UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [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
51
11%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
13
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
121
25%
An LCS-like modular ship
22
5%
A modernised Type 23
22
5%
A Type 26-lite
66
14%
Less than 5 hulls
21
4%
5 hulls
65
14%
More than 5 hulls
96
20%
 
Total votes: 477

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3628
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 28 Jun 2020, 03:12

Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. T31's 2B GBP is contracted, but most of them are not payed yet. I understand the payment will happen within coming 10 years. On average, 200M GBP per year (of course, not flat).

MOD need to pay for it until 2030 or more. And every year, it must be included in the Defence Budget. As you know, Defence budget has some cap (virtually), and as much as MOD pays for T31 in coming decade, it is eating up the budget allocated for equipment.

Every year, MOD fights against "hospital or service the national debt". It is not related to T31 contract.

If the MOD money dries out, partly because of T31 cost in a certain year, Treasury can just say, "it is WITHIN your own budget. HMG is already paying promised 2% GDP for defense. Handle it at your own risk.". And what happen is, RN slowing down other (or T31) procurement, cutting operation costs, keeping ships in extended readiness, and cutting manpower.

On this regard, I say, "the 2B GBP is eating up the MOD equipment budget".
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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. This is the first time ever Babcock designs a escort. Detailed design includes all the process, manual, documentation, parts list, inspection, verifying standard by reviews, many many. It is not easy to "foresee" the whole work, in a company who's CEO was saying "Will be surprise if these ships cannot be build in 1.25B GBP" :lolno:

But, I agree right after building starts, there might be another cost rise. It will also deeply depend on how much the "detail design" is well written. Again, not high hope. I agree to you here.
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.
?? Your argument other than the last line is I totally agree. But the last line is not clear for me. T31 money is allocated and HAS STOLEN 0.5B GBP from the estimated budget. This is what I mean.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3628
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 28 Jun 2020, 05:15

Repulse wrote: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.
If we fully kit 2 hulls, the total cost will exceed £1.5bn. In September press release, it was £1.25bn for hull, guns, radars etc. £0.25bn was there from the beginning, for "things unrelated to hulls". So I guess the GFX (which was omitted from the £1.25bn right before the contract), training, maintenance is £0.5bn.
tomuk wrote:The T31 are to replace the GP T23s. The B2 Rivers are only filling in due to the lack of serviceable T23.
Don't mind. T23 is providing only 85 sea-going days per year per hull. Two fully kitted T31 and three large OPV (but still meets the T31RFI requirement) can easily cover the tasks 5 T23GPs were doing in the last decade.

By the way, my original "option" proposal was for 2 OPVH like T31 (meeting T31 RFI requirement), and 3 "fully kitted" ones. By ripping off the whole SeaCepter system from 2 hull, large cost will be able to be saved. CMS analysis power can be significantly reduced (AAW is heavy task), 2 or 3 consoles can be omitted, 2 sets of datalink and all the integration testings to 12 CAMM launcher can be omitted. It will also contribute to reduction of 5-10 crews, I guess. (but will need 3-4 crews to handle CIWS, if added).

Increasing the 12 CAMM into 24 in the remaining 3 hulls is not high cost. CMS power, 2 data links, and most of the integration test is nearly the same. Add 12 launcher and the a front-end control box is the thing to do. No additional console, almost no more crew needed. Much less cost compared to the money saved by ripping the system of in the other 2 hulls. I hope to add S2150 HMS with this "remaining" money, and the "3 fully kitted" T31 can be a "lightly armed light frigate, with very large hull".

Note again, the OPVH version STILL MEETS the T31-RFI requirement = there are many tasks they can do.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Jun 2020, 07:43

Ron5 wrote:Government supplied material (GFX) that's kept out of the publicly declared cost is one thing that varies tremendously.


