Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Opinion3]

20 years studying the requirement and developing the Venator design

and what did BMT think it was designing? I think the frigate designation was added once the T31 RFI came along. If I am wrong I will be humbly corrected....

[Poiuytrewq]

Apologies if this has been posted before, I've just bumped into it.

https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/dan ... real-cost/

A few paragraphs stand out.

Fully equipped, an Iver Huitfeldt frigate costs the equivalent of $340 million, Rear Adm. Olsen said. Most of that, about $207 million, goes to weapons, sensors, and other electronics, which drive the cost of modern warships worldwide. The hull, engines, and other mechanical systems (HME) only cost about $133 million — although Olsen acknowledges it would probably cost more in a US shipyard than it did in Maersk’s Odense shipyard, which has since been closed in any case. Is Babcock banking on this $133m (£100m) figure?

That’s a lot of ship for the price. But a leading US expert, Bryan Clark, tells us that the Danes may be undercounting their costs by about $50 million, since some of the frigates’ weaponry was recycled from older ships going out of service — an economy made possible by the Danish navy’s Stanflex system of interchangeable equipment modules. That would put the frigate at under $400 million, which is still pretty good compared to LCS or international competitors. The thing is, Clark argued, the costs to the US would be much higher once the design was upgraded to US Navy standards, fitted with US weapons and electronics, and built in less efficient US yards. $400m is £300m, looks ambitious to say the least.

With a new radar and other upgrades, “the ship would likely cost around $700-900 million, which would be similar to the (Franco-Italian) FREMM, an upgraded LCS, and the (Spanish) F-105,” said Bryan Clark, a former top aide to the Chief of Naval Operations. Lucky they are transferring the Artisan.

“We don’t expect you to buy ships and build them in Denmark or anything, but you should at least look at the design and see smart, smart stuff” that’s worth copying for future US ships, Olsen said. “You’re also welcome to buy the design,” he added with a chuckle. Maybe Babcock have?

[ArmChairCivvy]

not a "real" warship is it? (snigger)

More so than the Venator? Pls see the last quote below

the Danes give the design (IP)

I like the idea of giving... but not exactly the way international biz is conducted:
http://www.odensemaritime.com/da-DK/Abo ... model.aspx

20 years studying the requirement and developing the Venator design. Two months into the contest, it's tossed aside like yesterdays newspaper

... Love it ( I mean, meeting the requirement. Darwinism did not work in a two month cycle, but here we are: in the Internet age)

What the hell is a Gloggie?

Answer: the Dutchman, of course. ... quickly dubbed by the British the "Clog- gies".
- have to check, every now and then, that the readers are fully awake

I think the [light] frigate designation was added once the T31 RFI came along

- the concept helped to steer the formulating of the requirement
- but did not become the requirement
That's what concepts are for? And forums like RINA (who are not the buyers; but very much the influencers)

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Danes may be undercounting their costs by about $50 million, since some of the frigates’ weaponry was recycled from older ships going out of

This sort of chicanery is not to be allowed - at least in the UK it would not be cricket
- so we insist buying "all new"?

Rear Adm. Olsen said. “You’re also welcome to buy the design,” he added with a chuckle.

[Poiuytrewq]

I didn't realise the secondary armament turret on the Iver Huitfeldts is a StanFlex module. Does this mean that any Stanflex module can transfer into this slot such as VLS cells or is it simply to change between the 76mm Oto Melara and the 35mm Oerlikon Millennium turret?

Can anyone shed any light?

image.jpg

[donald_of_tokyo]

I didn't realise the secondary armament turret on the Iver Huitfeldts is a StanFlex module. Does this mean that any Stanflex module can transfer into this slot such as VLS cells or is it simply to change between the 76mm Oto Melara and the 35mm Oerlikon Millennium turret?
]

Stanflex is a module with FIXED interface. Weight, total power, CMS software: these limitations will be there but I think this ship can handle all existing modules.

Note, CAMM module is NOT existing, and it may be better Not to adopt Stanflex in T31e case.

[Poiuytrewq]

Stanflex is a module with FIXED interface. Weight, total power, CMS software: these limitations will be there but I think this ship can handle all existing modules.

Note, CAMM module is NOT existing, and it may be better Not to adopt Stanflex in T31e case.

