Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[wargame_insomniac]

The type 31 is for maritime security and escort tasks which is the main focus of a maritime state, why would we want to turn it into some sort of land attack platform.

Why wouldn't we?

Exactly - especially as the T31 are likely to be deployedand sailing in Littoral Areas either around potential flashpoints and/or on Global Sea Lanes near potential choke points.

Ukraine has shown us that in a shooting war we need a variety of missiles and munitions. We want a large quantity of cheaper munitions backed up by a smaller number of more epxensive ones, ither with longer range and/or more precise targetting.

Again we want the RN to have "teeth" again rather than being considered as well defended herbivores.

[tomuk]

Well depending how the Army goes with M270A2 if they buy GLSDB and PrSM if the Navy installed the launch programs on to type 31 for MRLS it could carry 8 NSM , 12 GLSDB and 4 to 8 PrSM with PrSM having a 500km range

PrSM is one thing but why look at GLSDB when you have Brimstone and are working on Spear 3

[Tempest414]

Well depending how the Army goes with M270A2 if they buy GLSDB and PrSM if the Navy installed the launch programs on to type 31 for MRLS it could carry 8 NSM , 12 GLSDB and 4 to 8 PrSM with PrSM having a 500km range

PrSM is one thing but why look at GLSDB when you have Brimstone and are working on Spear 3

Cost GLSDB is 40 to 65K dollars Brimstone 100+K and spear 3 more like 120k but we should still have both as GLSDB will give our M270A2's a cheap mass round with a 150k range

[Tempest414]

The type 31 is for maritime security and escort tasks which is the main focus of a maritime state, why would we want to turn it into some sort of land attack platform.

Firstly what could you have against type 31 having NSM for the Anti ship role in support of it security & escort role

I would not call it full on land attack with weapons capable of 150km more coastal attack which could be useful in support of RM raiding ops however at a cost of say 3 to 5 million per ship if type 31 could be given ability to carry 12 cheap 150 km strike weapons or 8 500km strike weapons then why not

Also why the shift in thinking in the past you have been for Type 31 having a land attack capability

[SW1]

The type 31 is for maritime security and escort tasks which is the main focus of a maritime state, why would we want to turn it into some sort of land attack platform.

Firstly what could you have against type 31 having NSM for the Anti ship role in support of it security & escort role

I would not call it full on land attack with weapons capable of 150km more coastal attack which could be useful in support of RM raiding ops however at a cost of say 3 to 5 million per ship if type 31 could be given ability to carry 12 cheap 150 km strike weapons or 8 500km strike weapons then why not

Also why the shift in thinking in the past you have been for Type 31 having a land attack capability

I have no issue with the type 31 having NSM it supports the principle role of sea control and something that should be widely fitted across the fleet.

I do have an issue when we start to take about small diameter bombs and mlrs type weapons to “support raiding forces”. It’s a role when you start to get into things that can get out of control quickly from assets that are ill suited to the task and lack the significant backup in intelligence assets that support such thing’s particularly on land.

The comments on land attack where principally around an option for tomahawk should a mk41 be included that could be used as a political statement of support to a U.S. operation in which we were attached such as the initial strike operation in Afghanistan or Syria as a supporting fwd deployed asset. This is very different to supporting independent raiding forces.

[Tempest414]

However it is more than possible that type 31 would support LRG ops or multi national Littoral ops where limited coastal strike maybe needed at which point why use a 2 million dollar NSM which are needed for sea AD

[SW1]

However it is more than possible that type 31 would support LRG ops or multi national Littoral ops where limited coastal strike maybe needed at which point why use a 2 million dollar NSM which are needed for sea AD

Anything is possible, I do not really think the LRG makes much sense certainly when we start to talk about limited strikes on land targets. I personally would advise maximum caution about such things. If we want to talk recent events a relatively limited evacuation operation requires significant forces in position to accomplish safely. In reality strikes on land of a independent or framework nation type operation would require the carrier strike group on station.

the principle focus of these fwd deployed units should be on maritime security and escort not shooting at land targets. NSM supports that.

[Poiuytrewq]

Cost GLSDB is 40 to 65K dollars Brimstone 100+K and spear 3 more like 120k but we should still have both as GLSDB will give our M270A2's a cheap mass round with a 150k range

The crucial point is providing a capability that is so cost effective it can be made widely available.

It’s clear that stockpiles need to be enlarged and inventories expanded. The only realistic way to achieve that is by driving down cost rather than asking for more money. CAMM is a great example.

PODs could be a universal self contained unit that would have a dual maritime and land use and be Chinook and road transportable. It could be capable of carrying CAMM, PrSM, Brimstone or Spear3 and if all networked together it would be a massive game changer as well as highly cost effective due to the lack of bespoke vehicles. It would also reduce the need for MALE drones as surveillance drones would be all that is required.

It would also be highly exportable.

[tomuk]

Cost GLSDB is 40 to 65K dollars Brimstone 100+K and spear 3 more like 120k but we should still have both as GLSDB will give our M270A2's a cheap mass round with a 150k range

The crucial point is providing a capability that is so cost effective it can be made widely available.

It’s clear that stockpiles need to be enlarged and inventories expanded. The only realistic way to achieve that is by driving down cost rather than asking for more money. CAMM is a great example.

PODs could be a universal self contained unit that would have a dual maritime and land use and be Chinook and road transportable. It could be capable of carrying CAMM, PrSM, Brimstone or Spear3 and if all networked together it would be a massive game changer as well as highly cost effective due to the lack of bespoke vehicles. It would also reduce the need for MALE drones as surveillance drones would be all that is required.

It would also be highly exportable.

I agree, it is like platforms in car manufacturing the more cars built on the same architecture the cheaper it gets, buy more from uk suppliers MBDA and Thales Belfast and drive the price down.

[Tempest414]

Cost GLSDB is 40 to 65K dollars Brimstone 100+K and spear 3 more like 120k but we should still have both as GLSDB will give our M270A2's a cheap mass round with a 150k range

The crucial point is providing a capability that is so cost effective it can be made widely available.

It’s clear that stockpiles need to be enlarged and inventories expanded. The only realistic way to achieve that is by driving down cost rather than asking for more money. CAMM is a great example.

PODs could be a universal self contained unit that would have a dual maritime and land use and be Chinook and road transportable. It could be capable of carrying CAMM, PrSM, Brimstone or Spear3 and if all networked together it would be a massive game changer as well as highly cost effective due to the lack of bespoke vehicles. It would also reduce the need for MALE drones as surveillance drones would be all that is required.

It would also be highly exportable.

I agree, it is like platforms in car manufacturing the more cars built on the same architecture the cheaper it gets, buy more from uk suppliers MBDA and Thales Belfast and drive the price down.

I agree with the main thrust but at what number of any given weapon does the price drop by a good step

[Poiuytrewq]

I agree, it is like platforms in car manufacturing the more cars built on the same architecture the cheaper it gets, buy more from uk suppliers MBDA and Thales Belfast and drive the price down.

I agree with the main thrust but at what number of any given weapon does the price drop by a good step

This is what I have in mind but ideally reduce the length to half of a TEU to increase portability and separate the control unit so that multiple units can be joined together and controlled either by a separate modular unit or another controller elsewhere. This should allow 30 to 40 Spear3 per unit.

These could be operated by the T31 with multiple units fitting in the hanger alongside the embarked Wildcat. Due to the generous size of the flightdeck a Wildcat could still land with a POD unit operating adjacent to the superstructure. Another win for the larger than expected dimensions of the T31.

121D7B7A-0BD6-406E-92F9-58DDEADD176C.jpeg

Due to the length of the missiles CAMM would require a slightly different solution but the overall size of the POD would not need to increase. It’s clear the engineering is already mature, it just needs slotted into a universal POD unit now.

1A0E3976-C3BA-4976-AB47-0763A0BB6ABD.jpeg

PrSM would again require a different launching solution but with a 500km range it may well be worth the effort.

14EE53DD-1B7C-4BEA-ABFE-8A52261B6A61.jpeg

The crucial part is ensuring that the PODs concept works on land and at sea, is transportable under slung by Chinook and can be easily transported by road.

PODs has been running for two years and is due to be operational 2026. It would good to see some progress asap.

[The Armchair Soldier]

Some of these posts are veering a little too off-topic now. Let's get back to posting news and related discussion.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Fixed price contract is fixed price contract, looks like...

[Ron5]

You have to remember in MoD contracts - fixed price is not fixed, it can vary with changes in inflation or exchange rates or even some commodity prices. Firm prices mean not subject to variation ie fixed in common usage.

Even profit rates can vary on the efficiency of the supplier or the assumed risk being covered by each party. Babcock were not content so accept certain risks ie significant inflation rate changes so that is why the contract was fixed at £1.25m. MoD are underwriting these risks.

This comment is pertinent to today's news.

Again

[tomuk]

Fixed price contract is fixed price contract, looks like...

As the contract was let by MOD\DE&S don't bet on it.

[new guy]

[Poiuytrewq]

Did anyone seriously expect Babcock to build five T31s for £1.25bn? It was never going to happen.

The T31 project won’t be allowed to fail so the big question now is how much will the program REALLY cost?

It’s likely any overspend will eat into the T32 budget from 2026-2032 and reduce the likelihood of any upgrades in the interim so if HMT won’t provide more funds the ultimate result will be a dropped hull. So four T31s for £1.25bn or £312m per vessel plus GFE.

[new guy]

"It was announced on 12 September 2019 that the Arrowhead 140 design had been selected for the Type 31 frigate.[42] A contract was formally awarded to Babcock on 15 November 2019, for an average production cost of £250 million per ship and an overall programme cost set to be £2 billion with £1.25 billion value to Babcock.[5]"
Can somebody explain to me where the other £750m or 150m as ship is? (£250m vs £400m) .

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... o-babcock/

[SW1]

I believe the difference between the 1.25b given to Babcock and the total contract cost of 2b is the req to do new class testing and integration by the navy and initial support and financial risk.



I have the oddest feeling the 50-100m contract increase discussion around this program the big bill for the rather large ship in dry dock beside it are inextricably linked!

[Jdam]

[new guy]

Shame.
On the other hand, this is one of those things that the government could take advantage of with "race to net zero" by competing for net zero steel, as in many other sectors. But what point it really brings up is what is the point of having a at home ship building programme if the a large majority of the subcomponets arn't produced here. What I would like to see is a report by some think tank about how many years warning would be needed for UK to become wartime level self-sufficient. For example, how long would it take for the type of steel to enter production. Still a fan of T31 .

[donald_of_tokyo]

Did anyone seriously expect Babcock to build five T31s for £1.25bn? It was never going to happen.

I did, BUT two points included, I do not, now.

1: £2bn and not £1.25bn is the total cost. There must be many other contracts to be held to actually deliver the T31 as we expect.
2: Cost impact of COVID19 and Ukraina war will be exceeding the Babcock's own "risk margin", and at least "half of it" shall be reasonable to be covered by MOD/HMG.

Anyway, building four Damen 10515 light frigate costs nearly £1.25Bn. Brazilian four Tamadare-class 3,500-ton MEKO A-100-class light frigate costs 2Bn Euro. There is no reason to assume Babcock can build 5 T31 with £1.25Bn. But, with £2Bn, it could be possible (but not easy),

See <detail> below.

The T31 project won’t be allowed to fail so the big question now is how much will the program REALLY cost?

It’s likely any overspend will eat into the T32 budget from 2026-2032 and reduce the likelihood of any upgrades in the interim so if HMT won’t provide more funds the ultimate result will be a dropped hull. So four T31s for £1.25bn or £312m per vessel plus GFE.

T31 average cost is [EDIT, thanks Tempest414-san] "£400M per vessel including GFE". This is the only number we know. Other numbers are all "but without AAA, not including BBB" etc.

T32 budget is NOT yet assigned in any sense. So, for T32 to happen, RN already needs "HMT to provide more funds". In other words, I think T32 will come only with HMG's "defense budget increase" announcement.

If the T31 program budget remains to be £2Bn, and COVID19/Ukraina-war related impact is not covered, I think there are 2 options

- build some of the 5 T31 without CAMM = "with CAMM FTR". This is simply because I understand CAMM-fitting contract is not yet finalized (SeaCeptor system integration cost (with CMS) and some parts cost might be included in the contract with MBDA. But, for sure, its integration must be done by Backcock (and Thales UK) at Rosyth, not MBDA).

- if Babcock cannot cover the money shortfall of the contractual obligations included in "the £1.25Bn", they may ask for more investment from the market (actually, Cammel Laird did this, to cover the huge loss of delivering RV SD Attenborough). If Babcock fails to cover this loss, then HMG "may" share (take a half of) the shortfalls with renewed contract. Cutting the 5th hull may happen, but it will never give you "£250M". Establishing the build process costs a lot. Learning curve also comes in. In other words, there are many costs "already payed" before building the 5th hull. Diesel engines, 4D-radar, EO-FCS, guns and other parts are already ordered and canceling them will cost. So, I guess the 5th hull will be anyway built (but without CAMM and other assets).