True (as we know we are often kept guessing, including now re: the T31 cost increase). In the case that Seaspear raised above, this could be a trick that we have missed:
"underwater sensor suite will consist of Kongsberg's SS2030 active hull-mounted sonar and SD9500 lightweight over-the-side dipping sonar"
- the quoted cost, though, has been under intensive scrutiny from the beginning. When you want to compare the per meter price with something, you can take the Spanish BAMs (basic OPVs) that a decade ago came at 1 mln euro per meter; here 1300 mln divided by 4 and then 114, which gives you 2.9 mln).
- as for GFX, "the T23" was actually done for this class as the Bofors 57 comes from a predecessor class. Again, one could correct by taking the (hugely inflated) price that USN/ USCG paid for theirs, by setting up a whole factory in the US... before cutting the planned quantity from about 100 down drastically,
- and the SSMs (which T31 does not have; ehmm... I wonder where the five 'interim' sets of new Harpoons will end up) come from a prgrm that provides land platforms, FACs and the Pohjanmaas, all, with the same kit in one go. So that item is shrouded in secrecy (assuming, at the insistence of the supplier as it is the first export deal for that newest Gabriel from Israel)

However, if this is all 'academic' then look no further than the NL thread where the details for a closely comparable Dutch frigate are emerging... how much per meter :) ?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Jun 2020, 07:57

donald_of_tokyo wrote: T23 is providing only 85 sea-going days per year per hull. Two fully kitted T31 and three large OPV (but still meets the T31RFI requirement) can easily cover the tasks 5 T23GPs were doing in the last decade.


While on the surface this is a good capacity measure, and will do for peace time tasks, it falls short if a need to ramp up for possible conflict arises as then comparing like with like will need
CAPACITY x CAPABILITY
as the valid comparator.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1688
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 28 Jun 2020, 10:05

Ron5 wrote: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.
This is exactly the point I am making Ron.

RN and the UK taxpayer was originally promised five T31 Frigates for £1.25bn whilst reducing the T26 hulls from 13 to 8. This was to be a boon for the UK taxpayer and UK PLC and underpin a new era in UK shipbuilding. Something along the lines of a UK designed and built Venator was originally envisaged.

We now find ourselves in a position were the T31's are based on a foreign design, contain mainly foreign technology and an additional £750m has now been allocated to introduce the new class into RN service. A large part of this is likely due to the lack of commonality with the 40mm/57mm, NS100/110 and TACTICOS.

It is highly likely that these costs will rise further as the years roll on and if the final T31 project costs end up in the £2.5bn region then it will have have been another unmitigated MOD procurement disaster.

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 2355
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 28 Jun 2020, 10:21

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


I do not understand the automatic assumption that because we have 5 GP currently, we need (or its a priority) to have 5 new ones. The world has changed and hanging onto arbitrary numbers in a time of limited funds is just plain stupid.

With CEPP, the whole way the RN thinks and operates has changed. It has been clearly stated that the T31 will not play a significant role in CEPP, so what is the requirement and their role?

I can see four possible roles - (forward based) Global Patrol, RFA escort, amphibious support ship and USV (MCM) mothership.

The chosen design is not optimal for the last two. Given the expected focus of limited RFA resources on CEPP, then the second isn’t a justification; which leaves Global Patrol.

For the (forward based) Global Patrol role, the B2 Rivers are suitable for at least of the 3 forward deployments that they are being lined up from (FIPS, Caribbean and patrols from Gibraltar). This leaves the EoS roles, which is could be for 1 - 3 platforms (1 Gulf and 2 Singapore) - personally I can see justification for the Gulf (on the assumption that there will not be a MHPC) but not the other two (what’s the point of a weakly armed frigate in the region?).

So two options, given the requirements, either to build 2-3 T31s but with all the bells and whistles, or change the design - given the broader discussions on the future commando force, an adaptation of an Absalon design would have made much more sense. So let’s pause, redesign, and build five Amphibious Support Ships (Absalon’s) and get something of use.
”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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 1552
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby SW1 » 28 Jun 2020, 10:32

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote: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.
This is exactly the point I am making Ron.

