UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 06 Nov 2018, 11:05

SW1 wrote:But if that’s the model you wanted to follow why wouldn’t you follow the carrier build and assemble your ships at roysth when you’ve invested in the assembly process there and have yards around the uk bid to build blocks.
Rosyth is another potential contender but I believe Govan/Scotstoun, Cammell Laird, Appledore and Barrow is the optimum mix but that's only my opinion. The important element is supporting the 4 yards with a reliable drumbeat of work. The individual locations are less important at this stage.
It would potentially help you exports too because why would anyone looking for such a ship want it built in the uk?
Most countries now want to assembly designs in there own country, is that not one reason why France has developed the integrated mast and control room module initially on gowind and now expanded it for FTI. They keep the high tech, large IP content module in France and ship to the hull being built in the customers country.
Absolutely, but how many countries could make a good job of making a vessel as complex as a T26 without the costs spiralling? Looks at the costs in Australia and Canada, it requires a massive investment.

Take New Zeland for example, any new frigates For RNZN are going to have to be built elsewhere. Australia may offer to build 2x Hunter Class for ~£1.6bn but what if the UK could offer a more cost effective alternative. What if the UK could offer a more basic Type 26 variant with a unit price between £500m and £600m? That would be 2x Frigates for £1.2bn or maybe 3x for ~£1.6bn.

Setting up a throughly efficient production line is the key and then the more we build the cheaper they will get.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Thanks a lot for comprehensive documentation. Helps a lot.
Thanks Donald, you have made some really interesting points, I will give them some thought and get back to you.
Lord Jim wrote:The Key to everything is the T-26 programme and not the T-31e
100% Agreed.
Lord Jim wrote:BAe need to have confidence of continued orders form the UK Government if it is to be willing to invest in its facilities and workforce. This can only be done by having the T-26 produced under a drumbeat style programme and having the existing programme brought back up to the speed BAE offered originally
Agreed, after the success of the T26 design sweeping the board in the foreign competitions to not invest further would be unforgivable.
Lord Jim wrote:This will involve money up front but this could or should come from other government departments as it is really a case of supporting industry.
Again agreed, any cost of implementing an industrial strategy in the UK's naval shipbuilding sector does not necessarily have to come directly from RN's budget. It would have many wider socio-economic benefits and therefore may warrant funding from a number of Government departments.
Lord Jim wrote:There is the option of having blocks built in other yards, but, as has been pointed out by the Defence Select Committee we need to retain a yard able to refit the carriers, so Scotland must remain our prime shipyard location.
Why?

Rosyth is not the only option for dry docking the QE's and the MP for Kirkcaldy is no longer PM. Rosyth is an important facility but not all QE refit's will require a dry dock, in fact most probably won't.

Why does all of the UK's naval shipbuilding capacity have to be in Scotland's central belt? What is your reasoning behind that assertion?
Lord Jim wrote:Other types of vessel that are not true warships should still be put out to international tender unless the work is required to maintain the above. Under this I would include all RFA platforms and even the future MHPC, with the possibility of hulls being built overseas and fitted out in the UK.
Completly disagree but I accept this is a widely held view and is very much in line with HMG's current policy. Unfortunately it's politically impossible and a Labour administration would reverse it immediately so if we want continuity in UK naval shipbuilding it will to be agreed on a cross party basis.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 06 Nov 2018, 11:05

RichardIC wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:to start with and to put this in to context it costs over 2 billion pounds a week to run the NHS


With respect, that contextualises sod all.

And where do you get your detailed fantasy fleet costings from?



as for this being a fantasy fleet in part yes most however are what are on the books as in up coming programs in the next 30 years i.e tier 1 escort replacement , MHPC , albion class replacement , Bay class replacement , Argurs replacement

as for costings I am taking what is out there as guide i.e type 26, 45 programs are working out at 1 billion per ship so 500 million year on year for 30 years should see a return of 15 ships . FSS I over costed at 400 miilion per ship with a 200 million per year budget . MHPC I took a punt at with a 150 million per year based on the cost of RRS Sir David Attenborough. the rest are ships that can be built in the time frame with said money as programs open and close

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 06 Nov 2018, 11:22

shark bait wrote:This is next level ship building.
I agree, an innovative, modular and scalable British design is what the T31 could and should have been. Unfortunately due to an unrealistic budget we are going to end up with cheap dead end designs that will be used to plug gaps created by fiscal mismanagement and terrible planning.

