Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[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.

For all the same reasons the mission bay is on the T26. In fact due to the different ways the T26 and T31 will be deployed, the mission bay would probably be used more frequently on the T31.

What size of a 'weapons deck' is actually needed on a T31? It doesn't take up a lot of room for 12 to 24 CAMM. The Mk41 capability is useful for export but its not required for the RN variant. What would RN put in them? To lose a space akin the the T26 mission bay simply to house 12 CAMM would be crazy in my opinion.

The TEU requirement is an interesting point. On paper the A140's have double the capacity but what is going to be in these TEU's. For example, If they are command modules for UUV's or UAV's why would you want then in a storage hold under the flight deck? Surely it would be more sensible to have the TEU next to the mission space. It's not clear if these TEU's could be moved in and out of this storage space whilst on deployment.

Was this under fight deck space actually designed to operate the towed array? If so, and the towed arrays are fitted in the future It won't leave a lot of space for the TEU's with the current design.

....gaining a knowledge from Danish design and building concept will be a good "stimulation" to UK ship industry....decision process will be very interesting to see

Agreed, 100%

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.

I take your point especially when combined with a single landing spot design but I see It as a single hanger plus mission space that can house a second helicopter rather than a standard double hanger. For example, would this combined hanger/mission space be a better place to house the TEU's as it would provide direct access to the UAV's on the flight deck and the UUV's via a hatch in the side of the hanger/mission space.

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

[*]It has a sauna

Absolutely, if this is an essential requirement the Leander simply can't compete.

[Caribbean]

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

There seems to be a lack of critical thinking on this. It's said that the IH started as a commercial hull design that was used because it had a well-designed layout. Clearly, therefor, it can never be anything else and the warship derived from that base design cannot be anything more than the Isle of Wight ferry (please insert favourite disparaging comparison here), painted grey. This seems to be an emotional response, not a logical one.

I'm going to use approximate figures here, but they are all reasonably accurate - the Isle of Wight ferry would probably, as a ro-pax day ferry cost around $3-4000 per tonne, possibly a little less. a freighter (lots of big empty spaces) certainly averages less than that (Emma Maersk cost less than $1000/tonne). A cruise ship (lots of people, therefor health and safety issues) averages $4500-8000 per tonne (I found one outlier at around $18000/tonne - a 6000t, ice-capable, top-end cruise ship designed for arctic waters).

IH cost around $66,000/tonne (inflation adjusted), still remarkably cheap for a frigate (but the reasons for that have been much discussed on here before). Clearly they are either a) putting a heck of a lot more into the navalised hull, or b) using really, really expensive grey paint.

[Poiuytrewq]

using really, really expensive grey paint.

Good point, raises a question.

How much is the BAE paint on the Type 26?

[Tempest414]

For me Arrowhead 140 is what I would like to see win. I do agree some small changes would be nice and I have some questions as well

First I would like to see a 9 cell ExLS for 36 CAMM between the bridge and main gun where the second gun was next i agree that the weapons deck is removed and a mission bay is added between the front 2 boat houses I don't feel we need to start moving funnels as from what I can see this would give a mission bay of between 190 & 260 sqm's and it would still have it other 2 boat houses we could still fit harpoon or what ever ASM on the roof of the mission bay. For me I don't see the need for strike length VLS on this ship and maybe something like RBS-15 Mk-3 with 200 km land attack capability would do for ASM and Land attack.

As for the space under the flight deck could it be given access to a stern ramp or some way of making it a proper mission bay as it may be able to deploy 2 or 3 CB-90 or a unmanned MCM from this space in effect giving the ship 2 mission bays

[Aethulwulf]

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

[*]It has a sauna

Absolutely, if this is an essential requirement the Leander simply can't compete.

I believe HMS Protector also has a sauna.

Clearly a precedent has been set that needs to be followed by all ships designed after HMS Protector entered service.

[shark bait]

I think here you are saying ship design cost is so huge and build cost is cheap

Pretty much.

Design is expensive, even more so when it's a real combat ship. For example the T26 was over a billion pounds before the build contract was signed.