RN and the UK taxpayer was originally promised five T31 Frigates for £1.25bn whilst reducing the T26 hulls from 13 to 8. This was to be a boon for the UK taxpayer and UK PLC and underpin a new era in UK shipbuilding. Something along the lines of a UK designed and built Venator was originally envisaged.

We now find ourselves in a position were the T31's are based on a foreign design, contain mainly foreign technology and an additional £750m has now been allocated to introduce the new class into RN service. A large part of this is likely due to the lack of commonality with the 40mm/57mm, NS100/110 and TACTICOS.

It is highly likely that these costs will rise further as the years roll on and if the final T31 project costs end up in the £2.5bn region then it will have have been another unmitigated MOD procurement disaster.


I think there is always a underestimation of how expensive it is to introduce a new class of ship, a/c, vehicle ect which is why many strive for streamlined commonality of larger fleets. Small numbers of multiple class drive costs up and this is usually worse the longer term. It’s where hard nosed compromises need to be made and we don’t do it as well as others and it’s also coupled with an industrial strategy. There does come a time when you need to transition to a new type which invariably leads to new choices. I’ll take one example above the 40mm gun we need only look across the channel at how France will deploy it across land and sea and how we’re doing to see the difference.

So I would agree there is certainly alarm bells starting to ring with both type 26 and type 31 that history is repeating itself.

NickC
Member
Posts: 662
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby NickC » 28 Jun 2020, 11:17

ArmChairCivvy wrote:However, if this is all 'academic' then look no further than the NL thread where the details for a closely comparable Dutch frigate are emerging... how much per meter :) ?

The headline with the new Belgium/Dutch 133m ~5,500t FLD frigates, Vervanging M-fregaten - vMFF, to replace the 3,300t M class specialising in anti-submarine warfare is the budget of 500 million euros ~£450 million per ship, Belgium has reserved 1 billion euros for its two frigates, the amount for the Dutch ships is unknown, but will not be much higher.

To meet the very tight budget they had to make changes to their original design RMF-22D and made very small adjustments, quoted example the calculation of the fuel capacity, on the advice of Damen, that changed and reduced the weight, also reduced from ~80 to 40 additional personnel accommodation over and above crew of a low 110 (M class was 160), the space for 12m FRISCs was reduced to 7m RHIBs and the HED electric motors smaller. Ends with a design that is 1.09 meters shorter, slightly narrower and 200 tons less displacement.

They note most countries place a turnkey contract, all inclusive, eg mention British Type 26 and German MKS 180 which they quote as ~ 1.2 billion euros. Belgium/Dutch Navies buy a platform, buy the sensors, weapons, other systems and put it on board and carry out the integration and write the software themselves, they think that's very important (same as Danish Navy with Iver Huitfeldt class).

Some sensors, weapon and command systems are still under tender, known LFAPS sonar, integrated Thales AESA GaN S & X band radars, the Thales new gen AWWS CMS follow-on to TACTICOS, based on AI to process the incoming information within milliseconds and initiate optimum defence mix, soft decoys, jamming, missiles etc and presumably the TNO APPAD AWS CMS etc

Understand 16 Mk41 VLS cells for ESSM etc, RAM, new SSM and CIWS, 76mm gun and torpedoes. Mention of possible future laser weapon though say in a maritime environment with a lot of moisture and bad weather its a challenge with laser technology as is the necessary energy on board to feed the laser cannon. Prototypes on land and at sea are in preparation, tests are on going. "You never know for sure with technology, but it is very promising. The big advantage is that you do not have to carry a lot of ammunition for it. "

The new frigates that will replace the current M frigates for the Netherlands and Belgium from 2027 onwards, mention of possible third country, Portugal or Norway?