It's not too late and it could still happen but I think about £300m to £400m is needed in R&D and the unit price needs to be more like £250m to £350m depending on the variant to really make a success of the programme. The timescale is also wholly unrealistic if we really want to innovate.
France has nailed their strategy with this novel solution, it makes the Biritish ship building strategy look like amateurs stuck in the 80's.
Bit harsh....

Still waiting on the FREMM and FTI to achieve a 24x hull export success :thumbup:

NickC
Member
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 06 Nov 2018, 12:12

Caribbean wrote:The T26 is the T22/T23 replacement - the T31 is more of a T21 "replacement", only this time with no aluminium and with a state-of-the-art AAW system.


The T31 is definitely not a state of the art AAW system, it might have Sea Ceptor, but it does not have a high definition X-band GaN radar with fixed array panels for low latency to pick up a sea skimming anti-ship missile, X-band has roughly three times the range resolution of a S-band radar.

NickC
Member
Posts: 374
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby NickC » 06 Nov 2018, 12:23

Poiuytrewq wrote:Still waiting on the FREMM and FTI to achieve a 24x hull export success :thumbup:


Don't speak too soon, the Fincantieri FREMM one of the 5 picks for the USN FFG(X) Conceptual Design Phase, a big IF, but if Fincantieri win contract for 20 and now USN planning for for additional follow on of 30 ships.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Nov 2018, 12:29

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
HMG takes all the future risks. If it is done, many options may come out
What did Einstein say about doing the same thing again and again, and expecting a different result?
- we tried it for 15 years
- BUT it was done for a good reason (how to carry over the industry with its hangover, after indulging with the carrier binge drinking)
- clearly a one-off reason (if we restrict our horizon to 50 years)
- do it again, and one result will be sure (again): ship price inflation
UK tend to just let it on competition. With too little ship building work, operating more than three shipyards impossible, and the "competition" idea is dead. At least three is needed. With only 1 or 2, it is dead.

Then, procurement agency must learn themselves to "fight" with ship builders to cut cost. It is their job. Work hard.

Of course, fighting for export is good idea to "measure" the cost competitiveness. Damen and Naval is doing it hard. But, if so, MOD must support BAES itself to do it. Support BAE, train BAE, invoke innovation in BAE, to make it competitive and hence capability to build RN warships more efficiently.

Investing on Babcock/Cammell Laird/H&W make no sense.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 06 Nov 2018, 13:09

I am in no position to comment on the £ figure, but this
Tempest414 wrote:If we put aside type 31 as a stand allowen project to get us out of the mess we are in right now we could still build all the ships the RN - RFA need for as little as 850 million a year over 30 years

is the angle, to look at it all from

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Nov 2018, 13:59

Yet another rival of T31e to come?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 06 Nov 2018, 15:58

shark bait wrote:The new equipment plan is out ;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... NAL-v1.pdf

The Department is planning for a cost of £250
million per platform and a further allocation of £250
million for non-platform specific acquisition
programme costs.
This "non-platform specific acquisition programme costs of £250M" is to improve the ship yards to build warships? If yes, what if we build T31e at BAE Clyde?

1; What if we use this £250M for "BAE frigate factory"?. It was said to be £200M on 2014 (see https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/131 ... the_Clyde/ )

Build both T26 and T31 at Clyde, using this "more efficient frigate factory". Building full-fat frigate along with ~3000t Corvette is what Naval/Lorient yard is doing (FREMM and Gowind-2000), so it is no problem.

2: Another idea is to invest this £250M on the design of T31e. Of course, we need to build it in Clyde, because not investing to other ship yards.

With £1.5B for the program, we can build 5 hulls with totally new design. The unit-cost will be £215M (1500/(2+5) =215). This is the same to Leander, but it will be with totally new design.
-- I can re-use Leander design, but with more extensive modification; Merlin-capable hangar, re-design of bow section to handle 5inch gun together with 24 CAMM (could be 12 as build, and +12 FTR to save initial cost), and quietization. CAPTAS4CI cost will not be there, so it will be FTR, but the ship itself will be "so-so quiet", quiet enough to do ASW pinger in CVTF.
-- Or even reduce the hull number to 4, and use the £60M each to equip all 4 hulls with full-set of ASW (CAPTAS4CI, torpedo-defense, and VL-ASROC).
-- Also the bridge can be re-designed to handle the new approach invented by Naval = "add-on" combat section with CIC and mast/sensor.