<detail of the first half>
1: SURELY, the £1.25bn does not include everything. It is only a (large) fraction of the T31 program. Babcock did NOT know how many CAMM will be carried on T31 an year ago. Even after the hull build of T31-hull1 is in shape. This means, the CAMM integration will be covered under independent contract, yet to be finalized, I think. In other words, only "FTR CAMM" is within the £1.25bn contract. As Sea Ceptor is the main weapon of T31, this means not only the Sea Ceptor, but also many aspects (providing training of RN crew, 1st year maintenance support etc) are not yet fixed.

Note that there is NO good comparison of such cost for T26. T26 is always told with total cost. This is what we can know from the NAO report.

2: Surely, on September 2019, I did NOT expected the outbreak of COVID19 nor the Ukraina war. These two issues surely have big cost impact. To my understanding, the finance-exchange-rate risk was taken by HMG not Babcock, or at least "shared" (I'm not sure, but I remember there were discussions there, right before the £1.25bn contract). But, cost-inflation related to other issues (semiconductor parts shortfall, shipping slow down and cost increase etc.) cannot be easily justified to be covered by HMG, because it is Babcock who is selecting each and every parts, not HMG. Just guess.

As the parliamental question answer says everything is on discussion within the contract, I think we will see the end result soon. As an engineer, I can say, I cannot build anything I promised on late 2019 and to be delivered around 2025-2028, without 10-20% (or more) cost increase. I think 10% risk margin (which can be converted into profit, in optimistic case) shall be kept by Babcock (if it is a "normal" contract), but, I guess the cost overrun is exceeding that margin.

[Tempest414]

First thing First Type 31 program cost per hull including GFE is 400 million not 500 million ( 5 x 400 = 2 bn ) and the build cost of type 31 per ship is 268 million including GFE

The big question that some here really will not like is what effect is all this having on Type 26 we know the 3.7 billion batch 1 contract has over run by 233 million and first ship is still fitting out and that was before inflation really took off so we must expect that BAE will be coming back for another handout

I can see type 31 total program cost making 2.2 to 2.4 billion

I can see type 26 total program costs making 9.6 to 9.8 billion ( type 26 already stands at 8.992 billion)

[Ron5]

First thing First Type 31 program cost per hull including GFE is 400 million not 500 million ( 5 x 400 = 2 bn ) and the build cost of type 31 per ship is 268 million including GFE

The big question that some here really will not like is what effect is all this having on Type 26 we know the 3.7 billion batch 1 contract has over run by 233 million and first ship is still fitting out and that was before inflation really took off so we must expect that BAE will be coming back for another handout

I can see type 31 total program cost making 2.2 to 2.4 billion

I can see type 26 total program costs making 9.6 to 9.8 billion ( type 26 already stands at 8.992 billion)

Different contract structures. Bae T26 is single source so is building under "open books" with small amount added for profit. Cost plus so to speak.

BTW "Handout" denotes charity. I'm sure you don't mean that.

[Tempest414]

First thing First Type 31 program cost per hull including GFE is 400 million not 500 million ( 5 x 400 = 2 bn ) and the build cost of type 31 per ship is 268 million including GFE

The big question that some here really will not like is what effect is all this having on Type 26 we know the 3.7 billion batch 1 contract has over run by 233 million and first ship is still fitting out and that was before inflation really took off so we must expect that BAE will be coming back for another handout

I can see type 31 total program cost making 2.2 to 2.4 billion

I can see type 26 total program costs making 9.6 to 9.8 billion ( type 26 already stands at 8.992 billion)

Different contract structures. Bae T26 is single source so is building under "open books" with small amount added for profit. Cost plus so to speak.

BTW "Handout" denotes charity. I'm sure you don't mean that.

I agree the contracts are different but the end point is the same both BAE and Babcock's will be handing in some extra bills due to extra high inflation

I will change the Handout to hand in a extra bill

In someways HMG have to suck this up as both BAE and Babcock are in this storm due to HMG and MOD dragging there feet over Type 23 replacement