Author Topic: Type 31e Frigates  (Read 3747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 938
Type 31e Frigates
« on: June 09, 2018, 12:40:41 »
Bids are now heating up for the Type 31 Frigate competition with both Babcock showcasing their final choice for the competition, the Arrowhead 140 design based off of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt.

Babcocks bid based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt design.

Arrowhead 140 Video

Cammell Laird is now a bidding prime contractor, and has teamed up with BAE.  Their submission is the Leander Class.  Of note the "dazzle" camouflage scheme on the last photo of the article.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2018, 18:18:10 by Underway »

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2018, 14:26:53 »
I think the first Babcock link is for Arrowhead 120 which I think they took off the table....
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 938
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #2 on: June 09, 2018, 18:17:50 »
I think the first Babcock link is for Arrowhead 120 which I think they took off the table....

Fixed the link.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,561
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2018, 13:05:34 »
Oh, oh--and see costs compared to CSC, note timeline--first a tweet:
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1021752161145966594

Quote
NavyLookout
‏ @NavyLookout

Bad news...
The finely balanced RN frigate replacement program has all just gone out of the window…

Type 31e programme has been suspended due to "insufficient competition” - ie. no one could build a ship at the £250M price
http://www.janes.com/article/81958/uk-halts-type-31e-frigate-competition

Jane's:

Quote
Key Points

    The United Kingdom's Type 31e acquisition process has stopped due to insufficient competition
    Plans are being scoped for a new procurement competition

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been forced to rethink the acquisition strategy for its Type 31e general-purpose frigate programme after abruptly terminating the original acquisition process, citing insufficient compliant bids for an effective and robust competition.

Industry was advised of the decision on 20 July in a statement from Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S). While moves are under way to develop a new ‘streamlined’ competition, the pause means that the Type 31e target in-service date (ISD) of 2023 is now in doubt [emphasis added].
http://www.janes.com/article/81958/uk-halts-type-31e-frigate-competition

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,561
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2018, 15:40:08 »
Restart, can anyone meet the desired cost (cf CSC per ship, though not strictly comparable):

Quote
UK restarts frigate competition - but will anyone take part?

Britain’s Ministry of Defence is restarting its contest to build five general purpose frigates for the Royal Navy after it terminated the original competition due to insufficient interest from industry.

The Defence Equipment & Support organisation, the MoD’s procurement arm, has issued a “prior information notice” informing potential bidders it is moving forward with the Type 31e program, and plans a short period of market engagement with companies or consortia that have expressed interest starting on Aug 20.

“We have relaunched discussions with industry for our new Type 31e fleet, and this week issued a Prior Information Notice to ensure we do not lose any momentum. We remain committed to a cutting-edge Royal Navy fleet of at least 19 frigates and destroyers, and the first batch of five new Type 31e ships [emphasis added] will bolster our modern Navy,” said an MoD spokesperson.

“The purpose of the market engagement is for the Authority [DE&S] to share key elements of the new procurement, including technical and commercial elements. The Authority intends to use the feedback from the market engagement to inform the further shaping of its requirements and commercial construct,” said the DE&S in its announcement it was relaunching the competition.

DE&S said suppliers should “only respond if they are in a position to undertake the full Type 31e programme, meeting its full requirement including a £1.25billion cost and building the Type 31e in a UK shipyard [emphasis added].”

The Type 31e is a key part of the government’s 2017 national shipbuilding strategy which in part seeks to open up the sector to local competition, rather than contract via a non-competitive single source contract with U.K. giant BAE Systems, the world’s third largest defense company according to the Defense News Top 100 list.

The fast track schedule for the Type 31e calls for the initial vessel to be in service by 2023 [!!!, emphasis added], replacing the first of 13 Type 23 class frigates due to be retired by the Royal Navy in the period up to the middle of the 2030’s. The final Type 31e -- the e stands for export -- is due to be delivered in 2028.

Eight of the Type 23’s will be replaced by anti-submarine warfare Type 26’s. The remainder of the Type 23’s will be replaced by the Type 31e.

DE&S and industry are up against a time crunch on getting the first Type 31e into service, one which some executives here see as daunting, if not unachieveable, thanks to the need to restart the competition.

But despite the delay in getting to the competitive design phase contract announcements, DE&S says it remains committed to the 2023 service date...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/08/17/uk-restarts-frigate-competition-but-will-anyone-take-part/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 135
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2018, 16:14:34 »
Is there a reason why the Type 31e has to be a frigate? Wouldn't it be realistic for it to be more of a large corvette for that price? A light-frigate for countries who can't afford a $800mn-odd frigate?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 938
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #6 on: August 17, 2018, 17:28:22 »
Is there a reason why the Type 31e has to be a frigate? Wouldn't it be realistic for it to be more of a large corvette for that price? A light-frigate for countries who can't afford a $800mn-odd frigate?

Whats the difference between a large corvette and a light frigate?  Semantics.  It's named by role not by tonnage.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,096
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #7 on: August 17, 2018, 17:48:30 »
Whats the difference between a large corvette and a light frigate?  Semantics.  It's named by role not by tonnage.

Honest question: So why is an 8000ton full load AAD/ASW/ASuW-capable ship (T26) called a frigate and not a destroyer? ???

Regards
G2G

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 938
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #8 on: August 17, 2018, 18:13:44 »
Honest question: So why is an 8000ton full load AAD/ASW/ASuW-capable ship (T26) called a frigate and not a destroyer? ???

Regards
G2G

Europeans don't generally use destroyer as a label for ships (in the French tradition).   Europeans label everything that is an escort a frigate.  Dutch, French, Germans are good examples of this with AAD frigates and ASW frigates.

Destroyers are used in the English tradition commonly (though Spain, Italy uses it as well, and Asian navies are modeled on the English tradition) C4I platforms that provide Area Air Defence and can defend a Task Group from hostile aircraft and missiles.  Most generally are designed to carry a Commodore and their staff.  Frigates are general purpose ships that do ASW, Support to Forces Ashore, ASuW and self defence capability from enemy air attacks.

So basically the tonnage doesn't matter, it's more the role the ship is built for.  Destroyers (and AAW frigates) have a higher tonnage than general purpose frigates because of the larger sensors (to detect aircraft), larger missile payload and larger crew (with that Flag Staff aboard).  But that's a generality all other things being equal.

Of note: T26 doesn't do AAD.  It's self air defence only.  The Type 45 is there for AAD.  The Canadian bid version however may be able to do AAD so what we label it will be interesting to see.  Anglo tradition but unique class of ships.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 18:22:45 by Underway »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,561
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #9 on: August 17, 2018, 18:55:34 »
Underway:

Quote
Canadian bid version however may be able to do AAD

And missile defence too? Even if not initially given that role, at least have necessary sensor sytems, e.g. AEGIS. Pretty sure NORAD would like that.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 938
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #10 on: August 17, 2018, 23:23:03 »
Underway:

And missile defence too? Even if not initially given that role, at least have necessary sensor sytems, e.g. AEGIS. Pretty sure NORAD would like that.

Mark
Ottawa

Area Air Defence only means that a ship can defend both itself and consorts from air attack.  This includes missile attacks but not what Canada defines as ballistic missiles.  This isn't a new capability.  It just replaces what was lost when the Tribals rusted out.  Only 3-4 ships are anticipated to be able to do AAD with the proper missile loadout and proper radars.

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 109,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,793
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #11 on: August 17, 2018, 23:37:32 »
Put the money into the Canadian Coast Guard otherwise buy a US built Burke class DDG.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 27,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 810
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2018, 01:08:38 »
No.  No no no no no.

Other than them being super expensive, and crew intensive at 330+ -- even the US has started accepting that they will need a new design after the current Flight 3 due to power requirements.  With the new radars & energy weapon systems coming onboard, there have been a few articles about the US Navy coming up with a clean sheet design to be built after the Burkes to replace both them & the Tico.

Just no.  Fantastic ship, absolute workhorse & extremely capable.  But for us?  And our timelines (We have a magical ability to accomplish things so slowly, time actually moves backwards) -- no. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,096
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #13 on: August 18, 2018, 01:55:33 »
Europeans don't generally use destroyer as a label for ships (in the French tradition).   Europeans label everything that is an escort a frigate.  Dutch, French, Germans are good examples of this with AAD frigates and ASW frigates.

Destroyers are used in the English tradition commonly (though Spain, Italy uses it as well, and Asian navies are modeled on the English tradition) C4I platforms that provide Area Air Defence and can defend a Task Group from hostile aircraft and missiles.  Most generally are designed to carry a Commodore and their staff.  Frigates are general purpose ships that do ASW, Support to Forces Ashore, ASuW and self defence capability from enemy air attacks.

So basically the tonnage doesn't matter, it's more the role the ship is built for.  Destroyers (and AAW frigates) have a higher tonnage than general purpose frigates because of the larger sensors (to detect aircraft), larger missile payload and larger crew (with that Flag Staff aboard).  But that's a generality all other things being equal.

Of note: T26 doesn't do AAD.  It's self air defence only.  The Type 45 is there for AAD.  The Canadian bid version however may be able to do AAD so what we label it will be interesting to see.  Anglo tradition but unique class of ships.

Thanks for the insight!

G2G

Offline quadrapiper

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 318
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2018, 16:38:15 »
No.  No no no no no.

Other than them being super expensive, and crew intensive at 330+ -- even the US has started accepting that they will need a new design after the current Flight 3 due to power requirements.  With the new radars & energy weapon systems coming onboard, there have been a few articles about the US Navy coming up with a clean sheet design to be built after the Burkes to replace both them & the Tico.

Just no.  Fantastic ship, absolute workhorse & extremely capable.  But for us?  And our timelines (We have a magical ability to accomplish things so slowly, time actually moves backwards) -- no.
Isn't the hull design also maxed out for payload?

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 27,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 810
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2018, 18:22:14 »
That too.

At $2B a pop, 330ppl+, and a design that - while a great design - is on it's last legs due to technological & payload changes - buying Burke's would probably be the worst decision WE could make, given our financial & personnel resources.

 :2c:
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 73,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,561
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2018, 21:45:34 »
Esp. since CSCs are now at least $








CBH99: esp. as CSCs are now at, maybe, $4 billion a pop each, eh?

Quote
At $2B [US] a pop, 330ppl+, and a design that - while a great design - is on it's last legs due to technological & payload changes - buying Burke's would probably be the worst decision WE could make, given our financial & personnel resources.

Mark
Ottawa






4
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 27,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 810
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2018, 00:39:17 »
True, fair enough.  But a lot of that $$ would be staying inside of Canada in the form of materials, taxes paid back to the government via the workers, GST paid to the government on goods the workers purchase, taxes paid back to the government from the various businesses & contractors involved, etc etc.

You do have a valid point Mark, not arguing with you on that at all.  And I definitely don't claim to be right.


My basic point is that a Burke probably isn't the best choice for us - for a whole variety of reasons.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 486,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,390
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2018, 05:18:02 »
Europeans don't generally use destroyer as a label for ships ... So basically the tonnage doesn't matter, it's more the role the ship is built for.  Destroyers (and AAW frigates) have a higher tonnage than general purpose frigates because of the larger sensors (to detect aircraft), larger missile payload and larger crew (with that Flag Staff aboard).  But that's a generality all other things being equal ...



Thanks for that ... I too was thinking tonnage and it occurred to me that some modern frigates are almost as large as the last light cruiser that was in Canadian service: HMCS Ontario at 8,800 tonnes, standard displacement.


It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 938
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2018, 10:35:10 »

Thanks for that ... I too was thinking tonnage and it occurred to me that some modern frigates are almost as large as the last light cruiser that was in Canadian service: HMCS Ontario at 8,800 tonnes, standard displacement.



Even in the "good old days" ships were labeled for their role.  A cruiser isn't just a bigger destroyer. It has a different role and therefore a different tonnage to do that role.  It needed more AA guns and dual purpose guns so it was designed to be larger to increase weight of fire against air attack.  Destroyers on radar picket had a good chance of being sunk by enemy air, so the Tin Cans (for example) were cheap, light and nimble, to dodge attack and be more disposable.

I think this is where the confusion is for many people.  With modern equipment and general purpose ships the roles overlap or can be easily changed so the roles don't necessarily match tonnage which had become a shorthand for a ships role. 

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 213,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,096
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2018, 12:04:49 »
So LAD/ASW/ASuW = Frigate, give or take...AAD would be the primary 'Destroyer discriminator,' then (no matter the tonnage)?

Regards,
G2G

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 196
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2018, 12:08:14 »
So LAD/ASW/ASuW = Frigate, give or take...AAD would be the primary 'Destroyer discriminator,' then (no matter the tonnage)?

Regards,
G2G

Well,speaking of/for the Netherlands,our government,thinks  calling ships "Destroyers",sounds to aggressive,hence Frigate. :nod:(no matter what,ASW/ASuW or even AAW)
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 15:04:50 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 938
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2018, 15:03:19 »
So LAD/ASW/ASuW = Frigate, give or take...AAD would be the primary 'Destroyer discriminator,' then (no matter the tonnage)?

Regards,
G2G
Generally yes. That and the Command Control abilities.  USS Zumwalt is classified as a destroyer for those reasons even though it weighs about 15000 tonnes.

Well,speaking of/for the Netherlands,our government,thinks the calling ships "Destroyer",sounds to aggressive,hence Frigate. :nod:(no matter what,ASW/ASuW or even AAW)

There is that.  Political reasons can change ship classifications. The US 1975 ship reclassification is a good example of this.  Be warned, it's confusing as hell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification

The final change was in the 80's where the Ticonderoga class destroyers were renamed Cruisers to close the cruiser gap.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2018, 15:09:36 by Underway »

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 30,595
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 859
Re: Type 31e Frigates
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2018, 21:15:47 »
Esp. since CSCs are now at least $: esp. as CSCs are now at, maybe, $4 billion a pop each, eh?

Mark
Ottawa


ADM(Mat) gave an interview a while ago that broke down the overall budget. Only half the $60B was for the ships; the remainder was for spares, crew training, infrastructure, and some contingency.  Still not cheap, but a huge chunk of that goes into the weapons suite, and investing on the cutting edge side now means we're more likely to have something still semi useful in 20 years when we finally look at replacing it.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2018, 21:46:16 by Infanteer »