Thanks, I'm not suggesting installing a StanFlex system on the T31 but if all of these modules are interchangeable and already connected to the CMS it should be pretty simple to move the VLS cells from the mission deck and install them in the 'B' position (76mm Oto turret) on the diagram?

image.jpg

It wouldnt be a straight swap as the CAMM unit is a metre taller than the StanFlex module but it may be easier than it first appeared.

image.jpg

[Halidon]

To go cheaper/easier, it would seem very do-able and cost-effective to slap a Phalanx on the "B" spot. Not as much capability, but also probably not a ton of cost. Then the option exists later to upgrade to Phalanx with laser later.

[donald_of_tokyo]

My standard for an AAW destroyer (not ASW as would need different hull and propulsion) would be the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class, based on the Absalon hull, built to DNV rules for Naval Vessels, NATO-standard shock protection (STANAG 4142, 4137 and 4549), nuclear, biological and chemical protection (STANAG 4447) and vital area armor protection (STANAG 4569), with 16 watertight sections or compartments and two airtight bulkheads, incorporates survivability and damage limitation features including dual redundancy, automated damage control zones, damage detectors and smoke zones. Has undergone FSST and FOST successfully.

The biggest thing for me is that this design has undertaken FOST in the UK so the RN will know how it performs and will know what is needed and I am sure that Babcock and team 31 have all of that info to hand from OMT so if the RN really didn't rate it I can't see why Babcock would run with it which means the RN were happy with it performance to a level if only we knew the results of the FOST

As I was not familiar with FOST, I checked it.

From RN site, FOST is "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". It included RFA and OPVs.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organi ... nd-hq/fost

For example, River B1 OPV HMS Tyne has passed FOST on May 2016 (https://www.naval-technology.com/uncate ... g-4885775/)
Also, Amazonas class OPV on August 2012.
(https://www.naval-technology.com/news/n ... aining-rn/)

Thus, the value (or merit) of Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigate passing FOST (April/May 2015) is,
- RN knows the basic damage control requirement and reality of the ship, while what they really evaluated is the crew's readiness. This is very good.
- On the other hand, the fact that OPV and RFA vessel actually passes FOST, the FOST-passing is not related to the standard.

This is similar to FSST. FSST is not only applied to fighting ship, but also LSD and so on. Thus, what is important is the "standard". Is "NATO-standard shock protection (STANAG 4142, 4137 and 4549)" the same for RN T26's standard?

If Royal Omani Navies corvettes has also passed FOST, it will be very interesting = RN knows the standard and performance of the basic design, but I could not find any such info. Standard of Khareef is known to be "low", but I guess it will have upgrades such as River B2's improvements over Amazonas class OPV. (At least CL/BAE will say so). So, RN also knows it.

This is very nice that RN/MOD knows BOTH designs to some extent, so that they can compared them mo fairly.

[Tempest414]

yes all class of ship in the RN undertake FOST but at levels inline with task. what I am getting at is the IH undertook the FOST as a frigate and that set of tests applied and to this end RN have a report on how the ship fights and on its level of damage control.

So for me the important part is that if the RN really didn't like what it saw Babcock would know about it and would not put it forward this implies the the RN was happy with what it saw for tasks in which it would deploy type 31

[donald_of_tokyo]

yes all class of ship in the RN undertake FOST but at levels inline with task. what I am getting at is the IH undertook the FOST as a frigate and that set of tests applied and to this end RN have a report on how the ship fights and on its level of damage control.

Do you know how "IH undertook the FOST as a frigate"? Similarly, is FOST menu for T45 and T26 and T23 is the same? I guess the damage control system is very different between T45 and T23.

So for me the important part is that if the RN really didn't like what it saw Babcock would know about it and would not put it forward this implies the the RN was happy with what it saw for tasks in which it would deploy type 31

Then, RN is also happy with Leander's standard, because RN know the standard of River B2, and CL/BAES can tell RN what standard they will apply, and CL/BAES knows it. No difference.

In the worst case, RN might not be involved deeply in the T31e program and do not know BOTH Leander and Arrowhead 140's standard.

[Tempest414]

IH undertook FOST as a Frigate because that was what she was there to do she was not there for 2 weeks to take the test for a rowing boat really. The Danish built a new class of Frigate to a different set of standards and wanted to test them under one of the toughest at sea tests in the world which it passed it passed the test for a frigate not a OPV. FOST is tailored to the ship so yes it differs for every ship and to this end No they don't know how Leander will perform because it has not been built yet yes they have Khraeef to go on but this is not Leander i.e how is the 17 meter stretch going change the ships performance so and so with all the changes that need to be made to the design to take it from a OK corvette to a frigate

[NickC]

"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

You have my full apology for misunderstanding your post.


