Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[benny14]

N version will not have Mk.41 strike length VLS.

It is not about it getting it initially, it is about having space for it if the money became available. Obviously the GP version the RN initially gets will be CAMM only, with deck launched ASM if we ever get any new ones.

What is more important 4 RHIB or 2 RHIB and more VLS?

[shark bait]

Nothing is stopping the RN from having MK-41 center and CAMM on the sides.

Or CAMM where the second gun mount is at the moment.

Why not a candidate for USN FFX? Not clear for me yet...

A good question. They didnt bid for Canada, and Australia rejected it because it doesn't do ASW. Not sure about the Americans.

[Tempest414]

I think its design is a long way from the norm and as so is not really under stood. Coming back to the FOST this is were the UK may have a bit more faith in the design over others with little or no insight to the design. It will go a long way that the RN already has a full report into its war fighting capability and damage control and to this end it might be a lower risk

[Poiuytrewq]

I think Babcock are on the right track here but I'm surprised they are basically going with the unchanged Iver Huitfeldt AAW Frigate design. I don't think adding a couple of bays for RHIBs and removing the secondary armament really constitutes a design optimised for RN. This is pure Iver Huitfeldt.

For a 6500t vessel in its current form I don't think it adds a lot more than Leander at almost twice the displacement. They both carry four RHIB's, have space for multiple ISO's, are suitable for a medium calibre gun and have space for 12 to 24 CAMM. The only real difference is the size of the hanger on the Leander, which could be redesigned and enlarged if necessary.

I am not a fan of the Leanders mission bay but it does appear to be more versatile than the A140's four mission spaces.

image.jpg

On the Leander the ISO's are carried in the same space as the RHIB's adding flexibility. This could be very important for mcm operations or to deploy off board systems in the future. The ISO's can be loaded/unloaded via the deck mounted crane, useful in a HADR situation in remote areas with little local infrastructure.

The four mission spaces on the A140's look to be capable of carrying the RHIB's and not a lot else. The fixed internal gantries are clearly visible on this image. It's not clear how these four mission spaces are interlinked if at all.

image.jpg

The Iver Huitfeldt's do have a storage area under the flight deck that can be accessed via a hatch but without a crane how would these stores be moved in a HADR situation? It seems to lack the versatility of the Leander design.

Looking at the Iver Huitfeldt design it's clear that the biggest structural change from the parent Absalon design apart the removal of the flex deck is the reduction in size of the double Merlin capable hanger. I suspect this was due to the optimisation for AAW. In my opinion this double hanger should be redesigned back into the A140's straight away.

image.jpg

Its clear the weapons deck is taking up a lot of space and this is simply not necessary on the RN variant. It's pointless basing everything around the dimensions of the StanFlex system if RN aren't going to adopt it.

Other areas also look to be a poor use of space.

image.jpg

The offset funnel design is creating issues and it's clear the four mission spaces on the A140's have been designed around them.

Also the space allocated for the secondary armament on the Iver Huitfeldt's is simply dead space in the A140's. A much better solution must be possible.

image.jpg

Why not rearrange the funnel design and enlarge the hanger space back to the Absalon dimensions. This hanger space marked in green could also double as extra mission bay space if only 1 helicopter was embarked.

The VLS cells (red) could be moved to the area previously allocated to the secondary armament freeing up a vast amount of space amidships (blue). This space would be enormous, in fact it may even be possible to transfer the already designed T26 mission bay straight across. What a result!

The VLS cells in the image are the full StanFlex module so lots of room for 24 CAMM and 8 Mk41 Strike cells.

The area maked in yellow would join the double hanger with the large mission bay creating an extremely versatile space.

image.jpg

This side view shows the difference in scale of the enlarged mission bay with the current storage area that is capable of holding 4 ISO's. It's clear the mission bay would be an improvement and greatly enhance the flexibility of the vessel. The VLS cells appear to fit well between the bridge and the main armament.

So what would RN end up with a few pretty straightforward modifications.

A 6500t vessel with a 19.8m beam that is capable of 30knts.

It would have a large double Merlin capable hanger linked to a mission bay at least as big as the T26's.

It would have enough space to carry at least 32 Mk41 cells and a Mk45 gun if required.

Outside of a war fighting scenario if configured in this way the A140's could be even more versatile that the T26's and all for only 25% to 30% of the cost.

The potential is there, now Babcock just have to make it happen.

