Cammell Laird say it is attracting international interest after it proposed Leander for the Type 31e Frigate competition.
The business believes the low price point and proven technology makes the Type 31e frigate extremely attractive to the international market.
The Ministry of Defence took its first steps to reopening competition for the frigate shipbuilding contracts and Cammell Laird now using that momentum to demonstrate its global exportability.
“The Leander project team expects excitement to heighten when BAE Systems promotes the ship at two overseas conferences in the coming months. It will exhibit the Leander proposal at the Euronaval conference in Paris in October and Exponaval, which takes place in Chile in December. Cammell Laird will also be at Euronaval to showcase its warship-building capabilities.”
Tony Graham, Cammell Laird Leander Project Director, said Team Leander was in discussions with several important international customers about the exportability of Leander:
“This is a warship that has been designed to UK standards using the latest thinking, built in the UK, using a UK combat system. We’re going to be producing these ships at a price that has never been made available before on the international market so, understandably, the Leander is generating a lot of interest.”
The shipbuilder recently announced its supply chain database had exceeded 2,000 suppliers since the Ministry of Defence announced the contract competition in September 2017 as part of the UK’s new National Shipbuilding Strategy.
More than 300 have already been cleared to support the company’s UK MOD bids and the business is inviting other suppliers to join the project in preparation for the T31e programme.
I believe this proposal now to be the favourite, on the grounds of export potential, risk and cost. Babcock will have to propose something pretty spectacular to beat CL/BAE.
Clarification as to the exact fit and cost weapon, sensor and computer systems of all the proposals would be helpful to formulate a definitive opinion.
Same here. I am quite excited by this to be honest I think this has a lot of potential for export which will be a very welcome piece of good news for British shipbuilding.
I suspect you may be making the same error I was making regrading the T31e competition when identifying a possible MoD favorite/winner this early. Assuming MoD stick to the scheduled actions in the RFI then the first bids are for Competitive Design Phase Contracts which suggests to me there will be two or more consortia that proceed to the next stage. Meaning there will be no immediate winner. The original program was suspended and re-started to ensure this competition. The suspension occurred before the awarding of Design Phase Contracts. The Competitive Design Phase lasts through Main Gate in 4Q18, to… Read more »
(Chris H) Glass – Given Q4 is about a month away Main Gate is (in MoD terms) imminent then. Not sure what more either party can add other than fine tune what they have and understand the costs / benefits of the GFE elements. I still think CL / BAE are heads above Babcock in simplicity of build, export capabilities and the fact it is NOT a Scottish yard. Plus I think this would set up Babcock / A & P to take the FSS build where the larger dry dock would be key and the logistics make more sense.… Read more »
Not disagreeing with anything you’ve said, but would Cammel Laird not then be a prime candidate for the FSS while the Babcock consortium worked on T31? They’ve easily got the space to construct a vessel the size of the FSS. From that viewpoint, giving Babcock the T31 contract and CL the FSS lets them please everyone: yards all around the country have work, the navy gets its ships, politicians can claim they’re helping their constituents, and BAE are still sitting pretty with its guaranteed work on the T26, the next-gen destroyers, and all of the submarines. Even taxpayers gain as… Read more »
Chris H – Q4 Main gate was the original timing but that seems unlikely to still be attainable given there have been no Competitive Design Phase awards yet AFAIK which seem to be a prerequisite? I assume at least a quarter slip on the original RFI timing, perhaps as much as six months. The CL/BAE design seems stable but certainly not proven. When Germany can design an “unstable” ship nothing can be taken as a given. I do wonder though if MoD has concerns over BAE buying out CL down the road and ending up back in a supply monopoly.… Read more »
Whilst I have no doubt Babcock could make a good ship, BAe has the global sales network and existing customers and so is a much more likely export champion.
So it really should go to the BAe bid if we want a global seller.
Well BAES don’t actually have that many export customers/sales of naval vessels built in the UK, that’s been the problem, hence the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
Type 26?
I love the idea of the return of the ‘Leander’ nameplate after all these years. That old icon of the 60’s and 70’s looked like a frigate and much-improved appearance over its predecessors. I prefer the looks of this contender too over the Badcock proposal, but it’s nothing to do with aesthetics, just bang for the buck and flexibility.
Interesting that the short video on the Cammel Laird site shows the ship with what looks very much like a 4.5 Kryten turret for’d. Lets hope that this is, in fact, the case for the final design. It’s no good landing embarked force with no ability to support them with something reasonably heavy. The Strales, perhaps, is not heavy enough for Fire Support. I presume that the RN would go for the 120m version.
Just like the suppliers headline a week or two back, can’t hep but think it’s a ploy…. the cynic in me!
Second clyde-built Navy vessel found with ‘glued bolts’ as repairs continue on HMS Forth
Leander “Ready to use straight out of the box” really?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16222184.display/
My God, I had no idea the level of issues was so extensive! Having read the Herald piece, I would be surprised if the MOD will be too quick in handing more work out to this yard? A very close eye must be kept on Type 26 construction in light of this farce.
These will be built on the Mersey. Also this is nothing compared with the problems Germany has had with some of its ships.
I know their navy is in a shocking state, lets hope we don’t end up with the same problems here. A sales pitch is one thing….
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/02/german-navy-experiences-lcs-affect-in-spades-as-new-frigate-fails-sea-trials/
Too right Nigel. Anyone interested should just read about the German Navy type 125 frigate programme. Lauded as being superior to the Type 26 and the future of warship construction. Really? German engineering is hyperbole. They are simply not that good. Diesel engines designed to cheat emissions tests as they are polluting ecological disasters. Type 125 frigates 400 tons overweight and unbalanced meaning they cannot reach anywhere near top speed, are unstable at sea keeping and their mission bay cannot be loaded up as risks the ship capsizing. Leaning 1.5-2 degrees to starboard and they have had to take on… Read more »
Agree, the 3 batch 1 River class definitely need to be kept permanently, and that 8 in total is the absolute bare minimum number of O.P.V.s for a country with Britain’s coastline.
I’m not interested in the German problems, it’s the safety and seaworthiness of Royal Navy ships that concerns me. We need to ensure quality will be at the highest level from all yards earmarked to build new vessels.
Fair enough Maurice, but the German problems are relevant. It seems to me that we’re far to quick to think that everything here is a disaster – in other spheres as well as defence – while everything abroad is hunky-dory. Germany’s problems help to show that simply isn’t true.
Is it really relevant though Mark? We should be judging ourselves by our own standards not what the Germans are doing, Germany has a fine naval history when it comes to builds, we have an even better one, which is why what the Germans do wrong should not be used as an excuse to draw away criticism for our own failures.
We want and expect the very best.
You missed the point of my post SoleSurvivor. I didn’t say anything about using the Germans problems as an “Excuse”.
Agree. If you bought a Jag that constantly broke down you wouldn’t say fair enough my neighbours BMW also breaks down.
As my comment above SoleSurvivor. We all know the first ‘City Class’ will be wanting in overall quality, as it’s the first so is an equivalent to a prototype. Refit will ensure she is tuned as well as the remaining class. That should not excuse poor workmanship, and the MOD needs to take a heavy hand to those yards that fall short.
Unions just demand more work be sent their way. Surely the union should be saying we’re working with BAe to ensure the root causes are establish and if applicable the necessary disciplinary actions take. To protect jobs and give your future customers confidence that issues will be tackle this would be a more appropriate press release. The GMB is national so if they are not going to support the right solution we could see similar issues at other yards.
(Chris H) Cammell Laird were entertaining a high level Naval and Government group from Peru viewing the Type 31 design the other week and the ‘Exponaval’ in Chile will keep South American interest high. After all South America has many customers of UK built or de-commissioned ships for decades. I still have this feeling the US Navy will see our, Australian and potentially Canadian progress on Type 26 and have to add it to their contender list for their new Frigate programme. After all 3 of the ‘5 eyes’ could be using it so why not a 4th? It is… Read more »
Back in March BAE said they had spoken to two interested parties from South America regarding their T31e.
And they wouldn’t lie would they ? I mean they don’t have any history of doing that !
Rather disingenuous, I understand Peru has been specifically mentioned as having shown an interest.
Colombia might be the other as BMT in conjunction with Saab are offering up Venator-110 for domestic build in Colombia.
Mike Saul and Glass half full. The day Peru and/or Colombia buy the BaE Type 31 I will tip my hat to you both. Fair to say I’m not expecting to have to.
Brazil is the second.
Brazil makes sense, Janes reported that that Ocean was delivered with Artisan and BAe CMS so Leander is offering commonality.
Wouldn’t be surprised if Chile also registered interest in the future.
The US Navy requires a mature design as a condition for its new frigate. Leander is not that.
A low cost low capability warship built in the UK, with equipment harvested from decommissioned ships, should be achievable.
The only problem how low will the capability be?
“The only problem how low will the capability be?” Exactly. We all compare T31e to other frigates but one can look at it from the other direction. The last two River Batch 2 OPVs probably cost about £100m each (final contract placed in Dec 2016 for the last two was £287m but that included support for all 5 B2s as well so £100 per vessel for the build cost sounds reasonable, certainly not more than £120 I would think). That was for a long-range ocean-capable vessel built to military standards (glued bolts notwithstanding!) with stuff like fuel and munitions storage… Read more »
If B1 Rivers remain in service I would suggest we don’t need more of that size of vessel. I think 6 vessels either 700 tonnes-ish / 25kts – plus -ish would be more of more use. (Upper Channel, Southern North Sea / Thames Estuary, Irish Box, training platform for Dartmouth.)
Irish box ? I feel like a joke coming on but I don’t know why !
Maybe you’re right. I was going to object because the B1s don’t have flight decks but looking at photos (e.g. https://defenceoftherealm.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/river-class-2.jpg) the aft deck is quite big (20m long at full 13.5m beam?) and pretty much unobstructed so (and still on my drone hobby horse here) probably adequate to host an ISO 20′ container or two with enough clear space left over for something like an S-100 to take off and land. Given suitable drones available, obviously with suitable sensor packages installed, I really do think that for the sort of piracy, smuggling and migrant policing roles that the RN… Read more »
Why the RN went with the basic B1 design I don’t know just for that reason, no flightdeck; they sjould have all been built to the same design as Clyde . The Islands had no aviation facilities at time when the helicopter had become the primary specialist vehicle in the offshore so the MoD(N) commissioned the Castles with a fantastic flightdeck. The steel would have cost next to nothing. Firefighting would have be a consideration. But even if helicopters weren’t cleared to land on them a ‘flightdeck’ would have been a lot better for winching evolutions. I like the Rivers.… Read more »
Thanks for the interesting reply David. Those Russian Rubin-class do look seriously good. Definitely in the Russian mold, armed to the teeth for their size! Not only the 30mm and various machine guns but also 8 x Igla MANPADS and provision for (but admittedly not fitted according to Wikipedia) 4 x Kh-35 anti-ship missiles! That would be a fair old punch for a 62.5m 630t vessel if Kh-35 were fitted wouldn’t it?
250 million for an OPV built by bae (shoild say poorly built) when another uk yard is building OPV’s of the same size for 50 million, when will the MoD realise they are being ripped off
I believe the cost of the T26 includes 10 years support and maintenance costs, hence 1.2bn
It really shouldn’t cost that much – but once again if you reduce the order from 13 to 8 then the R&D costs are spread across 8 instead of 13.
We seem incapable of learning lessons from the T45 build. Time to commit to 13 T26 and 25 T31 over the next 25 years – this is what is required a bit of commitment.
What is staggering for me is the history repeating itself with the MOD. We reduced the final type 45 order from 8 to 6. Increasing cost per destroyer from £850 million to over £1 billion each. The Royal navy agreed to do this as a promise to accelerate the type 26 frigate programme. The ship that was supposed to be the polyvalent warship unit of the Royal Navy. Instead despite the type 45 destroyers being sacrificed the type 26 programme is 10+ years delayed and yet again ship numbers reduced from 13 to 8. Sheez we really do not learn.… Read more »
We really need to see our AAW hulls increased from 6 back up to close to 12, this is where the extra 5 GP T26s would have been useful, it would not have needed a lot to make a batch 2 or 3 T26 as AAW destroyers. We could then just keep up the T26 production line beyond 13 to the replace the T45s as they go out of service. This would end with the RN having a single high end escort Hull type ( with different batches focused on different purposes) built over a very long period for shed… Read more »
Mr. Bell, blame the treasury not mod for the reductions in warship numbers.
(Chris H) Mr Bell – Its a total fallacy for people in power to say the UK can’t afford a decent sized navy. Just one little known cost to the British consumer is the ‘EU External Tariff’ we as a country charge on imports from outside the EU. Like 28% on New Zealand lamb or 10% on US made cars for example. British consumers paid some £20 Bn in this tariff in the last 6 years. £16 Bn of that went directly to the EU. The other factor never mentioned by the EU Luvvies is VAT. Not only are our… Read more »
The original buy for T42 was supposed to be 24 – ish all to roughly a B3 design, we ended up with 12 (with literal and figurative chopping) when given the time there was the possibility of a hot war. Looking back on 3 for 1 peace time tempo 6 was sort of inevitable.
Cammell Laird seem to be winning the publicity competition at the moment, time for Team 31 to up its PR game!
I daresay they will …
So,Bae systems, why didn’t you market and export ships like this before?
Good question !
Preferred the easy life on cost plus contracts.
No risk to the company, steady income/profit stream.
You mean like the Type 26’s?? Oh ok then.
It’s time to crack on building these Leanders now. No doubt the RN would have preferred the full 13 T26 but we are where we are. Quantity has a quality all of its own. HMG should be thinking in terms of 10 of these cheaper ships. I would think the BAE design can easily be tuned to a hull anywhere between 99 and 120m; which with flexible systems and weapons per customer requirements gives Leander an appealing slot in export markets. These ships ought to be cheap to run. I see the RN fit out for the first 5 batch… Read more »
I understand the 114mm Mk8 gun requires a lot of personnel to maintain the ammunition feed when in action. So would not be fitted, the 127mm mk45 would be the preferred option but seems to expensive based on the T26 purchase contract for that system.
So most likely option would be the 76mm OTO Melara, fully automated, small footprint and reasonably priced. Not perfect but better than nothing.
I understand what you say. It is only a matter of time when the 114mm is replaced by another gun and on which ships. As I understand it the 76mm Oto makes sense for T31 role as described in the latest ‘RFI’ in that it has a good AA ammunition option better fitting T31 to be part of the inner screen of a task force. In terms of ‘interoperability with allies’ the RN may prefer to move to the BAE 57mm. I’m not expert enough to say which gun is the better for AA. Others would argue T31 must have… Read more »
Is it my phone or has some comments disappeared?
Some rude and unwanted comments “only here to take the p…” have indeed been removed.
Thank you admin!
(Chris H) Oh thats a right Bummer …
When you post comments that clearly shows you are not here to engage in debate but simply to be insulting to others including me on another thread it’s time to report it!
At times things get a little heated on here (understandable) but when you openly say that taking the P out of others comments your sole reason for joining this forum….
Oh right yeah, I think spyinthesky inadvertently replied under bummers post to which I replied, and it’s been swept away with bummers garbage.
Indeed the Leander is a proven spec. What alot of ppl are forgetting is the 31e is also intended for carrier strike group ops. So with this in mind, why hasn’t Bae integrated a stern ramp/gate for rapid reaction protection boats,or even thought of this for spec ops personnel, For quicker deployment then standard over the side launching.
Wake up We do not want what is possible. We want a frigate that can do the job for the price set. Arrowhead 140 meets all the base requirements Its fit out of weapons loads will always be at the bequest of the Treasury. We want IMHO a ship that is lean manned. (Due to current personnel issues) A ship capable of future augmentation. A ship that can be mass produced if required. A ship with a foot print capable of being enhanced as required A ship for export. A ship to keep multiple yards in exsistance A ship that… Read more »
My perfectly fine and well thought out post has been removed………#notmypost
Looking forward to seeing more details from the proposals, it will be interesting to look at the maintenance and support philosophies behind each one, given we spend as much on support as procurement.
I’m concerned that the BAE Leander proposal does not appear to be as capable, as large, or as well armed as the Type 23 that it’s replacing or to make up for the Type 26’s that are no longer being built.
Yes, fair point. Leander is a smaller and lighter ship than the GP T23’s it is meant to replace. Most people seem to think it will get RN standard CMS, Artisan, Sea Ceptor, 30mm, a Wildcat, hanger and mission bay. Not the T23 torpedo tubes but likely the the T23 gun since the budget probably won’t stretch to the 5in and I would think the MOD would insist on a fully costed Mk8 replacement program before committing to either Oto 76mm or the BAE 57mm. At 25knots it will be slower but with 2 modern diesels it will be economical… Read more »
I like both designs and I would seek as much commonality as possible and build both. Money? We can apparently afford to give millions to countries that either don’t like us or shelter many who wish us harm.
We need a navy more than we need goodwill – as the Donald might say.
Morning all The BAE monolith is now beginning to build up a bit of steam, aiming not for the combat effect the platform could generate for the RN but going for the export potential – teasing politicians with what really matters to them. Unfortunately the Babcock platform is just better, more room for growth, proven design but in today’s climate I don’t think that really matters anymore. This country is not like the USA where there are real votes in defence, we don’t even want to pay more tax for the thing that we supposedly love the most – the… Read more »
Did you miss the title of the article “Leander frigate generates global interest say Cammell Laird”
Cammell Laird, not Bae.
Morning Ron5
I can assure you that whilst it may say Cammel Laird and not BAES it is the BAES seconded staff that are doing the PR for this.
That’s not being “anti BAES” but when you put together a consortium of companies you use the individual strengths of those companies, Cammel Laird is a quality ship builder – BAES know how to do sales and marketing
Hi Lee Sadly it is always about politics -extra 1 bn here another 2bn there – but never any detail on how it will be used efficiently. I think Gavin Williamson has done a great job and I am quietly confident he is going to get 2.5% of GDP. But, the MOD just have to stop wasting money on such a dramatic scale. I was really disappointed that Nick Carter got the top job when his handling of Strike/Fres is just incompetent, yet that has got him at least 2 promotions. now it looks as if Warrior Upgrade is in… Read more »
Interesting, the handling of Strike/FRES has been a disgrace I wasn’t sure if it was the Army continually changing their mind or the MOD. The warrior update should have been straightforward but going for the cheapest option seems to have become the most expensive again by trying to refurbish old turrets rather than install the new ones specially designed and built with the French. I am not sure if there would be any loss in capability if we just replaced warrior with larger orders of boxer and ajax since it is no longer in production and support is so limited.… Read more »
Utter rubbish.
The UK only designed Warrior replacement turret has been part of the plan from the earliest days. It’s true that Lockheed original suggested modifying the original turret but that idea died very quickly. The French have zero to do with it.
Boxer is not a Warrior replacement and will never be.
So Lockheed won the contract by under cutting BAe with a proposal to refurbish the existing turrets. Then when they realised it wouldn’t work went back to the mod looking for more money and delayed the delivery by several years. They should have immediately lost the contract and been forced to pay back every penny they waisted plus additional costs for everyone’s waisted time. Bae then should have been left to deliver on their proposed design.
A Bae fan. Yeah!!!!
The CSP turret was too small and the new one is too big; the Ajax turret is too big too. And the new 40mm is proving to be a problematic. The French though have managed to build a nice light turret for their Jaguar armoured car. Boxer is better protected than Warrior and was designed from the get go to follow Leopard about the battle field. One of the Baltic states has one in an IFV version. Though perhaps a better question is do we need an IFV version in numbers? Would an APC with MG / launcher in an… Read more »
Trying to find an accurate statement in your comment.
Still looking ..
Mr Taylor and Mr 5: I had a poster outside my old office showing a warrior CSP turret with the updated original, it was clearly what they were attempting. I am all in favour of having Boxer replace most of the AFV fleet to create a true strike brigade, not a half arsed hybrid that has all of the restrictions of medium armour but none of the benefits. Boxer is exactly what we need, such a good platform with plenty of easy growth and more importantly relay comfy seats with nothing to bang your head off. But this if for… Read more »
Yes this is detailed over on Gabriel’s blog.
Warrior CSP may be shelved and all Armoured Infantry and Mechanized Infantry Battalions ( 4 and 4 ) end up on Boxer in an increased buy of 1500 replacing the lot. Warrior. Bulldog, other ancient FV432’s and remnants of the CVRT fleet all replaced in one go.
Good for commonality of spares and logistics.
But would cost tens of billions.
So it wont happen will it?
Probably not Ron.
But we are on a defence related website so nothing wrong with discussing is there?
Would you be for it if they did cancel Warrior CSP and bought 1500 Boxer instead? That is the number indicated.
Would it save money longer term?
Not a big fan of Gabriele I’m afraid 🙁
And no because Warrior fills a role with the Challengers that the Boxer would kill a lot of infantrymen attempting.
Interesting Ron.
I’ve no idea how they compare concerning armour, course Warrior has the turret and gun.
Wheels over tracks. Most of the Russian BMP’s were wheeled I recall?
How would the Boxer fail, I’m interested?
I’m interested too. Boxer with a V shaped hull and higher ground clearance will have greater mine protection that’s for sure. Warrior also has aluminium and applique armour for protection so not exactly world beating. The only advantage that I can see would be mobility in muddy terrain.
In regards to protection, look at what the Aussies have done, not sure of the STANAG level they have on theirs but its bloody high for a wheeled vehicle.
Mobility wise, I have deployed with the Danish a few times and they go like shit off a shovel even over bad ground, no problem keeping up, baring in mind Chally takes a while to get going.
BV
I’ve often wondered if a price tag of £400 Million per Type 31e compared to the 1.2 Billion for the Type 26 would be a more sensible a more sensible approach. Three for the price of one and far better equipped than what’s currently on offer?
What out of interest could we be looking at then for this build with this price tag?
Sorry for the grammatical errors, standing on a packed train!
The important element of T31 is numbers. This is about presence and numbers. If I were you look the other way. Look at the Dutch class OPV.
Also for reference look at the Italian PPA Class Multi-purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels. Look how many hulls they are buying, for how much, and don’t forget new from stem to stern.
The reason why T31 is that it impossible programme.
I would buy another T26 or as I said, go smaller. Though the Hollands are bigger than the last Leanders….
The Type 26 unit build price is nowhere near 1.2 billion.
Increasing the Type 31 budget to 400 million each will means 3 ships built. So 5 type 23’s going out of service will be replaced by 3 Type 31.
Never said T26 cost £1.2 billion. Just because there is money to spent doesn’t mean it has to be spent now does it?
No but I was replying to Nigel who did.
I actually agree with you, I’d vote for cancelling the Tye 31 program and using the money to buy a couple more Type 26 to be built in a shorter time frame.
Morocco paid €470 for their FREMM, I’m not sure if it was subsidized by France though. It did not include the A70 VL cells but apparently was the same as the France ASW version.
The new FTI for France is around €800mm.
Nothing you ever post here is accurate so why should we believe this?
I don’t really care if you believe me or not, its simple to fact check on the internet.
Here is the link I got it from, its in French so might be a little complicated for you.
https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/a-brest-le-maroc-prend-possession-de-sa-fregate-fremm-mohammed-vi.N236729
The USN is closing in on its next large surface warship design.
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/28/navys-next-large-surface-combatant-will-draw-ddg-51-ddg-1000-dont-call-destroyer
Cheers!
(Chris H) Helions – Sorry my reply to this is down there \/ – I clicked the wrong post
Story of my life…
😀
Good Evening!
Please advise anybody what’s going as regards Babcocks Type 31 Programme if anything.
At present according to their website very little!
Would appreciate any comments!
Cheers Nick
Afternoon all The platform budget requirement is £250m so that cannot change or all the requirements will be up for grabs and we will enter another long period of requirement changes and design updates. The MoD and RN have a requirement for 5 vessels at no more than £250m per unit, totalling CDEL of £1.25bn. Where BAES can get ahead, and where they have been getting ahead is getting the show on the road and going to countries like Chile, Peru and other 2nd tier navies and selling them a concept that if they buy into will – based on… Read more »
Lets hope we at least keep to the timetable! 3.7 Billion allocated for the first three ships and the price is expected to increase if we don’t get a move on according to a former admiral of the fleet.
Why will the Royal Navy not have its first Type 26 frigate operational until 2027?
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-will-the-royal-navy-not-have-its-first-type-26-frigate-operational-until-2027/
Because the Treasury only wants to dribble out the money.
The last of the USN Ticos will be modernized before the T26 is operational.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/08/25/with-294-million-in-contracts-the-us-navy-keeps-its-promise-to-upgrade-cruisers/
Cheers!
(Chris H) Helions – Nice to hear from you again. Just out of interest I compared the publicly available specs on the Arleigh Burke and the Type 26. Remarkably similar ships – AB in Flight III is 9,500 tons fully loaded vs 8000 tons for the 26, AB is some 7 feet longer, AB is narrower in the beam by a couple of feet and the overall armament is comparable (apart from number of VLS). Same gun, CIWS etc., AB needs more crew but a new ship would look to reduce that. So the thought came to mind as the… Read more »
Chris, as you know, I’ve always thought a common platform between the navies of the English speaking world would be a good idea from an interoperability standpoint. Politically I realize Tier 1 navies must purchase home grown warships or else. However, why can’t that warship design be a joint effort? Common hull, open architecture, many common systems etc. Armaments, propulsion, combat suites could be either mix or match or country specific depending on the needs of the end user. Joint design has many precedents and it doesn’t have to mean one country’s defense industry overwhelming the others. A rationale design… Read more »
Case in point RE LSC armaments.
https://news.usni.org/2018/08/29/navy-making-room-railguns-next-warship-no-extra-investments?
Cheers!
Did you compare the price of the latest Arleigh Burke’s with the Type 26?
Might help to shut down the moronic shouts of “Bae is ripping us off”.
Then again, probably not.
Morning Ron5 I don’t think the BAES thing is purely a price thing, the MoD are just as much to blame for requirement changes and these have to be costed in, changing scope etc. cost a lot of money, time and makes it very difficult to sustain quality. With T26 I believe we have the correct price against design but that is still too rich for HMG so the duration of build needs to be stretched which increases labour cost (Ship building strategy explains this, HMG have forgotten that bit). Why I think people have a problem with BAES is… Read more »
@ Ron 5 Last time you said something like that I had to go out of my way to prove you wrong. And despite repeated reminders to you to ask you to respond to my rebuttal mysteriously you didn’t bother. It is angry little men like you who destroy sites like this one. That’s why sites like this benefit from Disqus because you can switch the idiots off. The Warrior refit program has had those problems with the turret design. Ajax does have that problem with its turret design. Boxer was designed to keep pace with Leopard in the field.… Read more »
I was reading an article on Save the Royal Navy ref: OPV’s and whilst I dislike the Rivers immensely (overpriced, underspecced etc). I do think the author of this article has a valid point. I do think the uk needs a high end escort fleet and I believe this should be T26 upgraded with the Sampson radar and 13 ordered at a rate of 1 per 2 years (25 year build plan), eventually merging our T45/T23 fleet into a single all encompassing platform. Where it gets interesting is what the tier down platform should look like. For me T31 is… Read more »
Visby is a very specific tool for a very specific geography. The RN needs hulls that can take lumpy water with range and survivalability. That isn’t to say I dislike the design, quite the opposite I think it is a sublime piece of technology.
T45 isn’t going to be replaced for an age yet. If I were to look at ‘re-homing’ Sea Viper I would look at something a bit more radical than trying to fit into T26 or T26’s basic hull form. I would be happy with more T26 as is.
Hi David I agree that T45 isn’t going anywhere soon – but it will need replaced within the next 25 years and I think the T26 hull form (or its successor if we are doing lifecycle management properly) and general capabilities far exceed that of a T45 – add a Sampson (or better) and we have full spectrum capability in a true high end warship. As for Visby – It is an exceptional ship for what it is and perhaps we could (should) have something similar that takes on all UK and MHVC/ASW activities. Primarily I am pointing out that… Read more »
T26 / T45 future. Yes one hull, if ship design carries along the same route then yes; I don’t think ship design will go along that route but that is another discussion. Anyway following the conventional route it will be a bigger hull than T26. And it will be a true general purpose hull with first rate AAW and ASW capability. There are reasons why the RN ‘does what it does’ when it comes to escorts and we are trapped in the renewal cycle in which we are, but the RN would be better off with Burke-esque vessels for T45… Read more »
All good points David, but the RN does have to make compromises and whilst Visby may not be the platform ( I did say choose your favourite). The fact remains that with the advances in AI, Robotis and unmanned systems – many of the tasks can be done from a common platform. I am a big fan of the Karel Doorman class of ships and believe these should replace both our amphibious and solid support ships, as they offer volume and capability – but are a compromise. Likewise I like the Absalon dan damen crossover classes which are able to… Read more »
Well to be honest I think the ships we have in the water will probably the last conventional ships we will have. I see a need for human crewed for OPV’s for SAR and ‘police work’ but I think the days of big ships are numbered. Um. Perhaps there may be need for a ‘local decision maker’ due to EW stopping a platform reporting to ‘command’? But no the days of warships as we know them are numbered. I am not going to argue about platforms. You either grasp it or you don’t. As I said you wouldn’t expect an… Read more »
Hi David I dont dispute a word you have said – it is all trure and I think my initial proposal meets far more needs than the current RN fleet due to numbers, perhaps I have been a bit too general in my descriptions but this was to allow a degree of ambiguity to avoid the conversation we have just had. I have stated previously on other threads that if our ASW hull is our most advanced hull – then surely T31 should be based on the T23 hull which has itself been superseded by T26. Solves an awful lot… Read more »
Putting some perspective on exports. GMB recon for that the £1b SSS contract will return 285m to the government. So simple fag pack stuff 4 T31 will cost 1b, exporting 4 T31e will return buy 1 more T31 plus some change, 14 will buy a T26. However, I assume that with CMS licensing and other lifecycle cost for service and maintenance costs the T31e could raise more than the 285m stated. Building another t26 or more rivers will not give us exports, the T31e could be just what we need to boast defence spending. However…. I have assumed that money… Read more »
Good Day,
Can anybody advise what has happened to Babcocks/BMT‘s offer as regards the Type 31e?
Would appreciate any information.
Regards Nick
Looks reminiscent of the Lafayette-class frigates, come to think of it, though IMHO a little sleeker.
Which worked out to about half a billion USD per, so I have little hopes for these coming in much under GBP 400m
Very sad…
https://www.janes.com/article/82583/brazil-s-new-helicopter-carrier-set-to-arrive
No reason she couldn’t have soldiered on as a forward afloat staging platform in the ME for at least another decade. Would have saved the MoD a lot of money as well…
(Chris H) helions – I take a more relaxed view on Ocean. She was not built to the same specifications as a full on Naval ship and was a one off. This meant higher maintenance rates and the costs involved. She had no synergy or backup with any other ship but was what we needed at the time. She served us well and I am glad Brazil has managed to find a home for her and will now be able to upgrade its own capabilities. And basically the QEs can cover what Ocean did many times over if that is… Read more »
All true Chris,
but she could have been relabeled as an RFA and freed up the Bay in the ME for other operations. That flight deck in particular could have been a huge asset. Could have saved a lot of money and having a full blown aviation ship and tender in the region would not have been a bad thing IMO…
Cheers!
With the RN’s dire personnel shortage though crew requirements are a big consideration though. Ocean’s 285 core crew + 185 aircrew is, sadly, a significant issue vs the 70 core crew for a Bay (all data from Wikipedia). One interesting and I thought quite creative idea for getting some cheap and cheerful additional aviation capability that I’ve seen at least one person suggest on other forums, and maybe here too (I forget), is to modify a couple of Point Class (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-class_sealift_ship) by plating over the deck forward of the superstructure and turning the open area at the base of the… Read more »
(Chris H) – And in related developments just when we thought the Scots had stopped playing the victim game we have this: http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16606820.port-giant-accused-of-sacrificing-clyde-to-save-mersey/ So the Scottish received wisdom is that the evil English in the form of Peel Ports are neglecting Inchgreen to fund Cammell Laird’s facilities on the Mersey. Its £900 Mn investment in the area delivering thousands of jobs and new homes is, of course, ignored. And no mention of T26 just up the Clyde or the fact that Portsmouth was sacrificed on the altar of devolution and ‘the Union’ to benefit the Clyde. Or 5 overpriced OPVs… Read more »