Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Ron5]

I've just finished watching a video report released by Bae of a conversation between Ralph Bonfiield and Ian Stevenson. Ralph is the head of Bae's Type 31 program and Ian (head of shipbuilding) asks him for status.

Ralph is an excellent speaker and covers the subject very well. Major points I can remember:

1. NSS and Type 31 program will be concurrently kicked off soon, before DSEI in mid Sept. He expects a MoD value analysis period followed by a 6 month design competition for 5 ships with the winner announced at the end of 2018. He expects several consortia to enter and says it's been a while since Bae competed so they have to be on their toes. Ian agreed. NSS will basically take SJP's ideas and formalize.

2. He's seen some draft requirements from the MoD and he expects the Type 31 to be between 115 and 120m in length, approx 4,000 tons and capable of war fighting. Overall capability will be between a River B2 and a Type 26/Type 45. The Type 31's will become the workhorse of the fleet.

3. Ralph expects the target Type 31 price to be 250 million pounds. That means Bae will need to look at new ways to provide best value to the UK.

4. Ralph expects a renewed commitment to sustain a UK warship building capability.

5. Some jabber about exportability which I ignored.

[WhitestElephant]

Is that video available online?

[dmereifield]

I've just finished watching a video report released by Bae of a conversation between Ralph Bonfiield and Ian Stevenson. Ralph is the head of Bae's Type 31 program and Ian (head of shipbuilding) asks him for status.

Ralph is an excellent speaker and covers the subject very well. Major points I can remember:

1. NSS and Type 31 program will be concurrently kicked off soon, before DSEI in mid Sept. He expects a MoD value analysis period followed by a 6 month design competition for 5 ships with the winner announced at the end of 2018. He expects several consortia to enter and says it's been a while since Bae competed so they have to be on their toes. Ian agreed. NSS will basically take SJP's ideas and formalize.

2. He's seen some draft requirements from the MoD and he expects the Type 31 to be between 115 and 120m in length, approx 4,000 tons and capable of war fighting. Overall capability will be between a River B2 and a Type 26/Type 45. The Type 31's will become the workhorse of the fleet.

3. Ralph expects the target Type 31 price to be 250 million pounds. That means Bae will need to look at new ways to provide best value to the UK.

4. Ralph expects a renewed commitment to sustain a UK warship building capability.

5. Some jabber about exportability which I ignored.

Thanks for the info Ron. Some immediate thoughts:

Great to hear:
- that we shall see the NSS/T31 programme announcements/developments soon.
- that the contract will be awarded in 2018 (quick by MoD standards) so must be concurrent build with the T26(?)
- that it is expected to be capable of war fighting and 4000t (so maybe not a pimped OPV??)

Not so good to hear that:
- there will only be 5 (bang goes the ambition to grow the fleet; and if they are to be the workhorses of the fleet, with only 5, they are going to be run tagged in no time, surely?)
- £250 million a piece (so we are back in pimped OPV territory???)

[RetroSicotte]

Between River and Type 26/45?

That's a bit like saying my bank account is somewhere between a homeless man and Elon Musk.

[Aethulwulf]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1548 ... ref=twtrec

BAE may not bid for the T31.....

The article also states that we will likely get more info about the T31 programme next month

Very interesting little article...

First, it basically confirms that T31 will be built concurrently with T26 because BAE are saying if they do not bid for T31 they will be busy with T26 anyway.

BAE are clearly worried that they may not be the lowest bidder and see Babcock as their main rivals. This makes sense given that Babcock have been assembling and fitting out two aircraft carriers, they clearly are able to cope with complex warships at Rosyth.

BAE could be worried about their bid price because perhaps they just don't have the capacity to build T26 and T31 concurrently without a major investment in their yard(s) [maybe +£100m].

BAE also appear worried that rivals (Babcock) could bid a low price as a loss leader in order to gain a foothold in the market. Clearly this is not something that BAE are prepared to do, not even to shut out any competition.

BAE appear very sure that a contract for them to build another 5 T26 will follow on from their present contract - no hint of worries about the Government cutting the numbers or opening the build to wider competition.

BAE are putting a lot faith in the T26 to secure their future. Could this mean they have heard strongly positive indications from Australia and/or Canada?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Good summary there

First, it basically confirms that T31 will be built concurrently with T26 because BAE are saying if they do not bid for T31 they will be busy with T26 anyway.

BAE are clearly worried that they may not be the lowest bidder and see Babcock as their main rivals. This makes sense given that Babcock have been assembling and fitting out two aircraft carriers, they clearly are able to cope with complex warships at Rosyth.

BAE could be worried about their bid price because perhaps they just don't have the capacity to build T26 and T31 concurrently without a major investment in their yard(s) [maybe +£100m].

In the order of the bolded parts
- well, that's now sorted
- yes, but the fitting out when you have acres of space and fitting out when every cubic counts are no closer to each other than sprinting and running a mile
- that 100 mln is exactly what they pruned from the "frigate factory" plan - and only invested £100 mln

And, yes, in exports such capability&capacity for concurrency will not be needed.

[Repulse]

3. Ralph expects the target Type 31 price to be 250 million pounds. That means Bae will need to look at new ways to provide best value to the UK.

So, using a 5 (ship) + 1 (design) ratio the budget could be as little as £1.5bn - that's not going to end well. No wonder BAE aren't fussed.

Best buy 1 more T26 and 5 more B2 Rivers (build them at Appledore) and keep the B1 Rivers. Then spend the remaining £200mn on a new medium gun for the Rivers, plus containerised CAMM and retractable hangar.

[Ron5]

It will be news to the ACA that Babcocks is assembling and fitting out the carriers all on their own-some.

[Caribbean]

So, using a 5 (ship) + 1 (design) ratio the budget could be as little as £1.5bn - that's not going to end well. No wonder BAE aren't fussed.

Sounds about right. BAE look to be getting around £10b for the T26 over the next 20 years, which doesn't leave much for T31 out of the original (supposed) budget of £11.4-ish billion. A lot less than most of us had hoped, but it is what it is
OK - time for the sweepstakes - my money is on Venator 110 and a split build of two T31 "light" and three T31 "heavy" (hopefully as a future home to those 3 new 2087s that have allegedly been ordered - or rather the ones that get removed from the last of the T23 ASWs to be decommissioned)

[ArmChairCivvy]

or rather the ones that get removed from the last of the T23 ASWs to be decommissioned)

The inter-leaving is quite tight: the 8th T-26 in (but not necessarily, yet, in service) in 2035 and the last T-23 bows out in 2036.

As the first 5 T-23s to go are the GPs, by the time they are out, it is likely that we are 2 down in escort numbers... how quick can the ramping up of the t-31 be?

[Opinion3]

I think Bae has worked out the Question the MOD is having to ask itself

Do we want two Naval shipbuilders?

If the answer is NO. Bae has saved a shed load of money and a race to the bottom by competing against itself
If the answer is YES. Bae has saved a shed load of money competing in a losing battle

[dmereifield]

So, using a 5 (ship) + 1 (design) ratio the budget could be as little as £1.5bn - that's not going to end well. No wonder BAE aren't fussed.

Sounds about right. BAE look to be getting around £10b for the T26 over the next 20 years, which doesn't leave much for T31 out of the original (supposed) budget of £11.4-ish billion. A lot less than most of us had hoped, but it is what it is
OK - time for the sweepstakes - my money is on Venator 110 and a split build of two T31 "light" and three T31 "heavy" (hopefully as a future home to those 3 new 2087s that have allegedly been ordered - or rather the ones that get removed from the last of the T23 ASWs to be decommissioned)

For this kind of money, surely it needs to be a mature(ish) design already, such as Cutlass. Is it at all possible that the BAE could be contracted to mature the design, other yards could build the blocks (maybe even assemble them) and then BAE could fit it out (possibly also assemble the blocks)?
Perhaps the Vard derived design might also be sufficiently mature to be viable for these tight sums?

Conversely, surely, for this money, immature designs like Spartan and the Venator 110 can't be in the running?

Regarding the end products, I'd be delighted if those extra 3 sonar sets make their way onto 3 of the T31s. Supposing they do, and there are to be two subclasses-1 "light" and 1 "heavy", given the tightness of the budget, are we not more likely to get 2 heavy and 3 light. With the light having the tails, but now SSM and reduced number of sea ceptor, and the heavy having a greater number of sea ceptor and SSM.....

[Caribbean]

For this kind of money, surely it needs to be a mature(ish) design already, such as Cutlass. Is it at all possible that the BAE could be contracted to mature the design, other yards could build the blocks (maybe even assemble them) and then BAE could fit it out (possibly also assemble the blocks)?
Perhaps the Vard derived design might also be sufficiently mature to be viable for these tight sums?

Cutlass could be in the running, but if BAES don't put up a design ......... I'm also not sure if it meets the "warfighting" requirement (plus range, endurance etc) without a lot of changes. Plus the BAES heritage may be seen an impediment to building it elsewhere. To be honest, I think BAE decided not to compete even before they put up the Avenger and Cutlass designs.
Vard are good on the OPV side - do they have a 115-120m frigate design of 4000t (genuine question - I haven't seen one, but that doesn't mean they don't have one). If they have one, I would consider it a potential candidate.

Conversely, surely, for this money, immature designs like Spartan and the Venator 110 can't be in the running?

One of the reasons why I didn't go for Spartan, despite it being a very-nice looking concept. However, work has been going on for quite some time on Venator, so it already has a bit of a head start (and it's not a BAE design, meaning that it can be built wherever the RN/MOD chooses, which seems to be important in this competition).

given the tightness of the budget, are we not more likely to get 2 heavy and 3 light

Entirely possible, but I suspect that the major savings on the "light" will be in build standards (so yup, pimped OPVs, at least initially). so if each "light" could be built for (say) twice the price of a Vard 90 (ie approx Eur 120m - lets call it £240m for the pair), we would get approx. £1b for the three "heavy" variants. At £330m apiece, they will probably come off the stocks looking like very well-built patrol frigates, but hopefully, over time, they will be upgraded with equipment coming off the decommissioned GP T23s (Artisan, decoys, comms, CAMM etc).

Apologies to all for inventing "light" and "heavy" - they are intended to correspond with the BMT proposals for a "patrol ship" and "light frigate" versions of the Venator 110. I suppose the "patrol frigate" variant would count as "light plus"

[Spinflight]

Think it was SJP who invented the heavy and light.

His suggestion was that the first two were to be fitted for both not withs. Hence could be sold from under the RN's feet and configured to the end customer's requirements.

Makes a lot of sense to build them that way too. Reduces the initial build complexity when the yards are still feeling their way and getting over the learning curve.

That's not to say they won't be built to proper warship standards, just without a lot of the gubbins installed.

Most useful thing for the Type 31 design would be something along the lines of a mission deck, so that they can be simply and easily put forward for the MHC program which will likely kick off about the same time as the fifth one hits the water. There's a program with the frogs for containerised mine sweeping equipment which should be delivering in the same timeframe.

I also doubt that Baes will be involved at all in the first few. Avenger and Cutlass were both uninspiring and made little logical sense, for them to actually build at any rate. Both designs would have to share little in common with the B2s as, though pimped, they are still OPV+ standard. Also the block building would likely junk the hard earned experience of making the River class, and the design and build would have to be modified to take this into account.

Saying that somehow I still find the Avenger design compelling. Evolution rather than revolution, lots of commonality and a decent export pedigree for it's smaller cousin. Frankly it ticks many of the more bureaucratic boxes, which are important given the accelerated pace of the project. Have another look at SJP's report, it's heavy emphasis on exportability and particularly the figures in the appendix for the number of vessels likely to be purchased in each individual type. The number of OPVs was significantly higher hence the option to purchase these and a frigate or two might make a great deal of sense. Particularly if they were capable of turning their hand towards minesweeping etc.

So my bet would be on a Bae design, basically an Avenger with the Type 26's mission deck, built frugally all over the country and Baes getting involved more with the fitting out of likely more capable later vessels or maybe only putting competitive bids in for a block or two. In a fantasy fleet scenario Venator or Spartan every time, but politics is politics and especially in this program design risk is going to be a deciding factor.

[ArmChairCivvy]

For this kind of money, surely it needs to be a mature(ish) design already, such as Cutlass. Is it at all possible that the BAE could be contracted to mature the design, other yards could build the blocks (maybe even assemble them) and then BAE could fit it out (possibly also assemble the blocks)?
Perhaps the Vard derived design might also be sufficiently mature to be viable for these tight sums?

Conversely, surely, for this money, immature designs like Spartan and the Venator 110 can't be in the running?

Agreed with the general line of thinking; as for the bolded
- BAES themselves called Cutlass a "stretched corvette"
- the newer Vard/ Babcock design replaces the earlier, as the N. Atlantic/ Irish Sea waves turned out to be too choppy for the smaller vessel; does anyone still remember "how much" for each of the latter?
- one Venator is in build for Columbia; military fitting out for it will be done in the same place that handled the Kiwis' upgrade (in Canada); so the argument is only valid for Spartan

[dmereifield]

- one Venator is in build for Columbia; military fitting out for it will be done in the same place that handled the Kiwis' upgrade (in Canada); so the argument is only valid for Spartan

What, really? Actually in build? I saw the proposal/bid, didn't realise a contract was awarded and build programme underway.....

[ArmChairCivvy]

I suspect that the major savings on the "light" will be in build standards

- yes, that is also the difference - reflected in cost - between the River 1s/ 1.5s and the rest

over time, they will be upgraded with equipment coming off the decommissioned GP T23s (Artisan, decoys, comms, CAMM etc).

- tallies up with "everything, incl. TAS" bought new for three units (of T26), leave aside one or two T23s that skip the main upgrades, so your balance of kit is: 13+3-2=8 t26+3 t31ASW +3 t31 patrol (with these ones initially sailing w/o some of the kit destined for them)... the Danish approach taking hold ?

Particularly if they were capable of turning their hand towards minesweeping etc.

- exactly; the kit they would need for other roles might thereby be reduced (somewhat)
- and we are not the only ones facing a mine threat, but through the joint prgrm with the French still pretty much on top of this "black art"
... read: enhancing exportabillity. Add in one more SJP quote: " His suggestion was that the first two were to be fitted for both not withs"

in this program design risk is going to be a deciding factor.

- hence the NDP (who thinks setting it up is a mere coincidence, hands up?)

SJP [who] invented the heavy and light.[... and squaring the circle:]a mission deck, so that they can be simply and easily put forward for the MHC program which will likely kick off about the same time as the fifth one hits the water.

[ArmChairCivvy]

What I meant is that the design has been matured enough to place a (joint) bid:
"Saab has teamed with UK ship design house BMT Defence Services to bid a design solution for Colombia's Plataforma Estratégica de Superfcie (PES) programme based on BMT's Venator-110 frigate design.

The proposal, forming part of a package that would see in-country construction in collaboration with local shipyard COTECMAR, combines a Saab combat system and Venator-110 platform specifically configured to meet the requirements of the Armada Nacional." as per Jane's and

the actual cutting of steel (if and when the contract is completed) according to Columbian sources
"The Science and Technology Corporation for the Development of the Naval, Maritime and River -Cotecmar - has revealed that the construction of the new Strategic Platforms surface ( PES ), start in 2019."

The moral of the story is that IF
- steel bashing can be done in Colombia
- while the naval architects are in Bath
- and the Project Manager (with the kit that they are meant to integrate) is in Sweden
- and the work is carried out in W. Canada
HOW COME would it be impossible (as some have suggested) to do the same. This is no OPV but with the state of the art Saab L7 (that for integration gives the plug & play).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Borrowing the math

if each "light" could be built for (say) twice the price of a Vard 90 (ie approx Eur 120m - lets call it £240m for the pair), we would get approx. £1b for the three "heavy" variants. At £330m apiece,

Putting in the quantities
" with "everything, incl. TAS" bought new for three units (of T26), leave aside one or two T23s that skip the main upgrades, so your balance of kit is: 13+3-2=8 t26+3 t31ASW +3 t31 patrol"

we do a remix of this cake, find a jar of Maraschino cherries in cupboard, and put them onto the cake:
3 x Patrol £360m
£1 bn left for 3 Heavy
... wait a minute: the indicative budget for the MHPC capability was £1.4 bn, As far as I have been able to keep count, about £400m has been spent on development, further take away those first three ships as associated platforms, and we can add some 60% to the available bn
- of course there is no hard budget line for "MHPC" and the number has always been just indicative (and the prgrm itself pruned back)
- but following the EP time profile for "surface vessels" funding as opposed to boats and strategic projects would give an indication if all of this would fit into the numbers

[Jake1992]

Has it been comfermed that the T26 project will cost £10bn for the 8, last I saw it was an £8bn budget for the 8 ??

Iv seen a few on here surgesting that the T31 or atleast some of them be built to be able to conduct the MCM role, in this situation I just have this worrying concern that if we do that we'll see a drop in the MCM order numbers under the pretext that "well some of the T31s can do it as well "

[Repulse]

The UK cannot afford two complex yards, but can afford a major warship complex (BAE), a couple of minor warship semi-complex (Appledore + 1, perhaps reopening of Portsmouth:)) and a RFA yard (H&W?).

The complex / RFA yards probably needs a minimum of a ship every 2 years, a semi-complex one at one a year to keep viable.

The export potential IMO is in the semi-complex space, unless we are sharing design / system costs. Therefore, for me a combined order including a variation of an evolved River (Avenger design) makes the most sense.

[Repulse]

One opting could be:
- 1 additional ASW T26 (£750mn)
- 3 additional B2 Rivers built in non BAE yards (£350 mn)
- 2 B3 extended Rivers capable of carrying the 2087 TAS for UK waters (£400mn)

[Spinflight]

- one Venator is in build for Columbia; military fitting out for it will be done in the same place that handled the Kiwis' upgrade (in Canada); so the argument is only valid for Spartan

What, really? Actually in build? I saw the proposal/bid, didn't realise a contract was awarded and build programme underway.....

Not in build to the best of my knowledge, though they have won the contract. Can't find the link now but $353m rings a bell.

Which I found remarkably odd. Firstly as the Columbians want between 4 and 8 frigates, secondly the proposal was very well armed indeed and thirdly that it didn't seem to get much attention. It was all Camm, Sea Giraffe, 9SL, 40mm bofors CIWS and mucho gucciness. Which you simply can't buy for $350m.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The UK cannot afford two complex yards, but can afford a major warship complex (BAE), a couple of minor warship semi-complex (Appledore + 1, perhaps reopening of Portsmouth:)) and a RFA yard (H&W?).

- along those lines; I doubt anything new needs to be opened

Can't find the link now but $353m rings a bell.

- thanks
- they are scraping 4 corvettes, have upgraded another 4 (RR business, straight out of Gemany; MTU) to hold the line
- so, this PES is a platform for the future, the price circulated is probably just the build for the first one, and the design cost is "strategic", heh-heh, just like in our EP we hide the items that might look too expensive, and put them under a different category and always at the top of any line charts, so that the crowding out (of other projects) does not become too obvious, but "growth" for those who are looking for it "is there"

9SL

- I wonder what that is? silo launchers? I think on the CMS side 7L is the latest "bees-knees"

[RichardIC]

- one Venator is in build for Columbia; military fitting out for it will be done in the same place that handled the Kiwis' upgrade (in Canada); so the argument is only valid for Spartan

http://www.janes.com/article/68768/saab ... rigate-bid

BMT Only announced they were bidding in March this year. And I can't find any reference to their bid being successful since. I think we're maybe getting ahead of ourselves.