[shark bait]

Some good info here;

The frigate is divided into six hazard zones containing three main citadels, i.e. areas that can protect the crew against the effects of ABC weapons. The two aft citadels are further divided into two zones. All zones are equipped with separate filters which can function independently of one another. Between each zone and the citadels, ABC airlocks are located, allowing the crew to move around the ship and use the three cleaning stations whilst sailing in the contaminated area

The more I read the more this looks like a real fighting ship.

[shark bait]

Why not rearrange the funnel design and enlarge the hanger space back to the Absalon dimensions

Cost.

This is the first realistic proposal because it already exists. No way can a fighting ship be designed and build for £250 million a piece.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Why not rearrange the funnel design and enlarge the hanger space back to the Absalon dimensions

Cost.
This is the first realistic proposal because it already exists. No way can a fighting ship be designed and build for £250 million a piece.

Also, maybe exhaust and intake area of Iver Huitfeldt is twice larger than Absalon, AND Iver Huitfeldt has one-level low deck, so that those "exhaust and intake" re-arrangement will be not easy. (I understand Iver Huitfeldt having one-level lower deck is to handle large Mk.41 VLS).

[benny14]

Just had a quick look.

Iver Huitfeldt-class Niels Juel and Absalon-class Esbern Snare were both at Joint Warrior in April.

[shark bait]

The exhaust was changed between classes to prevent excessive heat on the large SMART-L radar, which of course wont be on the T31, so perhaps there is more space available their for a future use.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The exhaust was changed between classes to prevent excessive heat on the large SMART-L radar, which of course wont be on the T31, so perhaps there is more space available their for a future use.

Not sure, looks like Absalon's exhaust location provides less heat on SMART-L?

On Poiuytrewq-san's proposal, I think it is interesting (shifting CAMM VLS forward to make a mission bay amidship). Since the number of engine has been doubled, Iver class shall have some restriction in exhaust location, but even if exhaust re-orientation is not easy, the collider between the hangar and amidship deck may provide T26-like hangar-mission bay combo.

I suspect, Babcock did not have enough time to largely re-arrage the Iver class design? It is only recently OMT joined the team, and extensive re-arragement takes time. In other words, Arrowhead 140 design will evolve. Some parts which can be changed will be changed, and others with big restriction, requiring big re-design cost, would be kept as it is.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why not rearrange the funnel design and enlarge the hanger space back to the Absalon dimensions

....maybe exhaust and intake area of Iver Huitfeldt is twice larger than Absalon, AND Iver Huitfeldt has one-level low deck, so that those "exhaust and intake" re-arrangement will be not easy. (I understand Iver Huitfeldt having one-level lower deck is to handle large Mk.41 VLS).

The exhaust was changed between classes to prevent excessive heat on the large SMART-L radar, which of course wont be on the T31, so perhaps there is more space available their for a future use.

I understand fully all the points made but in my opinion this is a fantastic platform that would be completely compromised by simply adopting an off the shelf IH design. The current design doesn't offer enough over the Leander to be sure of victory.

I am not suggesting a complete redesign of the hull, only moving one funnel a few meters. It must be worth exploring due to the vast benefits it could produce.

Reverting back to the Absalon hanger should be pretty simple also, it's already designed, it's proven to work and with 70% to 80% commonality between the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt design it should be one of the modular interchangeable options for export.

Is one of reasons for the Absalons slimmer funnels the fact that it only has two engines?

Does the T31 really need to achieve 30 knots? Would 25knts be perfectly acceptable?

[NickC]

@Poiuytrewq

I fail to understand why you want to create a mission bay on Arrowhead 140 / Iver Huitfeldt at the expense of the weapons deck, if memory correct the T31e RFI requirement does not mention a mission bay only ability to carry two TEUs, Arrowhead has ability to store four TEUs under the flight deck.

As far as I know the new generation of frigates, French FTI, Italian PPA, Japanese 30FFM, Korean Daegu, USN FFG(X) do not incorporate any larger mission bays than the four large boat bays in the Arrowhead 140 and room for UAV besides a helicopter in hanger, which understand the Arrowhead 140 can accommodate. The Type 26 with its large mission bay is an outlier.

If modifying the Arrowhead 140 design one of several changes would be to delete two of the four TEUs to make room for VDS and two HWT launch tubes under the flight deck at stern as in the Italian PPA ~6,000T design.

[Repulse]

My view is that the son of "Iver Huitfeldt" design is still a big ship without a clear role. I'd have got an Absalon conversion, but not this. My vote is add the SMART-L radar and BMD defence and then it has a purpose. However, my money still goes on the smaller BAE design (with a Merlin hangar) assuming they can add Diesel electric engines and a TAS.

