Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[ArmChairCivvy]

have heard naval architects in the past describe the khareef ships as cramped and poorly laid out as they tried to stuff to much on a small hull.

Was waiting for someone else to say that (they were bettered by the three for Brunei, @ just under 2000 t brimming with weaponry: "The artillery of the Bung Tomo class consists of a 76SR "Super Rapid" 76-mm/62 dual-purpose gun, and two DS30M 30-mm anti-aircraft guns. The missile battery includes of 16 vertical launch cells for the Seawolf SAM, and 8 container/launchers for the MM.40 Exocet anti-ship missiles. Two STWS triple-tube launchers for 324-mm torpedoes are mounted amidships; though these are British-made torpedo tubes, they are used to launch US-made Mk.46 torpedoes. These ships were also originally meant to have a Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), but to date, none has been fitted."

Why this old design should be resuscitated is beyond me, regardless of the fact that in its time the design sold well:
Lekiu class: These two frigates are also F2000-pattern warships
Khareef class: A class of three corvettes also based on the similar Vosper Thorneycroft Mk.9 design.
Qahir class: A class of 2 frigates also based on the Mk.9 design.

[Tempest414]

Putting to one side the rather strange idea that the too feeble Type 31e should be made even feebler, making a Leander shorter won't shave 20% off its cost.

My point is had we built 3 110/112 meter Khareef class with the 635 million of TOBA = 210 million we could of done some different things with the 1.25 billion like

1) build 3 more for 630 million leaving 620 million for a LPH

2 ) build 1 more for 210 million leaving 1.04 billion which could of been put back into the type 26 budget giving a budget of 9 billion meaning we might get 10 type 26s if the build program was allowed to run its own course

3 ) Build 2 more for 420 million leaving 830 million to start the MHCP program with the first 5 Venari 95 ships

[donald_of_tokyo]

have heard naval architects in the past describe the khareef ships as cramped and poorly laid out as they tried to stuff to much on a small hull.

Was waiting for someone else to say that

I know there is such rumor. May be its true, but it all depend on how carefully you design it. One hope is, there are already 3 of them built, and practical lessons leaned are there.

Why this old design should be resuscitated is beyond me, regardless of the fact that in its time the design sold well:
Lekiu class: These two frigates are also F2000-pattern warships
Khareef class: A class of three corvettes also based on the similar Vosper Thorneycroft Mk.9 design.
Qahir class: A class of 2 frigates also based on the Mk.9 design.

Lekiu is F2000 of Yarrow. Brunei corvette is also F2000 family.
Qahir is Vesper Mk.9 design, also Nigerian Erin'mi-class corvette.
Khareef is extended River, a family of 3 River B1, 1 River B1.5, 3 Amazonas, and 5 River B2.

[Caribbean]

So use the type 31 budget and buy a couple more then. The 4 bays we built cost £600m. Small does not equal cheap is that not the adage!

I think the thing with type 31 is people want it to look like a traditional frigate so we can claim we’re keeping numbers up! I have heard naval architects in the past describe the khareef ships as cramped and poorly laid out as they tried to stuff to much on a small hull. If true not a gd starting point for improving retention or long fwd deployed operations.

Yes, the Khareefs aren't a great design - for all the reasons that you state, plus their known stability issues. Personally I dislike them, but, in the context of what we should have done for the TOBA money, they were, at the time, the only extant BAE alternative to the Rivers and, as such, I would have favoured three of them over five RB2's (with some changes to accommodation standards etc).

Since we are where we are, I'm fully in favour (as are most here, I suspect) of buying more Bays. In straight inflation terms (3%), they would be around £220m apiece today, since they are MOTS/COTS designs, though I suspect that they would incorporate proper aviation facilities and larger dock (2 x LCU), if built today, so maybe £240-250m. However, that said, I suspect that, if we were to adopt a Vard design, rather than the Al Khareef/ Leander, we would be able to build a helicopter- and fast-boat-capable 3000-3500t "patrol ship" suitable for security/ policing/ engagement/ EEZ / presence work for around 33 - 40% of the cost of a new Bay-class (based on the LE Samuel Beckett's costs). It wouldn't be a frigate (definitely in the "gun boat" category!), but would still make a useful contribution to the RNs work and fulfil a number of other political commitments (support to the BOTs, suppression of piracy and smuggling etc. etc.) at relatively low cost. For the cost of one Bay Mk2, we could probably build two of those, plus a PSV-based logistics ship to use in the Caribbean's hurricane season. Forward base them in Bermuda or Turks and Caicos and you might do wonders for retention!

