Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

What will be the result of the 'Lighter Frigate' programme?

Programme cancelled, RN down to 14 escorts
52
10%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
14
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
127
25%
An LCS-like modular ship
22
4%
A modernised Type 23
24
5%
A Type 26-lite
71
14%
Less than 5 hulls
22
4%
5 hulls
71
14%
More than 5 hulls
103
20%
 
Total votes: 506

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:I've been out of town and just got back yesterday and sorting through a stack of mail to find the latest copy of Warship World.

It contains a nice article by by Richard Scott on the Type 31 and, given the publishing date of the magazine, was written soon after the contract was announced. Anyhow a couple or three points in the article caught my eye and may be of interest here:
Thanks a lot! Interesting info.
Sea Ceptor is referred to as GFX (government supplied equipment) and so its cost is not included in the 1.25 billion award to Babcocks and probably means that they are being reclaimed from decommed Type 23's. I wonder if one Type 23 will supply missiles, launchers & equipment for two Type 31's?

Guns are no surprise, Bae 57mm and two Bae 40mm which are all capable of Bofors smart 3P ammo.

Hangar can accept Wildcat or Merlin, no surprise there, but flight deck is being strengthened to take up a Chinook or CH-53.

Lastly, overall budget is 1.98 billion pounds. 1.25 billion for Babcock's and the rest for work to achieve entry into service (logs, training, initial support, spares), GFX, steady state training, and completion of capability trials.
So it is true, T31 required 480M GBP in addition to the 1.5B GBP originally prepared. Actually, I am sad here. The 480M GBP should have been used for T45 and T26. Babcock could not build the 5 frigates as placed in the brochure within 1.25B GBP, confirmed. No surprise. Even the current 2B GBP cost looks challenging.

But, the original claim was wrong (as expected) = 5 GP frigate with only 1.25B GBP. If it was stated 2B GBP from the beginning, did RN/MOD/we proceeded with the program? I guess, if it is 2B GBP, 2 more T26 and many up-arming options executed among the "10" T26 fleet, and partly on River B2, should have been there. (Or even 3 more T26s, if the learning curve and speed-up works well).

Here, I am comparing;
- 2 more T26 (and all 10 hulls up-armed)
- 3 corvette-level River B2 (a 57gun and 8 NSMs, 2x 30mm with LMM, and of course with UAV)
- supported by 2 EEZ-level-River B2 and 3 River B1,
VS
- 5 T31 (with a 57mm gun, 2 40mm gun, 12 or 24 CAMM, and a helo)
- 5 EEZ-level-River B2 and 3 EEZ River B1.
dmereifield wrote:Very interesting. Thanks. Still some questions about whether it will have a hull mounted sonar or not, and if they will receive ASM later in life (perhaps the 5 interim sets might be handed down after the T23's retire). On the Floreal point, the T31 will be large enough to receive significant upgrades should the RN decide that they need to have more teeth
I'm not interested in up arming T31. I am more interested in up arming T45 and T26, before spending any penny on T31. (sort just a personal feeling...)

clinch
Member
Posts: 95
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by clinch »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I've been out of town and just got back yesterday and sorting through a stack of mail to find the latest copy of Warship World.

It contains a nice article by by Richard Scott on the Type 31 and, given the publishing date of the magazine, was written soon after the contract was announced. Anyhow a couple or three points in the article caught my eye and may be of interest here:
Thanks a lot! Interesting info.
Sea Ceptor is referred to as GFX (government supplied equipment) and so its cost is not included in the 1.25 billion award to Babcocks and probably means that they are being reclaimed from decommed Type 23's. I wonder if one Type 23 will supply missiles, launchers & equipment for two Type 31's?

Guns are no surprise, Bae 57mm and two Bae 40mm which are all capable of Bofors smart 3P ammo.

Hangar can accept Wildcat or Merlin, no surprise there, but flight deck is being strengthened to take up a Chinook or CH-53.

Lastly, overall budget is 1.98 billion pounds. 1.25 billion for Babcock's and the rest for work to achieve entry into service (logs, training, initial support, spares), GFX, steady state training, and completion of capability trials.
So it is true, T31 required 480M GBP in addition to the 1.5B GBP originally prepared. Actually, I am sad here. The 480M GBP should have been used for T45 and T26. Babcock could not build the 5 frigates as placed in the brochure within 1.25B GBP, confirmed. No surprise. Even the current 2B GBP cost looks challenging.

But, the original claim was wrong (as expected) = 5 GP frigate with only 1.25B GBP. If it was stated 2B GBP from the beginning, did RN/MOD/we proceeded with the program? I guess, if it is 2B GBP, 2 more T26 and many up-arming options executed among the "10" T26 fleet, and partly on River B2, should have been there. (Or even 3 more T26s, if the learning curve and speed-up works well).

Here, I am comparing;
- 2 more T26 (and all 10 hulls up-armed)
- 3 corvette-level River B2 (a 57gun and 8 NSMs, 2x 30mm with LMM, and of course with UAV)
- supported by 2 EEZ-level-River B2 and 3 River B1,
VS
- 5 T31 (with a 57mm gun, 2 40mm gun, 12 or 24 CAMM, and a helo)
- 5 EEZ-level-River B2 and 3 EEZ River B1.
dmereifield wrote:Very interesting. Thanks. Still some questions about whether it will have a hull mounted sonar or not, and if they will receive ASM later in life (perhaps the 5 interim sets might be handed down after the T23's retire). On the Floreal point, the T31 will be large enough to receive significant upgrades should the RN decide that they need to have more teeth
I'm not interested in up arming T31. I am more interested in up arming T45 and T26, before spending any penny on T31. (sort just a personal feeling...)
As far as I remember, BAe said they would build 9 T26 for the price of eight if the Government committed to the full buy. The £2 billion cost of T31 would have bought at least 2 more T26, taking the T26 fleet to 11. With the increased OPV fleet to cover constabulary duties, 17 proper escorts could have been the better way to go.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:more interested in up arming T45 and T26, before spending any penny on T31
Agree with the sentiment, but this bit in particular - anyone who is dreaming that by adding a few more missiles or sensors on the T31 will make it a frigate capable of roles towards the T26 or T31 must stop now. The T31 at best, if thought through properly, will be a MHC mothership that is capable of operating under cover of a CSG, and a day to day patrol ship.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Scimitar54 »

What do you mean, a T31 is not going to be capable of roles towards the T31? How many have you had? :mrgreen:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:In addition space has been designed 'in' from maintainability POV; consider it 'on the go' as opposed to looking for somewhere where is is convenient to strip things down, put them back again... and then continue Ops, a few weeks later
- v convenient if forward based
Yes, the article made the point that one of the rationalizations for the larger size is the supposed easier ability to support remotely. Personally, I think that's a crock but whatever. The ship is bigger because that's the only design Babcock's could lay their hands on.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote:Very interesting. Thanks. Still some questions about whether it will have a hull mounted sonar or not, and if they will receive ASM later in life (perhaps the 5 interim sets might be handed down after the T23's retire). On the Floreal point, the T31 will be large enough to receive significant upgrades should the RN decide that they need to have more teeth
If there's no money or convincing argument for upgrades now, when they are cheaper to fit, why would there be money or convincing arguments at a later date?

The article ends with a paragraph saying how Bacock's & Thales are pursuing export opportunities with vigor but, of course, every other country would want an upgraded equipment fit e.g. a 32 cell Mk 41 strike length VLS for which there is space amidships.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:In addition space has been designed 'in' from maintainability POV; consider it 'on the go' as opposed to looking for somewhere where is is convenient to strip things down, put them back again... and then continue Ops, a few weeks later
- v convenient if forward based
Yes, the article made the point that one of the rationalizations for the larger size is the supposed easier ability to support remotely. Personally, I think that's a crock but whatever. The ship is bigger because that's the only design Babcock's could lay their hands on.
I understand the same. The ship is large, because it is made easy to maintain. In other words, it does NOT have many open space to be filled later, because many of the space has been already used to make it easier to maintain.

But, this is true only if it is iver huitfeldt frigates. In T31 case, however, because the armament is SO sparse, there are still some place for future growth.

However, RN do not have resource to do it. Now with SDSR2020 happening in "5% cuts everywhere" circumstances, RN is struggling to save themselves from further cuts, I'm afraid.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

clinch wrote:As far as I remember, BAe said they would build 9 T26 for the price of eight if the Government committed to the full buy. The £2 billion cost of T31 would have bought at least 2 more T26, taking the T26 fleet to 11. With the increased OPV fleet to cover constabulary duties, 17 proper escorts could have been the better way to go.
I'd bet a considerable amount that if you asked Bae to tack 3 extra Type 26 to the next contract for 5 (making a total class of 11) and gave them the freedom to schedule the entire contract, they would be happy to do it for an extra 2 billion (the cost of the Type 31 class).

Not going to happen now but IMHO this class will go down as yet another RN mistake and future historians and forums will wonder how seemingly bright folk allowed it to happen.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Scimitar54 wrote:What do you mean, a T31 is not going to be capable of roles towards the T31? How many have you had? :mrgreen:
The Type 31 as described will have the ability to barely defend a small patch of water, from above surface threats, which wouldn't need defending if the Type 31 wasn't there.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:In addition space has been designed 'in' from maintainability POV; consider it 'on the go' as opposed to looking for somewhere where is is convenient to strip things down, put them back again... and then continue Ops, a few weeks later
- v convenient if forward based
Yes, the article made the point that one of the rationalizations for the larger size is the supposed easier ability to support remotely. Personally, I think that's a crock but whatever. The ship is bigger because that's the only design Babcock's could lay their hands on.
I understand the same. The ship is large, because it is made easy to maintain. In other words, it does NOT have many open space to be filled later, because many of the space has been already used to make it easier to maintain.

But, this is true only if it is iver huitfeldt frigates. In T31 case, however, because the armament is SO sparse, there are still some place for future growth.

However, RN do not have resource to do it. Now with SDSR2020 happening in "5% cuts everywhere" circumstances, RN is struggling to save themselves from further cuts, I'm afraid.
I am a cynic sometimes Donald-san, I suspect if they had a small ship, they'd say it would be easier to maintain because there is less to fail!

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Very interesting. Thanks. Still some questions about whether it will have a hull mounted sonar or not, and if they will receive ASM later in life (perhaps the 5 interim sets might be handed down after the T23's retire). On the Floreal point, the T31 will be large enough to receive significant upgrades should the RN decide that they need to have more teeth
If there's no money or convincing argument for upgrades now, when they are cheaper to fit, why would there be money or convincing arguments at a later date?
The absurdity of in year spending caps, perhaps? Or because the overall fiscal situation improves? Or because global threats increase? Lots of reasons, better to have the possibility than not (of course, better to do it right in the first place, but nevermind)

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Opinion3 »

Sunk costs.... no pun intended. The T26 would have been the better buy for lots of reasons but 2Bn is not the comparator because the GFX is mostly sunk costs with little resale value..... unless the T23s could be sold as they decommission.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:The Type 31 as described will have the ability to barely defend a small patch of water, from above surface threats, which wouldn't need defending if the Type 31 wasn't there.
this is just not true with CAMM fitted type 31 can cover 1000 km2 around the ship and with its gun fit it can lay down a high rate of fire up to 17 km from the ship this alone gives it a area defence capability yes it could do with more CAMM and something like NSM and we know it needs a sonar

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:...The ship is large, because it is made easy to maintain. In other words, it does NOT have many open space to be filled later, because many of the space has been already used to make it easier to maintain.
But, this is true only if it is iver huitfeldt frigates. In T31 case, however, because the armament is SO sparse, there are still some place for future growth.
However, RN do not have resource to do it. Now with SDSR2020 happening in "5% cuts everywhere" circumstances, RN is struggling to save themselves from further cuts, I'm afraid.
I am a cynic sometimes Donald-san, I suspect if they had a small ship, they'd say it would be easier to maintain because there is less to fail!
Thanks :D
I'm serious here. Someone says, easy to maintain and upgrade. The other says, large ship has a large capacity. But, these two requirements are eating up the same resource. My comment is made of 2 points:

1: Even though Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class FFG is 6600 t FLD, it surely do not have the same capacity as Australian Hobart-class DDG (~6900t FLD).

2: Even so, as T31 requirement can be met within a ~3500t FLD hull, 6600 t Arrowhead 140 even with eating significant resource for "easy maintenance", can accommodate more equipments than currently planned.

# I'm guessing 6600t FLD Iver Huitfeldt-class FFG is not much different from 5800t FLD German Sachen-class FFG.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: Bacock's & Thales are pursuing export opportunities with vigor but, of course, every other country would want an upgraded equipment fit
- the Biz Case for Thales, in the first place?
dmereifield wrote:Or because the overall fiscal situation improves?
The Sunday Times front page carried a statement that " no deal" probability is seriously underpriced (was in markets or public finances... or both; did not say) so doubt that one v much
dmereifield wrote:better to do it right in the first place, but nevermind
- but we would lose all these opportunities here to be Besser Wissers; what a dull scenario ;)
Opinion3 wrote: GFX is mostly sunk costs with little resale value.
- v true, but the book values are revised up with indices... so this drives the MoD decision making even more so (NAO and all that; worse than :roll: an occasional nuclear strike)
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Even though Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class FFG is 6600 t FLD, it surely do not have the same capacity as Australian Hobart-class DDG (~6900t FLD).
- both going into ABM roles. The Sachsens won't and the T-45s might
- what was it again? The hull costs 10% of the whole, but weapon and sensor fit 45-55%? Hulls into water, keeping manpower and keeping it trained, fit out at one's leisure... not under the old 10-yr rule, though
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
1: Even though Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class FFG is 6600 t FLD, it surely do not have the same capacity as Australian Hobart-class DDG (~6900t FLD).

2: Even so, as T31 requirement can be met within a ~3500t FLD hull, 6600 t Arrowhead 140 even with eating significant resource for "easy maintenance", can accommodate more equipments than currently planned.

# I'm guessing 6600t FLD Iver Huitfeldt-class FFG is not much different from 5800t FLD German Sachen-class FFG.
You could discuss the pros and cons Hobart verse Huitfeldt by ticking boxes, would think it a score draw eg Hobart larger number of Mk 41 VLS cells/TAS v Huitfeldt two band radar suite/nearly twice the range/two thirds crew of Hobart, but the overwhelming advantage Huitfeldt offers that swamps all other considerations was/is cost.

The three Hobarts A$9.1 billion - the three Huitfeldts US$1.2 billion which equates to ~£4.8 billion verse ~£0.9 billion, so its very, very easy to see why Babcock choose the Huitfeldt HM&E as basis of their bid for the T31, it would appear both BAE/CL and Atlas Elektronik/TKMS even with ships approx only two thirds displacement of a Huitfeldt were unable to compete on cost to offset the advantages the larger displacement ship offered to RN by Babcock.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote:You could discuss the pros and cons Hobart verse Huitfeldt by ticking boxes, would think it a score draw eg Hobart larger number of Mk 41 VLS cells/TAS v Huitfeldt two band radar suite/nearly twice the range/two thirds crew of Hobart, but the overwhelming advantage Huitfeldt offers that swamps all other considerations was/is cost.

The three Hobarts A$9.1 billion - the three Huitfeldts US$1.2 billion which equates to ~£4.8 billion verse ~£0.9 billion, so its very, very easy to see why Babcock choose the Huitfeldt HM&E as basis of their bid for the T31, it would appear both BAE/CL and Atlas Elektronik/TKMS even with ships approx only two thirds displacement of a Huitfeldt were unable to compete on cost to offset the advantages the larger displacement ship offered to RN by Babcock.
I have no objection to your point, and I'm afraid you totally miss my point and/or my writing was extremely poor.

What I am saying is, Iver Huitfeldt class is stated by their own builder that, they are SPENDING some of their internal volume for easy maintenance and upgrade = easy access. So, some space is ALREADY SPENT, and cannot accommodate equipments. Of course, other spaces are left.

Hobert class is tightly designed, so maintenance and upgrade will be expensive. But, as it is tightly design, it does contain more "ingredients" than Huitfeldts with the same size.

This is my sole point. Am I clear?

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3374
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location:
Contact: Contact donald_of_tokyo
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Unread postby donald_of_tokyo » 03 Feb 2020, 10:19

NickC wrote:
You could discuss the pros and cons Hobart verse Huitfeldt by ticking boxes, would think it a score draw eg Hobart larger number of Mk 41 VLS cells/TAS v Huitfeldt two band radar suite/nearly twice the range/two thirds crew of Hobart, but the overwhelming advantage Huitfeldt offers that swamps all other considerations was/is cost.

The three Hobarts A$9.1 billion - the three Huitfeldts US$1.2 billion which equates to ~£4.8 billion verse ~£0.9 billion, so its very, very easy to see why Babcock choose the Huitfeldt HM&E as basis of their bid for the T31, it would appear both BAE/CL and Atlas Elektronik/TKMS even with ships approx only two thirds displacement of a Huitfeldt were unable to compete on cost to offset the advantages the larger displacement ship offered to RN by Babcock.
I have no objection to your point, and I'm afraid you totally miss my point and/or my writing was extremely poor.

What I am saying is, Iver Huitfeldt class is stated by their own builder that, they are SPENDING some of their internal volume for easy maintenance and upgrade = easy access. So, some space is ALREADY SPENT, and cannot accommodate equipments. Of course, other spaces are left.

Hobert class is tightly designed, so maintenance and upgrade will be expensive. But, as it is tightly design, it does contain more "ingredients" than Huitfeldts with the same size.

This is my sole point. Am I clear?
I take your point that the Huitfeldt SPENDING some of their internal volume for easy low cost maintenance and upgrades plus its larger hanger for Merlin and would assume bigger flight deck. Hobart contains certain more "ingredients" eg 48 Mk 41 VLS cells to Huitfeldt 32 Mk 41 VLS cells plus 24 Mk 56 cells, ~equivalent to 6 Mk 41 cells, Hobart is a slightly larger ship. My point was the horrendously expensive Hobart build cost, even unbelievably more expensive than a T26, and Hobart will cost more money in operation and maintenance year on year for ~ 30 years compared to a Huitfeldt with its larger ships crew of 186 v 120 and as you point out Hobart class is tightly designed ship, so maintenance and upgrades will be expensive compared to the easy access for Huitfeldt.

Would add that Hobart might be SPENDING more of its internal volume for accommodation, 234 v 165 Huitfeldt (Would need detailed analysis of both ships drawings to compare volume of passageways and accommodation etc)

Highlights why Babcock and RN choose Huitfeldt HM&E for the T31 ;)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

NickC wrote: ...My point was the horrendously expensive Hobart build cost, even unbelievably more expensive than a T26
I'm afraid the Hobert-class's cost is more about "how to keep the shipbuilding industry IN-efficient". Australia thew away the Tennix yard in Williamstown (Melbourne), and moved to Osborne (Adelaide).

Williamstown was "trained" with two Adelaide (or Perry) class FFG build, which was also expensive. Thanks to the training, in the next turn, they successfully build 10 ANZAC frigate "on schedule" and "on budget".

But, Australia threw it away. :thumbdown:

Having big difficulty in constructing one of the most complicated escorts, AEGIS DDG, in an industry which has little experience on complex ship building (Stupid idea). The result is what we see. Nothing to surprise. Note that the original Bazan-class FFG was not that expensive.

On T31, selecting cheap base hull is a good. Easy maintenance is also good. But, standing up a completely new escort ship builder (Babcock), with zero escort build experience is bad. Big difference to Hobert-class is that Arrowhead 140 is much simple, easy to build design.

We already know, 1.5B GBP has grown to 2B GBP (actually, I think it is very reasonable). Let's see how it goes.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

I suppose building the T-31 will allow Babcock to build up its workforce and compete for other UK and overseas contracts, but after the T-31 it will have to survive on its own merits.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Opinion3 wrote:Sunk costs.... no pun intended. The T26 would have been the better buy for lots of reasons but 2Bn is not the comparator because the GFX is mostly sunk costs with little resale value..... unless the T23s could be sold as they decommission.
I think it's fair to assume the cost of Sea Ceptor within the 2 billion, if indeed they are being recovered from the Type 23's, is made up of the cost of removal, refurbishment, reinstall and test. A tidy sum but clearly less than buying the entire system brand new.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:The Type 31 as described will have the ability to barely defend a small patch of water, from above surface threats, which wouldn't need defending if the Type 31 wasn't there.
this is just not true with CAMM fitted type 31 can cover 1000 km2 around the ship and with its gun fit it can lay down a high rate of fire up to 17 km from the ship this alone gives it a area defence capability yes it could do with more CAMM and something like NSM and we know it needs a sonar
That's a small patch of water: a circle about 12 miles in radius for CAMM. The only thing worth attacking within it? Probably the Type 31.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:We already know, 1.5B GBP has grown to 2B GBP (actually, I think it is very reasonable). Let's see how it goes.
I'm thinking up :D

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:I suppose building the T-31 will allow Babcock to build up its workforce and compete for other UK and overseas contracts, but after the T-31 it will have to survive on its own merits.
They're a cert to get the carrier refit work and maybe the FSS?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote:That's a small patch of water: a circle about 12 miles in radius for CAMM.
12 miles??

I don't think anyone seriously believes Sea Ceptor is only good for 12 miles...Janes have previously said it was good for 60km (37.5 miles). Personally, I think that's a maximum range against a simple target, but realistically a mid point of at least effective range of 24 miles is far more credible, oddly enough that's pretty much the distance to the horizon...Even the MoD is saying a range 'in excess' of 15.5 miles, and we know how realistic their performance figures usually are.

Post Reply