Info taken mainly from Marineschepen.nl

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 28 Jun 2020, 11:46

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


For me cut the 40mm from type 31 and fit 30mm from the service pool and a Phalanx if poss also from the service pool if this can be done without cost incurred from the 40mm maybe add some CAMM to each ship. If we have already signed up for the 40mm fit them to the B2 Rivers and the new MHC's that come along. For me this could mean type 31 retains a good gun fit and if we have signed up to 40mm the B2 Rivers get up gunned a bit also could be a win win

For me a type 31 with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , 6 x 12,7mm 1 x Phalanx plus 20 CAMM is a good start and if the B2 River's were to get 1 x 40mm , 2 x 12.7mm and 2 minigun's the heavy and medium patrol ships could be in a good place

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3628
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 28 Jun 2020, 13:07

ArmChairCivvy wrote:While on the surface this is a good capacity measure, and will do for peace time tasks, it falls short if a need to ramp up for possible conflict as then comparing like with like will need
CAPACITY x CAPABILITY
as the valid comparator.
True, in general. However, in this case, only half true. "85 days" figure originates mostly from lack of man power. RN is manning only 12 of 19 escorts. 5 T23 is, in general, 3 hulls equivalent. If there are 3 fully kitted T31, 2 very lightly armed version is like a bonus.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 28 Jun 2020, 15:49

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Ron5 wrote: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.
This is exactly the point I am making Ron.

RN and the UK taxpayer was originally promised five T31 Frigates for £1.25bn whilst reducing the T26 hulls from 13 to 8. This was to be a boon for the UK taxpayer and UK PLC and underpin a new era in UK shipbuilding. Something along the lines of a UK designed and built Venator was originally envisaged.

We now find ourselves in a position were the T31's are based on a foreign design, contain mainly foreign technology and an additional £750m has now been allocated to introduce the new class into RN service. A large part of this is likely due to the lack of commonality with the 40mm/57mm, NS100/110 and TACTICOS.

It is highly likely that these costs will rise further as the years roll on and if the final T31 project costs end up in the £2.5bn region then it will have have been another unmitigated MOD procurement disaster.


Oh puleaze, what a pathetic attempt at re-writing history.

The MoD announced to the world they were running a competition to build 5 frigates with a minimum set of requirements for a fixed price contract of 1.25 billion. A period of consultation between industry and MoD would finalize each entrants configuration to the point that the competitor could be confident that would fit below the spending limit.

There was always going to be additional MoD costs to bring the ships into service. They were kept confidential to the Ministry, a fact noted by the NAO.

All three competitors were unable to agree with the MoD on acceptable configurations at the price point even though they did not all use "foreign technology",TACTICOS, NS100/110, 40mm or 57mm guns. As a result, the MoD decided to move the cost of the CAMM system (which had been mandated by them) out of the 1.25 billion and into their budget line.

That was enough to enable the competition to close and Babcocks was declared the winner and was awarded the 1.25 billion fixed price contract. The only significant change from the original announcement being the cost of the CAMM system.

So talk of the "foreign equipment" being the cost problem is bullshit.

Talk of cost growth or inflation or whatever is bullshit. The original budget was inadequate for the capability required, a totally different situation.

They will be modern frigates in every sense of the word complying with all the relevant RN & UK standards and regulations. You can argue the ships are under equipped, I totally agree but that is an independent issue.

The are under contract. They are guaranteed delivery. They will be a Navy asset. Stop being a bloody pom and stop whinging.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 28 Jun 2020, 15:54

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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.
Sorry, I'm a bit confused. T31's 2B GBP is contracted, but most of them are not payed yet. I understand the payment will happen within coming 10 years. On average, 200M GBP per year (of course, not flat).

MOD need to pay for it until 2030 or more. And every year, it must be included in the Defence Budget. As you know, Defence budget has some cap (virtually), and as much as MOD pays for T31 in coming decade, it is eating up the budget allocated for equipment.

Every year, MOD fights against "hospital or service the national debt". It is not related to T31 contract.