As you say, the issue with the T31 is that it needs to be a "proper frigate" for political reasons, but has not been allocated sufficient budget to build it as such. This is the only real issue. The T31 with a £400-450m budget per hull would be uncontroversial. It would, however, run the risk of pricing the T31 out of the export market that it is aimed at, where a customisable, sub-£200m hull will probably attract a lot of interest.

One of the reasons that I liked the Venator design was that BMT, from the outset, envisaged building them to different standards, as patrol ship, patrol frigate and light frigate

[SW1]

Caribbean

If we had to make something then the rivers bought aren’t a bad idea I think there is plenty of low level threats with growing importance around the uk that having patrol vessels like rivers will be useful to counter. It’s much more of a problem that government/Mod and the RN allowed such a gap to appear thru a divergence of views over type 26 and an inability to rectify the issues.

The type 31 in the 400-500m budget is I agree less controversial and would of delivered I think a modern day like for like type 23 replacement program, the fact type 26 grew way beyond that, has resulted in the issues we now find ourselves.

My dismay with type 31 is that there doesn’t appear to be an export market as this area of the market has a number of vessels already in it and we appear to no real unique selling point with the design. If type 31 is being built to cover the roles that repulse has outlined and we have a idea for keep these vessels fwd deployed then to honest I really don’t see the point of the designs being offered there limited in potiential and look like a sticking plastic solution.

There is a growing body of evidence we’re on the cusp of a major change in the use of unmanned systems in the naval domain and by the mid 2020s when these ships appear I fear we will be well behind the curve on this, attempting to shoe horn capabilities into ships ill suited to the task. If we look how the US marines Japanese are integrating on ships truck based systems like himars into both anti ship, land and f35 operations to the Israelis with uav systems and the across a number of navies the deployment of things like scan eagle we appear well behind in operational deployment of such things .

Politically the case for designing a future warship that looks different to the past to fully explore these emerging capabilities and system is not that difficult to do if you have a clear strategy and defined path to work to, rather than a quick let’s build something we want more ships approach that it would appear type 31 has become. Especially as a system of systems approach allow more uk sme’s to get involved and harness specialist uk industrial capacity.

[Poiuytrewq]

So use the type 31 budget and buy a couple more then. The 4 bays we built cost £600m.

Pretend Frigates or more Bays, it really is no contest but any new Bay variant would need to be optimised and modified to incorporate any lessons learned since Largs Bay hit the water. The current Bay design is a fantastic blend of versatility and utility but it's also compromised in certain areas and as such is far from perfect.

Why this old design should be resuscitated is beyond me, regardless of the fact that in its time the design sold well...

In my opinion Leander, Khareef and the Rivers are now a generation behind. There are many better balanced options available from other manufacturers. Where is the innovation?

In straight inflation terms (3%), they would be around £220m apiece today, since they are MOTS/COTS designs, though I suspect that they would incorporate proper aviation facilities and larger dock (2 x LCU), if built today, so maybe £240-250m.

Sounds like a reasonable cost estimate to me. By building more Bays the UK has a chance to solve the presence/patrol requirement, increase its HADR capability and renew the Amphibious fleet without any new money. Unfortunately politics is getting in the way.

I suspect that, if we were to adopt a Vard design, rather than the Al Khareef/ Leander, we would be able to build a helicopter- and fast-boat-capable 3000-3500t "patrol ship" suitable for security/ policing/ engagement/ EEZ / presence work for around 33 - 40% of the cost of a new Bay-class (based on the LE Samuel Beckett's costs). It wouldn't be a frigate (definitely in the "gun boat" category!), but would still make a useful contribution to the RNs work and fulfil a number of other political commitments (support to the BOTs, suppression of piracy and smuggling etc. etc.) at relatively low cost. For the cost of one Bay Mk2, we could probably build two of those, plus a PSV-based logistics ship to use in the Caribbean's hurricane season.

