Looks a lot like the Maritime Support Ship that Irving proposed to the Government of Canada in 2016.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Virtually identical John. Why reinvent the wheel when the work has already been done.
Lots of value and use could come from this type in many navies. The RCN could have been leaders had they proceeded with this design.
Lots of value and use could come from this type in many navies. The RCN could have been leaders had they proceeded with this design.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Arrowhead 140
Apologies if this has been posted before.
It's mostly advertising puffery from Babcock, but there is some intersting detail on this competitor for the Type 31 contract. My strong suspiscion is that BAE's Leander will be selected, as the two alternatives may be seen as not British enough. I can't help thinking that if Babcock can build a ship this big under the (low) budget cap, there may be other countries interested.
Apologies if this has been posted before.
It's mostly advertising puffery from Babcock, but there is some intersting detail on this competitor for the Type 31 contract. My strong suspiscion is that BAE's Leander will be selected, as the two alternatives may be seen as not British enough. I can't help thinking that if Babcock can build a ship this big under the (low) budget cap, there may be other countries interested.
Everyone I've talked to in the RN is on the "ArrowHead 140, shut up and take my money" side - it's just a fair chunk larger and that brings some useful effects like future proofing, sea keeping etc. It'll be interesting to see what does happen of course. Leander is at least a British design and I'm honestly baffled as to how the UK could market the other two on the foreign market as UK products when the IP seems to be based elsewhere.
Hopefully we'll get a decision soon but I'm still of the opinion that the additional costs of integrating new sensors and CMS into RN use plus the design and startup costs will outweigh any savings from the hulls, or at least minimise it considerably and mean we could have simply had Type 26 in the originally ordered quantity.
What new sensors? The Arrowhead 140 brochure says only "medium and short-range radars for situational awareness, safe navigation, fire control and helicopter control", & that could mean ARTISAN & the Terma/Kelvin Hughes radars of T26.
Have other sensors been specified anywhere?
I can't help wondering why TACTICOS has been selected as the CMS. Would CMS-1 require BAE involvement which can't be fitted into the competitive bidding? If so, & the CMS turns out to be a reason for picking Leander, then the whole process would be shown to be a farce. What would be the point if whichever consortium includes BAE is the only one which can be picked?
Have other sensors been specified anywhere?
I can't help wondering why TACTICOS has been selected as the CMS. Would CMS-1 require BAE involvement which can't be fitted into the competitive bidding? If so, & the CMS turns out to be a reason for picking Leander, then the whole process would be shown to be a farce. What would be the point if whichever consortium includes BAE is the only one which can be picked?
Last edited:
Logically it should do but most of the reporting seems to indicate that they're not pulling kit through from T23's - if it becomes clear they're using Artisan etc, then that objection goes out the window but I've certainly seen strong indications that they're not.
We'll see I guess.
I have a feeling that THIS is the reason why TACTICOS hasn't been 'selected'....
INTeACT Combat Management System | BAE Systems | International
From the article, my understanding is that this is scalable, so could be used on a ship as large as the QE class, but also be fitted to a mine-hunter. The commonality alone across the fleet would save £££ every year, as all the engineers would be trained / qualified to work across the same software, so it doesn't matter which ship you were on.
The use of emulation software means that suppliers only have to write a small section of code into their current software, to fool equipment / systems into thinking they are acting as stand alone systems, while all the control & information signals are sent to central processing for output onto displays.
No more expensive interfaces / no more 'bespoke' software for each class of ship, just simple 'plug & play' technology taken to the next level...
Well, from a fleet management perspective, that seems perfectly sensible - it'd be nice to see some total cost of ownership reductions due to some commonality.
Thumbs up from me for that one.
Understanding CEAFAR's Success
Scalability is not something new of course as demonstrated by Ceafar
Scalability is not something new of course as demonstrated by Ceafar
And commonality across the fleet. Exactly what I was puzzled by.
I meant TACTICOS selected (apparently: it's what their brochure says) by the consortium offering Arrowhead 140. It makes perfect sense for all our ships to have the same CMS, as long as it scales well enough, & it being fitted to OPVs & major warships suggests vvery strongly that it does. But how can we have competitive tendering for Type 31 unless either (a) BAE agrees to supply it to rivals to fit in their ships or (b) the RN is able & willing to pick a ship without it?
Does anyone think the whole thing doesn't smell quite right?
I don't think anything about Type 31e makes any sense. We had a plan, a scope of works for taking bits off a type 23 and putting stuff into a type 26 and now that's in the bin for 5 of the originally proposed ships and instead we've got some barely described and partially understood system of delivery based on a whole pile of mights and ifs that don't hang together, That level of uncertainty would be wholly understandable in the context of something where cutting steel was some way off but Type 31 is on the clock.
Is the tendering process actually competitive? Cammell Laird are no longer the prime contractor for Leander, it's now a BAE project with Cammell Laird providing the shipyard to built it in. This will end up being another win for Team BAE, and the loser with be the taxpayer and the RN.
Exactly. How does the budget fit if we buy new radars, etc. instead of re-using those from retired T23s? How does a new CMS fit RN requirements?
"I don't think anything about Type 31e makes any sense. "
I have to agree.
I think I'd have been tempted to just ask every interested yard "What price can you build a Damen XO131C to with kit carried over from retiring T23s & a suitably scaled standard RN CMS?", & told Damen & BAE they stood to get their share of the business as long as they were fully co-operative - including on price.
"I don't think anything about Type 31e makes any sense. "
I have to agree.
I think I'd have been tempted to just ask every interested yard "What price can you build a Damen XO131C to with kit carried over from retiring T23s & a suitably scaled standard RN CMS?", & told Damen & BAE they stood to get their share of the business as long as they were fully co-operative - including on price.
I'm confused...
I've read this...
Cammell Laird strikes ‘Teaming Agreement’ with BAE Systems in bid to build Type 31e Frigates
...& I've read this...
BAE Systems and Cammell Laird release joint statement on Type 31e Competitive Design Phase contract
I've been here too...
BAE Systems signs Type 31e Teaming Agreement with Cammell Laird | BAE Systems | International
While I understand the thought behind your comment, I haven't seen anything in the press / on google / on the company websites to see BAE as Prime on the Leanders.
BAE has enough on it's plate with Type 26 / GCS / Hunter, finishing off QE & completing the x5 OPV's that are on their order books, not forgetting the OPV's they're providing the design for & guidance on for the Thai navy.
They don't have the build facilities to undertake Type 31, so partnering with another company makes sense.
As for the 'competitive tendering'. I'm not sold on that either. The RN / Whitehall reps who hold the purse strings will make the decision, on what the country will get.
As the UK moves ever closer towards Brexit, the Navy & the powers that be at Whitehall need to start maximising an advantage that actually saves the taxpayer money, instead of promising to have x2 different classes of vessel in service BEFORE 2022 & before a Type 26. Leveraging against the UK's major defence supplier doesn't help the country & demanding that work is shared across the country, when the companies demanding the work be moved don't actually have the facilities, or the manpower to undertake the task, is a lesson the people in Whitehall should already know all about.
Have they forgotten the debacle / delays / demands for cash & subsequent request to the very company they bad mouthed / moved the work from, to get BAE to pull them out of the hole of their own creation, or does it not count as the Bay class LSD(A)'s were for the RFA ??
Rant over
SA
The whole Type31e project strikes me as political smoke and mirrors to be seen to be ordering new ships and saving money,without actually doing either. To just announce that the frigate fleet was being cut by another five hulls because the costs of reversing the damage done by previous cuts to personnel is unaffordable would be political suicide.
UK Labor appears to be in the hands of an anti defence socialist nut bag but if the conservative side of politics were to admit that they had screwed up colossally with their cuts causing unsustainable loss of capability and greater costs, they sort of lose the argument of being stronger on defence. They can however point to the Type 31e as a future export earner and an increase in hull numbers while the public slowly forget that there were initially meant to be thirteen Type 26s. Quite ironic that the Type 26 is proving to be the UKs best performing export design in decades and is actually what this new, glorified OPV is meant to be. How they expect the Type 31e to be an export success when there are so many other similar designs out there already is beyond me.
Delusional polies, upselling a capability cut to an uninformed electorate.
UK Labor appears to be in the hands of an anti defence socialist nut bag but if the conservative side of politics were to admit that they had screwed up colossally with their cuts causing unsustainable loss of capability and greater costs, they sort of lose the argument of being stronger on defence. They can however point to the Type 31e as a future export earner and an increase in hull numbers while the public slowly forget that there were initially meant to be thirteen Type 26s. Quite ironic that the Type 26 is proving to be the UKs best performing export design in decades and is actually what this new, glorified OPV is meant to be. How they expect the Type 31e to be an export success when there are so many other similar designs out there already is beyond me.
Delusional polies, upselling a capability cut to an uninformed electorate.
t68
Well-Known Member
Navy supply fleet 'to be privatised', as MoD seeks £200m cuts
RFA could be privatised, geez I hate this sort of shit. I really fail to see how this actually saves money in the long term, geez just imagine how much money whoever supplies the labour will charge the government for working in a dangerous area.
RFA could be privatised, geez I hate this sort of shit. I really fail to see how this actually saves money in the long term, geez just imagine how much money whoever supplies the labour will charge the government for working in a dangerous area.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The scariest thing about the Type 31 from a Canadian prospective is the possibility of this ship replacing some or most of the T26s in our CSC program. Junior and his minions are the the epitome of delusional pollies. Although junior is in trouble, his conservative alternative isn’t a beacon of brilliance although perhaps his minders will point him in the right direction should they win. UK Labor may not be able to control Corbyn.
The scariest thing about the Type 31 from a New Zealand perspective is the possibility of this ship replacing the ANZACs... unless it's the Arrowhead 140.
The Arrowhead 140 is the capable option, the Leander is the cheap option. I fear the Leander. It gives me nightmares, I see one with a kiwi on the side and I wake up screaming in a cold sweat.
For the sake of the RNZN (and RN) please, please, please select the Arrowhead 140. Thank you.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The Leander is an upsiized Patrol Boat. Says it all. The Arrowhead is a version of the Iver Huitfeldt Frigate one is designed for purpose from scratch. One is not.
FTI Medium-Size Frigates - Naval Technology
There are other frigates that can be considered this one might just might be controversial for New Zealand being French but appears more capable.
There are other frigates that can be considered this one might just might be controversial for New Zealand being French but appears more capable.