That's what makes the 140 a good move by Babcock's team, it removes most of that fixed cost, leaving more to spend on building a real combat ship.

[Poiuytrewq]

As for the space under the flight deck could it be given access to a stern ramp or some way of making it a proper mission bay as it may be able to deploy 2 or 3 CB-90 or a unmanned MCM from this space in effect giving the ship 2 mission bays

I agree, moving the funnel isn't absolutely necessary but it would increase options. A large mission space amidships is possible either way. This hull is so versatile, the options are endless. And that's before going anywhere near the flex deck!

A few basic concepts just to illustrate the dimensions involved.

This variant with the funnel moved includes an entire T26 mission amidships and a combined hanger/mission space aft of the funnels. It would be possible to incorporate a reasonably large access to join these spaces. In effect it would provide a full T26 mission bay and a 2/3 T26 mission bay and still have a hanger for the Merlin.

image.jpg

If RN built 5 of these I'm not sure there would be enough equipment to fit in them.

The 2nd mission bay accessed via a stern ramp is a good idea but it would preclude any future upgrade to a towed array. If it can hold 4 ISO's, that space under the flight deck must be pretty large.



The next concept maximises space, again with the funnel moved but dispenses with the T26 mission bay hatches which are too small for a CB90.

I fully accept this is going to the extreme but it is a valid illustration of the spaces that could be created if required.

image.jpg

The spaces required for a CB90 and LCVP are similar but not identical. This concept can house a single CB90 or LCVP on either side of the centrally located Merlin capable hanger. The amidships mission space can house at least 3 possibly 4 CB90's or LCVP's. That's 5 or 6 CB90's or LCVP's AND a Merlin.

Why would you want to do this? You wouldn't but it's a good way to show what space could be created by moving the VLS cells from the mission deck which will probably only carry 12 to 24 CAMM.

With both of these concepts 2 helicopters could still be embarked if required.

Lots of options here.

[benny14]

Re-designing the ship kind of defeats the point of what they are doing to bring the costs down.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Design is expensive, even more so when it's a real combat ship. For example the T26 was over a billion pounds before the build contract was signed.

That's what makes the 140 a good move by Babcock's team, it removes most of that fixed cost, leaving more to spend on building a real combat ship.

But if it is true, the follow on T26 must be also cheap. Then, why not build cheap T26 than more cheap T31e?

[Phil Sayers]

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."

The Telegraph is claiming the deployments will be around three years with the forward based ship only returning for deep maintenance, refit etc. With routine maintenance being performed at HMS Jufair I'd guess that simplicity, ease of access to machinery and low upkeep costs etc will be important considerations when it comes to selecting the winning design.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... ince-1971/

[ArmChairCivvy]

Was this under fight deck space actually designed to operate the towed array? If so, and the towed arrays are fitted in the future It won't leave a lot of space for the TEU's with the current design.

A good point

between the bridge and main gun where the second gun was

Ehmm, where will [then] put the laser, in the near future?

This concept can house a single CB90 or LCVP on either side of the centrally located Merlin capable hanger. The amidships mission space can house at least 3 possibly 4 CB90's or LCVP's. That's 5 or 6 CB90's or LCVP's AND a Merlin.

Why would you want to do this? You wouldn't

Quite a good littoral enforcement ship, as there is unlikely to be combat on the waves, but rather the threats in the known pinch points are [ aside from a blockade attempt, by planting sea mines and replenishing the zones by stealthy means, or] likely to be emanating from shore launched missiles with capability against ships - so not just any "old" ATGW.
- you send up the helo. with the kit improved from the Afghan days of the Seakings. Scan the wide area...
- when the launch sites and what is backing them up become to be known. you send recce/ joint fires direction parties ashore
- then you call in "friends" who have been put on stand-by, but have a longer transit to make into the area
- then you blow the bad guys & their possible backup... up
Shhimpless?

[Opinion3]

I believe the 140 to be a frigate, it might be FFBNW but with many key systems being made available from donor ships this is my start point. The other proposals we have seen so far I have, and still do classify as pimped up OPVs.

