UK Defence Forum

Jdam wrote:

Jensy wrote:
The only supplier on that list who actually manufacture in the UK are Darchem.

Not a good look for the program is it.

Who else should we buy the engines from? There is no UK equivalent (except possibly the German owned VP185 from ex Paxman Colchester). At least MTU is owned by Rolls Royce and profits/tax should accrue to the UK.

Doubt it, the contract will be with MTU in Germany not Rolls Royce UK, so the taxes etc will remain there. This situation will be repeated time after time, unless of course the Government want to invest public money in UK engineering and manufacturing in a sustained and meaningful manner over a considerable period of time, and we would be talking £Bns here.

Then again there is a reason the T-31e is cheap, imagine the cost if it was stipulated that say 80% had to be manufactured as well as assembled un the UK?

Lord Jim wrote:Doubt it, the contract will be with MTU in Germany not Rolls Royce UK, so the taxes etc will remain there. This situation will be repeated time after time, unless of course the Government want to invest public money in UK engineering and manufacturing in a sustained and meaningful manner over a considerable period of time, and we would be talking £Bns here.

Then again there is a reason the T-31e is cheap, imagine the cost if it was stipulated that say 80% had to be manufactured as well as assembled un the UK?

Rolls Royce UK are the ultimate owners of MTU so some of the profit will accrue to the UK business and will therefore produce some Tax and some dividend for UK pension funds. It won't be as much benefit as if they were built in the UK but there will be some.

I'm not sure why you criticise just the T31. As the T26 will also use German MTUs and Norwegian shafts and propellers. Not to mention the German MTUs being fitted to the T23s and T45s. And not forgetting the German MAN diesels (descended from English Electric) fitted to the Batch 2 Rivers.

tomuk wrote:

Lord Jim wrote:Doubt it, the contract will be with MTU in Germany not Rolls Royce UK, so the taxes etc will remain there. This situation will be repeated time after time, unless of course the Government want to invest public money in UK engineering and manufacturing in a sustained and meaningful manner over a considerable period of time, and we would be talking £Bns here.

Then again there is a reason the T-31e is cheap, imagine the cost if it was stipulated that say 80% had to be manufactured as well as assembled un the UK?

Rolls Royce UK are the ultimate owners of MTU so some of the profit will accrue to the UK business and will therefore produce some Tax and some dividend for UK pension funds. It won't be as much benefit as if they were built in the UK but there will be some.

I'm not sure why you criticise just the T31. As the T26 will also use German MTUs and Norwegian shafts and propellers. Not to mention the German MTUs being fitted to the T23s and T45s. And not forgetting the German MAN diesels (descended from English Electric) fitted to the Batch 2 Rivers.

Well, considering that MTU is pretty much a gold standard in modern escort ships...

The recent Babcock announcement of contract awards signals that they are diverging from the Iver Huitfeldt propulsion spec, IH class features 4 x MTU 20V Series 8000 M70 (M71) @ 8,200 kW each (100% MCR), 32,800 kW, and four Caterpillar DG's, two 3512B gensets rated to 1,360 eKw 60 Hz @ 1,800 rpm and two 3508B gensets rated to 910 eKw 60 Hz @ 1,800 rpm, whereas T31 MTU order for is for both MTU MDE's and DG's.

No mention made in Babcock PR of MTU engine series chosen, the premium 8000 series, V20 @ 49.6t each, as used in the IH class, or the cheaper 1163 series V20 @ 25t each as used by the USCG Legend class NSC fitted with two 7,400 kW 20V 1163 and a history of numerous cracked cylinder heads even with the re-designed head and problems in operating in high water temperatures forcing ship to reduce speed, shades of T45, whether problems ever sorted don't know.

NickC wrote:The recent Babcock announcement of contract awards signals that they are diverging from the Iver Huitfeldt propulsion spec, IH class features 4 x MTU 20V Series 8000 M70 (M71) @ 8,200 kW each (100% MCR), 32,800 kW, and four Caterpillar DG's, two 3512B gensets rated to 1,360 eKw 60 Hz @ 1,800 rpm and two 3508B gensets rated to 910 eKw 60 Hz @ 1,800 rpm, whereas T31 MTU order for is for both MTU MDE's and DG's.

No mention made in Babcock PR of MTU engine series chosen, the premium 8000 series, V20 @ 49.6t each, as used in the IH class, or the cheaper 1163 series V20 @ 25t each as used by the USCG Legend class NSC fitted with two 7,400 kW 20V 1163 and a history of numerous cracked cylinder heads even with the re-designed head and problems in operating in high water temperatures forcing ship to reduce speed, shades of T45, whether problems ever sorted don't know.

Why are we looking for conspiracies As Babcock have already said, and is only logical, they have reviewed the Iver Huitfelt equipment and updated them to the latest spec. i.e The MTU 20V 8000 M71 is the current updated model.

I would be highly surprised if they went with the MTU 1163 as it is a completely different engine and would require revised mounts and changes to props/gearboxes as it runs at higher revs. It would be a costly redesign. It would also be 40% down on power compared to MTU 8000 installation.

Regarding the change from CAT to MTU DGs these are a lot more interchangeable and it probably makes more sense from a support perspective to use the same Manufacturer for Main and Aux power and also have commonality with T23/26/45 etc.

tomuk wrote:

NickC wrote:The recent Babcock announcement of contract awards signals that they are diverging from the Iver Huitfeldt propulsion spec, IH class features 4 x MTU 20V Series 8000 M70 (M71) @ 8,200 kW each (100% MCR), 32,800 kW, and four Caterpillar DG's, two 3512B gensets rated to 1,360 eKw 60 Hz @ 1,800 rpm and two 3508B gensets rated to 910 eKw 60 Hz @ 1,800 rpm, whereas T31 MTU order for is for both MTU MDE's and DG's.

No mention made in Babcock PR of MTU engine series chosen, the premium 8000 series, V20 @ 49.6t each, as used in the IH class, or the cheaper 1163 series V20 @ 25t each as used by the USCG Legend class NSC fitted with two 7,400 kW 20V 1163 and a history of numerous cracked cylinder heads even with the re-designed head and problems in operating in high water temperatures forcing ship to reduce speed, shades of T45, whether problems ever sorted don't know.

Why are we looking for conspiracies As Babcock have already said, and is only logical, they have reviewed the Iver Huitfelt equipment and updated them to the latest spec. i.e The MTU 20V 8000 M71 is the current updated model.

I would be highly surprised if they went with the MTU 1163 as it is a completely different engine and would require revised mounts and changes to props/gearboxes as it runs at higher revs. It would be a costly redesign. It would also be 40% down on power compared to MTU 8000 installation.

Regarding the change from CAT to MTU DGs these are a lot more interchangeable and it probably makes more sense from a support perspective to use the same Manufacturer for Main and Aux power and also have commonality with T23/26/45 etc.

Was not thinking of a conspiracy but if, a big if, Babcock were having to cut costs to meet the very tight £250 million target price that would have been one option open to them to replace the 8000 MDE with the 1163, also to be remembered that T31 will be approx 1,000t lighter ship than IH.

Puzzled by by your comment that power would be down by 40% with the 1163, 8000 M71 @ 8,200kW vs 1163 M94 @ 7,400kW, that's only ~10%. Re higher rpm, 1,325 vs 1150 would have thought would be no problem for RENK to change the gear ratios, sure they offer various options and lastly thought engine mount change would not be a costly change?

Final thought much prefer Babcock sticking with the 8000 but can see cost pressures pushing them to the 1163, as yet have not seen no PR from RR-MTU re Babcocks order and details of MDE's and DG's and wonder why, they are usually very quick.

BusinessLive report on T31 contracts Babcock placed recently

"MTU, delivering the main engines and diesel generators for the frigates. These will be manufactured in Germany // It has also been announced that German manufacturer Renk will provide the main reduction gearboxes, and Germany-headquartered MAN Energy Solutions will supply the propellers and propeller shaft lines. // Denmark’s Blunox is contracted to supply the exhaust environmental equipment that significantly reduces emissions from the main engines and diesel generators. // Combined with the subcontract placed with Darchem Engineering Ltd, based in Stockton-on-Tees, this will supply the intake and exhaust systems for the main engines and generators, rounding out the key propulsion system subcontracts. // The chilled water plant subcontract is going to Novenco AS, a Scandinavian firm [Oslo - Norway], to provide critical system capability for the HVAC (heating, ventilation and air-conditioning) system."

From <https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufac ... s-18157074>

Have to wonder, what exactly on this ship is even British other than the CAMM silos?

I suppose that is what you get when you fix the price and the capability demands, the contractor has to find the most affordable components where ever they may be sourced from. Wasn't the criteria to build the ship in the UK with little or no mention of where the parts came from except the GFE?

Does anyone know when the names for the Type 31s are likely to be announced?

Magpie64 wrote:Does anyone know when the names for the Type 31s are likely to be announced?

Hopefully the back end of this year

RetroSicotte wrote:Have to wonder, what exactly on this ship is even British other than the CAMM silos?

But, we shall also do the same "wondering" for T26, as well.
- British = construction, hull-design, CMS, GT, Gear-box, motor, CAMM and its tubes, SeaCentor anti-torpedo decoy system, hull-sonar, 3D radar, 30mm gun, ESM/ECM, EO site, decoy launcher ...
- import = Diesel gen, 5inch gun and its robotic arsenal, Mk.41 VLS, 20mm CIWS, nav-radar, mission-bay's crane,
- international/including UK = CAPTAS-4,

# of course not complete, sorry

In case of T31, it looks like
- British = construction, CAMM and its tubes ...
- import = hull-design, CMS, Diesel gen, 57mm-gun, 40mm guns, 3D radar, ESM/ECM, nav-radar, EO site

Hmm. Yes I agree it is un-impressive...

RetroSicotte wrote:Have to wonder, what exactly on this ship is even British other than the CAMM silos?

I'm having real trouble thinking of anything apart from the sweat of Scottish metal workers. Such is the product of Geo Osborne's National Shipbuilding Strategy aka "Anyone but Bae".

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

RetroSicotte wrote:Have to wonder, what exactly on this ship is even British other than the CAMM silos?

But, we shall also do the same "wondering" for T26, as well.
- British = construction, hull-design, CMS, GT, Gear-box, motor, CAMM and its tubes, SeaCentor anti-torpedo decoy system, hull-sonar, 3D radar, 30mm gun, ESM/ECM, EO site, decoy launcher ...
- import = Diesel gen, 5inch gun and its robotic arsenal, Mk.41 VLS, 20mm CIWS, nav-radar, mission-bay's crane,
- international/including UK = CAPTAS-4,

# of course not complete, sorry

In case of T31, it looks like
- British = construction, CAMM and its tubes ...
- import = hull-design, CMS, Diesel gen, 57mm-gun, 40mm guns, 3D radar, ESM/ECM, nav-radar, EO site

Hmm. Yes I agree it is un-impressive...

I thought the T26 navigation radars will be Kelvin Hughes Sharpeye which is UK?

Tempest414 wrote:

Magpie64 wrote:Does anyone know when the names for the Type 31s are likely to be announced?

Hopefully the back end of this year

Weapons would be nice: Battleaxe, Arrow, Broadsword, Dagger, Longbow

or battles: Armada, Jutland, Falklands, Taranto, Trafalgar

or statesmen/women: Churchill, Thatcher, Wellington, Pitt, Boris

Ron5 wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:

Magpie64 wrote:Does anyone know when the names for the Type 31s are likely to be announced?

Hopefully the back end of this year

Weapons would be nice: Battleaxe, Arrow, Broadsword, Dagger, Longbow

or battles: Armada, Jutland, Falklands, Taranto, Trafalgar

or statesmen/women: Churchill, Thatcher, Wellington, Pitt, Boris

I like the old Type 41 frigate 'cat' names Leopard, Lynx, Puma and Jaguar and possibly the fifth Lion or Tiger? But I've got a suspicion the Leander names may be revived.

Ron5 wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:

Magpie64 wrote:Does anyone know when the names for the Type 31s are likely to be announced?

Hopefully the back end of this year

Weapons would be nice: Battleaxe, Arrow, Broadsword, Dagger, Longbow

Would get my vote

Magpie64 wrote:I like the old Type 41 frigate 'cat' names Leopard, Lynx, Puma and Jaguar and possibly the fifth Lion or Tiger? But I've got a suspicion the Leander names may be revived.

This is totally not news, but I'm both bored and exhausted in equal part (working at home for six weeks). But I reckon zero chance of Leander names. Only mythological name left is Argus and she's nearly 100 years old.

I'm going for F-class (tsk). And I've got preferences for the others, but I want number one to be Fearless.

Ron5 wrote:or battles: Armada, Jutland, Falklands, Taranto, Trafalgar

a nice one as the only "F" on the list is the only one that will not piss one or the other NATO partner off
... and the others would be? Falklands and Fearless would go nicely together

Can't call them after weapons. That'd imply it can be used in a fight.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

Ron5 wrote:or battles: Armada, Jutland, Falklands, Taranto, Trafalgar

a nice one as the only "F" on the list is the only one that will not piss one or the other NATO partner off
... and the others would be? Falklands and Fearless would go nicely together

They weren't random choices

Or perhaps name them after the WW2 Castle class ,plenty of castles to name them after .

RichardIC wrote:

Magpie64 wrote:I like the old Type 41 frigate 'cat' names Leopard, Lynx, Puma and Jaguar and possibly the fifth Lion or Tiger? But I've got a suspicion the Leander names may be revived.

This is totally not news, but I'm both bored and exhausted in equal part (working at home for six weeks). But I reckon zero chance of Leander names. Only mythological name left is Argus and she's nearly 100 years old.

.

Argus and Agamemnon.

abc123 wrote:Argus

Has been popular across the three services... don't know it that is a plus?

Achilles would not sound too good, either