There’s a lot of misunderstanding and myth circulating about how many ships the shipyards on the Clyde are expecting to build, but what’s the truth?

So, what does the prospective order-book actually look like for the next few decades?

*NOTE: The second Type 26 will be named HMS Cardiff.

Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers and recent Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Type 45s first batch order was for three vessels. Ordering this way allows for changes to specifications and allows for refinements to contracts as working practices evolve and efficiencies are learned.

Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total by their designers BAE, the contract for the second batch will be negotiated in the early 2020s. Why have we included it despite this?

There are no other yards in the UK to build the Type 26, it’s a BAE product and their only surface shipyards are in Glasgow. The ships are not going anywhere unless the Royal Navy take the incredibly unlikely decision not to replace their frigate fleet.

Do the 5 Offshore Patrol vessels make up for the lost Type 26 Frigates?

The five Offshore Patrol Vessels were ordered to fill the gap created by the Type 26 delay. The Type 26 Frigate fleet had been delayed due to cash flow problems, with the MoD lacking the funds to start production and instead opting to build smaller and cheaper Offshore Patrol Vessels in the meantime to retain the workforce.

It is understood that the Ministry of Defence paid an extra £100 million for new Offshore Patrol vessels in order to satisfy a requirement to pay BAE a minimum of £230 million per year.

A house of Commons Briefing Paper explains the agreement:

“In 2009 the Government signed a 15 year Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) with BAE Systems and Babcock. The TOBA guaranteed BAE Systems a minimum level of surface ship build and support activity of £230 million a year.

This was judged as the minimum level of work possible to sustain a credible warship-building industry in the UK and thus avoid the delays encountered during the Astute class submarine build caused in part by the loss of skilled staff following the gap between Astute and the Vanguard class submarine build.

If cancelled the MoD would be liable for industry closure costs and compensation to BAE Systems.”

Regarding the cost of the new Offshore Patrol vessels:

“The provisional cost of the new vessels was given as £348 million but because the TOBA required a £230 million a year spend with BAE, the Defence Secretary estimated the additional cost to the MoD of the ships, over and above the payments the MoD would have had to have made to BAE, is less than £100 million.”

The ordering (and inflated cost) of these vessels allowed for the workforce to be retained.

Why has BAE decided not to build the Type 31e Frigate on the Clyde?

Recent news that BAE have decided not to bid to assemble the Type 31e Frigate on the Clyde due to an apparent lack of interest has created a stir in Scotland after earlier expectations that the light frigates would be built there.

BAE themselves say that shipbuilding capacity on the Clyde will be maxed out until the mid 2030s while the Ministry of Defence want the first of the new Type 31 Frigates in service by 2023, one of the primary reasons they have decided not to bid as prime contractor for the project, there’s no space at the BAE yards on the Clyde to do so if they are to meet the deadline for the first Type 31e to hit the water.

BAE say the move will allow them to ‘appropriately support the National Shipbuilding Strategy’ whilst ensuring the delivery of the five Offshore Patrol Vessels and the City class Type 26 frigates currently on contract, ‘to time, budget and to the highest quality standards.’

In a press release BAE say:

“BAE Systems is focused on the manufacture and delivery of the two QE Class carriers, the five River Class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and the first three City class Type 26 warships, as well as continuing to develop and upgrade combat management systems on all Royal Navy ships. Taking account our current and future workload, including Type 26, our shipbuilding capacity on the Clyde will be full until the mid 2030s.”

Could the Type 31 still come to the Clyde?

Babcock recently announced it will lead a team of industry partners in a bid for the new £1.25 billion Type 31e Frigate with work to be undertaken in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. Babcock say work would be shared across the UK its facilities in Fife and Devon being among the prime locations for building. Ferguson Marine on the Clyde will also be in line for the work.

The build plan for the Type 31 Frigates is expected to follow a similar pattern to that of the Queen Elizabeth carriers and early Type 45 Destroyers in that blocks will be built in yards around the UK and assembled at one main location.

Modern shipbuilding makes considerable use of prefabricated sections. Entire multi-deck segments of the hull may be built elsewhere around the UK, transported to the building dock or slipway, then lifted into place and assembled into one ship. This is known as block construction and is far more cost effective. Yards pre-install equipment, pipes, electrical cables and any other components within the blocks, to minimise the effort needed to assemble or install components deep within the hull once it is welded together.

Babcock will act as the overall programme lead, whilst Thales will have overall responsibility for the development of the Mission System solution. The make-up of the team, the company say, will ensure that the economic benefits of the programme are shared across the UK. Ferguson Marine on the Clyde, Harland & Wolff in Belfast and the Babcock facilities in Fife and Devon will all have ‘key roles to play’, while much of the equipment provided by Thales and others will support jobs across the UK.

Babcock CEO Archie Bethel said:

“Team 31 will allow Babcock and Thales to take forward the key lessons from the Aircraft Carrier Alliance and apply them in a new and highly capable team with Harland & Wolff, BMT and Ferguson Marine. We firmly believe that our combined skills can deliver an affordable and effective Type31e Frigate programme for the Royal Navy and offer something new and exciting in the export market. With a high degree of UK content and the use of innovative technologies, we believe that our approach will deliver real benefits to UK plc.”

Victor Chavez, CEO of Thales UK said:

“Thales UK is delighted to be working with Babcock and our partners as part of Team 31. We recognise the diversity of roles anticipated for Type31e and, together, we will create and exciting, innovative and flexible capability for the Royal Navy based on the best of UK and international technologies in an open-system architecture that will ensure long term value for money.” 

Sarah Kenny, BMT CEO said: 

“BMT has supported the UK and global maritime sector for decades. As a proud member of Team 31, we are delighted to be shaping the Type 31e programme, and we welcome the opportunity to bring our substantial global engineering experience to bear on this vital UK defence programme. We are confident that the combined Team 31 offering will meet the exacting requirements of the UK MOD whilst creating UK shipbuilding industry momentum and a competitive offering for wider export opportunities.”

The companies say that new arrangement draws on combined strengths and will deliver ‘innovative, capable, affordable and flexible customer solutions, within a fast changing and increasingly demanding environment’.

Why has the plan changed?

The MoD is hoping to reduce its reliance on BAE and cut the costs of procurement by spreading shipbuilding work across civil and naval yards around the UK. To this end, the government are implementing the results of an independent report into the National Shipbuilding Strategy by Sir John Parker which recommended that the Type 31 Frigate build be spread across the UK, with blocks and components being constructed in yards in both Scotland and England.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy was intended to be a “radical, fundamental re-appraisal of how we undertake the shipbuilding enterprise in the UK, intending to place UK naval shipbuilding on a sustainable long term footing”.

BAE themselves signalled their own reluctance to bid for the Type 31 Frigate as prime contractor due to concerns of a “race to the bottom” on price. Speaking to The Herald here, BAE managing director Iain Stevenson signalled the defence firms lack of interest on building the vessel:

“We do want to be involved in Type 31. But we have questions. Does it have a budget? What are the timescales. We have not got solid facts. Type 31 could be a race to the bottom. If it is a front price contract people might bid for it to win and it and it might put them out of business. We would not, because we are BAE Systems.”

The landscape of UK shipbuilding has been shaken up with BAE on the Clyde building the OPV, Type 26 Frigate fleets and the Type 31 Frigate fleet work to be spread around the UK. One of the primary contenders is the Babcock-lead alliance which should see the vessel built around the UK (Including the Clyde and Rosyth) if their bid wins.

Does the UK have complex warships built in other countries?

Recent claims that Scotland would be eligible to compete for Royal Navy warship contracts if the country left the UK have been rejected by the Ministry of Defence and Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Guto Bebb.

Guto Bebb, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, recently confirmed this policy in response to a written parliamentary question:

“The National Shipbuilding Strategy (paragraph 92) was clear that for reasons of national security, the UK prioritises the need to retain the ability to design, build and integrate warships.”

According to the ‘National Shipbuilding Strategy’ document, there are three tenets regarding UK shipbuilding policy that impact on the build location of contracts:

  1. For reasons of national security, all Royal Navy warships (destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers) will continue to have a UK-owned design, and, will be built and integrated in the UK. Warship build will be via competition between UK shipyards. But international partners will be encouraged to work with UK shipyards and other providers to produce the best possible commercial solution.
  2. All other naval ships should be subject to open competition (provided that there are no compelling national security reasons to constrain a particular procurement to national providers). Integration of sensitive UK-specific systems will be done in the UK, where possible after competition between UK providers.
  3. Defence will take account of wider factors (including the impact on UK prosperity) when making these procurement decisions.

Many politicians in Scotland had been criticised on social media for suggesting that Britain’s new Type 31e frigates would be built in Scotland if the campaign for independence was successful.

First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon had claimed at the time of the referendum that the only option for BAE on the event of independence was to continue to build the ships in Glasgow, this however was denied by a GMB convener at the Scotstoun yard in Glasgow:

“She was saying that the Clyde is the only game in town. I’m afraid it is not. There’s shipbuilders in Cammell Laird in Liverpool. You have got the A&P Group on the Tyne, who are shipbuilders, and you have got Barrow in Furness. So to say if Scotland goes independent we will still be building frigates… listen, I assure you that if we go for independence we will not be building. We have been told quite clearly by the UK government and I have been told quite clearly that will not happen.”

The issue of UK naval contracts on the Clyde had become controversial after the 2014 Independence Referendum and even more so recently when several groups indicated that the work would not go to an independent Scotland. Shipbuilding trade union leaders had previously told Ms Sturgeon to stop “using” them by claiming that British warships would continue to be built on the Clyde in the event of independence as they know that not to be the case.

Nicola Sturgeon had earlier insisted that it would be a “betrayal” to go back on its promise to build the frigate fleet on the Clyde. Sturgeon said:

“Promises were made about orders to these yards and promises were made about jobs at these yards, and I think it is absolutely vital now these contracts are delivered. These yards have been through some really difficult times with a reduction in the workforce, and they thought that that was all part of the process of getting themselves into shape for the Type 26 and securing a level of employment here.

This is about jobs and securing jobs in an industry. It would be a complete betrayal of these yards if there was any U-turn or going back on on promises made.”

Doesn’t the UK build ships overseas anyway?

Many have misconstrued the building of a naval tanker in South Korea for the RFA as a break in this policy, that is not the case. Support vessels like this are eligible to be constructed outside the UK as only ‘complex warship’ construction (such as destroyers and frigates as outlined above) must stay within UK borders. Besides, no UK yard bid for the work.

RFA Tidespring

Other than procurement activity undertaken during the World Wars, the UK has not had a complex warship built outside of the UK since the start of the 20th century at least. All of the Royal Navy’s new complex warships are being built in UK shipyards and the UK Government says it remains committed to utilising the strengths of UK industry in this specialist and complex area.

There is the matter that companies based in an independent Scottish state would no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK chose to place or compete domestically for national security reasons as this would be protected under Article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union which allows states to declare contracts related to defence or national security exempt from external tendering. Where they could continue to compete, they would be pitching for business in an international market dominated by major economic powers.

There’s also the matter of contracts using US technology, defence contractors that work with items or technology of US origin are also covered by undertakings given in accordance with the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), under which any change to an existing US export licence requires US State Department approval. An independent Scottish state would be a third-party country, not covered by existing UK-US ITAR agreements.

UK companies would not have authority to transfer items and information that is subject to ITAR licence to their subsidiaries or other companies in an independent Scottish state or to a Scottish national, without US approval, anymore than it could transfer such material to organisations or individuals in other foreign states. Every licence held by companies in Scotland working on ITAR-controlled items would have to be re-approved if Scotland became independent.

Isn’t Scotland the only location in the UK capable of building warships?

Claims at the time of the referendum that the only option for BAE on the event of independence was to continue to build the ships in Glasgow were refuted at the time by John Dolan, GMB convener at the Scotstoun yard in Glasgow:

“She was saying that the Clyde is the only game in town. I’m afraid it is not. There’s shipbuilders in Cammell Laird in Liverpool. You have got the A&P Group on the Tyne, who are shipbuilders, and you have got Barrow in Furness. So to say if Scotland goes independent we will still be building Type 26 frigates… listen, I assure you that if we go for independence we will not be building.

We have been told quite clearly by the UK government and I have been told quite clearly that will not happen.”

Irish patrol vessel LE Samuel Beckett in build in the Appledore yard in Devon.

Modern shipbuilding makes considerable use of prefabricated sections. Entire multi-deck segments of the hull may be built elsewhere around the UK, transported to the building dock or slipway, then lifted into place and assembled into one ship. This is known as block construction and is far more cost effective.

Summary

The Clyde was promised 13 Type 26 Frigates, it’s now in the process of building 8 Type 26 Frigates and 5 River class Offshore Patrol Vessels. The five Offshore Patrol Vessels were ordered to fill the gap created by the Type 26 delay and keep the work force employed. There’s been no negative impact as a result of this.

32 COMMENTS

  1. I don’t really comment on any of the UKDJ threads … BUT !
    All this Type 26\31… What’s being built and where stuff is just dragging on too long!

    Lets have a the Type 31 design flipping chosen for gods sake….

    All shipbuilders in UK get to build one ASAP.
    Job done.

    • the battleship drednaught was built in portsmouth within a year. the clyde yards, with modern technology should be told the expectation is for two ships minimum to be delivered per year

  2. This is a long article to say that instead of the 13 Type 26 frigates that were promised to BAE on the Clyde, 8 ASW and 5 GPFF, for a total tonnage of 8 x 7,600 + 5 x 6,500 = 93,300 tonnes, BAE on the Clyde have got 8 x 7,600 + 5 x 2,000 = 70,800 tonnes. That’s a reduction of nearly 25% in terms of tonnage. 5 x OPVs also have far less complexity than 5 x GPFF.

    And BAE themselves stated in the past that workers were sent down to Barrow because there wasn’t enough work on the OPVs to keep them, and then later that the T26 build would be delayed because there weren’t enough workers left for such a complex warship. Also that apprentices weren’t being taken because of the shortage of work.

    8 x ASW-FF + 5 OPV does not equal 8 x ASW-FF + 5 x GPFF, no matter how anyone tries to read the tea leaves.

    Whether it’s correct or not to give less work to BAE itself is totally another argument.

  3. It’s also to do with the hull. The original intention was to use the T26 holl, not just for the ASW but for the GP frigates. That has changed and only 8 of those hulls will be built, if the order actually survives beyond the first batch of 3. Some fear there might only be those 3, some that only another 3 will be built for a total of 6.

    At this stage nobosy can say that “Eight Type 26 Frigates are to be built in total ” because there are no firm orders for the further 5. And as far as I know, for instance, there are no advance orders yet for the next 5 rebreathing low infra-red exhaust systems from Canada, whereas the 3 for the first batch were ordered a couple of years ago. I stand to be corrected on that if I missed the news.

  4. Why are UKDJ playing the Scot Nats game ? They act as though their voters are barely literate, inbred, mouth breathers who will believe anything they tell them. Since they’re far and away the most popular party up there I bow to their superior knowledge. For the rest of us I’d recommend you try what works for me. When ever I hear the never ending, self pitying whine just blank it out !

    • the whole clyde subject is a sop to the SNP and the unions. they should be grateful for even getting the contracts

  5. “Ordering in batches is common for projects of this size around the world and was last seen with the Royal Navy for the Type 45 Destroyers”

    Yes, precisely. The T45 was originally going to be 12 of, dropped to 8 of, and only 6 were built.

  6. Why is this writer keep insisting that 8 Type 26s will be built when only 3 have been ordered?

    Relying on the word of governments is a risky business. See Brexit.

  7. I’m sorry I just find it ridiculous, that we ended up spending 230million a year in overpriced and not really wanted make work (which no matter how you polish the turd is what they OPVs are) is just repressible levels of incompetence on the part of the MOD ( in this I’m blaming the political leadership and not the civil servants). What makes it worse is that a few years later we end up cutting the order of high end warships and replace them with whole newly designed ( add more wasted money) class of not quite what the navy wanted constabulary ships.

    Forgive me for being a we bit grumpy but if the idiots we voted for had actual ordered the ships we needed in the right timeframe to get them built within the contracted work schedules we might not have ended up paying hundreds opon hundreds of millions for policing vessels when our navy is terminally short of high end escorts.

  8. This is so much worse than I had thought. The strategy for maintaining naval ship design and build capability in the U.K. is just to pay BAE £230 M a year. If the work isn’t that cost then pay and no need to maintain capability.

    The second strategy, while maintaining the first, is to pay others for building ships. I like the Babcock team offer but it is a Danish ship with French systems and possibly USA controlled technology (the article is not clear).

    I do not blame politicians, not for the first strategy – the money is there. The Admirals had it to spend but faffed about (substitute your clause) with armchair wish lists for the Type 26. It was not delayed by cash flow, there was £230 M to start build.

    • I think the 15 year TOBA was quite sensible, to preserve and perhaps rescue shipbuilding in the UK. The idea would be to encourage BAE to invest, with a certainty of that cost being covered. Perhaps the contract wasn’t well written though, as BAE didn’t build the £200m “frigate factor” capable of building 2 frigates a year, then didn’t invest the £100m they said they would after that didn’t happen.

      On the other hand there were delays with the T26 design, much to do with the hull design from what I heard – the aim being to make the T26 the best and quietest ASW in the world. So you can’t balme BAE either for not investing, particualrly after the Parker review saying shipbuilding should be shared around the UK. I guess the T31 design is because the basic T26 design, hull in other words, would be too advanced and expensive for a relatively cheap GPFF.

      Then again, Parker is right, so you have conflicting strategies where you can’t actually blame anybody I guess, it’s one of those things that happens. And as some experts have pointed out, the whole strategy was a case of moving on from the so-called end of the Cold War into the modern era.

      Hopefully it’ll all come out in the “wash” 🙂

    • Paul the bottom line is ( or should be ) the minister of state is responsible and accountable. We really need to start holding our political classes responcible for their actions or lack of action and not just let them float around in a haze of underperformance going from job to job.

  9. “Doesn’t the UK build ships overseas anyway?

    Many have misconstrued the building of a naval tanker in South Korea for the RFA as a break in this policy, that is not the case. Support vessels like this are eligible to be constructed outside the UK as only ‘complex warship’ construction (such as destroyers and frigates as outlined above) must stay within UK borders. Besides, no UK yard bid for the work.
    RFA Tidespring

    Other than procurement activity undertaken during the World Wars, the UK has not had a complex warship built outside of the UK since the start of the 20th century at least. All of the Royal Navy’s new complex warships are being built in UK shipyards and the UK Government says it remains committed to utilising the strengths of UK industry in this specialist and complex area.”

    There was a break in policy with military warship like ships. During the labour years, the argument came up over the UK Industry/MoD alliance partnership for the tankers back in 2005-06-07etc… Andrew Tyler was one 6 figured paid individual who helped change this policy because of eu rules! Despite all the arguments since, in which we had the debate over warship-like and military and taxpayer-funded ships, this eu empire won the day and forget all the articles about 3.. and 3…, it was largely due to this eu and UK governments feeling obliged to obey for face/price value (to get out of it) even though it makes no sense (why would any sane UK Government come up with an independent policy like this?)! When was the last RFA Tanker built abroad? Argus was a conversion and the Point where farcical PFI ships owned by a private firm (Foreland Shipping) in which, yep a German yard benefitted mostly. Go back in history to 1970 see how many ships, or in particular tankers were built abroad!

    No yard bid for this work? Well, Alan Dickenson wished to see Pallion involved in the MARs ships contract early on, the late Japp Krose of Swan Hunters had interest and also KOFAC for Barrow who gave the abilities of Barrow and how suitable Barrow was for building these ships and why they should be built at Barrow, but Barrow is owned by the great non-shipbuilder, shipbuilder BAE. But As I said before, all UK potential was pushed out by a policy adopted by its own treasonous UK governments who had no interest in manufacturing back then, including the labour governments. That’s why there were no UK bids! Nothing to do with capacity and the such.

    “Committed to utilising the UK industry in this specialist and complex area” Wha is that? Just vested interests? The creative sector whatever that is? Electronics, fair enough, but not the house itself? Whativil Servants and politicians do not realise are that we have strength in shipbuilding as a whole and are pretty good at it, but it is only seen as metal bashing. Shameful and so wrong.

    • “Besides, no UK yard bid for the work.”

      The problem with that Darren is it costs money to actually bid for a contract, and knowing that the likes of South Korea would be lower and their bid taken, I personally wouldn’t waste my shipyard’s time and money on a bid if I had one, and I daresay they thought the same.

      • It would have been cheaper for Canada to build their ships in Korea too, and the U.S.A., and Germany, and France, and Italy, but they don’t. We shouldn’t either. What they realize is it is much more important to keep their own shipbuilding/steel making industries going with work, keep the money in their own countries and keep their own people in highly, skilled well paid jobs.

        Agree that British shipbuilding (and British heavy industry in general) has been intentionally run down in terms of both capacity and facilities through a deliberate lack of support which has not occurred in other countries.

        It is time to end the decades long war against British heavy industry and start investing in, and supporting it, modernizing our facilities with state of the art equipment to maximize our efficiency and competitiveness.

      • Exactly my argument! When you know vested interests are going to scupper you, why to bother even though it makes sense to build here. This is a terrible situation.

        • but we’re britain, too snobbish to let shipbuilders build ships for us. just like we won’t buy foreign even when it makes fiscal sense we keep building pointless opv’s and then say we’ll decommission some of the ones we already have.upgrading the rivers to light frigate corvette is another area where we can moan about not having enough ships while getting rid of the ones we have.its not the politicians, it just bad management and clarity of thought at the m.o.d i’m intruiged by the new damen corvettes 1o meters longer than a river 5 knots faster, 20 more crew, yet comes with a 76mm gun, two triple asw torpedo launchers,two quad anti air missile launchers. we should be fitting out the rivers to these specs, already a popular export design, calling them light frigates or corvettes. the best thing is that THEY ARE ALREADY BUILT! there 9 more ships for the cost of refitting and configuring some of the ones we already have. i an armchair admiral like mecan come up with stuff like this why not the m.o.d?

  10. I certainly don’t disagree with the last paragraph.

    So how do you guarantee that happens. You can’t do that by placing an order alone. I work with UK manufacturing companies and there’s good and bad. The best, all with workers are on-board with the management they are agile they change there working practices to suit what they need to deliver, they reskill and re-equip themselves. And I have to say they don’t mind competition in fact they relish it. The worst plod on, same old inefficiencies, old kit. workers refuse to change, the management refuse to change. Companies like this would love a government contract handed to them no strings attached, they can just plod on same as they always have done.

    I certainly don’t see a war on industry.

    But why’s its government job to invest? BAe have had TOBA paid dividends to share holders. For 230m Bae have delivered the bare bones they had to and pocketed the rest. BAe have been uninspired by the type 31 competition, they complained about it. Look at other companies Cammell Liard, Babcock and other have relished it and have been making very positive statements.

    • SADLY OUR GOVERNMENTS HAVE BLINKERS WHICH ONLY ALLOW THEM TO SEE THE LATEST OVERPRICED TIMESCALE UNDELIVERABLE PIECE OF JUNK THAT BAE offers up.

  11. The outlook is bleak. We have the Type 26 contract but it’s expensive and missing some fundamentals (anti-submarine weapons, something to go in the VLS). That said, it is a good design and has won the favour of Australia. However it is clear that the RN blames BAe for everything. BAe has put its system expertise behind the Camell Laird T31e but I can’t see any BAe involvement being accepted.

    Babcock and BMT have floated a few designs but for a full build proposal they have adapted a Danish and French systems. They have accepted they don’t have the complex warship skills that BAe is paid to maintain. The Team 31 has space and systems to plug in all the options the MoD wanted. But there was no base fit and everything comes at a price. I think it likely we will get just a 76 mm gun to look like a warship and an “initial” batch of 3. This may not, probably will not, happen in time to replace maintain numbers as the T23’s go out of service.

    I think thr MoD will go back to BAe for a second batch of T26 but the TOBA will end and full design capability will be shut down.

    Bleak.

    • I think as with air domain the government will keep the design teams alive with concepts, we’re not building a 6th gen fighter yet but we’ve kept the know how through proof of concepts like Taranis.

      BAe has hardly taxed their design team with the Leander, just stretched an existing design. Was TOBA there to keep the design team going? If it was then what have they been doing since the Type 26 design was baselined? Perhaps working on the Canadian and Australian design variations and if so will the treasury get something back from BAe?

      The next stage of the process the T31 teams will be given funds to develop designs the MoD need to be clever and insist on full tech transfer of the Danish design in this phase and full ownership of the design, so any future export competition for the class is run by Team 31.

      I hope if Babcock win BAe will see the benefit in participating and offer CMS at reasonable price knowing that there could be significant upside through exports. But its BAe…

      • I look at what Arrowhead 140 is spec’d at as just a public communication of what can be done for £250M, either for RN or for export. It basically says we can meet the RN’s target and also have a viable and competitive export option. We don’t know what has privately been submitted to MoD. Thales can still be the electronics lead integrator using BAe CMS and Artisan, presuming RN wants to maintain that commonality and BAe can’t suddenly inflate their prices without creating major political issues for themselves across their whole defence business with MoD.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here