I have always had the view that we should be getting T26s and that a lot of smoke and mirrors makes the truth hard to come by, so why is the marginal cost so large for a T26? Now and for ever more a T26 will be quoted as being M + 1/8D rather than M + 1/13D.

Given that a divergence was happening I believed a large mothership, namely getting some pimped up MARS SSS in greater numbers was my next option. Sharkbait introduced the Bays, others talk about the Dutch version, but I see an opportunity to build and design something we are going to do anyway, just with a larger budget, requirements specification and tonnage.

This would be like the San Antonio class or Ticonderoga class. A defensive, carrier group vessel and one that would in future would become the platform for BMD. Being large, the vessel would be easily adapted and extremely flexible. Like the Bay, and Absalon classes it would be slightly limited in its Naval standards, but would be designed to be kept out of harms way and actually relatively sacrificial.

Could it hunt submarines, mines, warships etc. All of those but via remote, hosted means.

So what do I think of the 140?

A cracking idea. I would like to see Mk41s available, without I see the argument that they might be frigates looking for a purpose.

[Poiuytrewq]

I would like to see Mk41s available, without I see the argument that they might be frigates looking for a purpose.

What would you put in the Mk41's?

[shark bait]

Then, why not build cheap T26 than more cheap T31e?

Because the MOD can't afford to build one T26 per year.

[NickC]

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Postby Poiuytrewq » 02 Jun 2018, 10:40

NickC wrote:
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.
For all the same reasons the mission bay is on the T26. In fact due to the different ways the T26 and T31 will be deployed, the mission bay would probably be used more frequently on the T31.

What size of a 'weapons deck' is actually needed on a T31? It doesn't take up a lot of room for 12 to 24 CAMM. The Mk41 capability is useful for export but its not required for the RN variant. What would RN put in them? To lose a space akin the the T26 mission bay simply to house 12 CAMM would be crazy in my opinion.

I still fail to understand your preoccupation incorporating a large mission bay when Arrowhead 140 comes with "four large dedicated Boat Bays with flexible launch and recovery capability to operate a variety of different offboard assets, such as RHIBs, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs); able to deliver a range of roles from interdiction missions to Special Forces operations and littoral manoeuvre exploitation".

It would be at the expense of ability to fit 32 Mk 41 VLS cells or equivalent missile systems at a future date to enable frigate to carry firepower, which seems a novel thought in todays RN, though not to all the other world's navies which as pointed out before none of their new frigates include mission bays any larger than the dedicated boat bays on the Arrowhead 140.

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

There seems to be a lack of critical thinking on this. It's said that the IH started as a commercial hull design that was used because it had a well-designed layout. Clearly, therefor, it can never be anything else and the warship derived from that base design cannot be anything more than the Isle of Wight ferry (please insert favourite disparaging comparison here), painted grey. This seems to be an emotional response, not a logical one.

"It's said that the IH started as a commercial hull design"

Who said, please quote authoritive source, otherwise your just pedalling black propaganda and no doubt if you talked to Danish Navy you would get a polite ear bashing for impugning that hull did not meet full Navy design standards.

[Caribbean]

"It's said that the IH started as a commercial hull design"

Who said, please quote authoritive source, otherwise your just pedalling black propaganda and no doubt if you talked to Danish Navy you would get a polite ear bashing for impugning that hull did not meet full Navy design standards.

Maybe you should read what I said through to the end?
I'll accept your apology afterwards

[Opinion3]

Opinion3 wrote:
I would like to see Mk41s available, without I see the argument that they might be frigates looking for a purpose.
What would you put in the Mk41's?

Anti-ship, Anti-submarine, TLAM. They would all go, If the carrier group has T45s, I believe the air cover is there, but the T45s could do with ABM capabilities. If Mk41s were added they would be for that purpose. So as a GP frigate I believe the T31 should be the carriers of the TLAMs.

[Ron5]

A bit late to the party but here's my first reactions for what they are worth. Sorry if they duplicate previous comments. Splitting them across two threads doesn't help.

