is unlikely, I'm afraid), but anyway Rosyth has almost no chance to build it.

Donald, all the intellectual property for Arrowhead 140/T31 now lies with the UK was my understanding. OMT has zero ownership of the design.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Correct; at the same time they have a lot of expertise to modify it... were they asked to.

I understand Babcock has all rights to "build-and-export" Arrowhead 140 design. No objection.

But, does it mean Babcock can "sell the design" freely to anywhere = without Danish government permission? (In other words, OMT's agreement). This is what I am not sure yet.

On the other hand, main-part of my comment is, Rosyth cannot build Arrowhead 140 for Brazil, because Brazilian EMGEPRON shipyard can do it. Their experience is comparable to or even exceeds that of Babcock. If national shipyard can do it, why on earth they will order it from abroad?

Learning by doing? ( Tamandaré-class are seen as an upgrade to the Barroso design)
Name: Barroso
Ordered: 1993
Builder: Arsenal de Marinha do Rio de Janeiro
Laid down: 21 December 1994
Launched: 20 December 2002
Commissioned: 19 August 2008

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, does it mean Babcock can "sell the design" freely to anywhere = without Danish government permission?

Yes.

Please see 8.4 of the RFI.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 1e_RFI.pdf

So don't stop export efforts (Brazil even manufactures Bofors 40 in-country ).

They might also practise what we preach :
"O reparo do canhão Vickers de 4.5 pol. que será instalado na Barroso é o mesmo retirado da F Constituição - F 42 durante o Programa ModFrag." - if my Portuguese serves me at all

RichardIC wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:But, does it mean Babcock can "sell the design" freely to anywhere = without Danish government permission?

Yes.

Thanks.
Really? If so, it is great. As it is very important, can you kindly show some link? If something internal info, it is also OK for me.

At least, from all the open source, I see no such info that Babcock can sell the design without Danish permission. (I know they can do it, if with Danish permission).

My concern is,
- Naval team denmark, which is/was promoting IH-design worldwide, does NOT include Babcock.
- And, Naval team denmark is still promoting IH-design for export. So, Babcock Arrowhead 140 license is NOT exclusive one, I guess.
[EDIT] And what if there is a conflict? Or, the sells market has pre-determined separation?

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Really? If so, it is great. As it is very important, can you kindly show some link? If something internal info, it is also OK for me.

Link now added above. I’d normally cite references, but am clearly getting sloppy.

The crucial thing is that Type 31 and IH are different vessels. That is why OMT will try and sell the IH design and Babcock will try and sell the T31 design.

The contract Babcock won was to design and build T31.

To quote Babcock CXO Archie Bethel:

Most notably we were delighted to be awarded the contract to design and build five new general purpose frigates for the Royal Navy. This is a significant win for us against competition from other OEMs. We really appreciate the trust that the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence have placed in us to deliver what I believe to be a real step change in the provision of new naval capability.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... .11.19.pdf

RichardIC wrote:Please see 8.4 of the RFI.

Does VM in that same paragraph refer to Value Management (i.e. trade-offs between cost and performance)?
- the 'war' that is being refought here over and over again

RichardIC wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Really? If so, it is great. As it is very important, can you kindly show some link? If something internal info, it is also OK for me.

Link now added above. I’d normally cite references, but am clearly getting sloppy.

The crucial thing is that Type 31 and IH are different vessels. That is why OMT will try and sell the IH design and Babcock will try and sell the T31 design.

The contract Babcock won was to design and build T31.

To quote Babcock CXO Archie Bethel:

Most notably we were delighted to be awarded the contract to design and build five new general purpose frigates for the Royal Navy. This is a significant win for us against competition from other OEMs. We really appreciate the trust that the Royal Navy and the Ministry of Defence have placed in us to deliver what I believe to be a real step change in the provision of new naval capability.

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp ... .11.19.pdf

Thanks, I've read the T31-RFI.

It states

8.4 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
The MOD may wish to compete future support arrangements, upgrade or modify the ships or sub-systems independent of the original equipment manufacturer and support exports of whole ships and or ship designs. The MOD is willing to discuss options around IPR during the VM and Competitive Design Phase, provided these do not compromise the MOD’s ability to compete.

This does NOT guarantee Arrowhead 140 design only can be exported, as it is not stated as mandatory. It is an option. This is why I'm still looking for more evidence.