Think the halo of the benefits of navy designed hull overrated, you just have to look at the two collisions and damage inflicted to the two USN Burkes last year with loss of 17 lives compared to the minor damage to the commercial ships (the new Flight III Burke hulls will be strengthened with thicker plate and stiffeners).

The ongoing drive to reduce weight in naval ships by using thin plate seems to have gone OTT giving rise to the hungry horse look with the ribs showing, the transverse and longitudinal stiffeners clearly delininated on thin plate of hull. In the recent pass has led to the thin plate buckling and expensive re-work, re-instating paint damage, reinstating insulation that had to be removed, taking down and putting back equipment that was in the vicinity of the rectification process, changes to plan, created cosmetic issues for customer etc., inevitably tighter flatness requirements may result in disputes as the additional cost of the tighter tolerance is passed on to the shipbuilder.

Outfitting the welding is a contributing factor to thin plate distortion especially in areas where a relatively high number of attachments are fully welded. In some cases the length of outfit welding can be similar to the structural welded length in a compartment.

The effect of residual stress on fatigue life due to the higher heat input cutting processes create more distortion in thin plate, requiring sophisticated and more expensive welding and cutting equipment, longer build hours and training necessary to meet tighter tolerances.

The other downside of thin plate steel is it greatly reduces the ability for ship to survive hits by hits by enemy fire, half inch and one inch armour plates can’t totally and completely stop a given weapon, but offers a much better chance to survive by mitigating the effect, damage will be greatly limited compared to the very limited armour used as in the Type 26 and ship would be capable of taking damage and continuing to fight. In a fight a ship is more likely to encounter near miss bomb blasts, shrapnel, and off angle hits than perfect hits and with armour gives the ability to shrug off, or greatly mitigate, the sub-optimal hits is what armour grants, the lesson from the Falklands.

[seaspear]

Would not the type of steel used come into play ?

[NickC]

Would not the type of steel used come into play ?

It makes a big difference, USS Cole after attack by small boat carrying C4 explosives in Aden 2000, 17 sailors died 39 injured.

If you look at photo above the horizontal strake line weld is HY-80 steel, below is High Strength Steel (HSS), likely if all hull HSS the whole side of ship would have been destroyed.

[Lord Jim]

You need a lot more than 1" of armour to stop even a 250lb bomb let alone a current generation mach3+ ASM. The shock damage alone would wreck the vessel hit even before we get to rupturing the hull. To be effective against possible threats we would have to add at least four times as much. Yes sufficient armour would mitigate some damage, which is why the USN brought back the Iowas in the 1980s and introduced Kevlar on many of its vessels to stoop splinters and small calibre rounds. It was thought the BBs could shrug off hits form the heavy Russian ASMs, get into gunnery range and blow a Kirov, for example to hell and back. As it stands, no escort can expect to survive a hit from a current generation Russian or Chinese high speed, heavy ASM or a heavy Torpedo. The impact, shock and explosive damage would leave the vessels simply trying to stay afloat long enough for the crew to get off.

I do get the point regarding steel that is too thin being used on current naval vessels. I am sure some very well paid people have done a risk assessment based on dubious data and concluded there is no risk to a vessels constructed using such materials with no thought to saving weight or money in a given design.

[donald_of_tokyo]

IH undertook FOST as a Frigate because that was what she was there to do she was not there for 2 weeks to take the test for a rowing boat really. The Danish built a new class of Frigate to a different set of standards and wanted to test them under one of the toughest at sea tests in the world which it passed it passed the test for a frigate not a OPV. FOST is tailored to the ship so yes it differs for every ship and to this end No they don't know how Leander will perform because it has not been built yet yes they have Khraeef to go on but this is not Leander i.e how is the 17 meter stretch going change the ships performance so and so with all the changes that need to be made to the design to take it from a OK corvette to a frigate

Sorry we do not need to "fight" on something we don't know.
- FOST standard of IH class --> I do not know, anyway it is optimized for each class? (I am not concluding anything, just asking)
- If RN is satisfied with it or not --> I do not know, and also no statement. BUT I agree it is very important RN KNOWS it. They can state they like it or not.

