The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Systems Adict · May 23, 2018

Royal Navy frigate fleet may be expanded hints Defence Secretary

Just had a quick read thru the article in the link above. The bit that got me was the final paragraph...

"Tony Douglas, the Chief Executive Officer of DE&S, said,

“The Type 31e programme will drive the change that is needed through the entire system, because we have set tough time and cost constraints.

The collective challenge for DE&S and industry is to deliver Type 31e in a different, more innovative way than has gone before. I want this to be a transformation in the way we do business – not just in ships and acquisition but across the entire defence equipment and support portfolio.”

This sort of statement often make me wonder how the UK National Shipbuilding fraternity has managed to survive. It leaves me with the impression that we're going on to build empty tin boxes that float, not complex warships.

Purely because someone says we need transformation & that we need tough time & cost constraints, doesn't mean that the end product will be better or do what is required at the time it is needed most.

Simplification, making things cheaper & building them faster for less costs, may help the overall bottom line, but it doesn't address the fact that if we build something properly, to do a specific task (Such as ASW frigates), to achieve the quality, funds & time are required, which is often expensive & time consuming, the complete opposite of fast n cheap.

StobieWan · May 23, 2018

Systems Adict said:
Royal Navy frigate fleet may be expanded hints Defence Secretary

Just had a quick read thru the article in the link above. The bit that got me was the final paragraph...

"Tony Douglas, the Chief Executive Officer of DE&S, said,

“The Type 31e programme will drive the change that is needed through the entire system, because we have set tough time and cost constraints.

The collective challenge for DE&S and industry is to deliver Type 31e in a different, more innovative way than has gone before. I want this to be a transformation in the way we do business – not just in ships and acquisition but across the entire defence equipment and support portfolio.”

This sort of statement often make me wonder how the UK National Shipbuilding fraternity has managed to survive. It leaves me with the impression that we're going on to build empty tin boxes that float, not complex warships.

Purely because someone says we need transformation & that we need tough time & cost constraints, doesn't mean that the end product will be better or do what is required at the time it is needed most.

Simplification, making things cheaper & building them faster for less costs, may help the overall bottom line, but it doesn't address the fact that if we build something properly, to do a specific task (Such as ASW frigates), to achieve the quality, funds & time are required, which is often expensive & time consuming, the complete opposite of fast n cheap.

Cheap no good..Good no cheap ?

ASSAIL · May 23, 2018

StobieWan said:
Cheap no good..Good no cheap ?

I'm too old to see the end of life (say 30 years) for the T31 however you can bet your left one that over their life they will receive extensive upgrades of the platform, sensors and weapons as the RN finds further demands on capability and use.
By the end of their lives they will have copied the progress of the Anzacs. They started life as cheap and cheerful tier two frigates but no longer, the upgrades they've received have made the into quite an expensive ship, effective but expensive.
How much cheaper over their lives and easier, for both the build cycle and for subsequent additions, would it be to simply continue a line of dumbed down T26's which is exactly what the USN did with the Spruance Class which started life as a big underarmed ship capable of accepting improvements in capability as they aged.

StobieWan · May 24, 2018

ASSAIL said:
I'm too old to see the end of life (say 30 years) for the T31 however you can bet your left one that over their life they will receive extensive upgrades of the platform, sensors and weapons as the RN finds further demands on capability and use.
By the end of their lives they will have copied the progress of the Anzacs. They started life as cheap and cheerful tier two frigates but no longer, the upgrades they've received have made the into quite an expensive ship, effective but expensive.
How much cheaper over their lives and easier, for both the build cycle and for subsequent additions, would it be to simply continue a line of dumbed down T26's which is exactly what the USN did with the Spruance Class which started life as a big underarmed ship capable of accepting improvements in capability as they aged.

I'd have to dig out the article but there seems to be an underlying assumption that they will have a life of 20 years or so before being replaced - that would help maintain UK shipbuilding and be a lot easier to work with in terms of the expensive end of life maintenance that the type 42's needed. Whether that happens or they get stretched out to 30 years is another thing

KiwiRob · May 24, 2018

ASSAIL said:
How much cheaper over their lives and easier, for both the build cycle and for subsequent additions, would it be to simply continue a line of dumbed down T26's which is exactly what the USN did with the Spruance Class which started life as a big underarmed ship capable of accepting improvements in capability as they aged.

If the Babcocks group wins that’s what you get, it’s a big underarmed ship capable of accepting improvements in capability over its lifetime, if the Cammell Laird group will you get an enlarged corvette with little in the way of an upgrade path.

KiwiRob · May 31, 2018

I went to the Babcocks Type 31e workshop today, they showed everyone there new contender which is the Arrowhead 140, replacing the Arrowhead 120, the 140 is the Iver Huitfeldt design. After going to both workshops it’s pretty clear to me which vessel should be picked, based on what’s being offered and the consortiums doing to offering.

Also got to go on a yard tour, Prince of Wales looks massive, very impressive, they should build another one.

ASSAIL · May 31, 2018

KiwiRob said:
I went to the Babcocks Type 31e workshop today, they showed everyone there new contender which is the Arrowhead 140, replacing the Arrowhead 120, the 140 is the Iver Huitfeldt design. After going to both workshops it’s pretty clear to me which vessel should be picked, based on what’s being offered and the consortiums doing to offering.

Also got to go on a yard tour, Prince of Wales looks massive, very impressive, they should build another one.

That is encouraging and it at least promises a way forward for the RN.

Unfortunately though your suggestion of a third QE would result in no escorts at all despite increasing the escort requirement by a dozen more hulls!

MrConservative · May 31, 2018

KiwiRob said:
I went to the Babcocks Type 31e workshop today, they showed everyone there new contender which is the Arrowhead 140, replacing the Arrowhead 120, the 140 is the Iver Huitfeldt design. After going to both workshops it’s pretty clear to me which vessel should be picked, based on what’s being offered and the consortiums doing to offering.

Also got to go on a yard tour, Prince of Wales looks massive, very impressive, they should build another one.

https://www.babcockteam31.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Arrowhead-140-Brochure.pdf

Here are some of the details with respect to the Babcock Arrowhead 140.

ASSAIL · May 31, 2018

MrConservative said:
https://www.babcockteam31.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Arrowhead-140-Brochure.pdf

Here are some of the details with respect to the Babcock Arrowhead 140.

That's really interesting. This project has grown from a super OPV to a 5,700 tonne Frigate.
What puzzles me though is subsequent to the increase in size, it would seem sensible to simply build more sparsely fitted T26s and gain all the benefits of common hulls provided they could be sub contracted out to other yards to meet the build schedule.

Despite this if the Arrow 140 is selected it would be a really good outcome.

Cadredave · May 31, 2018

MrConservative said:
https://www.babcockteam31.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Arrowhead-140-Brochure.pdf

Here are some of the details with respect to the Babcock Arrowhead 140.

Could be a future contender for the RNZN replacement being @ 5700T alot bigger than the current ANZACs with plentry of room to grow.

MrConservative · Jun 1, 2018

ASSAIL said:
That's really interesting. This project has grown from a super OPV to a 5,700 tonne Frigate.
What puzzles me though is subsequent to the increase in size, it would seem sensible to simply build more sparsely fitted T26s and gain all the benefits of common hulls provided they could be sub contracted out to other yards to meet the build schedule.

Despite this if the Arrow 140 is selected it would be a really good outcome.

A lot more realistic than the original Arrow 120. I have a slightly different take on it though agree in principle with the above.

Alternatively, (and in hindsight) why did someone not think of simply refreshing / improving the Iver F370 design in the first place as the Type 26 which began as a program 20 years ago is still dragging on. They could now be putting the first of 13 UK built single class multi-role Frigates into commission and with the money saved from all the procrastination, two separate design projects, economies of project scale et al and put the money saved into a couple of LHD's which the UK forces really need in my view. Realistically - how dramatically better is the Type 26 going to be next decade when right now the RN could have already commissioned a pretty competent Frigate and with UK yards ticking over. Just asking mind you ...

hauritz · Jun 1, 2018

ASSAIL said:
That's really interesting. This project has grown from a super OPV to a 5,700 tonne Frigate.
What puzzles me though is subsequent to the increase in size, it would seem sensible to simply build more sparsely fitted T26s and gain all the benefits of common hulls provided they could be sub contracted out to other yards to meet the build schedule.

Despite this if the Arrow 140 is selected it would be a really good outcome.

The Iver Huitfieldt is cheap but this is largely due to it being built in Lithuania. I find it hard to believe that this ship will come in for £250 million.

It will be a good ship if they can get it at that price ... but if you are going for something that large then you may as well go with what you already have and just build a stripped back type 26. As I recall the original plan was to build 5 simplified GP versions of theType 26. Perhaps they should revisit that plan.

KiwiRob · Jun 1, 2018

hauritz said:
The Iver Huitfieldt is cheap but this is largely due to it being built in Lithuania. I find it hard to believe that this ship will come in for £250 million.

Because shipbuildigning the UK is now pretty cheap, the pound is in the poop. Type 26 is built to a full
Mulsow stsndard, Arrowhead is COTS with milspec in specific areas, to redesign Type 26 to COTS wouldn’t be cheap.

StingrayOZ · Jun 1, 2018

I don't get this.. it seems like UK madness.

So instead of the 6,900t frigate (type 26)
They are going to build a 6,600t frigate another navy operates, to save money.

The arrow is promising 32 strike length cells, a light helicopter + UAV, or a full sized marine helo. Pretty heavy overlap with the Type 26. Do you think the UK will actually build a full batch of Type 26? Sure this has to undermind the Type 26.

I would like to think that NZ might be interested in a two or three ship Iver buy, particularly if the UK is operating them. That would be good capability for them. Even if it was a Lithuania build and minimal fitout to make the number work.

swerve · Jun 1, 2018

MrConservative said:
..
Alternatively, (and in hindsight) why did someone not think of simply refreshing / improving the Iver F370 design in the first place as the Type 26 ...

I think that the Type 26 is supposed to be a state of the art ASW design, & very quiet, while Iver Huitfeldt is not, & once one's improved it to have the qualities the RN wants in an ASW ship, it'd be the Type 26.

I can't help wishing OMT well, though. Ancestors of mine worked in shipbuilding at Odense, living in Skibhusene ("ship houses"), a short walk from where OMT's based, & OMT seems to be the last connection with shipbuilding still in Odense, though Fayard's still doing ship repair & conversion in the former Odense Steel (Maersk) yard at Munkebo, on Odense Fjord.

John Fedup · Jun 1, 2018

StingrayOZ said:
I don't get this.. it seems like UK madness.

So instead of the 6,900t frigate (type 26)
They are going to build a 6,600t frigate another navy operates, to save money.

The arrow is promising 32 strike length cells, a light helicopter + UAV, or a full sized marine helo. Pretty heavy overlap with the Type 26.

I agree, just build more Type 26s and reduce the kit fit-out on some of them. This allows for an upgrade path later. Like others here, I don't think the cost projection is realistic despite the depressed pound. Building 15 Type 26s versus a split buy of two designs, will the latter really be significantly different when the additional costs of supporting two designs over the lifecycle are factored in?

John Fedup · Jun 1, 2018

swerve said:
I think that the Type 26 is supposed to be a state of the art ASW design, & very quiet, while Iver Huitfeldt is not, & once one's improved it to have the qualities the RN wants in an ASW ship, it'd be the Type 26.

I can't help wishing OMT well, though. Ancestors of mine worked in shipbuilding at Odense, living in Skibhusene ("ship houses"), a short walk from where OMT's based, & OMT seems to be the last connection with shipbuilding still in Odense, though Fayard's still doing ship repair & conversion in the former Odense Steel (Maersk) yard at Munkebo, on Odense Fjord.

I am still puzzled as to why OMT didn't try harder to assemble a bid team for the Iver Huitfeldt for the CSC project although I could understand our military procurement record would be a damn good reason. Still, 30 billion plus dollars was a huge opportunity.

ngatimozart · Jun 1, 2018

John Fedup said:
I am still puzzled as to why OMT didn't try harder to assemble a bid team for the Iver Huitfeldt for the CSC project although I could understand our military procurement record would be a damn good reason. Still, 30 billion plus dollars was a huge opportunity.

They may not have liked the IP conditions and aren't willing to potentially waste money on the bid process.

John Fedup · Jun 1, 2018

Can't say I'd disagree with your conclusion although on the former point, I think the IP issue would be of more concern to potential partners than OMT.

south · Jun 1, 2018

John Fedup said:
I agree, just build more Type 26s and reduce the kit fit-out on some of them. This allows for an upgrade path later. Like others here, I don't think the cost projection is realistic despite the depressed pound. Building 15 Type 26s versus a split buy of two designs, will the latter really be significantly different when the additional costs of supporting two designs over the lifecycle are factored in?

Don’t forget this is UK MOD. They make ADF purchasing/contracting look good. Actually to be fair the ADF seems to be doing a lot better than they were a decade or two ago.

The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

The Bunker Group

Super Moderator

The Bunker Group

Well-Known Member