You think Arrowhead 140 will compete with IH-class. I'm afraid it is not guaranteed.

For example, Indonesian bid is ongoing with NavalTeamDenmark proposing IH-design. As Babcock must look for every export chance, may be Babcock shall propose Arrowhead 140 as a competitor to IH-design. Brazilian Niteroi-class replacement will also be a good case. In this case, yes it will be clear that Babcock has all freedom.

But anyway, independent and the most important (for me) issue is, Rosyth (I mean "build", not "design") has very narrow future chance, while it does need orders to survive. Thus, I think promotion to RNZN (and maybe to Oman) is very very important now.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:This does NOT guarantee Arrowhead 140 design only can be exported, as it is not stated as mandatory. It is an option. This is why I'm still looking for more evidence.

You’re being hard work this morning!!!

John Howie, Chief Exec Babcock Marine:



At 14:10. “For the export market, more often than not, we’ll be selling the design.”

If HMG wants to have two builders then the clear way forward is to build the 5 batch 1 type 31 and then do a deal with NZ and put a order for 4 or 6 Batch 2 ships and as they come on line and sell what ever batch 1 to keep the type 31 fleet at 5 or 6

RichardIC wrote:You’re being hard work this morning!!!

Thanks.
Yes and no. I've read T31 RFI a few years ago, throughly, and this is why I continue questioning this issue, as there is no confirmed info yet.

Also thanks for linking Babcocks interview. If I'm correct, he said (14:10- as you pointed)

"For the export market, more often to note we will be selling the design, we would be selling the system, and engineering capability, a lot of the people who gonna buy a ship of that size gonna build by their own shipyard, not everyone, but most will,...." and he stress about "not only about the steal box, it was about combat system, propulsion system .... cross-domestic products"

I think, he is carefully avoiding talking about selling the whole ship design. I got an impression (just an impression) that Babcock wants to gain experience in escort ship building, to be active in the export market in future.

Of course, if teamed-up with OMT, Babcock will surely be able to sell the design. But, without OMT? No sure.

Please note "a nation letting their design totally free to be used in other nation" NEVER happened in the past. Not even "rare", but NONE in the past, in my understanding. As this situation is very "special", if true the contract will be "record making", "ground breaking", and "totally new agreement for a new business case".

But they never say so.

We have to be very careful here. <--- this is my sole point.

It is very very special. If real, it is for the first time ever in the world.

PS Do you know that Austalian T26 has "all access to all technology by the Australian shipyard"? But, we all know it does NOT mean they can export RAN-modified T26 as they like.

Oh, well... how I hate having to answer the questions posed :

you have the option to sign the ‘ConfidentialityAgreement for the Request For Information and Value Management exercise for the Type 31e Programme’ between the company and the Ministry of Defence (MOD).Please note that if you wish to continue in the pre-procurement process you must sign and submit theConfidentiality Agreement along with your RFI response
... so we will never know

donald_of_tokyo wrote: "save the day" on Rosyth, between 2028 to 2033, will be of very high priority. I can see no other big chance, at least for now.

This is why the whole shipbuilding 'strategy' is fundamentally flawed. There is little market for complete frigates, the demand only comes from a couple of small and rich seagoing nations.

shark bait wrote:This is why the whole shipbuilding 'strategy' is fundamentally flawed.

Parker was asked by the Treasury to come up with a cover for breaking the Bae monopoly. Didn't have to actually make sense just be believable enough. And it didn't (make sense). Surprised he hasn't got his lordship yet to say thank you.

Geo Osborne, the gift that keep giving.

Repulse wrote:https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/nava ... i3Gen_News

The link doesn't work, but here is the Babcock announcement

https://www.babcockinternational.com/ne ... ct-awards/

That's a fair bit of value heading to MTU, Renk and MAN.

No doubt we'll be seeing headlines from the usual suspects: 'cut price warships largely made in Germany'.

Babcock Team 31 is pleased to announce the second round of supply chain contract awards across the UK and Europe to support the Royal Navy’s Type 31 general purpose frigate programme.

The only supplier on that list who actually manufacture in the UK are Darchem.

I'm not a fan of protectionism but maybe we need to start looking at reshoring divisions of 'British' companies who seem determined to invest in facilities anywhere but here, especially when they benefit from UK tax policy, government support and 'national champion' status...

Jensy wrote:
The only supplier on that list who actually manufacture in the UK are Darchem.

Not a good look for the program is it.