UK Defence Forum

donald_of_tokyo wrote:There is a narrow "niche", to built a ship which design is from abroad. This is very very narrow niche = impossible. I can find only two examples:

- Irish Navy's OPV, which is Vard-7 design of CTX marine (not a Fincantierri group member).
- Israeli Gal-class submarines, of German design, were built in UK.

Most recently this has happened with Navantia Australia and the Hobart class destroyers where the complete intellectual property and build rights was transferred to give Australia complete sovereign control over the design and any child designs that derive from it. They even set up a company in SE Asia with a view to export the ship to the region. I'm not sure what the arrangement is with T26 and Australia.

https://navantia.com.au/ip-transfer/

In any case, the three contenders for the T31 competition have already passed the first gate with respect to the fundamental aspects of the programme. I think its fair to assume that the matter of transferring design to UK control has already been dealt with (regardless of company) and that we would be talking about child designs here. The US FFG(x) programme is also being run this way.

Commonly done; French Scorpenes built e.g. in Brazil and Pakistan, Malesia is building to the French corvette design, neighbouring Thailand has beefed up our OPV-design to come out somewhat more fighty...

The whole IPR thing is a bit of a red herring (more important in e.g. AFVs where the related products might meet in export markets)

Caribbean wrote:

Repulse wrote:give RNZN a special financial deal on 2 T26s

Who's paying for the "special deal", because someone has to? Two (or three) T31 with cross-decking of existing systems is far more likely. They just spent more on the refits than it would cost to buy a base T31e

I’d say a combination of a low rate finance loan backed by the U.K. government (would boost U.K. ship building) and funding of crew and kit by the RN. Would be cheaper / more effective than sailing ships around the world or having a glorified OPV.

Repulse wrote:I’d say a combination of a low rate finance loan backed by the U.K. government (would boost U.K. ship building) and funding of crew and kit by the RN. Would be cheaper / more effective than sailing ships around the world or having a glorified OPV.

So the UK taxpayer pays for this "special deal" is what you mean? Either directly, or though paying back the money that we borrow to give to New Zealand. The only reason that NZ isn't spending money on their armed forces is political - they have the cash - let them spend it.

Repulse wrote: I’d say a combination of a low rate finance loan backed by the U.K. government (would boost U.K. ship building) and funding of crew and kit by the RN. Would be cheaper / more effective than sailing ships around the world or having a glorified OPV.

Not sure how viable this is. I don't think HMT would go for it. I think a simplified T26 with a reduced core crew allocation would be a better option. In effect a T26e to build on the export success of the full spec T26. A much more capable £350m-£450m T31 would also be a realistic option.

Caribbean wrote:So the UK taxpayer pays for this "special deal" is what you mean? Either directly, or though paying back the money that we borrow to give to New Zealand.

Could that be classed as Foreign Aid

The only reason that NZ isn't spending money on their armed forces is political

Sounds familiar....

...they have the cash - let them spend it.

Maybe we should lead by example?

matt00773 wrote:Most recently this has happened with Navantia Australia and the Hobart class destroyers where the complete intellectual property and build rights was transferred to give Australia complete sovereign control over the design and any child designs that derive from it. They even set up a company in SE Asia with a view to export the ship to the region. I'm not sure what the arrangement is with T26 and Australia.

https://navantia.com.au/ip-transfer/

In any case, the three contenders for the T31 competition have already passed the first gate with respect to the fundamental aspects of the programme. I think its fair to assume that the matter of transferring design to UK control has already been dealt with (regardless of company) and that we would be talking about child designs here. The US FFG(x) programme is also being run this way.

I have no objection. My point is, will you buy Bazan-class FFG from Australia or directly from Navantia? Or, will you buy T26 from Australia or from UK? What is more, in both cases, it is highly possible the nation will build it in their own shipyards (as Australia and Canada does).

I am not saying it (exporting a complex ship of foreign design, built in UK shipyards) cannot happen, but saying the niche is very very narrow. (My further comment may be on escort thread, not here).

Poiuytrewq wrote:Not sure how viable this is. I don't think HMT would go for it. I think a simplified T26 with a reduced core crew allocation would be a better option. In effect a T26e to build on the export success of the full spec T26. A much more capable £350m-£450m T31 would also be a realistic option.

