Leander?Lord Jim wrote:Which platform is CL planning to use to bid for the T-31e?
https://www.leanderfrigate.com
Leander?Lord Jim wrote:Which platform is CL planning to use to bid for the T-31e?
What happens is Arrowhead 140 is chosen but the RN want BEA CMS-1, can they make a stipulation of the win and force Team T31 to incorporate it. Would Team T31 walk away ?Aethulwulf wrote:Its clear that Team 31 are strongly pushing Tacticos for Arrowhead 140 not just because Thales want to sell more of their combat system, but they also think Tacticos is better than the CMS being offered by the two rival bids and could give them the winning edge.
Will not happen. RN does not 'want' CMS-1.Jake1992 wrote:What happens is Arrowhead 140 is chosen but the RN want BEA CMS-1, can they make a stipulation of the win and force Team T31 to incorporate it. Would Team T31 walk away ?Aethulwulf wrote:Its clear that Team 31 are strongly pushing Tacticos for Arrowhead 140 not just because Thales want to sell more of their combat system, but they also think Tacticos is better than the CMS being offered by the two rival bids and could give them the winning edge.
So the RN have spent years setting in place to have CMS-1 accrosd the whole fleet from OPV to carriers yet now decide they don’t want it ?Aethulwulf wrote:Will not happen. RN does not 'want' CMS-1.Jake1992 wrote:What happens is Arrowhead 140 is chosen but the RN want BEA CMS-1, can they make a stipulation of the win and force Team T31 to incorporate it. Would Team T31 walk away ?Aethulwulf wrote:Its clear that Team 31 are strongly pushing Tacticos for Arrowhead 140 not just because Thales want to sell more of their combat system, but they also think Tacticos is better than the CMS being offered by the two rival bids and could give them the winning edge.
If it did, it would have mandated it as a requirement. It didn't.
The three bids will be subject to hard analysis to determine how they meet a range of combat requirements. The combat management system, and how well it performs, will be part of this analysis.
It also means that weapons integration does not cost extra and any risk in it is carried by the bidder.Aethulwulf wrote:That means leaving the choice of the combat management system (and associated costs) down to the bidders.
Going to make a somewhat shocking statement here and say that having a "single" CMS fleet-wide does not prevent rather serious training and supply headaches. Look no further than Aegis.Jake1992 wrote:To me I don’t understand why the RN would want to introduce an new CMS, no matter what way you cut it a new CMS would require extra training and no matter how larger the customer base it would require a new maintance line with all the cost that this creates.
I can’t see why the RN wouldn’t say in the end we like design B but we want this CMS so make it it work.
The point is, the timing of "in the end" was passed a year ago, when the competitive design phase (CDP) has started. Final decision has already been done.Jake1992 wrote:To me I don’t understand why the RN would want to introduce an new CMS, no matter what way you cut it a new CMS would require extra training and no matter how larger the customer base it would require a new maintance line with all the cost that this creates.
I can’t see why the RN wouldn’t say in the end we like design B but we want this CMS so make it it work.
and in our use, the 'singleton' to be sent to various ad hoc naval task forcesHalidon wrote:nothing to sneeze at. Particularly for 31e, which is envisioned to be an export darling
It’s subtle, but this from yesterday’s Hansard is possibly slightly less absolutist on the question of price. We’ll now be a the stage where potential bidders are talking detailed specs and brass tacks with MoD. And whatever answers they give to one bidder they need to share with the others to keep competition fair.Mr Paul Sweeney: [240633] To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the outturn budget for the Type 31e
programme is maintained at £1.25 billion for five ships.
Stuart Andrew:
As announced in the National Shipbuilding Strategy, we want five ships at an average price of £250 million per ship. In common with all procurement projects the overall Type 31e programme cost will be determined at the main investment decision point.
No they don't. In fact, they shouldn't.RichardIC wrote:And whatever answers they give to one bidder they need to share with the others to keep competition fair.
I'm not a corporate lawyer and complex warships aren't covered by ECJ rules. But I'd have thought that if you refine the process or provide a clarification to one bidder without providing the same consideration to others you'd be lining yourself up for a legal challenge.Ron5 wrote:No they don't. In fact, they shouldn't.
And you're not a corporate lawyer either.Ron5 wrote:If Bae/CL ask "may we remove, refurbish, re-warrant CMS, Artisan and CAMM from the T23's at our expense? and then re-install on the Type 31?" and the MoD says yes, why should that be revealed to Babcocks?
If Babcocks asks "may we built the T31 blocks in low cost Romania before shipping to Rosyth for fit out?" and the MoD says yes, why should that be revealed to Bae/CL?
I could think of a hundred and more questions that deserve confidential answers.
Competitive design contracts have only been awarded to those who credibly hit the bare-minimum RFI "design"RichardIC wrote: possibly slightly less absolutist on the question of price. We’ll now be a the stage where potential bidders are talking detailed specs
To be fair, right from the start, their have been hints that more money might be available if industry could show good reason why they couldn't meet the price point. I've always seen the £250m as a "challenge price" to see what can realistically be achieved.RichardIC wrote:It’s subtle, but this from yesterday’s Hansard is possibly slightly less absolutist on the question of price.
I'm sure he bidders will be presenting a range of options when they present their bids: for £250 million you get T31 of spec X, if you want spec Y it will cost £xxx million, spec Z will cost £xxxCaribbean wrote:To be fair, right from the start, their have been hints that more money might be available if industry could show good reason why they couldn't meet the price point. I've always seen the £250m as a "challenge price" to see what can realistically be achieved.RichardIC wrote:It’s subtle, but this from yesterday’s Hansard is possibly slightly less absolutist on the question of price.