If the MOD money dries out, partly because of T31 cost in a certain year, Treasury can just say, "it is WITHIN your own budget. HMG is already paying promised 2% GDP for defense. Handle it at your own risk.". And what happen is, RN slowing down other (or T31) procurement, cutting operation costs, keeping ships in extended readiness, and cutting manpower.

On this regard, I say, "the 2B GBP is eating up the MOD equipment budget".
donald_of_tokyo wrote: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. This is the first time ever Babcock designs a escort. Detailed design includes all the process, manual, documentation, parts list, inspection, verifying standard by reviews, many many. It is not easy to "foresee" the whole work, in a company who's CEO was saying "Will be surprise if these ships cannot be build in 1.25B GBP" :lolno:

But, I agree right after building starts, there might be another cost rise. It will also deeply depend on how much the "detail design" is well written. Again, not high hope. I agree to you here.
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.
?? Your argument other than the last line is I totally agree. But the last line is not clear for me. T31 money is allocated and HAS STOLEN 0.5B GBP from the estimated budget. This is what I mean.


I am sorry Donald-san that I am unable to make it clear to you.

Signed contracts will be honored by UK government. Future spending plans will not necessarily. If a MoD contract is cancelled, any money saved returns to the Treasury and doesn't remain belonging the the MoD.

inch
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby inch » 28 Jun 2020, 17:46

So we not doing news only on this thread now ,cool as long as the we know no probs just delete news only :thumbup:

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1892
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby bobp » 28 Jun 2020, 19:04

inch wrote:So we not doing news only on this thread now

Nope its fantasy time

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 12613
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Jun 2020, 19:12

Poiuytrewq wrote: NS100/110 and TACTICOS.
Wonder what the first one is... but Tacticos under-surface plug-in might turn out to be wonderful ;)
Repulse wrote:It has been clearly stated that the T31 will not play a significant role in CEPP
Have not seen that statement; where was it?
SW1 wrote:Small numbers of multiple class drive costs up and this is usually worse the longer term. It’s where hard nosed compromises need to be made
Therefore, once something has been proved (ehmm :!: cost included) a Batch2 will be ordered; may be with a different set of mission kit
NickC wrote:Belgium/Dutch Navies buy a platform, buy the sensors, weapons, other systems and put it on board and carry out the integration and write the software themselves, they think that's very important (same as Danish Navy with Iver Huitfeldt class).

A wonderful business model - retired naval designers spend their time on these types of forums bearing the chest, ripping up the tunics and yelling out: IT CAN'T BE DONE :lol: (bcz in my day, it was not done)... now finding some ash for the rest of the ritual is the cheap part of it
Ron5 wrote:They will be modern frigates in every sense of the word complying with all the relevant RN & UK standards and regulations. You can argue the ships are under equipped, I totally agree but that is

+
Ron5 wrote:The are under contract. They are guaranteed delivery. They will be a Navy asset.


Ahh, ohh, what harmony this plays to my soul!
- after so many years we agree
- and, because they are "Lego Ships" TM by Ron, the under-equipped part will be solved like in childs' play... find the lego (are we sitting on it? GFE. Or do we need to buy some... well Tacticos is used v widely, so all kinds of bits and Bobs are available, without an integration cost to add on on top)

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1688
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 28 Jun 2020, 19:41