To take this and my post about the NSS on a bit the way I see it is if the UK got its act together around 3 yards all working to a 2 year drum beat with a agreed some of money work something like this

BAE Yard Govan Scotland = type 26 program 1 ship every 2 years at 450 million per year = 900 million per ship followed by next tier 1 ships
Babcocks yard Rosyth = 2 SSS followed by 4 200 meter Enforcer LPDs 1 ship every 2 years at 200 million per year = 400 million per ship
Cammell Liard Liverpool = type 31 program 1 ship every 2 years at 175 million per year = 350 per ship followed by the MHPC program

By building on a 2 year drum beat export ships ca be fitted between UK ships

Repulse wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Only exception will be RNZN, which has no ship-building industry (they lost), and still looking for two frigates. But, only one candidate. And it is only a candidat

A better move would be to give RNZN a special financial deal on 2 T26s, forward base another RN T26 there and jointly man - this would be a good base for a Far East presence...

Could UK get the same "special deal" with the BAE pleeeease?

abc123 wrote: Could UK get the same "special deal" with the BAE pleeeease?

Maybe if we commit to a 10-12 order for the RN + 2 RNZN we might get a better deal... BAE is a business after all...

I wonder if building 10 T26 and then selling on ships 1 & 2, after 10 years of use, to NZ (or someone else, Brazil?) would be economically viable. Few countries that can afford a brand new T26 will not want to build them themselves, the second hand market might be more lucrative?

It would be interesting to know what the business case or plan is for export of this vessel type.

If your looking to sell anything you would go to countries/people who have bought from you before and ask are you looking something new what would you like. In simply terms I would look at countries who have in the past bought type 22 and 23s from use. What would they like type 26? Maybe too expensive, 2nd hand type 23 or a type 31e. The question there might be is a second hand type 23 cheaper than a type 31 and which is the better vessel.

It is clear T23 will be cheaper to buy and in many ways is a better ship than T31 but how much will cost to keep it going and how longer will it be supported are the other maybe more important questions.

This is why I say before we can look to export we need our own house in order for NSS to work it needs to be in two parts first re-enforce UK ship building around 3 yards as I have put forward above and then approach Navys who we have sold to before as you say and ask what they want

Once again I see that this supposedly 'News Only' thread, has deteriorated into one of personel views and pure speculation. Seems like the mod is wasting his time.

Repulse wrote:

abc123 wrote: Could UK get the same "special deal" with the BAE pleeeease?

Maybe if we commit to a 10-12 order for the RN + 2 RNZN we might get a better deal... BAE is a business after all...

Yep, so the BAE will NOT fund discount for New Zealand. UK may do that, but I think that HMG has better ways to spend that money, like say buying another Type 26.

TKMS wins Royal Navy’s Type 31e frigates design contract

As part of the tender process for the introduction of the new Type 31e frigate generation, thyssenkrupp Marine Systems is one of the selected suppliers in the final design and offer phase in a consortium led by ATLAS ELEKTRONIK UK including ATLAS ELEKTRONIK GmbH and with British shipyards Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine Engineering. This was announced by the Royal Navy in London in December 2018.

https://www.navalnews.com/news/2019/01/ ... -contract/

Am not certain from the article's wording Xav. Is this just a re-report that TKMS has "won a place" as one of the finalists alongside Leander and Arrowhead on the starting design aspect, or is this saying that TKMS has actually won the whole program and will be the one who makes the ships?

It's a little vague, sorry.

xav wrote: tender process for the introduction of the new Type 31e frigate generation, thyssenkrupp Marine Systems is one of the selected suppliers in the final design and offer phase

It is just the grammar. As we all know

xav wrote: a consortium led by ATLAS ELEKTRONIK UK

is a bit of an optical illusion as the UK entity is hardly a "shipbuilder or another BMT", BUT the consortium has a UK lead AND it can profess design expertise "in the complex warships" domain.

