DSEI 2021- Babcock has secured the first export contract for its Arrowhead 140 frigate through a design licence agreement with PT PAL Indonesia, a state-owned enterprise that builds and maintains ships for military and commercial use from its facilities in Surabaya, Indonesia.
The UK is using a similar design, basing its Type 31 Frigates on the Arrowhead 140 design, being built by Babcock at Rosyth.
Babcock say in a news release that the breakthrough deal comes two years since Babcock’s AH140 design was first announced as the preferred bidder for the UK Type 31 frigate programme at DSEI 2019, with the contract confirmed in November of the same year.
“The design licence will enable PAL to build two Arrowhead 140 frigates in Indonesia with bespoke design modifications for the Indonesian Navy. The agreement was signed at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) 2021 event in London, on board HMS Argyll, by David Lockwood CEO Babcock and Kaharuddin Djenod, CEO PAL. And was witnessed by the Defence Minister of Indonesia, Prabowo Subianto and UK Defence Secretary, Rt Hon Ben Wallace MP.
Babcock has been working alongside the UK Government to promote the Arrowhead 140 Frigate into the global market with strong interest internationally. The company recently announced that it was one of the bidders down selected by the Polish Government to provide a potential design solution for the Polish Navy’s Miecznik (Swordfish) frigate programme.”
The firm say that the baseline Arrowhead 140 design can be configured to meet a broad range of naval requirements and, with Babcock’s support PAL will now engineer the required modifications to configure the Arrowhead 140 for the Indonesian customer.
David Lockwood, CEO Babcock said:
“Today is a really exciting moment for Babcock and our frigate export programme, as we sign the design licence with PAL for two new frigates for the Indonesian Navy. The beauty of our export product is that it is a readily transferable design that can be tailored to the customer’s needs as part of our strong Arrowhead frigate portfolio. What’s more, the design licence and subsequent build programme will be a significant catalyst for prosperity in Indonesia.
Working with our Indonesian colleagues this contract will see Arrowhead 140 frigates built in Indonesia, by the local workforce, contributing directly to the social and economic value of its sovereign shipbuilding community and country as a whole. We look forward to further opportunities to support PAL as the programme matures. It’s a proud day for the Babcock and PAL teams.”
Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:
“I was delighted to attend the contract signing between Babcock and Indonesia on board HMS Argyll today, representing the best of British maritime design and engineering to our international partners. Signalling the strength of our defence relationship with Indonesia, both of our Naval Forces will operate this world-leading frigate in the future and will work closely together to protect our mutual interests around the world.”
The Arrowhead 140 frigate design, benefits from a proven hull-form that has been tried and tested in real-world operational environments from NATO and coalition task forces to national regional and deployed operations. The baseline Arrowhead 140 design can be configured to meet a broad range of operational requirements and profiles a global frigate may be called upon to undertake and adopt and with a growing number of users it can also support interoperability between naval allies.
Woo hooo
Will British Firms get plenty of work?
It is licensing a design for 2 ships
So they might or not. There is certainly some influence that Babcock can do, but also depend on Indonesian competency and willingness to listen.
Besides some equipment from Thales, most of it will probably be from Arrowyard.
Transporting large things half way across the world isn’t really cheap. Not sure about engines though. Where are the Type 31 engines made?
Rolls Royce MTU diesels made in Germany.
Good question. If the ‘design’ comes with a bill of materials and component specs and a list of suppliers who meet the spec then I assume it would be easier and faster for the Indonesian builder to accept the T31 default supplier, but many of these are not British anyway. They are sure to want to try to take the specs and invite local suppliers to make items so they build up local skills and jobs.
Good chance they will fit Sea Ceptor I think. Who wouldn’t?
Babcock will, hull build is a minor part of overall cost. So yes.
A lot of equipment is already sourced in the UK by PAL for previous builds for both the TNI and export vessels. You would be surprised at just how much British equipment is exported to Asia where the UK brand is very strong for quality defence equipment. Many of the recent PAL builds have been fitted with British built engines and propulsion systems. its supplied by smaller niche companies that dont shout about it and just get on with what they do best.
Well there’s a welcome turn up for the book. Early days but I do remember a lot of doubts that this ship would make much headway in foreign sales. Well whatever happens longer term recent events in ship building really do show what can happen when you present a professional, coordinated and flexible front in selling your technology to the World. An air of success tends to create more success and add to the perception.
Exactly and each ship will be a permanent advert for Team UK
Exactly !
Once the first customers in the bag more SHOULD hopefully follow!!
How are the Greek and Polish sales going? Haven’t heard anything from them in a while.
Well this is bloody good news. It’s almost as though we’re getting our act together. We’re even teaching the French a lesson or two based on recent events ! The more 140’s we export the lower the unit cost for the RN will be. The more money we’ll have to spend either on the 31/32 ‘s or elsewhere.
Is this true? In June 2021, Italian Fincantieri signed a deal to sell 6 Fremm to Indonesia.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2021/06/10/indonesia-orders-six-fremm-frigates-from-fincantieri/
Has this deal been cancelled or are these additional ships to be bought?
Its on the Babock web site, so looks kosher.
https://www.babcockinternational.com/news/babcock-sells-first-new-frigate-design-licence-to-indonesia/
No mention of any other order
It’s an addition. Reports of the Italian order in June also stated that Indonesia was still considering the Arrowhead 140 design. The two classes are rather different in cost and capability, but Indonesia can now play Babcock and Fincantieri off against each other to some degree when negotiating any follow-on orders.
It’s always amused me how some navys and airforces have loads of different kinds of the same type of new platform, like gulf states with typhoon, F16s, f15s, rafael, tornado. It doesn’t make sense to have lots of different kinds , or does it? Doing so gives them influence I supose,
It’s their way of buying influence with the nations selling the weapons.
Yeah, it’s Gota mess with everything though lol, from training, maintenance, weapons
It is partly for buying influence, partly because the Indonesians are paranoid about CAATSAesque restrictions and hoping to hedge their bets, partly because of prestige purposes, and partly because of profits. Nations in these parts of the world are basically banana republics, most of their decisions are driven by pork-barrel considerations. Having more types of gear means more supply chains means more “local partner” vendors means spreading the pork around to more friends and family of the decision-makers.
It is also a way of mitigating an embargo. Say for instance The US put an embargo on Saudi, where it stop spares being sent to service F15 engines. At least they will still have Typhoons and Tornados to use to fulfil the same role.
This a more solid order than Fincantieri because it is much smaller in value.
More like big flexible OPVS than warships.
Name an OPV with 8 cannister launched ASM’s, 32 VLS launchers, a RIM-116 SAM launcher, a 40mm CIWS, a 76mm gun, and a 9000nm range please?
Give up. ‘Don’t confuse me with the facts i’ve made up my mind’ He’s just naturally cheerful.
Yes I am thanks 😊
☝ You remind me of someone. They lived to be 91 so if it works it works.
And Why would you tell someone to “give up”? I’m open to anything anyone has to say, i like to learn on here.
And the RN 31s are worse armed than most Corvettes and SOME OPVs. Their size is a positive though🥳
You’ve yet to show OPV that’s better armed than a Type 31.
Yeah, I’d really hoped the sight had moved past this discussion, but it seems every time the navy comes up there’s some *ahem* that needs to bash the Rivers, at least we haven’t broached the subject that must not be named.
edit, never mind, he went there further down in the thread.
My opv statement was basing it of RN type 31. And I suppose we will just have to wait and see the armourment of both 31s, but I already know the RN will be a worse off load out.
But BAE Bung Tomo class, is smaller than their cousin ships the River class OPVs. They have 16vls, 76mm Otto, two 30mm, two quad Exocets , two Torpedo tubes, all in a ship 1900tns.
Even the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti-class_patrol_vessel is better armed!! and even has helo with hangar.
Cool, never knew about these Italian OPVs. And smaller in tons than Batch twos…but has chopper and hangar. Just shows how we got screwed on the batch twos Steve M
Range is the big factor there. Weapons are relatively compact things to add. The Rivers (both batch 1 and 2) have almost double the range of these Italian ships. Food, supplies, stores, all require a bigger ship and that bumps up the cost. The Italian ship is technically fairly similar, if shorter range. Telescopic hangar and a 76mm gun could be fitted to the Rivers (B2 at least). They just don’t see the need for their required missions
B2’s have @50% extra range rather than double. 5500 nml v 3500. On mission etc….the alternative view would be that the B2’s are assigned the missions they have been because they are incapable of anything else. What frustrates many is that a lot of money has been spent on a relatively large leggy vessel that can be accused of being a one trick pony at a time when T23s are leaving the fleet and T45s have yet to have latent defects remedied. B2 can’t replace a T45 but could, if modestly up-armed, release type 23 from gulf escort missions etc.
We have ships in the Med, Falklands, Carribbean, and heading out to the far East. If we didn’t have the River B2s, we wouldn’t have that plus a carrier group with escorts. B2s are ideal for showing the flag in far off places.
Understand that….just a very expensive flag bearer with a pair of binoculars and not much else. It’s the utility for the price that gets me. They have given it the legs of a tour de France cyclist, the body of a 80kg weightlifter, the eyes and skills of a pentathlete and the arms…the arms of a Malaysian table tennis player. Very very little in the way of diverse utility other than what could have been achieved for 2/3 the price. Christ…a basic hanger and with that the option, subject to mission, of a wildcat or large UAV would be a… Read more »
Utility for price? The Rivers are the most active part of the fleet. They spend more days at sea than any other ship in the Royal Navy.
No arguments about uptime. However, for the price paid there are multiple commercial options that can ‘fly the flag’ and achieve or exceed the same uptime at significantly reduced cost. My comment on Utility relates to the lack of multifunctional military utility…for the price paid. The Amazon’s class that the batch IIs are based on, same range, same weapons fit, but without the internal water tight compartment upgrades the RN vessels received and one tier down on sensors, were 1/3 the unit cost. I can rationalise maybe double the cost for RN fit but three times the price firxan order… Read more »
A fair comparison but a couple things you need to bear in mind: 1) The Amazonas where second hand buys, basically Brazil taking them off BAe’s hands after the original customers bailed. So I suspect they got a pretty good deal on them anyway. 2) The B2 Rivers where ordered primarily to keep Govan in business. And at first they where going to be 1-for-1 replacements for the B1’s (the fact that they and the B1’s are all in service now is evidence of how useful the navy has found them). So again, the price paid wasn’t for the ship,… Read more »
The blindingly obvious thing is while they can put RN crews in harms way, they are hopelessly incapable to defend themselves against anything other than a few fast small boats. Which enemy would ever allow an enemy minor vesssel to leave the area once conflict broke out. By their many covert actions including IT attacks & poisonings on our soil we’re not at much of a peaceful posture with Russia & PRC. The Rivers are too often being used where a proper warship is required & that is a risk to the RN, the nation & all our allies. It’s… Read more »
Please, one example of a conflict zone that requires a proper Warship?
When has a RN crew on an OPV actually been put in Harms way?
Patrolling the Med in harms way?
HADR in the Carrib is in harms way?
Falklands Islands Patrol Ship is in harms way?
And if the Chinese decide to sink an OPV in the SCS it won’t matter if it’s an OPV or a Type 45, against the entire chinese fleet it’ll not last long, yet if we send a fleet there they suddenly have local knowledge from sailors that have been permanently stationed there.
I just think we needed to find a balance between the B2 and Sa’ar6 / bung Tomo. Especially for ships on long deployments
A lot of the seemingly heavily armed small figates/corvettes are for coastal defence only. They don’t have the range, seakeeping, stores, RAS ability and crew accomodation for blue water use. Ships like Khareef, Sa’ar and so on are in essence coastal defence ships. This type of ship has always been built and packed a heaviuer armament per/ton than blue water vessels, but they are of limited use in oceanic naval warfare.
i understand that just think that for ships being sent on long/distant deployment having something like the retractable hangar on the Commandanti class would provide a good additional capability. The references to Sa’ar and others were just examples of what we could have gotten out of 90m /2k Ton size.
We didn’t get screwed with the Batch 2’s, they’re simply built for a different mission, and with different design priorities, set than Commandanti.
Good luck going into bat on this one Dern, its like whack a mole though……
Its all about the guns and missiles apparently. 😒
It’s almost like people don’t actually understand that things are procured for a role, and that not everything has to be the superdeath dealer 9000.
Or that they think a small brown water navies highest end surface combatant should be an apt comparison to a large blue water navies lowest end surface combatant.
I have little hope of getting those types to understand, because they’re arguments are largely based in emotion not fact, but hopefully I can at least counter the narrative.
“I have little hope of getting those types to understand, because they’re arguments are largely based in emotion not fact”
Welcome to the internet mate. 😉
In fairness, we can all push our opinion as fact from time to time because it seems so obvious to ourselves.
Compare the Comandanti’s range and sea days with a River class and you have the answer to why that is.
Smaller, more guns, about half the range and less availability.
Hi Dern, yep which is why i said a ‘balance’ between them. i’m not a naval architect but i expect the additional length/beam and 500tons would allow for an increase in range. the way you always have go at anyone who says anything about the B2 design you must either work for BAE or DES. Dern way or highway 🙁 no other opinions count
Well Steve, unlike you I can get my point across without belittling or insulting the people I’m talking too.
500t won’t double the range of a ship, nor will it add 1/3 of the endurance, so no, that’s not the difference, it’s design philosophy and intended mission sets. (Btw the word “balanced” is nowhere to be seen in the comment I replied to, I just pointed out why the Commandanti, which you linked too are not what the RN needs, while the Rivers are).
“500t won’t double the range of a ship, nor will it add 1/3 of the endurance, so no, that’s not the difference, it’s design philosophy and intended mission sets. “
Of course it can double. It can even more than double.
How much fuel do you think a ship like this OPV’s have?
A 3000t Frigate of 80’s had 350-400t fuel and 6000nm at 14kt range.
The 1980s you could also make the crew live in considerable discomfort so not a great point of comparison. However for what it’s worth: F-122 entered service 1982, 3000t range 4000nm. Type 21 entered service 1974, 3000t, range 4400nm. OHP entered service 1977, 4000t range 4000nm Lupo class entered service 1977, 3000t, range 4000nm I could go on, the only Frigates that I know of from the 1980’s that have a 6,000nm range are around 5,000t. But, assuming that you are right even 1,000 tonnes over a River (with all the associated crew discomforts of the 1980’s) bought… 500nm. Which… Read more »
Maestrale Frigate.
Lupo was 2500t
F122 has much more range than that. The range that is announced as +4000 nm is at 18kt
With +300t overall in size you probably can put the Comandanti range at 5000nm. Just 150t more fuel probably doubles the range.
So no actual answer to my challenge, what a surprise. and maybe 1 frigate that *might* have managed to squeeze 500 extra nm over a River 2 with 1000 extra tonnes… still not that impressive considering everything I pointed out about the 1980s (which you ignored too). And btw the F122 doesn’t have more range than that. 500t won’t put the Comandanti at 5000nm (ignoring that that still less than a Rivers range) and 300t definitely won’t. Just because you state it doesn’t make it so. If it was we’d see plenty of heavily armed OPV’s at 2,000ts with 35days… Read more »
The Bung Tomo’s are designed to be frigates, not OPVs, so please try again and name an OPV that can do those things (and even then the Bung Tomo’s fall short because they don’t have a Type 31’s range). Anyway they are based off of a common design (F2000 aka Frigate 2000), and are built to military protection standards. It also cost 400million£ to buy each frigate new, more than a type 31 new (Indonesia got them for a bargain price btw because the original customer, Brunei rejected them). Oh and the “16 VLS” is 16 Sea Wolf Launchers, having… Read more »
Hi Dern, I get your general point about the B2s, it’s a common sense approach, ‘horses-for-courses’, so to speak. Even with an increase in defence spending, funding and resources are still tight so a tight rein on where we spend the money and on what, with a robust but flexible specification are what is needed right now with defence procurement. Whether the MOD live up to this is another conversation. Given we’ll now be basing B2s in the Gulf and Far East the action they see might vary. Some B2s might never use their 30mm cannon in anger, just their… Read more »
Why would you put an OPV up against fast attack craft? If, for example, a bunch of Iranian fast attack craft come in then they’ll be launching missiles from well outside the range of a 76mm. If you have a frigate that’s fine, that’s where CAMM, CIWS, and Decoy Launchers come in. But for an OPV, the only real hope is that any attack misses until they’re within the 76mm range. UAV or Helicopter hangar is more realistic, though for it can already operate anything up to Merlin sized helicopters anyway, so it’s just extending what it can already do… Read more »
Hi Dern, thanks for your reply. So, does your point about fast attack craft and an OPV possibly bring into question whether basing an OPV in the Gulf as wise, certainly without CIWS and/or Decoy Launchers fitted? If I were to name one place where we might see a hostile engagement between a RN vessel and fast attack craft it’s probably the Straits of Hormuz right now and, since we can’t pick and choose the moment the Iranians might engage us, having a more combat capable ship than an OPV would surely be prudent here, right? I dare say they… Read more »
I mean, we don’t base OPV’s in the gulf: The RN has a Type 23 frigate and a MCMV squadron fwd deployed in the gulf, so there’s that. The OPV’s are based as follows: HMS Mersey, HMS Severn and HMS Tyne in Home Waters on fisheries protection. HMS Trent in Gibraltar to Patrol Med/E. Atlantic HMS Forth in the Falklands Islands on EEZ enforcement, S. Georgia visits, and supporting local population and training. HMS Medway in the Carib on ATP(N) counter Narcotics and HADR HMS Tamar and HMS Spey patrolling in the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The interesting point though… Read more »
I warned you.
I suspect the deal was made in preparation for the local construction of the last two FREMMs. The yard has been saying things like “industry 4.0” lately, which seem to coincide with Babcock’s Arrowyard program.
Planning wise, the navy has been looking at a fleet of around 30 guided missile escorts for quite some time. Having a target date of 2024 (definitly not achievable) and having acquired only nine ships that fit the category, I think it’s just the MoD rushing things for the navy.
Additional ships. There is an arms race going on in the Pacific if you had not noticed as China doubles its fleet every decade. Indonesia has a huge exposure on the South China Sea.
Fantastic
Not much good to us unless they use UK built systems, engines, pumps and all the other sundries that go into makeing a frigate. Selling the rights doesn’t help global Britain in manufacturing exports.
There’s a lot of non British kit in the T31- engines, all guns,CMS –
and the basic design is Danish.
Obviously there will be a design royalty to Babcock but what else that benefits the UK?
I think the future for UK defence exports is in the high tech stuff-sensors, missiles, aircraft manned and unmanned- rather than platforms that rely on metal bashing.
Maybe “UK wins Indonesian ship export” plastered all over is the biggest benefit for Global Britain, Might help get new orders or more interest in UK.
Yes and maybe Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines and New Zealand might be next. Well done Babcock.
No doubt some systems will be manufactured in the UK and ‘bolted on’ in Indonesia but that is not the point. If Babcock is selling their design abroad and is an in profit company that can only be a good thing for the Royal Navy. It increases capacity, choice and expertise. We now have 2 companies selling complex UK designed warships abroad (BAE T26 (maybe Astute too) in Australia & Canada & Babcock AH140 in Indonesia (maybe Greece & Poland too).
Shame we can’t pump out British designed Corvetets to sell to the rest of the globe who can’t afford Frigates. BAE Bung Tomo class look good and are well armed.
Khareef-class says hello as well. 😉
khareef class is exactly how we should have armed the two OPVs heading east to stay.
Or maybe even the cheaper option ,of one 76mm up front and two 30mms each side of the Bridge.
But the Khareeef Corvette look good, if only the RN wanted 5 Corvettes for relatively cheap, and some more much much needed ships with firepower..
What would the RN gain from buying 5 extra 30mm’s and introducing a completely new calibre of gun for the Rivers?
And at what cost?
And given that the Khareefs lost both a large chunk of range and at sea endurance compared to the Rivers, where would you cut to get at least a 6th ship (so 7 extra 30mms now) to make up for the shortfall of patrol days?
You have the patience of a saint fella!
😂 Please, I’ve been known to have plenty of snapreps on here.
I’ve always suspected from the hull form that the River 2 is a derivative of Khareef: minus the weapons plus endurance , crane, deck and more combat hardening.
Exactly. Let’s keep this simple. Indonesia is buying a RN ship design.
Can’t see Australia ordering a sub with a PWR-2 reactor, just like I can not see us ordering more than 7 Astutes. Any new orders with British reactors will use PWR-3 reactors, like the Dreadnoughts.
Licencing the design and providing technical support will bring in revenue and some of the specific systems may be manufactured in The UK. Plus it expands the number of T31 operators which will only bolster the efforts to export to other countries.
IT WOULD INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THE BUILD/OPERATIONAL TIMESCALE COMPARES WITH THE T 31 BUILD IN THEU.K sorry for capitals again my laptop is old and worn out(like me!).
Shame we couldn’t build one here, but beggars can’t be choosers,
When was the last time we built a warship (not OPV) for another nation? Those three corvettes meant for Brunei that went to Indonesia?
The RN should have snapped them up cheap, and they are actually better armed than the type 31!! -16vls, 76mm Otto, two 30mm, two quad Exocets , two Torpedo tubes, all in a ship 1900tns.
They aren’t “better armed”, but we’ve been over that.
Funny how here you admit they are corvettes but when it suits you you try to pretend they’re OPVs.
Say something negative go on ya wee dafties ye 😜👍🏻 Oh wait a minute…….🙈😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
UK plc #1👍🏻
🏴🇬🇧
umm well it’s raining, will that do ?
A positive note to end the day on!
Well done Babcock’s. Now buckle-up for the bumpy ride to actually get something built in a SE Asia yard. There are a couple of OK ones but the quality in most (particularly of electrical and instrumentation) is crap. My advice, make your your QC inspectors are inspecting something other than Jakarta’s fleshpots.
TOP GUN simply the best…
All in all good news for British Ship building, yes I wish they could have been built in the UK but it could mean extra orders from more countries, equipment being supplied etc. At the moment we have the T26 design being taking up by Australia and Canada, the T31 design being taking up by Indonesia and possibly two or three other countries; and possible involvment with Austarlia’s future SSN program. For once a good news situation
Im really Surprised Canada or OZ hasn’t tried to scrimp and save money like the UK has and go with a split buy of Frigates. Fair play OZ.
But I won’t hold my breath with Canada, they could yet, and if we think it’s bad in UK for warships and building ect..it’s nothing compared to Canada.
OK Oz I see and understand what you are saying but sometimes its more cost effective to buy one type of ship rather than two. As for Canada, I really do not want to be the government of Canada when it comes to the RCN. They have with limited resources to build two fleets Atlantic and Pacific. They 12-15 ships that they are planning is a minimum of need and will do the best they can. However Canada has always stepped up to the mark so I think they will do so again.
Couldn’t of done that if we were tethered too the EU British jobs for British workers as Danielle said Whoo hooo
…
you can’t really believe that? Or have you missed all the arms sales the U.K. and others have been doing year in year out since 1973 (for the U.K.)
But now we can legally say British jobs for British workers without being chastised by Brussels that’s all
Its defence related, you could call it whatever you want and Brussels would have no issue with it, just as it didn’t before you left or for any other member with a defence industry.
What was meant Mark was sometime ago the then Prime minister Gordon Brown stated about employment ” British Jobs for British Workers ” and was informed that he couldn’t say that as we were in the EU. That was all sorry mark
Another piece of good news that stems directly from Brexit. The more countries that adopt the design the better since expertise can be shared over modifications and adaptations world wide. The prospects are good if the follow through is focussed and vigorous. That’s the weak point. But alongside Aukus, good news.
How does it stem from brexit?
It doesn’t.
Because the mince is strong today.
Because it fits the agenda.
Ah brilliant news
Brexit Britain keeps winning
I wonder what the changes are from the RN version?
According to the local shipyard and personal observation:
Increased each engine to 9100 kW, each diesel generators to 1360 kW plus one 180 kW backup. Though there is no change in top speed or endurance.
Additional VLS for long range SAM and long range surface to surface missile (FFBNW). I have doubts about the stated numbers. Can’t figure out how they will all fit in that 138 m hull. Will have to wait and see.
Actually the proposal offered by Babcock uses another design, they offer an enlarged design which means it will increase the change in design costs according to Janes this program has a cost of $720 million for two ships and that doesn’t include weapons aka ffbnw there will only be main guns and ciws, weapons contracts will probably be separate contract
I wonder if this would suit Taiwan?
Taiwan proposes USD8.6 billion for defence ‘special’ fund
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/taiwan-proposes-usd86-billion-for-defence-special-fund