[donald_of_tokyo]

... The current design doesn't offer enough over the Leander to be sure of victory.
I am not suggesting a complete redesign of the hull, only moving one funnel a few meters. It must be worth exploring due to the vast benefits it could produce.
Reverting back to the Absalon hanger should be pretty simple also, it's already designed, it's proven to work and with 70% to 80% commonality between the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt design it should be one of the modular interchangeable options for export.

It all depends on the technical difficulty, not sure. I think it is "doable", but "not easy". For example, you need to "guide" your after-engine-room's intake and exhaust by ~10m ahead in the hull. This means you will lose "~3 m wide, 10 m long and 1-level high internal space", and possibly more.

Is one of reasons for the Absalons slimmer funnels the fact that it only has two engines?

I think yes, for sure.

Does the T31 really need to achieve 30 knots? Would 25knts be perfectly acceptable?

6600t FLD Absalon is 24 knots in speed.

Size comparison of Leander and Arrowhead 140. ...
I understand Lender vs Arrowhead 140 is
Length 117 m / 138.7 m
Width 14.6 m / 19.8 m
FLD 3700t / 6800+ t
Propulsion 2x 9200kW deisel (+E moter (?)) / 4x 8400kW diesel
Armament 76 mm gun, 12 CAMM, 1 CIWS, 2 30mm, 4 RHIB, 1 NH90 (actually Wildcat) / 76 mm, 24 CAMM, 4 RHIB, 1 Merlin (actually Wildcat?)
If these two design cost the same, it is very interesting.

In this comparison, I wanted to point out a few things.

- engine and gear is expensive. Arrowhead 140 has twice that compared to Leander. This means, Leander has more money to be spent on other things, such as sensor, network, damage standard, etc ... Also, narrow Leander hull will require less fuel to steam, and small hull will require (slightly) less crew to maintain. (hull is not just a steel and air).

- armament is similar. 12 vs 24 CAMM does differ, but making Leander to carry 24 will not be so difficult (i.e., locating 12 more "mushroom CAMM" amidship). RHIB number is the same. ISO container is doubled in Arrowhead, but is not required in the RFI. The big difference is future growth margins. With its equipments, Leander will be already "virtually full". Arrowhead has many rooms left, for good future growth paths. (Export version even can be configured as Iver Huitfeldt itself).

[EDIT] If there will be more money, growth margins will be nice, and larger fuel cost may not be a problem (Arrowhead 140 wins). But, if RN wants to cut as much as possible (and spend more on other assets), (running) cost difference could be critically important (Leander wins).

- Similarly equipped, half in engine cost, (and with smaller hull), Leander shall have much surplus money to be spent on other things. Hull and propulsion-related equipments purchased for the ship shall be significantly cheaper than those purchased for Arrowhead 140. I think Leander is not too much high density (it is low density than Khareef), and fitting out is not that difficult. Thus, I still cannot understand why the similar cost comes.

Surely the design concept make the difference, but can it be so large? Not sure.

But, gaining a knowledge from Danish design and building concept will be a good "stimulation" to UK ship industry. I think, BOTH Leander and Arrowhead 140 is competitive. Because their design differs a lot, while both (will be) meeting the RFI requirements, decision process will be very interesting to see

[Aethulwulf]

The T31 bidders have already been through a value management process. This means everyone has a pretty good idea of the value and priority the RN places on the various options around the baseline requirements.

Based on the two designs I'd say the following are near the top of the RN wish list:
•Merlin capable flightdeck
•Merlin capable hanger
•Ability to launch 4 RHIBs or unmanned systems
•Ability to carry 2, or better 4, ISO containers of stores
•12, or better 24, CAMM
•76 mm, or better 127 mm, main gun
•Good command and control facility, which can be augmented when required
Etc.

The more the design hits these marks, the higher it will score.

But they also know the features in which the RN is not interested. A double Merlin hanger would be such a feature. It is not needed for the T31. Any bid featuring a double Merlin hanger would not be scored any higher by the RN than a bid with a single Merlin hanger.

A double hanger with just a single deck spot is of limited value. Given the need to be able land at anytime in an emergency, in many circumstances you could not have 2 Merlins in the air at the same time if only one deck spot is available.

If you need 2 Merlins, then 2 ships (giving you 2 hangers and 2 deck spots) is much better. One of these ships could be a Tide tanker.