So, they have a place, in a consortium, that was one of the winners for this phase (entering... let's check our bets on exit )

RetroSicotte wrote:Am not certain from the article's wording Xav. Is this just a re-report that TKMS has "won a place" as one of the finalists alongside Leander and Arrowhead on the starting design aspect, or is this saying that TKMS has actually won the whole program and will be the one who makes the ships?

It's a little vague, sorry.

Simply put the first paragraph is just a repetition from december 2018, telling us that they have been selected as one of the three contenders for the contract.

The rest of the article is confirming that they have now reached their decisive design phase, and that their offering will be based on the MEKO A-200.

jonas wrote:and that their offering will be based on the MEKO A-200

Its a pity Babcock won't confirm that their design is still based on the Arrowhead 140, not the Arrowhead 120.

Lots of speculation, but have Babcock actually confirmed it since the T31 programme was restarted?

Sorry about the so-so wording guys, you are not the only one to wonder what the message is exactly...

This was the source:
https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/newsro ... -navy.html

Indeed it is them, confirming that they have been selected alongside the two other teams...

Poiuytrewq wrote:

jonas wrote:and that their offering will be based on the MEKO A-200

Its a pity Babcock won't confirm that their design is still based on the Arrowhead 140, not the Arrowhead 120.

Lots of speculation, but have Babcock actually confirmed it since the T31 programme was restarted?

Thales, Babcock's partner, has.

Ron5 wrote:

Poiuytrewq wrote:

jonas wrote:and that their offering will be based on the MEKO A-200

Its a pity Babcock won't confirm that their design is still based on the Arrowhead 140, not the Arrowhead 120.

Lots of speculation, but have Babcock actually confirmed it since the T31 programme was restarted?

Thales, Babcock's partner, has.

Well here's still hoping, to my mind for a forward based 'stand alone' both Leander and the Meko are just too small . Question is if Babcock/Thales are still in the game whose yard are they going to use, thought they were teaming up with Harland & Wolfe and Ferguson but now seems theyve both been gobbled up by the Meko team ?

Pongoglo wrote:...to my mind for a forward based 'stand alone' both Leander and the Meko are just too small

Agreed.

Pongoglo wrote:Question is if Babcock/Thales are still in the game whose yard are they going to use, thought they were teaming up with Harland & Wolfe and Ferguson but now seems theyve both been gobbled up by the Meko team ?

I don't think it's a problem as long as Babcock still has a lead yard for final assembly which of course it has with Rosyth.

The rest of the yards currently affiliated to other bids could still bid for blocks when the winner is announced. I suspect the management of the competing yards won't care who wins as long as they get a slice of the action in the end.

Poiuytrewq wrote:The rest of the yards currently affiliated to other bids could still bid for blocks when the winner is announced

That's the whole idea. Block build in a dispersed fashion in itself will raise costs, but the concurrency (effective scheduling of trades) and the learning effect (productivity) will far outweigh that factor.
- the crux of the matter is the borderline between pre-fitting out and the final military fitting out; to get that right
... to be continued on the NSS thread when we get something to mull over

Poiuytrewq wrote:

Pongoglo wrote:...to my mind for a forward based 'stand alone' both Leander and the Meko are just too small

Agreed.

Pongoglo wrote:Question is if Babcock/Thales are still in the game whose yard are they going to use, thought they were teaming up with Harland & Wolfe and Ferguson but now seems theyve both been gobbled up by the Meko team ?

I don't think it's a problem as long as Babcock still has a lead yard for final assembly which of course it has with Rosyth.

The rest of the yards currently affiliated to other bids could still bid for blocks when the winner is announced. I suspect the management of the competing yards won't care who wins as long as they get a slice of the action in the end.

Even Camell Laird ? Of course the pro Leander lobby will still argue that the RFI stated 4,000 ton so that's what the RN want, funny old thing not what you hear when propping up the Wardroom bar ! In any case there's a massive difference between 4,000 ton 'light' and 4,000 ton FLD , and at 3,600 FLD both Leander and the Meko are even smaller than that. To my mind one good thing ( and not the only) about the Meko bid is that it puts rest to the claim that Leander have it in the bag because theirs is the only true UK design, intellectual rights blah blah blah etc, perhaps now 'Team Meko' are on the pitch we might just have a level playing field once again?