A modified Vard design would be a solid option but my concern would be that we end up with a 'one these and two of those approach' reducing the chance of improved commonality across the fleet.

If the T31 programme moves into the "gun boat" category, my preferred option would be to introduce a scalable Venari type design. Something with around a 16m beam that could be stretched from 85m/90m for EEZ patrol, 100/105m for MCM and 115m/120m for general patrol and/or Littoral ASW. Babcock/Team 31 could turn these vessels out at a steady drumbeat of one per year for the foreseeable future.

A commercially derived solution to the UK's Caribbean Hurricane relief contribution would be a good option but I would rather see something like a modified Point or Wave with a clear secondary role as part of the Amphibious fleet.

The type 31 in the 400-500m budget is I agree less controversial and would of delivered I think a modern day like for like type 23 replacement program, the fact type 26 grew way beyond that, has resulted in the issues we now find ourselves.

If the T31 programme ended up producing a more multipurpose platform than a Leander type pretend Frigate I still think the UK has a need for a £400m Tier2 Frigate option. This Tier2 option might even be possible for as low as £300m to £350m with something like Arrowhead 140. Could the MDP throw up a surprise here?

I really don’t see the point of the designs being offered there limited in potiential and look like a sticking plastic solution

To me that sounds like the perfect way to sum up the T31 programmes current trajectory, a politically inspired sticking plaster solution to the Royal Navy's escort crisis. Hopefully common sense prevails in the end.

[NickC]

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion
Postby Lord Jim » 06 Oct 2018, 21:56

//Given the timescale The more I read on how the USN has managed the Arleigh Burke programme and where it is heading, it shows that a platform designed nearly 30 years ago, if allowed to evolve can still be a very effective platform both today and tomorrow, and be cost effective.//

Would question your view that the Burke is a cost effective platform, design dates back to the mid eighties, 40 years ago, they are too manpower intensive, too fuel Intensive, too maintenance intensive. The USN had no option but to restart Burke build after the disaster with the Zumwalt with its stability problems due to its tumblehome hull proved too expensive and was cancelled.

The latest version Burke Flight III has had to resort to a accommodation block on the rear weapons deck and unable to meet the USN standard for a Service Life Allowances for all new ships and modified repeat designs such as when delivered to be capable of accommodating the anticipated 10% life weight growth and with a 12" KG so during its service life able to meet without compromise hull strength, reserve buoyancy and stability characteristics.

Burke crew count 330 with air compliment, for comparison the newer 21st century design the 50%+ larger Zumwalt target was 150.
The Burke uses all gas guzzling GT propulsion, GT only economical at full power, USN designed and tested a hybrid electric system using the GT gensets/PMM/modified MGR and a UPS, unable to fit into the new Flight III due to weight and volume constraints and a cut down version planned to backfit 34 Flight IIAs, first ship in shipyard for installation and now programme cancelled.
Its a dense and cramped ship as more and more kit was added, flight deck and hanger, MFTA etc., to update CIC/CMS/Aegis they have to cut through hull to access.

The USN pushing hard for its new Future Large Surface Combatant, wanting a larger ship than Burke with space/volume so as to be easily modified and updated. Shades of steel is cheap and air is free/ Iver Huitfeldt class with its spacious passageways and removable panels.

[Simon82]

NickC wrote:
The USN had no option but to restart Burke build after the disaster with the Zumwalt with its stability problems due to its tumblehome hull proved too expensive and was cancelled.

Have you got any links regarding the news of stability problems with the Zumwalt class? I know there was a lot of internet conjecture about the supposed inherent instability of the hull form, but I wasn’t aware that problems had actually been encountered on sea trials and I’d be curious to find out more.

