Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Scimitar54]

The Treasury needs to remember why it even exists. It was set up in the first place to "FUND THE NAVY", not to tell it what it can't have!.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1. The Type 31 has not been contracted to come fitted with a sonar.

2. Cancelling the program would just deprive the navy of 5 ships. There is no reason to supposed the savings would be applied to other Navy projects.

3. Opening up the contract to make changes would undoubtedly increase the cost beyond 2 billion.

4. This is, I believe, the first official pronouncement that the total program budget is approx 2 billion.

5. There is no reason to believe (or not believe) that the "extra" 0.5 billion (or 0.75 billion) was taken from the T26 budget.

Nice summary.

Item-2 means, the money may go to F35B, E-7, P-8 or even Fort Austin up-keep. No one know. As I understand, treasury and MOD has an agreed "equipment budget for 10 years". Treasury is always honest here, so they will provide that money. The problem is, the equipment cost listed there is always too optimistic, lack margin, and thus it always has a deficit (= black hole, as NOA named it). If 500M GBP is added there, I'm sure the total equipment budget is unchanged and eating the contingency, or increasing the black hole.

Item-3, I agree. But, there is a big chance AFTER the detailed design phase. I think it is very very likely the detailed design will cause increase in total estimated cost (it depends on how much margin Babcock has allocated to the total cost). In other words, contract modification is coming very soon, anyhow, as I guess. One of my proposal is to not change the overall budget, but reduce the equipments on it to handle these "cost overruns". As I noted again, even without CAMM, Arrowhead 140 meets T31 RFI requirement, perfectly.

Item-5 is the same to item-2. What we need is the increase in total 10 year equipment budget. If not, it is handled within that envelope = cutting something else.

Don't forget that it is a theoretical black hole. Not an actual one. Signed and sealed contracts are well within spending. The problem lies if you add up all the money folks want to spend and compare that to the amount of money the Treasury wants to allow them to spend, there's a gap.

I have the same problem at home. It's not quite as terminal as some people would have you believe. I somehow manage to only spend the money the bank allows me to spend and not a penny more.

So no, the MoD is not running bills that can't be paid. It has aspirations that the Treasury says can't be afforded. A totally different thing.

Not sure if I correctly understand your point. But, a single correction is that, T31 is contracted, but not payed yet. Most of the "2B GBP" will remain in the "10 year equipment budget". It just added up the cost (=increased the black hole). The same applies to the 3 T26, 5 E-7, remaining P-8 and coming F35Bs, only partly payed at this moment.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Lets not mix words there Not able to do ASW for the Carrier group and not having a HMS are two different things Type 45 has a HMS but can't do ASW for the carrier group.

Exactly.
Whereas it can self-defend. Use its sensor to vector the Wildcat (which does not have appropriate sensors) to drop the weapon at a range that makes a difference
- the RN did specific trials on this in the Med (the Med? Whose sub was the aggressor; they obviously wanted something that would be representative of the thread)

[Repulse]

Ron5, agree with a lot of what you say, however in real life people (should) prioritise their spending versus how much money they are getting in the door, not doing this leads to either paying more (by borrowing) or getting things over a longer period of time (and end up paying more). As the MOD cannot borrow itself, then stretching things out is the norm, giving IMO poor value for money.

[dmereifield]

Lets not mix words there Not able to do ASW for the Carrier group and not having a HMS are two different things Type 45 has a HMS but can't do ASW for the carrier group.

Exactly.
Whereas it can self-defend. Use its sensor to vector the Wildcat (which does not have appropriate sensors) to drop the weapon at a range that makes a difference
- the RN did specific trials on this in the Med (the Med? Whose sub was the aggressor; they obviously wanted something that would be representative of the thread)

Though I'd like this to be true, it's just speculation at this time. We don't have any information yet on what ASW kit the T31 will come with

[Roders96]

But I am against adding HMS to T31. Actually, HMS itself is nice to have, but I am strongly against any more money invested into T31. No more money on it.

So, if you need HMS, just cut the whole

Cancelling Type 31 is a non starter. All it would achieve is to take away any leverage the MoD has over T26 B2 price per unit and cost (atleast) hundreds of millions to get out of the contracts. Not to mention the wasted long lead items.

Can't think of a more surefire way for the RN to get shot in the foot.

[donald_of_tokyo]

That's your opinion. Thinking competition will bring the price down.

I do not think so. If true, France, Italy, Span, Netherlands, all must have kept two-three yards. They didn't.

You are saying they are totally stupid, although they are successfully efficiently building warships and even gaining significant export. I think they are not stupid, but clever and competitive.

With very small number of hi-end escorts to be ordered from any one nation, just keeping one ship-yard "as busy as keeping it efficient" is of much more higher priority than "betting everything in competition-saga, so that HMG need to think nothing".


By the way, canceling T31 now is tooooo late, I agree. It will do more harm than good. So, I proposed several options. At least, it is very important to spend no more money on T31. Not a pence.

They said it is 1.25B GBP including everything. Babcock CEO said so. (He said, he will be surprised if this ship cannot be build within that price. So, surely he must be in very surprise or shocked, now). And now it is 2B GBP. They proved to be (at least) the same to BAES. And they are building Danish design warship with Dutch design fighting system. T26 is much better there.

[Poiuytrewq]

.....now it is 2B GBP.

At £400m a pop the T31's really need to be a highly capable GP Frigate......not just a long distance gunboat with a large growth margin capable of 30knts.

They should really have a mk45, Harpoon (or equivalent), at least 24 CAMM, some form of hull mounted sonar and Captas 1 or 2 as a minimum.

If Babcock really can build the basic hulls for £150m to £200m it's difficult to justify another £200m to £250m given the woefully inadequate weapon and sensor fit proposed thus far.

If the budget increase is purely an inflationary adjustment, HMG must be expecting a massive rise in inflation over the next decade....

[donald_of_tokyo]

Good point. In the contract announcement last September, Babcock is to build 5 hulls with 1.25B GBP total, while "other issues", initial maintenance, and GFX will be included in the remaining 0.75B GBP. Not clear what is within the 1.25B, and what in 0.75B. (I understand "other issues" include introduction cost of 57mm and 40mm guns, but not sure.)

The whole point of T31 was cheap but less capable patrol frigate, 5 of them build and delivered with initial maintenance and training, within 1.5B GBP, including everything (like GFX, etc). If this was the total cost, current equipment load is just reasonable. But, with added 500M GBP, it look very poor buy.

Justification of introducing Babcock as 2nd-escort builder, was to show shipyards other than BAE can build frigates cheaper = showing BAE is very inefficient. But, I think it failed (as expected). Babcock Arrowhead 140 turned out to be also very poor in its capability = or expensive compared to its capability. It uses existing foreign design (UK is importing escort design from abroad), foreign fighting system (losing all commonality within the fleet, not even using Artisan 3D). Even with these big sacrifices, it gained nothing. Just proved, BAES cost might be not bad (personal impression).

Very sad, as it is well expected from the beginning.

[Ron5]

tem-2 means, the money may go to F35B, E-7, P-8 or even Fort Austin up-keep. No one know. As I understand, treasury and MOD has an agreed "equipment budget for 10 years". Treasury is always honest here, so they will provide that money.

Or to build a new hospital or service the national debt. The Treasury does not promise or commit the 10 year money to the MoD. Money is allocated on an annual basis and the amount can be modified within the year. Nothing to do with honesty. All the Treasury can do is say that what their expectations are and whether the MoD spending aspersions are compatible with them.

Item-3, I agree. But, there is a big chance AFTER the detailed design phase.

No I do not think so. The cost increases are more likely to occur during build due to unexpected delays, well after the design phases.

Not sure if I correctly understand your point. But, a single correction is that, T31 is contracted, but not payed yet.

Sorry to be unclear but I meant to state that the famous "black hole" of the Equipment Plan is NOT a negative gap between committed spending and budget because there isn't one. Instead it is a negative gap between uncommitted spending (or desired spending), and budget. In other words, the Type 31 money is allocated and doesn't have to be stolen from anyone else.

[Ron5]

Lets not mix words there Not able to do ASW for the Carrier group and not having a HMS are two different things Type 45 has a HMS but can't do ASW for the carrier group.

Exactly.
Whereas it can self-defend. Use its sensor to vector the Wildcat (which does not have appropriate sensors) to drop the weapon at a range that makes a difference
- the RN did specific trials on this in the Med (the Med? Whose sub was the aggressor; they obviously wanted something that would be representative of the thread)

Though I'd like this to be true, it's just speculation at this time. We don't have any information yet on what ASW kit the T31 will come with

Yes we do. It doesn't have any.

[Ron5]

.....now it is 2B GBP.

At £400m a pop the T31's really need to be a highly capable GP Frigate......not just a long distance gunboat with a large growth margin capable of 30knts.

They should really have a mk45, Harpoon (or equivalent), at least 24 CAMM, some form of hull mounted sonar and Captas 1 or 2 as a minimum.

If Babcock really can build the basic hulls for £150m to £200m it's difficult to justify another £200m to £250m given the woefully inadequate weapon and sensor fit proposed thus far.

If the budget increase is purely an inflationary adjustment, HMG must be expecting a massive rise in inflation over the next decade....

You are effing clueless if you think you can get a class of modern frigates bought and into service for less than 400 million each.

[dmereifield]

Lets not mix words there Not able to do ASW for the Carrier group and not having a HMS are two different things Type 45 has a HMS but can't do ASW for the carrier group.

Exactly.
Whereas it can self-defend. Use its sensor to vector the Wildcat (which does not have appropriate sensors) to drop the weapon at a range that makes a difference
- the RN did specific trials on this in the Med (the Med? Whose sub was the aggressor; they obviously wanted something that would be representative of the thread)

Though I'd like this to be true, it's just speculation at this time. We don't have any information yet on what ASW kit the T31 will come with

Yes we do. It doesn't have any.

Well, quite. My point was that as far as we know it doesn't have the kind of capability that ACC suggested, does it?

[Poiuytrewq]

You are effing clueless if you think you can get a class of modern frigates bought and into service for less than 400 million each.

Thanks Ron.

I would agree completely if the T31's were to be configured as a 'modern frigate' but they aren't.

Far from it in fact. They are Frigates in name only unless and until the weapons and sensor fit is upgraded.

At £500m USD that are getting expensive for what they are and if the price rises further the T31 programme will have been a disaster for RN, UK PLC and the British taxpayers.

[RichardIC]

At £500m USD that are getting expensive for what they are and if the price rises further the T31 programme will have been a disaster for RN, UK PLC and the British taxpayers.

So what would you do about it without rewinding the clock or spending money you haven't got??

The "without rewinding the clock or spending money you haven't got??" bits are really important.

[Repulse]

Whilst I would love to rewind the clock and kill the T31 before it was born, I agree it’s probably too late. @Donald-san gave some options and the one that makes most sense is to go with a mix of vessel configurations, “full” and “lite”.

If these ships will replace the B2 Rivers as the forward based fleet, then we are talking about the Falklands, Caribbean, Gibraltar and two EoS. Only the two EoS require AAW missiles (and ASuW / ASW are the latter two). So fully kit two and build 3 lite without any CAMM etc - keeping the cost to £1.5bn. The lite versions can be FFBNW, but let’s not waste money where there is not a need.

[Poiuytrewq]

So what would you do about it without rewinding the clock or spending money you haven't got?

I am not proposing anything, simply commenting on the current state of play.

Given the large percentage increase in budget it's entirely possible modest improvements could be made to the baseline spec as construction progresses. And given the relatively short programme length inflation alone can not account for an increase of between £500m and £750m.

[tomuk]

Whilst I would love to rewind the clock and kill the T31 before it was born, I agree it’s probably too late. @Donald-san gave some options and the one that makes most sense is to go with a mix of vessel configurations, “full” and “lite”.

If these ships will replace the B2 Rivers as the forward based fleet, then we are talking about the Falklands, Caribbean, Gibraltar and two EoS. Only the two EoS require AAW missiles (and ASuW / ASW are the latter two). So fully kit two and build 3 lite without any CAMM etc - keeping the cost to £1.5bn. The lite versions can be FFBNW, but let’s not waste money where there is not a need.

The T31 are to replace the GP T23s. The B2 Rivers are only filling in due to the lack of serviceable T23.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the kind of capability that ACC suggested, does it?

I hear ACC was correcting the view that T45s are 'famously incapable' of any kind of ASW
... and awaits to see the outcome for T31s. Batch1s; and 2s

[dmereifield]

the kind of capability that ACC suggested, does it?

I hear ACC was correcting the view that T45s are 'famously incapable' of any kind of ASW
... and awaits to see the outcome for T31s. Batch1s; and 2s

Loving your (apparent) optimism

[Jensy]

@Donald-san gave some options and the one that makes most sense is to go with a mix of vessel configurations, “full” and “lite”.

[....]

So fully kit two and build 3 lite without any CAMM etc -

Well here's the thing that's had me puzzled since BAE wheeled out their latest Type 26 model about 3-4 years ago. The re-emergence of converted Sea Wolf mushroom launchers/GWS-26 that seem destined for both Type 31 and Type 26.

Assuming that they intend to reuse the ones from the 13 Type 23s, thats:

13 x 32 = 416 (assuming all can be reused, which seems optimistic).

We need 8 x 48 for Type 26 = 384

Which only leaves 32 for the five Type 31s.

Despite its popularity around these parts, there's been no suggestion that the govt is going to be buying XLS or any other launch system such as one of the shorter Sylver launchers, or even the non-strike length MK41s.

As such, unless something changes in the expected fit of the Type 31, then at most the RN could have two fitted with 16 Sea Ceptor, or else 6.4 on each..... We need more launchers or at least three ships are going without, irrespective of cutting costs.

Considering the original design could take: 32 MK41, 24 ESSM and up to 16 Harpoons in deck-launchers, it's kind of hilarious that at present we can only manage six Sea Ceptor per ship.

[seaspear]

Apologies for going off thread but with the comments about the costs of introduction of frigates perhaps this is a type of ship that also meets the budget with asw capability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohjanmaa-class_corvette

[Ron5]

You are effing clueless if you think you can get a class of modern frigates bought and into service for less than 400 million each.

Thanks Ron.

I would agree completely if the T31's were to be configured as a 'modern frigate' but they aren't.

Far from it in fact. They are Frigates in name only unless and until the weapons and sensor fit is upgraded.

At £500m USD that are getting expensive for what they are and if the price rises further the T31 programme will have been a disaster for RN, UK PLC and the British taxpayers.

Clueless. Effing clueless. This is the average cost per ship of designing, building, & getting into service a new class of modern frigate into the Royal Navy with everything that implies.

[Ron5]

Assuming that they intend to reuse the ones from the 13 Type 23s

I think that's your mistake, I believe they love these launchers so much they plan on making brand new ones.

[Ron5]

Apologies for going off thread but with the comments about the costs of introduction of frigates perhaps this is a type of ship that also meets the budget with asw capability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pohjanmaa-class_corvette

Assuming they meet the gazillion RN standards, my guess is that they lack the global reach required.

By the way, I wouldn't trust any price figure quoted pretty much anywhere without a detailed explanation. Each country has it's own way of doing it. Government supplied material (GFX) that's kept out of the publicly declared cost is one thing that varies tremendously. In some countries, all military equipment is so classified.