1. Massive kudo's to those board members who have been singing the praises of the Huitfeldt (IH) design! Someone at Babcock's is reading. Well done chaps, have a beer on me (check's in the mail).

2. What the hell is going on at Babcock's? A mere 6 months ago we were told they would submit a combined Venator/Arrowhead design, with the best bits cherry picked during the assessment period. 4 months ago, we were told that wasn't going to happen, Venator was shot and only Arrowhead would go forward. A month ago, OMT joined the team and now their Huitfedlt design becomes the chosen one.
How shitty were Venator and the Arrowhead to get ditched in such a short period? Can we imagine Babcock's team sat down at the end of the value period in February: “shit, we don't stand a chance with our current designs, someone send out Joan from accounting to get us another design pronto”. Can anyone spell “panic”?

3. And the only design Joan can find isn't even well suited to the Tye 31 requirement. Too big, too big a crew, too noisy, no UK weapons, no UK systems, no RAS, no mission bay. Biggest of all, doesn't meet the shipbuilding strategy. Yikes!

4. You can see the rush in the brochure & CGI pictures, the brochure pivots from one tense to another in the space of a paragraph. Repeatedly. Some of the text is embarrassingly generic in its claims and dense in its language. We've got a bunch of commentators here that could do a better job.

5. And the claim that Arrowhead 140 shows the best in British engineering? Excuse me? I do not know of any part of the IH's that was sourced from the UK. The design is Danish, the propulsion's German, the cms Swedish, and the sensors french & german. Even the gensets are American. British my arse (see what I did there?).

6. And the claim that Babcock's assembled the carriers at Rosyth and that gave them unrivaled expertise. Nope, Bae assembled them at the Babcock's owned location and provided the overwhelming majority of the workforce.

7. So lets talk about cost. The original IH's were partially built by one of the most efficient commercial yards in Europe about a decade ago. I believe all 3 were built together, side by side in one location to maximize built efficiency. A set of workers would build one part on the first then immediately repeat two times in rapid succession. Production line stuff.
But they did not fit any weapons. The military fit out was conducted at a Danish naval base using mostly kit reclaimed from scrapped warships. Expensive new stuff like the Mk 41 VLS & Mk 45 gun were not fitted because there wasn't enough money. Nothing at all wrong with that. But you need to remember that when you read the price charged by the shipyard for just their part in the process was about 250 million UK pounds each. That was for a warship built up to the point of military fit out and excluded all weapons costs, the cost to fit them, and the cost to test them and all the other costs involved in commissioning a warship.
So who thinks that Babcock's can build pieces of Arrowhead 140 in at least 4 different locations, after paying the costs of upgrading the Danish design to meet UK requirements (and to fit the new dutch cms), shipping the parts to Rosyth where in an open air facility, they will for the first time in their corporate lives assemble, fit out, test, and commission a frigate. All for the same money as the original Danish yard 10 years ago? Don't seem likely to me.

9. And who owns the design at the end of the day. The Type 31 requirement is that it must be 100% UK intellectual property. But OMT were (and maybe still are) contestants with the design in both the Canadian and US frigate competitions. Do we think they'll give the design to the UK for free?

10. Talking of free, the Thales TACITOS is supposed to be a fine CMS but as far as I am aware, it doesn't support any RN system. Artisan, CAMM, Phalanx, all would have to be added. And I'll bet the RN would want their unique procedures & tactics included in the system. Who gonna pay for all that?

That's all for now, let me blab on about the national shipbuilding strategy in another post.

[Poiuytrewq]

I still fail to understand your preoccupation incorporating a large mission bay when Arrowhead 140 comes with "four large dedicated Boat Bays with flexible launch and recovery capability to operate a variety of different offboard assets, such as RHIBs, Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs); able to deliver a range of roles from interdiction missions to Special Forces operations and littoral manoeuvre exploitation".

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, let me try again.

RN spent years, well over a decade if not two, perfecting the global combat ship concept.