Does the T31 need a top speed of greater than 25 kts? Given that a primary role for the T31 is maritime security and the interception of other vessels, a higher top speed is always useful and of some value.

If given the choice between a T31 with a double Merlin hanger and a 25 kt top speed, or a single Merlin hanger and a 28 kt top speed the latter would win.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The T31 bidders have already been through a value management process.

Is it awarded? I'm afraid it is stopping according to MDP. I hope not, but if it is proceeding, I think the industry will PR it?

A double hanger with just a single deck spot is of limited value. Given the need to be able land at anytime in an emergency, in many circumstances you could not have 2 Merlins in the air at the same time if only one deck spot is available.

But any helo can fly only 20-30% of the day. If it is long period, I understand it is much less than 20%. Having two helo is not to fly two at once, but to make the gap (time that no helo can fly because of maintenance) smaller, I guess.

Also, is export capability not valued?

[Aethulwulf]

The value management phase finished in February. We are now in the competitive design phase for T31 (although the contracts have not yet been awarded).

Of course it is possible that MDP will impact on the T31 programme. Good or bad...

Given the recent public statements about the increased threat from Russian submarine activity, there could be funding to increase the ASW capabilities. But logically, if this were to happen, the first thing would be to increase the numbers of P8 Poseidon, Merlin HM2 and (theoretically) Astute. Only after funding all that would it be sensible to add a tail on to T31 or T23 GP.

[Lord Jim]

What is the issues with Sea Ceptor and the Mk41. I thought the Sea Ceptor was cleared for use with ExLS or would be shortly and the latter is designed to slot into the Mk41. It is in industries financial interest to give Sea Ceptor as many launcher options as possible, and given the Mk41 is becoming a default for many navies it should be a no brainer. The result, including 2-4 MK41s on the T-31e, though not strike length benefits both the RN and the chances of the design being exported. It is one thing to see Mk41s fitted in publicity material, quite another to see a major Navy having it on their vessels. I cannot see cost being a major factor with the Mk41 as a result.

[shark bait]

The current design doesn't offer enough over the Leander to be sure of victory.

For real? One is a conceptual stretched patrol boat, one it's a real life bonified frigate. The difference is cosmic as far as I'm concerned.

The Absalon is designed to fight;

• it is shock hardened
• It is properly compartmentalized
• Redundant kit is spread between compartments
• Kevlar lined compartments
• It has three citadels offering chemical, biological and nuclear protection to the crew.
• It has superior sea keeping ability
• It can support a Merlin! Or 2 small helicopters.
• It has a sauna
• All with significant room to grow (like space under the flight deck for a sonar....)

There is no way a real combat ship like this can be designed and built within the budget.

However buy a proven design from a struggling design house, and all of a sudden it becomes a realistic proposal.

The fast this already exists, and has passed through Royal Navy FOST is such a massive deal.

[donald_of_tokyo]

What is the issues with Sea Ceptor and the Mk41. I thought the Sea Ceptor was cleared for use with ExLS or would be shortly and the latter is designed to slot into the Mk41. It is in industries financial interest to give Sea Ceptor as many launcher options as possible, and given the Mk41 is becoming a default for many navies it should be a no brainer. The result, including 2-4 MK41s on the T-31e, though not strike length benefits both the RN and the chances of the design being exported. It is one thing to see Mk41s fitted in publicity material, quite another to see a major Navy having it on their vessels. I cannot see cost being a major factor with the Mk41 as a result.

Mk41 has its own control electronics. See, for example, http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Weapo ... elines.pdf.
In ExLS, I remember LM guy said they are using the existing CAMM technology heritage (I guess this is the reason why ExLS is proposed to be either fit-in Mk.41 or standalone). Duplication may be there. Also, Mk41 VLS is spending a lot of space and mechanics for exhaust, on which CAMM is not needed. All these addition will cause dead weight, non-needed money, increase in maintenance cost. I agree there is a good reason to actually use Mk.41 (PR?), but there is also a lot of reasons not to do so (weight, cost...). So, I am not surprised to see no Mk41 on T31e. Surely it is NOT "no brainer", just one of the (minor) options.

The current design doesn't offer enough over the Leander to be sure of victory.

For real? One is a conceptual stretched patrol boat, one it's a real life bonified frigate. The difference is cosmic as far as I'm concerned.

We just do not have strong confidence as you have. Cost is cost. Arrowhead 140 hull MUST be CHEAPER, because engines and gear box, steel (albeit cheap), firefighting equipments, Kevlar, NBC, etc etc .. all must be VERY EXPENSIVE than those of Leander (if you think Leander does not have it). This means, the hull cost and integration cost is very very cheaper than Leander.

The Absalon is designed to fight;

• it is shock hardened
• It is properly compartmentalized
• Redundant kit is spread between compartments

Why not you think Leander does not have them? Even Floreal-class has "eight watertight" sections, and I forget but also a few firewalls.

Kevlar lined compartments,
It has three citadels offering chemical, biological and nuclear protection to the crew.

These are nice to have, but surely it cost. You need to buy it.

• It has superior sea keeping ability
• It can support a Merlin! Or 2 small helicopters.
• It has a sauna
• All with significant room to grow (like space under the flight deck for a sonar....)

Yes this is the virtue of big hull. Of course, it costs more fuel, needs more maintenance, but being large itself has its own merit.

There is no way a real combat ship like this can be designed and built within the budget.
However buy a proven design from a struggling design house, and all of a sudden it becomes a realistic proposal.

I think here you are saying ship design cost is so huge and build cost is cheap, but if so, additional T26 should have been extremely cheap. I do not think so. Clearly Danish navy did many compromise in the standard (they clearly stated it). Actually, I understand they started from Merchant hull, and requires some issues in the list. Is this enough or not is important. For example, "shock hardened" has surely have many standards. What standard Danish ships has passes?

The fast this already exists, and has passed through Royal Navy FOST is such a massive deal.

Already existing is a very strong point. Much much better than Arrowhead 120.

By the way, FOST is for "Flag Officer Sea Training (FOST) provides Operational Sea Training for all surface ships, submarines and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries of the Royal Navy by a dedicated team of experts, led by Flag Officer Sea Training" (RN web), which means RFA vessel or River OPV passes FOST. I understand this means, it checks something, but not related to if it is warfighter or not?

I agree there is a good hope in Arrowhead 140. But, as an engineer, I want to know the reason of the trick to build it so cheap. Surely there must be a reason, and there must be a compromise. Make it clear, define what the ship can do and what cannot, and then we can think.

Also, I think this proposal will cast big big pressure on CL/BAES side. For example, it may be shock tolerant (to some extent ). I am looking forward for more information coming out from both sides.

More info!!

[benny14]

Announcing its design proposal on 31 May, Babcock said the Arrowhead 140 would lower programme risks through its tried and tested baseline design and is engineered to minimise through-life costs.

“We see opting for the Arrowhead 140 as a proven design gives us the advantage of not having any design costs to put back into the process; we don’t have to go through first-of-class trials and we don’t have to prove the hull again. So we can replicate that recycled cash back into more capability for our customers,” Craig Lockhart, Babcock’s managing director, naval marine, told Jane’s .

The 138 m platform will optimise operational flexibility, while its ‘wide beam’ and modularised build approach significantly reduces build time, as proven in the delivery of the same design to the Royal Danish Navy."

http://www.janes.com/article/80557/babc ... pe-31e-bid

Noticed this article as well. This does not sound like permanently forward basing. More like 12-18 month deployments?

"An RN spokesperson told Jane’s that, from 2019, the Type 23 frigates “would be deployed for a longer duration than the current six- to nine-month [rotations]”. While the ships will still be homeported in the United Kingdom, the navy is “examining all requirements for in-theatre support and maintenance, including utilising the new naval support facility in Bahrain”, the spokesperson added."

http://www.janes.com/article/80544/uk-t ... -from-2019

[Halidon]

Wonder if any of the powers that be on this forum would be willing to create a poll. Would be interesting to see which proposal is turning the most heads at this time.

[Tempest414]

First of all I would turn this on its head from why the Iver Huitfeldt class is so cheap to why Leander cost so much. Leander is a stretched Khareef class this class was built for 400 million or 133.5 million per ship and it has

Smart S 3D radar
TACTICOS CMS
1 x 76mm 2 x 30mm 8 x Exocet 12 x Mica

So a equal radar and CMS and better armament than Leander so what BAE is saying is it will cost 116 million the cost of a fully built and kitted River class to add 17 meters it seems a lot to me

[ArmChairCivvy]

as a proven design gives us the advantage of not having any design costs to put back into the process

... the first two in class come "free" then

Or, you can have (5/3)*£250m worth of ship, for each in the class of 5 (assuming it stops at that number).

[NickC]

Iver Huitfeldt class frigate undergoing FSST. Iver Huitfeldt hull built to full Nato STANAG specs, it is not a "commercial" hull.