3: If you think "Scotland independence risk" is non-negligible, we can do the same thing by keeping T31e as it is (£250M + £1.25B), but reducing the hull-number by one (make it 4) to earn "new design" cost. This will make 4 T31e, with all ASW kits FTR, but with "so-so quiet hull".

And, reducing another one (make it 3) will provide +£80M per hull. Not only full-ASW-kit, but also "24 CAMM" could be achieved.

Using £1.5B to make only 3 "ASW capable small-light frigate" will not look attractive, but I think it will have a better chance for export. It will train the design team, as well. If the budget condition is better in ~2025, add the second batch of three.


[EDIT] If the primary task is to grow second ship yard for 2nd-tier escort and get an exportable light-frigate design, focus on it. If the primary task is to get 5 GP frigates, growing 2nd ship yard is too costy, and let the BAE do it. NSS lacks decisive mind to focus on its purpose. If so, it will surely fail. Do not aim two birds with one stone.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Nov 2018, 16:38

Couple of things. Regarding the Sonar fit on vessels. I agree that both hull and towed sonars are effective in coastal and littoral theatres, but it is also important that the right type in each category is chosen. I am not a Naval Engineer but how effective is the tail currently planned for the T-26 in non "Blue" water ASW operations? I was given to believe it was optimised for ASW operations in the Atlantic etc. This was why I was suggesting the T-26 needed a partner with a Higher frequency sonar.

On to ship building and maintenance. Besides Rosyth, are there any other shipyards in the UK with the facilities to carry out the refit work on the Carriers, including a drydock, that would not require significant investment to do so? Like many things you can always fit something small in something large but not the other way around. This is why, politics aside, retaining the facilities in Scotland has to be the priority, and giving BAe the confidence to maintain and even improve these through a drumbeat of orders, specifically the T-26 is so important.

As to whether all RN vessels should be built in the UK, well I was suggesting that whilst "True" warships should continue the be built here, all others should go out to international tender. UK shipyard will of course be able to compete, and if the playing field needs to be levelled then that is for the Government of the time to take the necessary decisions and provide the required financial support. It should not be the responsibility of the RN's budget. We have to ensure that the Armed Forces receive the best equipment but at the same time deliver value for money. This means we have to choose which areas we take action to retain on shore and which are simply more affordable form off shore. In many areas of defence the stable door was left open decades ago and only a few horses remain, and even fewer are competitive. The size of orders the MoD is able to place means there is insufficient resources to support all of these through defence spending alone.

There is a case for a tier 2 escort for the RN but it has to be a true escort, not a pimped up OPV that is an escort in name only and this is the danger of the T-31e. Is the RN going to get a platform that is built purely for political reasons? I would like to see what he cost of the T-26 is without everything except its radar and other electronics, no weapons systems, no tail, and so on. Can the platform be built with a less expensive propulsion systems? In other words, as has been suggested, could the T-26 be the basis for a true Tier 2 escort?

Forcing the MoD to accept platforms it does not want and that do not have the capabilities to carry out the roles they will end up being used for is a dangerous road to go down. I worry that the T-31e could end up being a naval "Snatch" land Rover with far greater consequences. These vessels could end up costing us far more in future both in funds under UORs to try to turn them into true escorts and at worst costing lives.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Jensy » 06 Nov 2018, 17:04

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Contrary to 'folklore' about T31 being a rushed idea, the decision to to split the class in two (8+5) was taken in 2010, but seeing T-26 through the main gate took longer than anyone had expected

[...]

Officially, of course,T-31 only came out of the 2015 SDSR ( by then it was apparent to all that T-26 was going to be too expensive. Despite the fact (!?) that the concept and assessment phases of Type 26 development emphasised cost efficiency).
- what happened in 2010? Britain had just cut its defence budget of 36.9 billion pounds by eight percent in real terms up to 2015.
- but Osborne had promised 'jam' thereafter. 'Better' defence and security reviews were due in 2015 and 2020, which could alter future plans.
- Reuters reported on Nov 29 (, 2010) :



A really valid point.

Those 5 GP type 26's always seemed very theoretical, especially as it was never made clear what exactly they would lack to make them sufficiently cheaper than the ASW versions (just a sonar, or significant design elements).

Now back in the old days, the escort part of the old FSC (Future Surface Combatant) program was supposed to be made up of:

10 x C1 (Top tier ASW "Combatant")

+

8 x C2 (Medium sized Vessel Derivative - for "stabilisation")

These 18 ships were not of the same baseline, displacement or indeed hull-form. The below 2006 BMT concept (taken from the old Navy Matters site), gives a good indication of the scope of the C2. It interestingly looks a lot like Venator 110 from the rear.

Image

This second image is a for a "Thales concept about 135 metres long, which would indicate a full load displacement between 4,000 and 5,000 tonnes", defined as a "basic General Purpose frigate".

Image

Medium gun, basic AAW system, lots of room for unmanned systems and potential for specialised upgrades. This does not seem a million miles away from the T31 RFI of last year. The main focus seems to be on excess space and modular options for off-board systems.

If there was only discussion of 13 Type 26s for a limited time around 2010, whilst before and since it has been intended to have 10 ASW + 8 GP, now reduced to 8 + 5, has it truly been such a massive downgrade? Especially considering the reductions to other sectors of the Royal Navy? e.g. subs, AAW destroyers, fixed and rotary wing aviation.

As glorious as the idea of 13+ full-fat 8,000t Type 26s might seem I doubt it was ever likely with investment in carriers and dreadnought to compete with.

Jensy

matt00773
Member
Posts: 250
Joined: 01 Jun 2016, 14:31
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby matt00773 » 06 Nov 2018, 17:36

Interesting article on CMS developments and a new BAES programme to develop new technologies to integrate into CMS e.g augmented reality.

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articl ... the-waves/

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3283
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 06 Nov 2018, 17:39

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Contrary to 'folklore' about T31 being a rushed idea, the decision to to split the class in two (8+5) was taken in 2010, but seeing T-26 through the main gate took longer than anyone had expected


I do not think you are correct.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3283
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Ron5 » 06 Nov 2018, 18:24

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yet another rival of T31e to come?


The second ship in the picture looks like somone's idea of a Type 31.

DrULDRrVYAAZJhd.jpg large.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1177
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Caribbean » 06 Nov 2018, 20:46

NickC wrote:The T31 is definitely not a state of the art AAW system, it might have Sea Ceptor, but it does not have a high definition X-band GaN radar with fixed array panels for low latency to pick up a sea skimming anti-ship missile, X-band has roughly three times the range resolution of a S-band radar.

A radar set is far more than just the basic chemistry of the semi-conductors it uses. Artisan (which I believe is the most likely candidate for the T31, now that pull-through of T23 equipment appears to have been accepted) is built on the same base technology as Sampson (both based on the BAE S-Band MESAR project. MESAR2 was specifically aimed at BMD defence). Sampson, and by inference Artisan, (since it came out of the same project and base technology - though confirmation is difficult to come by on the internet) uses Gallium Arsenide technology, which is best suited to.... X-band!
Artisan is supposed to be tuneable for both targetting and volume search (allegedly at the same time) - I will leave you to consider how that might be achieved with an S-band radar based on X-band capable base hardware. Software defined radar technology probably features in that conundrum (so it's lucky that Artisan is software-defined, isn't it?). Couple that with top-of-the-line imaging and analysis and a CMS based on PAAMS plus a fit-anywhere missile system that bridges the gap between point-defence and local AAW and I will stick with my "State-of-the-art" assessment.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Nov 2018, 22:34

Sea Ceptor is in a class of its own when it comes to giving naval vessels an effective self defence AAW capability. ESSM in its latest guise is catching up but required far more infrastructure on a platform to be used effectively. The only missile that may match Sea Ceptor in cost and effectiveness could be the latest version of the Israeli Barak. But I will continue to argue that to maximise the effectiveness of Sea Ceptor the RN needs to adopt the three cell ExLS launcher together with the four round canister at the very least. The former allows twelve Sea Ceptors to be mounted basically anywhere in a very space efficient manner and the latter allows Sea Ceptor to be fitted inside any MK41 VLS the RN may have is additional missiles are needed. As a side note, the fact that ExLS can also fire the Spike NLOS with four missile per cell is an interesting option for precision engagement for the T-31e if we still go down that route, or even fitting into the MK41 of the T-26.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 07 Nov 2018, 04:25

Lord Jim wrote: The only missile that may match Sea Ceptor in cost and effectiveness could be the latest version of the Israeli Barak

I wonder which of the Baraks you had in mind?

