Poiuytrewq wrote:Babcock and BMT have gone very quiet recently, I suspect a lot of work is going on behind the scenes at present working out which of their 2 designs would have the best chance of besting the BAE bid. Leander must be the favourite now. I wonder if something radical and out of the box like a scaled up 120m BMT Venari might give them the edge over Leander?
I think it is simply Camel Laired's promotion time. When Arrowhead 120 design came out, it was Babcockes promotion time. Venator 110, BMT. I think we will just wait. Anyway the next contract award (up to 4 bids) will be shown soon, I understand. Then, again, CL and Babcock's "PR" show will start again.
By the way, if the budget exists for "up to 4" bids for the next step assessment, if it is two bids, then each bid can get more money to make their design more mature?? Or, RN can "re-use" the 50-100M GBP or so budget for something else?
The Korean Daegu class ~ £210M, a benchmark for the T31e? First ship delivered and to be commissioned later this year. What is striking is the Daegu frigate prioritises firepower with is 16 VLS cells for AAW, AShM, ASW and Land attack missiles versus the Arrowhead and Leander designs which use weapons deck for near useless mission bay and the Daegu HED propulsion system enabling sonar sensitivity and fuel economy.
LOA 122m; beam 14m; draught 4.15m; standard displacement 2,800T; full-load displacement 3,600T; max. Speed 30knots; Range 4,500 nm @ 18 knots; Accommodation 120/140; CODLOG
The sophisticated hybrid electric drive propulsion provided by two 120 rpm DRS 1.7 MW shaft mounted bearing-less permanent magnet motors. Shaft mounted motors are much quieter with lower vibration as they eliminate use of the main reduction gearbox to minimize ship generated noise in ASW mode, same design as used in the Type 26. PMMs are more compact than induction motors, one drawback is that PMM use rare earth elements which are sourced from China. Four MTU 12V 4000 M53B 1,650 kW diesel generators provide both the electric power for the motors as well as for the ship hotel/sensors load.
Mechanical propulsion provided by two 1200 rpm MTU 12V 1163 TB83 3600 kW high speed diesels or one MT30GT, 36 to 40 MW dependent on air temperature/density, the hotter it is the less power, for fight or flight.
Weapons
16-cell K-VLS cells, possible load outs
Cheolmae-2, MR-SAM, max. range 40 km-25 miles/altitude 15 km-49,000 ft
Haeseong II VL supersonic; said to be Land Attack and Anti-Ship; operational 2019
Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) ASROC; 19km range
Haegung K-SAAM (4 per cell) PDMS
2 X quad deck launched Haeseong I subsonic anti-ship missile launchers or the new
2 X quad deck launched SL(ant)- Haeseong II supersonic; operational 2016
Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm, 62-calibre naval gun system
2 X 324mm triple-tube Mk-32 launchers for K745 Chung Sang Eo (Blue Shark) torpedoes
1 X RAM Block 1
1 X 20mm Mk-15 Phalanx Block 1B CIWS
1 X AW159 Wildcat or Super Lynx type.
Sensors
SPS-550K - S-band radar
SPG-540K - Fire Control Radar
SQS-240K - HMS
SQR-220KA1 - TAS
SAQ-540K - EOTS
IRST
Tempest414 wrote:Arrowhead 120 states it has a Merlin capable flight deck and hangar for SH-60 NH-90 if type 31 is to be a true export success these should be a base line for this part of the ships capability.
The sales chap seemed to have little idea for how this ship could be used it was almost like you can throw some rubber dinggies in the mission bay past that he ran out of ideas very poor
Arrowhead 120 video also states it has a Merlin capable hanger too.....
NickC wrote:The Korean Daegu class ~ £210M, a benchmark for the T31e?
Weapons
16-cell K-VLS cells, possible load outs
Cheolmae-2, MR-SAM, max. range 40 km-25 miles/altitude 15 km-49,000 ft
Haeseong II VL supersonic; said to be Land Attack and Anti-Ship; operational 2019
Hong Sang Eo (Red Shark) ASROC; 19km range
Haegung K-SAAM (4 per cell) PDMS
2 X quad deck launched Haeseong I subsonic anti-ship missile launchers or the new
2 X quad deck launched SL(ant)- Haeseong II supersonic; operational 2016
Mk 45 Mod 4 127mm, 62-calibre naval gun system
2 X 324mm triple-tube Mk-32 launchers for K745 Chung Sang Eo (Blue Shark) torpedoes
1 X RAM Block 1
1 X 20mm Mk-15 Phalanx Block 1B CIWS
1 X AW159 Wildcat or Super Lynx type.
Sensors
SPS-550K - S-band radar
SPG-540K - Fire Control Radar
SQS-240K - HMS
SQR-220KA1 - TAS
SAQ-540K - EOTS
IRST
I would be happy to see that in Type 26, not to mention Type 31.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
not a bad looking vessel that daegu class v astheticaly pleasing to look at ,they do know how to build cheap good ships and arm them well does s korea ,hats off to them from me anyway
Interesting, politically, ticks the boxes for the distributed modular build. Also helps the "vow" with both modular building and final assembly of blocks in Scotland. Does anyone have access to the text beyond the paywall?
It may be including the design costs which I don't think were part of the 1.25bn. At £400m a hull it might be able to give the FTI a run for its money. Fingers crossed!
Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) is the Maersk company that designs their very successful commercial container ships (the world's largest container shipping company) their expertise will bring vast expertise and latest knowhow built up over many years, they designed the Absalon class support ships and Iver Huitfeldt class frigate.
Very impressed with their design thinking, e.g.with Iver Huitfeldt they created shock proof 'islands' to enable use of commercial equipment at a substantial discount to certified shock proofed equipment to control costs. Passed the NATO standard STANAG 4137 shock test.
May be they will incorporate the use of the Standard Flex Container with their standard interfaces used so successfully in the Danish Navy ships.
Poiuytrewq wrote:UKDJ is reporting today that the contract for the T31 contract is £2bn!
Must be a Typo or am I missing something?
Ma aybe with costs of development? 3 hulls cost for development and 5 for production- 2 bln.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Not sure if this has been posted or discussed here before, but apparently Babcock/BMT have selected the Thales Tacticos CMS for their T31 bid. Is this wise? I suppose at this stage of the bid process they can't really propose to use a competing bidders (i.e.BAE) CMS?
I suspect that you are correct - they have to wait for the customer to dictate the CMS they want to use, but propose a potential sulution inthe meantime
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
It's an interesting point. Can Bae refuse to allow its combat system to be used on a ship built by somebody else? Or maybe more realistically, price such use so high as to be prohibitive (cue unfunny jokes).
dmereifield wrote:Not sure if this has been posted or discussed here before, but apparently Babcock/BMT have selected the Thales Tacticos CMS for their T31 bid. Is this wise? I suppose at this stage of the bid process they can't really propose to use a competing bidders (i.e.BAE) CMS? ...
Arrowhead 120 using TACTICOS has been discussed with me and Shark Bait-san, but may be lost in the active discussion here and there (escort thread). It is one of the two negative points of Arrowhead 120, new design (or based on Heritage class cutter) and CMS.
If adopted (= not forced to use CMS-1 by BAE), one positive (also negative) thing is it will integrate SeaCeptor SAM system into TACTICOS CMS. Because the CMS is very popular in export, this will be good for CAMM export, but Babcock team will need to pay for the integration cost.
Ron5 wrote:It's an interesting point. Can Bae refuse to allow its combat system to be used on a ship built by somebody else? Or maybe more realistically, price such use so high as to be prohibitive (cue unfunny jokes).
Or it is just a win win for BAE winning the contract = a bigger slice of cake and if Babcock win they get a smaller one but they still get one
Assume it may be a major negative in assessment of the BMT ship versus the competing Leander with its BAE CMS. a near standard in RN.
It will require new training of personnel, my understanding will equate to the different CMS's to the various computer OS, Window, MAC and Linux with different programs/apps required, software these days a major cost for maintenance and updates over life of ship. The Halifax class Modernisation/Frigate Life Extension with new equipment, CMS, radar suite, EW, IPMS etc., budgeted at $4.3B, most expensive item was the $2B was for the new LM Canada CMS, the balance split between shipyard $1.2B and other $1.1B
Its the main reason why Type 26 favourite for the Canadian contract, its using the LM Canada CMS, which standard in Canadian Navy, emphasising the importance of the CMS is LM is leading the bidding with BAE as sub.
Similar situation in Australia re. the SEA5000 frigate competition, they have specified that all the competing bidders must use the Saab Australia 9LV CMS, as used in Hobarts etc.
