MikeKiloPapa wrote:the type 23 has a smaller underwater noise signature and is a couple of knots faster ..That is it!.....In all other aspects the A140 is either equal or better!
Not true, in some cases yes, in other cases not.
initially it has the same level of armament
No, a 250M GBP will never equip T31e as much as T23.
but with capacity for much more, .being a bigger ship it doesnt just have better growth potential, its also a better weapons and sensor platform.
Agree.
Its internal arrangement is better.
Habitability is better.
Agree
... Maintainability is MUCH better
Flexibility and adaptability is superiour.
Totally agree here.
And while it will , at least initially , lack the powerful ASW sensors of the T23, it is prepared for the installation of those, and they could be fitted if the RN so choses.
Mostly agree. As not quiet hull, A140 will not be as good as T23 in ASW, even if equally equipped.
As a GP frigate the A140 will have an equivalent CMS (but in a superior OPS room/CIC)
Big objection here.
What do you mean by "equivalent CMS"? There is no indication A140 will have the same level of CMS as modified T23 has. For me, cost says simply no. If you mean TACTICOS is equivalent to CMS-1 (now rebranded INTeACT), I agree. But the point is,
both CMS are scalable.
-TACTICOS is used in variety of vessels: DOGAN class missile craft (Turkey), KRABI class OPV (Thai), Al Khareef class corvette (Oman), IVER HUITFELDT class frigates (Danish) etc.
- Similarly, CMS-1 is installed in RFA Argus, HSM Clyde, River B2 OPVs, T45 destroyers, T23 and T26 frigates.
The level of CMS is defined by issues such as, number of consoles, computational power, and in particular, installed softwares (which is the most costy part), even if the brand name is the same.
TACTICOS CMS in A140 will be the same level as IVER HUITFELDT class, or Al Khareef class, or Krabi-class OPV, no announcement yet.
and better radar......
Agreed.
in terms of ESM/ECM , decoys , SIGINT/ELINT capability we dont know what it will be fitted with yet, but likely the same basic capability as T23 has.
Simply, not known, I think. The "basic capability of T23" is much more high grade than Krabi-class OPV and Al Khareef class corvette, of course (both has basic ESM and decoy systems).
...A140 at least has the potential to become a first rate surface combatant.
I have no objection here. A140 design is very capable. My point is, T31 is NOT capable (regardless of its hull based on Leander, MEKO A200 or Arrowhead 140), simply because of too small cost. Again, it is only a corvette-class cost. And lets be frank ......the only reason some here dont like it , is because it isnt British (enough) .....If Leander had been the one based on a Danish design , no one would be giving it a second look!
Partly yes. I think Danish design to get the first ever export order is very interesting. Its unique concept to survive is nice to see (as Danish shipyard has been closed).
The only point is, how to fight in export market in future. Of course, this will deeply depend on the license contract between OMT and Babcock. If Babcock got the exclusive export license for any future export of IVER HUITFELDT-based design, it is great, but its cheap cost may not allow it, I'm afraid. If OMT (or team-Denmark) retains export freedom, then, how can a second party win any bid?
For me, the very good thing, if A140 be adopted as T31, is that Babcock can learn one of the world's front-line design/technology. There are many things UK ship building industry can learn from abroad. IVER HUITFELDT class were built in Estonian shipyard, which had not many experience on escort building, and integrate their fighting system in Denmark (with large support from Navy man-power). Babcock also has no escort building history, but has CMS integration experience on T23 LIFEX program.
It looks like a good match for Babcock.