The ludicrous unit cost of the Zumwalts is hardly surprising though considering it was an extremely ‘adventurous’ programme and the entire cost ended up being shouldered by only three vessels rather than spread across 32 hulls as originally planned. It’s a bit like the Type 26 in that respect...

[Repulse]

I agree there are limitations and flaws to the Al Khareef design, but if we are going for more than a light Sloop (OPV) and the MHPC concept is a non goer I’d rather minimise the losses if we have to keep to the T31.

I like the Bays but am wondering if their time is coming soon also, as they were built to support large amphibious groups. If you look at the new Qatar LPD design based on the San Giusto class, I actually see these as an interesting concept both as mini ASW / Sea Control Helicopter Carriers (too small to conflict with the CVFs), OTH SF/RM platforms and USV/UAV/USuV motherships.

Whilst I’d still say go for another T26 and a LPD as I describe. Perhaps go for two LPDs plus two more eventually to replace the Albions, plus 2 more FSS to carry the heavy stores (and replace the Bays).

[Ron5]

Stability will not be "go OK with", I'm afraid. For example, if sent to icy region, it will sink because of added ice. (Omani Corvette will never be sent to Norway, but, this mod-Khareef may be).

My point is, Leander is changing the hull design too much. For example, the long mid-hull section with large opening (for 4 RHIB) is a "nightmare" from mechanical design perspective (I know mechanics, a little). There shall be many tricks in the design. For example, why there is a centeral structure and hence the mission bay is not penetrating, is to mitigate structural issue, I guess. You can see my plan is structurally much much simple than Leander. Even the RHIB location can be un-changed = each and every detail design can be reused.

I'm as guilty as the next man as labeling Leander as a stretched Al Khareef but it's actually a stretch of the Bae Corvette which is an evolved Al Kareef. The Bae Corvette has been offered several times in international competition, most recently to Columbia & Brazil.

Anyhow, the Bae Corvette will certainly not sink in Norway or any other cold place due to ice. I have no idea why you think that. The standard offering is not ice capable meaning the hull hasn't been strengthened to resist pack ice. That does not mean it will capsize.

Secondly, the Leander mission bay does not introduce openings in the hull. The hull, as you may know, provides the ship's strength on which a superstructure is added. The mission bay is pure superstructure like the hangar. Take a look at a Type 23 which doesn't have a continuous superstructure which was the fashion last century, not just in the RN. You could add a continuous superstructure to a Type 23 and it's hull strength would be unaltered.

To reply to more uninformed criticisms above, accommodation and habitability standards are navy specific. The Leander design being offered to the RN has RN standards and is therefore no more cramped or uncomfortable as any other RN ship.

[Ron5]

As I said in the past we should have spent the 635 million from TOBA on 3 112 meter Khareef Corvettes / Patrol Sloop ( Donald did a great image of it) we could have then built 3 more from the 1.25 for 650 million leaving 600 million maybe a LPH

Due to political dithering, there wasn't enough time to design, or modify an existing design. They had to go with what they had with minimal changes.

[Ron5]

My dismay with type 31 is that there doesn’t appear to be an export market as this area of the market has a number of vessels already in it and we appear to no real unique selling point with the design.

Low price and used by the RN.

Two very powerful selling points.

[Ron5]

NickC wrote:
The USN had no option but to restart Burke build after the disaster with the Zumwalt with its stability problems due to its tumblehome hull proved too expensive and was cancelled.

Have you got any links regarding the news of stability problems with the Zumwalt class? I know there was a lot of internet conjecture about the supposed inherent instability of the hull form, but I wasn’t aware that problems had actually been encountered on sea trials and I’d be curious to find out more.

The ludicrous unit cost of the Zumwalts is hardly surprising though considering it was an extremely ‘adventurous’ programme and the entire cost ended up being shouldered by only three vessels rather than spread across 32 hulls as originally planned. It’s a bit like the Type 26 in that respect...

He's making it up, the Zumwalts were not cancelled because of stability issues and they were not intended as Arleigh Burke replacements.

The class was cancelled after 3 because of their very high cost for a niche capability.

[Ron5]

For all those blathering about Al Khareef issues with stability etc., How about a reference or two that supports your assertions.