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Nov 2018, 09:14

From Indo Defence 2018:

Can anyone identify this?
image.jpg
image.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2571
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 07 Nov 2018, 09:53

Isn’t it F2000 corvette now at Indonesia navy?
If so, old model.

Tempest414
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Tempest414 » 07 Nov 2018, 11:04

one would ask what it is doing there are BAE trying to sell the design to India

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Poiuytrewq » 07 Nov 2018, 16:35

Damien unveil the new Omega Class Frigate.
image.jpg
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... igate.html

At 6000t this isn't really a T31 competitor, it appears to be aimed more at the FTI market or even up onto FREMM territory.

Omega frigate / FFI early specifications:
    Length: 144 meters
    Breadth: 18.8 meters
    Displacement: 6100 tons
    Max. speed: 29 knots
    Range: 5,000 nautical miles @ 18 knots
    Endurance: 30 days at sea
    Stabilisation: Rudder roll (similar to LCF)
    Crew: 122 sailors (accommodations for up to 160)
    Storage space for 3x 12 meters RHIBs
    Hangar space for 2x medium lift helicopters and/or UAV.
image.jpg
image.jpg
image.jpg

The Omega frigate is fitted with,
    -127mm main gun by leonardo
    -76mm secondary gun by Leonardo on top of the helicopter hangar
    -Rheinmetall Millenium CIWS
    -2x Leonardo Hitrole remote weapon stations
    -8x Kongsberg NSM anti-ship missiles
    -4x Rheinmetall MASS decoy launchers
    -Thales Kingklip hull mounted sonar
    -Captas-4 variable depth sonar
    -24x VLS cells

It will be very interesting to see what price point this Frigate is being pitched at.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 161
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Pongoglo » 07 Nov 2018, 17:05

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yet another rival of T31e to come?


The second ship in the picture looks like somone's idea of a Type 31.

DrULDRrVYAAZJhd.jpg large.jpg


Interesting indeed ! Pure co-incidence or does the hull number give us a clue - 331 ? Looks like Artisan atop the mast and a VERY RN style bridge. Perhaps Damen are having fun, 331 hinting at being the mystery third contender for T31? BAE/CL Leander as 1 - 31, Babcock and Team 31 being 2 - 31, so do Damen fancy their arm as 3 - 31? Of course they would need a UK yard to make it work...

chinook88
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Location: Chile

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby chinook88 » 07 Nov 2018, 18:07

It is assumed that these could be the replacement of the Karel Doorman class (M 2.0). That is not a direct contender for the T31e.
The Japanese (or Korean) offer seems closer:
https://www.janes.com/article/84241/mhi ... -for-jmsdf

Image

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby cyrilranch » 07 Nov 2018, 19:33

Pongoglo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yet another rival of T31e to come?


The second ship in the picture looks like somone's idea of a Type 31.

DrULDRrVYAAZJhd.jpg large.jpg


Interesting indeed ! Pure co-incidence or does the hull number give us a clue - 331 ? Looks like Artisan atop the mast and a VERY RN style bridge. Perhaps Damen are having fun, 331 hinting at being the mystery third contender for T31? BAE/CL Leander as 1 - 31, Babcock and Team 3i1 being 2 - 31, so do Damen fancy their arm as 3 - 31? Of course they would need a UK yard to make it work...


No the 331 hull is the current ship that Indonesia navy has in service(4 off in service at present) with 2 more being bulit.
by the way the radar on top is a Thales Smart S radar.

Also FFI is short for future frigate Indonesia

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Postby Aethulwulf » 07 Nov 2018, 21:31

Pongoglo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Yet another rival of T31e to come?


The second ship in the picture looks like somone's idea of a Type 31.

DrULDRrVYAAZJhd.jpg large.jpg


Interesting indeed ! Pure co-incidence or does the hull number give us a clue - 331 ? Looks like Artisan atop the mast and a VERY RN style bridge. Perhaps Damen are having fun, 331 hinting at being the mystery third contender for T31? BAE/CL Leander as 1 - 31, Babcock and Team 31 being 2 - 31, so do Damen fancy their arm as 3 - 31? Of course they would need a UK yard to make it work...
It is a SIGMA 10514 PKR light frigate for Indonesian navy. See

https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-frigate-and-corvette/sigma-frigate-10514


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests