Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Lord Jim]

I would say more great Uncle or similar.

[xav]

It appears that the "launch customer" for ALBATROS NG (naval CAMM ER) is.... Pakistan, on a Turkish corvette design.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... nah-class/

[RichardIC]

https://www.babcockinternational.com/ne ... abilities/

The incredibly wooly Babcock press release being interpreted as Ukraine now being an export customer for Type 31.



I'm not sure "a modern frigate capability" automatically translates that way. It could mean Babcock will be involved in the modernisation of Ukraine's existing frigate.

Who knows (well someone must, but they're not ready to say).

[Ron5]

NAO published its report on UK defense procurement and this is what it said about the type 31. a program it highlighted for not keeping to its original budget:

The Department had set a target price of £250 million per ship in the National Shipbuilding Strategy. During the competitive design phase, bidders indicated that they would withdraw from the competition unless the Department excluded the £90 million of GFA from the budget, which they did. Progress on the firm price contract has been satisfactory despite COVID-19.

So I guess we should start using 340 million as the average price per ship including design costs.

[Ron5]

Also said this later about GFA:

One of the areas providing the most frequent challenges to delivery teams is provision of Government Furnished Assets (GFA). This refers to any Departmental asset such as equipment, information or resources made available to the contractor by the Department, where it carries liability for not providing the assets at the right time and in the right condition. We found recurring problems with GFA, despite teams recognising it as a significant risk. For example, on the Type 31e frigate, to gain financial recompense, the supplier is required to show that late or defective GFA has had a detrimental impact on the delivery of the ship. The Department had still not finalised its schedule of GFA 18 months into the contract, and classed the probability of delay as high.

[NickC]

NAO 24th June reports that during the T31 competitive design phase, the bidders indicated that they would withdraw from the competition unless the MoD excluded the cost of the £90 million for GFA (Government Furnished Assets) from the contract, which MoD agreed to, so looking at ~ £340 million build cost per ship.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... tracts.pdf p.36

[NickC]

Apologies for my above post, its a duplication of Ron5 post

[RichardIC]

Type 31 and Type 26 will both be coming under scrutiny in Parliament tomorrow.

https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... ocurement/

Babcock, BAE and Thales all giving evidence.

(these things do tend to over-promise and under-deliver)

[Caribbean]

NAO 24th June reports that during the T31 competitive design phase, the bidders indicated that they would withdraw from the competition unless the MoD excluded the cost of the £90 million for GFA (Government Furnished Assets) from the contract, which MoD agreed to, so looking at ~ £340 million build cost per ship.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... tracts.pdf p.36

Just thought that I'd point out that the report says £90 million for GFA, not £90 million for GFA per ship, whereas it does say £250 million per ship earlier.

£90 million per ship for 12 CAMM mushroom tubes (missiles from another budget, don't forget)and associated gizmos, plus standard comms gear, sounds very steep. Pretty much everything else to do with weapons and sensors etc (usually the big-ticket items) is non-RN-standard, indicating that they were not GFA and chosen by the contractor to meet the sticker price. How much did the T23 refits cost to replace Sea Wolf with CAMM - a lot less than £90 million each, I'll wager (and that was for four control sets and 32 mushroom tubes per ship)?

£90 million between the five T31 sounds far more likely

[serge750]

Type 31 and Type 26 will both be coming under scrutiny in Parliament tomorrow.

https://committees.parliament.uk/commit ... ocurement/

Babcock, BAE and Thales all giving evidence.

(these things do tend to over-promise and under-deliver)

Wonder if there will be any Concise answers.....

[Tempest414]

How much did the T23 refits cost to replace Sea Wolf with CAMM

If the 600 million contract for life ex of type 23 still holds then that would be 46 million per ship and work includes hull and galley repairs sonar upgrade CAMM fit out plus engine and Propulsion upgrades

[donald_of_tokyo]

How much did the T23 refits cost to replace Sea Wolf with CAMM

If the 600 million contract for life ex of type 23 still holds then that would be 46 million per ship and work includes hull and galley repairs sonar upgrade CAMM fit out plus engine and Propulsion upgrades

I do not think it includes sonar upgrade. The £600M was for Babcock, S2150 sonar contract was directly between MOD and Ultra. Also, I understand Propulsion upgrades is independent. Not sure how much of CMS and Artisan issue was included (some did had Artisan before this LIFEX program, I might be wrong here?).

But anyway, it is not so costy.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Just thought that I'd point out that the report says £90 million for GFA, not £90 million for GFA per ship, whereas it does say £250 million per ship earlier.

£90 million per ship for 12 CAMM mushroom tubes (missiles from another budget, don't forget)and associated gizmos, plus standard comms gear, sounds very steep. Pretty much everything else to do with weapons and sensors etc (usually the big-ticket items) is non-RN-standard, indicating that they were not GFA and chosen by the contractor to meet the sticker price. How much did the T23 refits cost to replace Sea Wolf with CAMM - a lot less than £90 million each, I'll wager (and that was for four control sets and 32 mushroom tubes per ship)?

£90 million between the five T31 sounds far more likely

Not sure. My understanding is £250M + 90M = £340M. Added with support etc it comes to £400M per hull on average.

I agree £90 million each looks expensive. But, T31 without CAMM is just a NATO frigate standard ~6000t hull, with a 3D radar and 3 guns individually controlled via EO-FCS. Nothing more. Actually, even with this armament, it meets the T31RFI requirement, if added with a 20mm CIWS (which surely will be GFA). Of course, this ship do not need high analysis power nor good software kits in her CMS.

When adding SeaCeptor, suddenly you need to pay for
- integration cost of SeaCeptor into TACTICOS CMS <-- this was specifically noted in the press release.
- much more improved analysis power than those required just for 3 guns.
- integrating the CMS to combine 3 guns and CAMM in AAW warfare.
- in addition to the cost for 12-cell SeaCeptor system itself (software, LMS, wiring, and structures)

If the £90M includes the "majority of the CMS and its integration (not only the software, but all the systems integration testings)", then its cost can be understandable for me. Not natural, but could be a good "shortcut" to play with the word "Babcock built the hull with £1.25B = £250M per hull, on average".

Anyway, its total cost is £2B for 5 hulls = £400M per hull on average. When comparing with T26's "£3.6B for initial 3 hulls = £1.2B average", this £400M must be used, for sure.

By the way, "£3.6B for initial 3 T26 hulls" includes, detailed design and initial build inefficiency in full spec. This amounts typically about 2 full hull unit cost (or even more, see FREMM case). "£2B for 5 T31 hulls" only includes small part of the detailed design (mostly reused design), and some part of initial build inefficiency (procedure how to efficiently build the hull is already established, but establishing Rosyth yard build system shall cost a lot). Therefore I understand the cost of T26 to "add one more hull" is surely cheaper than £1B (in 2016 price).

[NickC]

If Caribbean's interpretation of the £90 million NAO GFA figure correct, that's £18 million per ship, that gives £268 million build cost per T31 in 2019£'s.

PS Assuming GFA includes other items than the CIWS Sea Ceptor kit, ESM kit etc, seen it reported recently that the USN SEWIP Block 3, ESM & EA kit, for latest Burke destroyer costing $73.4 million / £53 million per ship

[donald_of_tokyo]

If Caribbean's interpretation of the £90 million NAO GFA figure correct, that's £18 million per ship, that gives £268 million build cost per T31 in 2019£'s....

Why? Or, that "build cost per T31 in 2019£" means what?
We do not know the price-tag for T26 in the same definition.

What is known is
- 3 T26 is ordered with £3.6B --> £1.2B per hull on average
- 5 T31 is ordered with £2B --> £0.4B per hull on average
Both include initial support and training (to my understanding).

If there are any information of this "£250M+??" cost of T31 for T26 in the same definition, I would love to know it.

[bobp]

T31 export potential from Babcock CEO....

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/20 ... 1-frigate/

[NickC]

If Caribbean's interpretation of the £90 million NAO GFA figure correct, that's £18 million per ship, that gives £268 million build cost per T31 in 2019£'s....

Why? Or, that "build cost per T31 in 2019£" means what?
We do not know the price-tag for T26 in the same definition.

What is known is
- 3 T26 is ordered with £3.6B --> £1.2B per hull on average
- 5 T31 is ordered with £2B --> £0.4B per hull on average
Both include initial support and training (to my understanding).

If there are any information of this "£250M+??" cost of T31 for T26 in the same definition, I would love to know it.

You would hope the MP's of the Defence Committee would be able to the obtain the breakdown of the T31 ~£2 billion budget from the MoD Permanent Secretary, David Williams, to get at the true figures and though the in theory the Parliamentary Select Committees have wide ranging powers, nothing seems to come to light with the MoD usually hiding behind the excuse that the info is commercially sensitive so the figures as opaque as always to leave us guessing and speculating as best we can.

[Ron5]

NAO 24th June reports that during the T31 competitive design phase, the bidders indicated that they would withdraw from the competition unless the MoD excluded the cost of the £90 million for GFA (Government Furnished Assets) from the contract, which MoD agreed to, so looking at ~ £340 million build cost per ship.

https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... tracts.pdf p.36

Just thought that I'd point out that the report says £90 million for GFA, not £90 million for GFA per ship, whereas it does say £250 million per ship earlier.

£90 million per ship for 12 CAMM mushroom tubes (missiles from another budget, don't forget)and associated gizmos, plus standard comms gear, sounds very steep. Pretty much everything else to do with weapons and sensors etc (usually the big-ticket items) is non-RN-standard, indicating that they were not GFA and chosen by the contractor to meet the sticker price. How much did the T23 refits cost to replace Sea Wolf with CAMM - a lot less than £90 million each, I'll wager (and that was for four control sets and 32 mushroom tubes per ship)?

£90 million between the five T31 sounds far more likely

You make an excellent point but surely 18 million per ship is too low for the acquisition, installation, testing and maintenance contracts for all the GFX including CAMM?

[NickC]

If Caribbean's interpretation of the £90 million NAO GFA figure correct, that's £18 million per ship, that gives £268 million build cost per T31 in 2019£'s....

Why? Or, that "build cost per T31 in 2019£" means what?
We do not know the price-tag for T26 in the same definition.

What is known is
- 3 T26 is ordered with £3.6B --> £1.2B per hull on average
- 5 T31 is ordered with £2B --> £0.4B per hull on average
Both include initial support and training (to my understanding).

If there are any information of this "£250M+??" cost of T31 for T26 in the same definition, I would love to know it.

You would hope the MP's of the Defence Committee would be able to the obtain the breakdown of the T31 ~£2 billion budget from the MoD Permanent Secretary, David Williams, to get at the true figures and though the in theory the Parliamentary Select Committees have wide ranging powers, nothing seems to come to light with the MoD usually hiding behind the excuse that the info is commercially sensitive so the figures as opaque as always to leave us guessing and speculating as best we can.

I did email NAO and today they confirmed the £90 million for GFA was for whole class, not per ship, programme cost £2 billion, but as expected would not give any breakdown of the £2 billion hiding behind the normal weasel words that it would be "potentially commercially sensitive information". Think i must be a mystique as forecast above answer yesterday that MoD would hide behind the excuse that its 'commercially sensitive' in refusing to give any breakdown of the figures

[SD67]

So it's 18 million per ship for T31 GFA. Makes sense.

I think T26 program cost to date is a bit more than 3.6, there were previous contracts for R&D and long lead items. Hunter is 2 billion + per unit for comparison

[donald_of_tokyo]

So it's 18 million per ship for T31 GFA. Makes sense.

I think T26 program cost to date is a bit more than 3.6, there were previous contracts for R&D and long lead items. Hunter is 2 billion + per unit for comparison

Just a comment.

1: "previous contracts for R&D and long lead items" are included in the original £3.6B announced in 2016. It was clearly stated so.

2: "T26 program cost to date is a bit more than 3.6", I also think it is also for sure. In T31, it will also happen. The £1.25B for Babcock is "said to be" fixed. But, it was also stated that financial risks will be covered by MOD not Babcock. So surely change. Also, GFA contract for £90M will also (I am personally almost 100% sure) increase. The most "complicated" issues stand there... (Basic T31 hull is very simple).

[SD67]

I don't think that's right. The chronology as I understand it is

2010 : 4 year Design contract back in 2010 - 127£ million
2015 : Demonstration contract : 859£ million
2016 : Long lead item contract for first 3 : 470£ million
2017 : Build contract for first 3 : 3.6£ billion

These were all separately announced and signed. If you have links please post them and I'll stand corrected.

Logically Hunter is 2.2 £ billion per unit - that's public information - is T26 really that much cheaper? I doubt it.

[NickC]

I don't think that's right. The chronology as I understand it is

2010 : 4 year Design contract back in 2010 - 127£ million
2015 : Demonstration contract : 859£ million
2016 : Long lead item contract for first 3 : 470£ million
2017 : Build contract for first 3 : 3.6£ billion

These were all separately announced and signed. If you have links please post them and I'll stand corrected.

Logically Hunter is 2.2 £ billion per unit - that's public information - is T26 really that much cheaper? I doubt it.

My understanding was on the build contract award for the three ships MoD placed an overarching contract with BAE for £3.7 billion incorporating previous contracts so as to make the actual build figure deliberately opaque as possible, MoD on their account spent additional £300 million to give total overall programme cost of a round £4 billion including the various development iterations, outcome £1.33 billion per ship, actual build cost unknown.

[Poiuytrewq]

....actual build cost unknown.

Hence the reason why the price of the second batch could be so illuminating.

If Donald is correct and the second batch come in around £800m to £850m per hull and the T32's look to be in the region of £500m to £600m the merit of the current trajectory (T26,T31,T32) will be open to question.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't think that's right. The chronology as I understand it is

2010 : 4 year Design contract back in 2010 - 127£ million
2015 : Demonstration contract : 859£ million
2016 : Long lead item contract for first 3 : 470£ million
2017 : Build contract for first 3 : 3.6£ billion

These were all separately announced and signed. If you have links please post them and I'll stand corrected.

If you look back to the June 4 2017 comment in this forum, you can find...

Just seen the tweet from Geof Searle, Type 26 Programme Director that confirms the £3.7bnincludes the previous long-lead costs.
""

The tweet itself is not remaining, but I remember the T26 Program Director said so. When I read it, I remember it clearly stated that it included the "Long lead item" (the 2016's 470£ million). BUT, it is NOT clear if it includes others, the 2010 £127M and 2015 £859M. Do anybody know/remember it?

Logically Hunter is 2.2 £ billion per unit - that's public information - is T26 really that much cheaper? I doubt it.

Yes and no. No one knows what is included in the 2.2 £ billion per unit on average (RAN) nor £3.7B in total for the initial 3 hulls (RN).

But we do know that the French FREMM average cost is cheaper than RN's T26's. So RN cost is also not a lie. I understand just definition differs. For example, we all know RN cost does NOT include the ammo. How about RAN (and RCN?). RCN clearly states their labor cost is 20-40% higher than "the original case" because of their ship building industries inefficiency. But, this does not explain the almost doubling cost. So, I agree your "doubt" is reasonable. But, I just understand it is just a matter of definition. As the definition is "similar", comparing T26 vs T31 will be meaningful, but comparing RN T26 vs RAN T26 cost will be not easy.