Put simply, the Type 26 is the vessel RN really wants. Prior to 2015 RN was expecting 13 Type 26's, but would have preferred 18+.

Now they are going to get only 8. Do you think RN really wants 5 Type 31's? Or would it be preferable to go back to the 13 Type 26 plan? Obviously in an ideal world it would be the latter.

So my A140 concept is an attempt to give RN as many of the T26 capabilities as possible within the current cost envelope. The A140 as currently designed is the basic spec that RN can get the job done with. I happen to believe that this basic hull can deliver almost everything RN wanted from the T26 GP apart from the TLAM capability if properly configured. It is worth remembering that the T26 GP's were never designed to be ASW specialists.

In addition, other considerations come into play. If RM chooses the CB90 how many vessels in service with RN or RFA will be able to deploy it?

The Bay's and Albion's would the main platforms. With current planning none of the escort fleet could deploy a CB90. With 2 Bays pretty much forward based to the Carribean and the Gulf that leaves one Bay and one Albion to deploy RM's via CB90 type craft.

Would it not be preferable to include a CB90 capability on the T31 if it is not cost prohibitive?

This would give the T31 a capability that even the T26 doesn't possess. If 5+ T31's, all CB90 capable were deployed across the globe RN and RM would have a much greater chance of being in the right place at the right time and able to respond successfully to events.

It would be at the expense of ability to fit 32 Mk 41 VLS cells or equivalent missile systems at a future date to enable frigate to carry firepower, which seems a novel thought in todays RN, though not to all the other world's navies which as pointed out before none of their new frigates include mission bays any larger than the dedicated boat bays on the Arrowhead 140.

The T31 is only supposed to stay in service for around 15 years and then be sold to another nation before its first major refit. If the T31's enter service with 12 to 24 CAMM in Mushrooms what is the chance of any Mk41 strike length cells being fitted in the T31's 15 years of service?

I would say the chances are not high. How often would the mission spaces be used? I would suggest almost every day it's afloat.

[Ron5]

The shipbuilding strategy (NSS) has some "interesting" ideas. Let's recap a few of them as they relate to the Arrowhead 140.

1. SJP said there were dozens of companies in the UK that had the necessary metal bashing skills & facilities to build a Type 31 block. He said they would ferociously bid against each other to get the work and that would drive the costs down to mere peanuts.

So where did they all go? Babcock's partners plan on doing all the work themselves, leaving nothing for any newcomer. What will happen if the Babcock's design wins? Will the block building competition be cancelled? or just limited to the members of Babcock's consortium?

2. NSS say that costs would go down because the resulting ship would attract export orders and that would lower the costs to the RN.

So why chose a design that's been actively marketed for a decade or so with absolutely no signs or orders either for Danish construction or construction under license? It's an exporting flop.

3. NSS says healthy shipbuilding drags along other UK businesses. Provides a wide benefit. But the Arrowhead proposal appears to indicate that only metal bashing would be done in the UK by UK companies. All the high value, high skill, high profit margin work would be done abroad. So why pay the extra cost of UK metal bashing (compared with say, Korea) to drag along other businesses in other countries? Seems very generous.

4. The NSS called for exciting new designs and design approaches to break the mold of traditional warship building that was keeping the Treasury awake at nights (or words to that effect). I personally do not see anything new or exciting in the IH design. Looks like a traditional warship, with some noticeable flaws, largely built to commercial standards. Nothing new there.

5. But of course the NSS said the Type 31 should not go to Bae whatever happens. With all the insider help, it would take a lot by Babock's to lose the bid. But they certainly are trying.

[ArmChairCivvy]

singing the praises of the Huitfeldt (IH) design! Someone at Babcock's is reading

Goodie-good? We are being productive here, will we get a tax rebate?

isn't even well suited to the Tye 31 requirement. Too big, too big a crew, too noisy, no UK weapons, no UK systems, no RAS, no mission bay. Biggest of all, doesn't meet the shipbuilding strategy. Yikes!

the text is embarrassingly generic in its claims and dense in its language. We've got a bunch of commentators here that could do a better job.

Let's go for it!

The design is Danish, the propulsion's German, the cms Swedish, and the sensors french & german. Even the gensets are American. British my arse (see what I did there?).

To the boot straps, as they say (the Swedes and the Gloggies are easily confused as they are all tall, blond, and handsome... )

I believe all 3 were built together, side by side in one location to maximize built efficiency.

As RAND said, for the carriers though, 37% concurrency would yield the unit cost optimum... no less, no more.

The military fit out was conducted at a Danish naval base

Oohh-no, they can do the fitting out separately and in a different location... Old School (naval architects, but who knows if they are, as this is the interwebs, afterall) has been telling us the opposite for the last 5 yrs... or more
+

about 250 million UK pounds each. That was for a warship built up to the point of military fit out

So who thinks that Babcock's can build pieces of Arrowhead 140 in at least 4 different locations

The Type 31 requirement is that it must be 100% UK intellectual property. But OMT were (and maybe still are) contestants with the design in both the Canadian and US frigate competitions. Do we think they'll give the design to the UK for free?

How is owning the IP (or having unrestricted rights to it) the same thing as getting it for free??

let me blab on about the national shipbuilding strategy in another post.

Let's go! All good fun... it is the week end, after all, and the weather is not for a barbie (as in BBQ, if it needs a trans-Atlantic translation)

The A140 as currently designed is the basic spec that RN can get the job done with. I happen to believe that this basic hull can deliver almost everything RN wanted from the T26 GP

With 2 Bays pretty much forward based to the Carribean and the Gulf that leaves one Bay and one Albion to deploy RM's via CB90 type craft

Nicht Gut... let's get some more?

NSS says healthy shipbuilding drags along other UK businesses. Provides a wide benefit. But the Arrowhead proposal appears to indicate that only metal bashing would be done in the UK by UK companies. All the high value, high skill, high profit margin work would be done abroad.

OMT would get 1-3%, where will the rest of "all" come from?

break the mold of traditional warship building

Give it a go?

[Tempest414]

I think it is safe to say Ron5 is not a fan of 140

[Repulse]

I cannot see what the 140 gives beyond its bigger and is a copy of a cheap foreign design in service that hasn’t sold to anyone so far - oh and it’s not BAE. As Donald-san noted without the additional kit, there is more likelihood that with the 2 engine Leander design there is a the potential to afford diesel-electric propulsion. I think also enlarging the hangar to be Merlin capable is an easy choice. It has to be either a ASW ship, MCM USV / UAV mothership, forward amphibious Support Ship or a dead duck. The Arrowhead 40 to me looks the latter.

Still, perhaps with an increased need / focus on ASW from the MDP perhaps more funds could be made available, and we can just buy more T26s and make the River class what it should be.

[Ron5]

I think it is safe to say Ron5 is not a fan of 140

I am not "not a fan" per se, but as an entrant for the NSS spawned Type 31, I just don't get it. Seems a terrible match.

I wonder what BMT thinks. 20 years studying the requirement and developing the Venator design. Two months into the contest, it's tossed aside like yesterdays newspaper. I'd be pissed.

[Ron5]

Hey, I figured out how you chaps do the sound bite thingie!!!

Oohh-no, they can do the fitting out separately and in a different location... Old School (naval architects, but who knows if they are, as this is the interwebs, afterall) has been telling us the opposite for the last 5 yrs... or more

All but its not a "real" warship is it? (snigger)

How is owning the IP (or having unrestricted rights to it) the same thing as getting it for free??

If the Danes give the design (IP) to the UK, the ownership of the design (IP) becomes British. Gettit?

To the boot straps, as they say (the Swedes and the Gloggies are easily confused as they are all tall, blond, and handsome... )

What the hell is a Gloggie?

OMT would get 1-3%, where will the rest of "all" come from?

A hypothetical Arrowhead 140 export would have:

British hull made from Swedish steel
Dutch combat system
French radar & ESM
Italian guns
German sonar
French missiles (the only kind supported by the combat system)