They may be out there, I've just not seen them. I do know the Omanis are very happy with their purchases and they get a lot of use. Very reliable with low running costs.

[SW1]

My dismay with type 31 is that there doesn’t appear to be an export market as this area of the market has a number of vessels already in it and we appear to no real unique selling point with the design.

Low price and used by the RN.

Two very powerful selling points.

Not likely to be lower cost than the plethora of local designs in the similar space from state funded shipyards.

[Simon82]

Ron5 wrote:
He's making it up, the Zumwalts were not cancelled because of stability issues

I was thinking that they certainly subjected the Zumwalt hull shape to enough testing prior to commencing build to be fairly confident of its sea keeping characteristics. It certainly looked pretty stable in the test videos released to the public, but then again it would, wouldn’t it?

[Ron5]

My dismay with type 31 is that there doesn’t appear to be an export market as this area of the market has a number of vessels already in it and we appear to no real unique selling point with the design.

Low price and used by the RN.

Two very powerful selling points.

Not likely to be lower cost than the plethora of local designs in the similar space from state funded shipyards.

No they won't be lower price than China or Russia but not everyone wants to buy from them.

[Caribbean]

there is plenty of low level threats with growing importance around the uk that having patrol vessels like rivers will be useful to counter

None that the existing RB1's, P2000s and UKBF Cutters and RHIBs can't handle. The RB2s are over-engineered for those tasks, but not sufficiently well equipped for other duties

there doesn’t appear to be an export market as this area of the market has a number of vessels already in it and we appear to no real unique selling point with the design.

IIRC, the estimate was that around 70-80 OPVs and light frigates will need to be replaced over the next 10 years or so.
Ron pointed out the selling features above, to which I would add flexibility - the design is intended to allow for customers to pick their own systems, to add to a decent hull (certainly up to the standards of most Tier 2 navies).

There is a growing body of evidence we’re on the cusp of a major change in the use of unmanned systems in the naval domain and by the mid 2020s when these ships appear I fear we will be well behind the curve on this......... well behind in operational deployment of such things .

So the T31 programs is supposed to handle all of that? I seem to remember having this conversation with Shark Bait about two-three years ago - yes, we should have programs in place to develop all of that, but the T31 program is not the place for that. It's objectives are very different and not all military (or political).

if you have a clear strategy and defined path to work to

plus

rather than a quick let’s build something we want more ships approach

plus (though not in the way you mean)

Especially as a system of systems approach allow more uk sme’s to get involved and harness specialist uk industrial capacity.

Now you are starting to get to the real purpose of the T31. The point is to develop the industrial system that enables you to produce a ship on-time, on-budget and to maximise engagement and input from UK industry, with a view to applying this approach to all future procurement. No sitting around for 17 years figuring out what you want, then taking 10 years to get the first into service (pace Ron - I know that's not entirely up to BAE, but it is noticeable that the Aussie's are talking about a similarly relaxed build schedule, despite being five years behind the UK)

[SW1]

My dismay with type 31 is that there doesn’t appear to be an export market as this area of the market has a number of vessels already in it and we appear to no real unique selling point with the design.

Low price and used by the RN.

Two very powerful selling points.

Not likely to be lower cost than the plethora of local designs in the similar space from state funded shipyards.

No they won't be lower price than China or Russia but not everyone wants to buy from them.

Or turkey, Indonesia, Dutch, French, Spanish programs there is plenty out there...

[Scimitar54]

NickC wrote

Would question your view that the Burke is a cost effective platform, design dates back to the mid eighties, 40 years ago

Would question your maths, mid eighties was only thirty years ago

[ArmChairCivvy]

solve the presence/patrol requirement, increase its HADR capability and renew the Amphibious fleet without any new money. Unfortunately politics is getting in the way.

... we could build them in Scotland

the entire cost ended up being shouldered by only three vessels rather than spread across 32 hulls as originally planned. It’s a bit like the Type 26 in that respect...

Yes, a bit. But there will be a difference of degree.

they were built to support large amphibious groups

Yes, they were. Hence overspecialised within the shrinking fleet. However, which other vessel can deliver, over the beach, the type of RM Coy that comes with vehicles (wheeled or tracked, according to circumstances) without having been made overly expensive to run with added capabilities (like C&C)?

would add flexibility - the design is intended to allow for customers to pick their own systems, to add to a decent hull

The strongest selling point of them all (assumes an informed buyer)

the T31 program is not the place for that. It's objectives are very different and not all military (or political).

Did I just hear you say "political management of defence industrial base"?
- naughty boy

[SW1]

there is plenty of low level threats with growing importance around the uk that having patrol vessels like rivers will be useful to counter

None that the existing RB1's, P2000s and UKBF Cutters and RHIBs can't handle. The RB2s are over-engineered for those tasks, but not sufficiently well equipped for other duties

there doesn’t appear to be an export market as this area of the market has a number of vessels already in it and we appear to no real unique selling point with the design.

IIRC, the estimate was that around 70-80 OPVs and light frigates will need to be replaced over the next 10 years or so.
Ron pointed out the selling features above, to which I would add flexibility - the design is intended to allow for customers to pick their own systems, to add to a decent hull (certainly up to the standards of most Tier 2 navies).

There is a growing body of evidence we’re on the cusp of a major change in the use of unmanned systems in the naval domain and by the mid 2020s when these ships appear I fear we will be well behind the curve on this......... well behind in operational deployment of such things .

So the T31 programs is supposed to handle all of that? I seem to remember having this conversation with Shark Bait about two-three years ago - yes, we should have programs in place to develop all of that, but the T31 program is not the place for that. It's objectives are very different and not all military (or political).

if you have a clear strategy and defined path to work to

plus

rather than a quick let’s build something we want more ships approach

plus (though not in the way you mean)

Especially as a system of systems approach allow more uk sme’s to get involved and harness specialist uk industrial capacity.

Now you are starting to get to the real purpose of the T31. The point is to develop the industrial system that enables you to produce a ship on-time, on-budget and to maximise engagement and input from UK industry, with a view to applying this approach to all future procurement. No sitting around for 17 years figuring out what you want, then taking 10 years to get the first into service (pace Ron - I know that's not entirely up to BAE, but it is noticeable that the Aussie's are talking about a similarly relaxed build schedule, despite being five years behind the UK)

Not entirely in agreement, there is a high threat of terrorism and potiential for a increase in illegal immigration especial post brexit we have seen already how these two forces can intertwine. If we had to build something then taking the chance to upgrade the b1 rivers to add endurance and some features based on experience of use of the b1 then imo it was better to do it than either nothing or heavily armed corvette.

A market there maybe for such vessels but these vessels are not complex and where many many countries are starting to develop there own designs to support there own industries and develop relations with the very weapons and systems specialists we use ourselves. The ONLY selling point we have is it’s operated by the Royal Navy. Lots of countries see that as meaning over specialised.

The type 31 program should imo set out to be the first vessel to exploit that change yes. We are beginning to see and have a real feel for systems that are capable of conducting operations that once were the staple of specialist shipping up to this point we have shoe horned these systems into traditional ship types. This separation of task means future proofing the ship and building a ship from which to operate such things. The UKs need for long term fwd presence means a ship able to be manned a certain way to allow it to stay fwd deployed and of sufficent size to deploy and recover the systems currently available or likely to be in the next 10 years for me the uk has no better expemplar of that than the bay class or ships of that design. It may not necessarily be the hull type that we look to sell to foreign companies but the systems we develop to be carried by it.

As for the industrial base for hull building well the RN is not big enough to sustain a single company in the UK let alone 2, so in reality BAE is the only game in town, you can ask it to allow other yards to build modules that it assembles as the prime but that’s about as far as it goes. Infact you could go as far as saying that Europe in general is too small for more than one ship builder though partnership with global companies is not out of the question given the pressident has already been set particularly with Australia and there Spanish connection. As far as type 26 goes it maybe ideal if for example Canada and Australia both had final assembly yards but all the bow sections were made in aus, superstructure all in Canada and the sterns all in the uk.

[Caribbean]

there is a high threat of terrorism and potiential for a increase in illegal immigration

Illegal immigration is already with us (mainly via the Channel Ports and vehicle ferries), and the ships and boats that we have are fully capable of handling it (though we will probably need more small platforms, to provide greater coverage). I struggle to see what additional impact a RB2 could have on terrorism, when compared to the Batch 1s.

A market there maybe for such vessels but these vessels are not complex

That's a sweeping generalisation, if ever there was one. The target market covers everything from upgrading OPVs to modernising light frigates. Yes, there is competition, but not so much at the price point targetted.

The ONLY selling point we have is it’s operated by the Royal Navy.

No, it's not - see above

Lots of countries see that as meaning over specialised

And your objection to the current plan for the T31 is that it's not specialised enough.

The type 31 program should imo set out to be the first vessel to exploit that change yes.

It's not, though - get used to the idea. The T26 and the MHPC program will do that (though the T31 will probably end up with a "mission bay" of some sort in anticipation) - we are still developing and trialling the technology, no point in building hulls before you know what you need them to do - adapt existing hulls first, then build specialised hulls for the purpose, once you have experience of actually using these systems.

As for the industrial base for hull building well the RN is not big enough to sustain a single company in the UK let alone 2

That's one of the pieces of "conventional wisdom" that the shipbuilding strategy seeks to challenge. I'm sure BAE would be very happy if everyone just shut up and accepted it, but clearly some in Government see the matter differently.

[Timmymagic]

For all those blathering about Al Khareef issues with stability etc., How about a reference or two that supports your assertions.

I've never seen anything about stability for the Khareef. There was something about habitability for the Bung Tomo Class (originally for Brunei). Internally they were a little cramped apparently for people of 'western' stature. Looking back I wish we'd bought them for the 1/5th of the cost that they went to Indonesia for...they would have made excellent ships for the Gulf, Op Atalanta, West Indies or Falklands patrol. There did seem to be a spate of nations ordering too much ship for them to handle as the 2 Rivers for Trinidad and Tobago were sold in a similar vein to Brazil (another missed opportunity).

[SW1]

there is a high threat of terrorism and potiential for a increase in illegal immigration

Illegal immigration is already with us (mainly via the Channel Ports and vehicle ferries), and the ships and boats that we have are fully capable of handling it (though we will probably need more small platforms, to provide greater coverage). I struggle to see what additional impact a RB2 could have on terrorism, when compared to the Batch 1s.

A market there maybe for such vessels but these vessels are not complex

That's a sweeping generalisation, if ever there was one. The target market covers everything from upgrading OPVs to modernising light frigates. Yes, there is competition, but not so much at the price point targetted.

The ONLY selling point we have is it’s operated by the Royal Navy.

No, it's not - see above

Lots of countries see that as meaning over specialised

And your objection to the current plan for the T31 is that it's not specialised enough.

The type 31 program should imo set out to be the first vessel to exploit that change yes.

It's not, though - get used to the idea. The T26 and the MHPC program will do that (though the T31 will probably end up with a "mission bay" of some sort in anticipation) - we are still developing and trialling the technology, no point in building hulls before you know what you need them to do - adapt existing hulls first, then build specialised hulls for the purpose, once you have experience of actually using these systems.

As for the industrial base for hull building well the RN is not big enough to sustain a single company in the UK let alone 2

That's one of the pieces of "conventional wisdom" that the shipbuilding strategy seeks to challenge. I'm sure BAE would be very happy if everyone just shut up and accepted it, but clearly some in Government see the matter differently.

We are completely poles apart on this so it’s pretty pointless continuing. I will say this my criticism of type 31 is it’s nothing more than a warmed over opv with countless competitors with whatever price point you wish to look at. By complex I mean it’s not a type 26/45 few countries start trying to build them many start with were type 31 is pitching itself evident with the glut of options available.

Yes I have seen above the only selling point is it’s being used by the RN it’s no more flexible than any other design all are claiming that and it’s not cheaper than alternatives.

As for uav system yeah exactly the point we’re still trailing other have been doing for years now, we’re way behind already.