In this case, IH-class having past FOST is very important so that many aspects (of course, not all, detailed design is IP-related and disclosed) of the class is known to RN. This will help a lot on overcoming difficulty on adopting foreign design.

CL/BAE Leander is based on Khareef, which (as you all say) based on OPV, Royal Navy's River B2. Of course it does not mean the details of everything about Leander is known to RN, but it is much much better than pure foreign design (for example, adopting MEKO).

[donald_of_tokyo]

Arrowhead 140 (hull 4 to 8 of Iver Huitfeldts-class, which is a very less armed "batch-2") vs Leander (elongated Khareef) are, I think, very different two proposals.

1: Arrowhead 140 is large, capable, has big growth margin, and in particular "proven" in its design. But the design is completely non-Britain (how much will HMG be paying to OMT?) and most of its equipment is non British (other than CAMM and Artisan). It is introduced in very much hurry, so we shall consider it as an still evolving proposal.

Personal opinion:
- I'm afraid Babcock did not have enough time to review detailed design (= day-by-day build procedure), and hence the cost estimation will be not solid. 1 month is not enough.
- To keep the cost down, re-design must be avoided as far as possible (if not, you cannot use the detailed design). It MUST be "hull 4 to 8 of Iver Huitfeldts-class, less armed batch". If the benefit of redesign is marginal or vague, I think it must be avoided.
- "Completely non-British". It will face such negative champaign. License agreement must be carefully reviewed; what Babcock can do and what cannot.

But, I think that will be exactly what Britain needs?

Britain is the only country aiming at standing up the 2nd escort ship builder to break the primary builder's (BAE) monopoly. However, because RN orders will stop at 5 hulls (I see no hope on follow on order, except for cutting T26s), this shipbuilder must be export oriented. (This is already risky and costy option, many money will be lost in short term, for hope in future). Anyway, starting from license building others' designs is natural in this case. Navantia became a big name in escort building, but they started it from FFG-7 license building.

Because Babcock is inferior in ship design and build, they need to learn it from the better foreign company, OMT. This is shocking, but if UK really want to have the 2nd ship builder, this is the best way to go, I agree.


2: Leander is compact, OPV-evolved and BAES-originated design. These VT-corvette series are designed for export, was so-so successful (Amazonas and Khareef), but not as competitive as the European top-end builders, Naval, Daman, Navantia and Fincantierri. The design is of British origin. It is NOT breaking the BAES monopoly, but I think BAES is proposing a new business scheme, high-end escort in Clyde, and mid-end corvette/light-frigate in Camel Laired supported by BAES. It is like a Airline company establishing LCC company in the group.

- I'm afraid Leander design must prove themselves to be built to what a standard. This must include assessment of those of River B2 and Khareef's standard, and how to compensate these shortfalls.
- Leander design apparently lacks future growth margins. The only growth margin I see is, to ban 2 of the 4 RHIB hangars in future in favor of anything else to be added. (*1)
- "How fighty it can be". They must be clearly stated and carefully evaluated. As Leander is smaller than Arrowhead 140, the engines, gear boxes, NBC equipments, all these "COTS" equipment cost is also smaller. I think the total amount of cost differences here is not small, we may get either CAPTAS-1, CIWS, increase CAMM, mount hull sonar from the beginning, or else. (I mean not all, but one or two of them). Operational cost (e.g. fuel) must be small, also. If the two design is built in parity technology, this MUST mean Leander can pay more for "fighty equipments" than Arrowhead 140 can. They must show it.


"Large and brand new but almost non-British design" vs "compact and OPV-like, but pure British design", I think these two designs have "very different aspects". Anyway, it is very nice to see two major team is proposing very much serious designs. I agree it will be because of Leander/Cutlass proposal being impressive. That made Babcock abandone Arrowhead 120 design; throw away their pride ("our own design") and tried the best they can.


*1: I am actually happy with this. There are so many FFBNW on T45, T26, P8A, Merlin, QECV, UAV, USV, UUVs, and other assets in Army, RAF and RM. T31e may not have any resource in future to add something more fighty, because they will be in the middle, if not the end, of the long lists waiting for additional resource.