Ron5 wrote:Oh puleaze
Precisely....
Ron5 wrote:....what a pathetic attempt at re-writing history
What a pathetic attempt at starting an argument.....I think you're trolling Ron.
Ron5 wrote:There was always going to be additional MoD costs to bring the ships into service. They were kept confidential to the Ministry, a fact noted by the NAO.
Absolutely but the objective of the T31 programme was to save a substantial amount of money. If the costs of the programme balloons for whatever reason it will have been a failure. Simple.
Ron5 wrote:So talk of the "foreign equipment" being the cost problem is bullshit.
Any new weapons systems added to the RN inventory will incur integration costs as well as additional training, which again has a cost. All these costs add up. The fact that much of this money is disappearing abroad rather than supporting UK PLC is regrettable.
Ron5 wrote:Talk of cost growth or inflation or whatever is bullshit.
If the construction phase is elongated by a substantial amount than was originally envisaged then inflation will be a factor. How big a factor remains to be seen.
Ron5 wrote:The original budget was inadequate for the capability required, a totally different situation.
It may have been inadequate but it was the justification for the T31 programme at the time. Keep raising the budget and the original case for the T31 programme diminishes expodentially.
Ron5 wrote:Stop being a bloody pom and stop whinging
Maybe it would be best for all concerned if you stopped telling others what to do....

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1567
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 28 Jun 2020, 22:07

Yeah, we’re veering too far into fantasy territory now. Take it to a more appropriate thread please.

jonas
Member
Posts: 857
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby jonas » 02 Aug 2020, 14:12

NavyLookout
@NavyLookout
·
43m
Whole Ship Preliminary Design Review (WSPDR) of Type 31 Frigate completed - marking the end of Engineering functional design phase.

Independent board of subject matter experts & MoD impressed with technical maturity. Can now proceed to detailed design and maturing of CAD model

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 02 Aug 2020, 15:18

jonas wrote:Independent board of subject matter experts & MoD impressed with technical maturity.


Well it is ninety something percent of an existing ship that's floating around the North Sea as we speak so yeah, it aughta be mature.

/cynic mode off

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 02 Aug 2020, 17:04

To make up for my earlier cynicism, here's a mock up of their new assembly hall (I refuse to call it a frigate factory, it's a shed):

Image

Them cars is gonna get squished when the pre-done blocks get delivered.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1882
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 02 Aug 2020, 17:50

makes you think why BAE can't / won't build their own shed

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Jensy » 02 Aug 2020, 19:20

Tempest414 wrote:makes you think why BAE can't / won't build their own shed


Between Scotstoun and Portsmouth, they have demolished or mothballed far more impressive facilities than Babcock's new shed!

Image

Image

Sadly, the combination of nationalistic politics, shareholders and government industrial policy rarely result in harmony or positive outcomes.

BAE is easily rich enough to invest in comparable facilities to what Babcock are building at Rosyth. The just lack any incentive or sufficient orders from government to do so.

The amount of money the MoD wasted on the carrier design u-turn back in 2010-12, would have more than paid the £100m (the other 50% being matched by BAE) needed to build a 'world class' production facility on the Clyde.

Image

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 02 Aug 2020, 20:54

Jensy wrote:They (Bae) just lack any incentive or sufficient orders from government to do so.


Very true on the Clyde. But for a complete contrast check out Barrow where they do:

Image

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1892
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby bobp » 02 Aug 2020, 20:57

Ron5 wrote:it's a shed


Seems to me to be quite small. Are they building modules in there or the whole thing?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 02 Aug 2020, 21:08

By the way the notion that Babcock's is paying for their shed is kinda twisted, the cost is covered by the Type 31 contract. Babcock's is no more a charitable institute than Bae. Or any other business.

Same for the mythical Bae "frigate factory", it would have been funded out of the T26 contract. Minus the productivity improvements it would have contributed which I believe would have included joining up and completing the whole ship out of the elements which can be quite severe up there. I also think fitting out would have been done under cover too but my memory is even vaguer on that. There was a nice CGI video at one point. Youtube perhaps?

All comes down the the Bae offer to build all 8 T26 under one contract at a significant savings to HMG. Gideon, of course, turned it down. Following in the illustrious footsteps of his masterful gold dealing predecessor, he saw no reason to save the taxpayer money when his own pride was at stake. I wonder where they are now? Not even a miserable knighthood between the pair, let alone a lordship. Even the traitor Hammond is going to get that.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests