• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Type 31e Frigates

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
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.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
36
Points
530
I think the first Babcock link is for Arrowhead 120 which I think they took off the table....
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
Cdn Blackshirt said:
I think the first Babcock link is for Arrowhead 120 which I think they took off the table....

Fixed the link.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Oh, oh--and see costs compared to CSC, note timeline--first a tweet:
https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1021752161145966594

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 …
Di39-LHX4AEALkS.jpg

Jane's:

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
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Restart, can anyone meet the desired cost (cf CSC per ship, though not strictly comparable):

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
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
128
Points
580
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?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
LoboCanada said:
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.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,428
Points
1,360
Underway said:
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
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
Good2Golf said:
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.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Underway:

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
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
MarkOttawa said:
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.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
62
Points
530
Put the money into the Canadian Coast Guard otherwise buy a US built Burke class DDG.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,216
Points
1,090
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. 
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,428
Points
1,360
Underway said:
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
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
80
Points
330
CBH99 said:
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?
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,216
Points
1,090
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:
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
136
Points
710
Esp. since CSCs are now at least $








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

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
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,216
Points
1,090
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.
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,346
Points
1,160
Underway said:
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.

HMCS-Ontario-Passing-Duntz-Head-Feb-7--1958--LAC-MIKAN-No--4821380-.jpg

 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,073
Points
1,040
E.R. Campbell said:
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.

HMCS-Ontario-Passing-Duntz-Head-Feb-7--1958--LAC-MIKAN-No--4821380-.jpg

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. 
 
Top