[Repulse]

@Donald-san: Good summary. However, the main the issues in my view with going the Arrowhead 140 route are:
- I cannot see how it will be an export success. The original IHs were built in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania where costs are much lower than the UK can realistically aim for even with a Frigate Factory. And as you point out much of the COTS kit will be foreign.
- It fails to support completely the continued evolution of UK design skills.
- It fails to deliver something that is in my view what the RN needs - primarily a cheaper ASW frigate.
- It actually puts the real frigate builder (BAE) at risk, I think a cut in T26s is a real concern and losing / damaging the current BAE capabilities would be catastrophic.

[Ron5]

20 years studying the requirement and developing the Venator design

and what did BMT think it was designing? I think the frigate designation was added once the T31 RFI came along. If I am wrong I will be humbly corrected....

Not really. The story of the evolution of the Venator concept is very interesting and unusual in that it's pretty well documented in the series of papers that BMT have published (and make available from their website) on their study of the requirement and their design to match it.

Patrol Frigate, which is their term for what the T31 is supposed to do, has been part of their picture since day 1.

They're a good company that has a lot of respect worldwide and we should not forget their huge contribution to the CVF design (and I sometimes do to my shame).

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:
not a "real" warship is it? (snigger)

More so than the Venator? Pls see the last quote below

I was being humorous because you got me with your comment. I have in past loudly claimed this was impossible. So touche

Ron5 wrote:
the Danes give the design (IP)

I like the idea of giving... but not exactly the way international biz is conducted:
http://www.odensemaritime.com/da-DK/Abo ... model.aspx

Which was my point. The UK is no way, no how, going to end up with IP ownership of the Arrowhead 140. So SJP's model of the Type 31 being built under license in other countries will work but the license (and revenue) will be Danish not British. Not quite what he had in mind.

[Poiuytrewq]

However, because RN orders will stop at 5 hulls (I see no hope on follow on order, except for cutting T26s

This is were the NSS falls flat in my opinion. A renaissance in British shipbuilding won't be achieved by building 5 cheap frigates but an order of 10 to 15 may give it a chance.

Personally I think Leander is a dead end design for British Industry in the longer term but it would be a perfectly capable vessel and gives little away to the A140 as currently configured.

Ideally I would like to see a truly modular hull.

More than block building, truly modular, so that export customers or RN can configure the vessel to suit each individuals requirement whilst retaining maximum commonality and keeping design costs to a minimum.

The potential benefits are obvious if the design is a good one.

image.jpg

I believe this is what the NSS was hoping to achieve.

image.jpg

Unfortunately it looks unlikely to happen now but as the service life of the T31's is expected to be so short planning should really start ASAP for the next generation of frigates before this generation is even formalised in my view.

Where does that leave the T31? Up in the air frankly, it may even be fair to say if the MDP changes the entire direction of the T31 programme Babcock will breath a huge sigh of relief.

The biggest recent change since the A140's announcement is that some are now coming around to possibility that it might after all actually be possible to build a 'real fighting warship' in the UK for £250m. Is the A140 a PROPER Frigate? It can be debated to death but the only opinion that matters is RN's and we WILL get a definitive answer in the end, one way or the other.

I don't think it's clear yet that that the A140's can be built in the UK for £250m to a standard that RN will accept. Could Babcock be betting the family silver on a budget increase in the MDP? Time will tell.

Is HMG prepared to invest in the NSS to stimulate a revival? It appears not. The £1.25bn T31 budget is previously allocated money recycled into a new project. Surely it's a fair question to ask, is HMG prepared to do anything financially to support the NSS?

In my opinion, as the T31 programme and therefore by association the entire NSS appears to heading in a direction not envisaged at the outset, namely buying a foreign AAW frigate off the shelf design, is it time for a reassessment of the options available within the allocated budget? I think this reassessment is already under way as part of the MDP and potentially the bidders already know it.

[Ron5]

"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

You have my full apology for misunderstanding your post.


Think the halo of the benefits of navy designed hull overrated, you just have to look at the two collisions and damage inflicted to the two USN Burkes last year with loss of 17 lives compared to the minor damage to the commercial ships (the new Flight III Burke hulls will be strengthened with thicker plate and stiffeners).

The ongoing drive to reduce weight in naval ships by using thin plate seems to have gone OTT giving rise to the hungry horse look with the ribs showing, the transverse and longitudinal stiffeners clearly delininated on thin plate of hull. In the recent pass has led to the thin plate buckling and expensive re-work, re-instating paint damage, reinstating insulation that had to be removed, taking down and putting back equipment that was in the vicinity of the rectification process, changes to plan, created cosmetic issues for customer etc., inevitably tighter flatness requirements may result in disputes as the additional cost of the tighter tolerance is passed on to the shipbuilder.

Outfitting the welding is a contributing factor to thin plate distortion especially in areas where a relatively high number of attachments are fully welded. In some cases the length of outfit welding can be similar to the structural welded length in a compartment.

The effect of residual stress on fatigue life due to the higher heat input cutting processes create more distortion in thin plate, requiring sophisticated and more expensive welding and cutting equipment, longer build hours and training necessary to meet tighter tolerances.

The other downside of thin plate steel is it greatly reduces the ability for ship to survive hits by hits by enemy fire, half inch and one inch armour plates can’t totally and completely stop a given weapon, but offers a much better chance to survive by mitigating the effect, damage will be greatly limited compared to the very limited armour used as in the Type 26 and ship would be capable of taking damage and continuing to fight. In a fight a ship is more likely to encounter near miss bomb blasts, shrapnel, and off angle hits than perfect hits and with armour gives the ability to shrug off, or greatly mitigate, the sub-optimal hits is what armour grants, the lesson from the Falklands.

Wow, a tenet of modern naval design that's been fully adopted by every country since the 2nd world war, just dismissed in one post.

I admire your chutzpah a lot more than your knowledge of naval architecture. You really need to do some research and reading before posting something quite so ignorant.

[Ron5]

I didn't realise the secondary armament turret on the Iver Huitfeldts is a StanFlex module. Does this mean that any Stanflex module can transfer into this slot such as VLS cells or is it simply to change between the 76mm Oto Melara and the 35mm Oerlikon Millennium turret?

Can anyone shed any light?

Stanflex modules come in various shapes & sizes & connections. But I would guess that the 76mm gun and the Milenium both come in the same variety. There's a Danish gentleman that posts here once in a while, I bet he knows the answer.

[donald_of_tokyo]

@Donald-san: Good summary. However, the main the issues in my view with going the Arrowhead 140 route are:
- I cannot see how it will be an export success. The original IHs were built in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania where costs are much lower than the UK can realistically aim for even with a Frigate Factory. And as you point out much of the COTS kit will be foreign.
- It fails to support completely the continued evolution of UK design skills.
- It fails to deliver something that is in my view what the RN needs - primarily a cheaper ASW frigate.
- It actually puts the real frigate builder (BAE) at risk, I think a cut in T26s is a real concern and losing / damaging the current BAE capabilities would be catastrophic.

Thanks.
- Cost estimation must be cleared by Babcock themselves, because T31e is a fixed price contract. If any shortfall comes out, Babcock themselves must provide that cost. Bankrupt risk, there is.
- Designing skill... Does they have such high one currently? (I am talking about Babcock, not BAES nor BMT). I guess it will be much faster to "learn" from OMT, how they build IH-class (process, concept, and "tricks"), than inventing them from scratch.
- I am not a fan of ASW version of T31e. Better buy more P8As, better increase Merlin (even 4 or 5), or even better add CAPTAS4CI to T45.
- Risking BAES is the whole "aim" of the NSS, actually. I hope you all understand it and accept any results to come.

More than block building, truly modular, so that export customers or RN can configure the vessel to suit each individuals requirement whilst retaining maximum commonality and keeping design costs to a minimum.

You may be right, but not sure. Modularity needs cost and weight. On the other hand, I like the Damen's concept of building "sensor-mast+bridge+CIC as a block" and test and verify it even before it was welded to the main hull. Naval takes similar approach.

...I believe this is what the NSS was hoping to achieve.... Unfortunately it looks unlikely to happen now but as the service life of the T31's is expected to be so short planning should really start ASAP for the next generation of frigates before this generation is even formalised in my view.

I am not sure about the life. T23 was also planned for short life, but they are going to serve for ~35 years.

Where does that leave the T31? Up in the air frankly, it may even be fair to say if the MDP changes the entire direction of the T31 programme Babcock will breath a huge sigh of relief.

... In my opinion, as the T31 programme and therefore by association the entire NSS appears to heading in a direction not envisaged at the outset, namely buying a foreign AAW frigate off the shelf design, is it time for a reassessment of the options available within the allocated budget? I think this reassessment is already under way as part of the MDP and potentially the bidders already know it.

"Reassessment of the options" you mean more large variety of ships, including "Bay" (or alike), Khareef itself, USCG Heritage class cutter itself, in addition to the options now considered?