The design team for Type 31 were mostly based in Bristol, I never meet any Danish people when I was there. Most of them were English and Scottish. The basic ship is a good design but a lot of the fitting and equipment the Danes installed was not marine specific equipment. For example the HVAC system for example was not a marine HVAC system but a commercial building system with very limited marinisation. The interior light fittings came from the land market, not marine specific. The ship was built down to a very low budget. Babcocks had to change a lot of the systems to marine approved systems.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
The design team for Type 31 were mostly based in Bristol, I never meet any Danish people when I was there. Most of them were English and Scottish. The basic ship is a good design but a lot of the fitting and equipment the Danes installed was not marine specific equipment. For example the HVAC system for example was not a marine HVAC system but a commercial building system with very limited marinisation. The interior light fittings came from the land market, not marine specific. The ship was built down to a very low budget. Babcocks had to change a lot of the systems to marine approved systems.
The RDN was working to budget and AFAIAK there have been no complaints about that and they do know what they are doing considering that they have been building ships for more than a millennia, possibly two. The point is that they have thought and worked outside the square and they went for a commercial build approach rather than a traditional naval build which is generally expensive. When you think about the two most traditional navies in the world are probably the RN & USN and if Admiral Noah and his Chief Bosun's Mate did it that way, then it is the way it has to be done.
Do you know that RN & Commonwealth navy officers (RAN, RCN, & RNZN) still toast HM the Queen sitting down because the deckheads used to be somewhat lower than what they are now? Can't have officers hitting their heads on the deckhead; might damage the deckhead. Or that the naval hand salute in said navies is palm inwards so that the officers would be offended by seeing dirty hands from sailors who did actual work. Their hands were usual tar stained from working with pitch or using pitch on their hair like brylcream. It kept the lice and other nasties at bay for a while.
That's one thing I do admire about the RDN; they aren't frightened to innovate and gain more for their limited budget.
Interesting - I did wonder how much work had to be done and where the money got saved.
Do the Danes shock test?
Just caught this in passing....
(Now actually need to go & find out more !)
Type 32 & the REFRESHED Shipbuilding Strategy
Extracts from the HANSARD
(Now actually need to go & find out more !)
Type 32 & the REFRESHED Shipbuilding Strategy
Extracts from the HANSARD
Last edited:
Good spot - that is interesting - til now we'd all been spitballing about Babcock might/would likely be building Type 32 but I didn't expect to hear for a while. Maybe they're serious about hull numbers after all ?
Lot of buzz words in there however...
The Dane’s set off under water explosives about 100m from the first ship. Instead of shock testing parts they shock tested the entire ship.
I get the feeling that this 'commercialisation' option will mean that once the ships have been built & are handed over to the RN, that they will then spend 2 - 3 years finding 'faults / problems' & spending more taxpayers money to change things. Military regulations & the likes of ANEP 77 will swing a heavy hammer blow on some of the things you mentioned. Commercial ships are built to a price point, Military / Naval vessels are usually built to more stringent rules, as when the brown smelly stuff hits the round rotating thing during action stations, you want the kit to work.
I know that RFA vessels that I've worked on over the years are usually built to commercial standards, but again, the areas that need 'marinisation' are usually addressed during design & on the odd occasion that something comes outta the woodwork (like an incompatible system / issues with electrical signal harmonics / interference, due to incorrect / lack of cable segregation), these issues have to be fixed.
Babcocks are changing out a lot of the equipment the Danes used, they had to it was either not up to marine standards or no longer in production. Type 31 will have marine certified HVAC, when I quoted the lighting it was marine lighting, not land market. IMO where the money has been saved is the weapons fit out, these are lightly armed ships, but with the space to become heavily armed ships built into the design; I would bet on it that the Indonesian and Polish versions will be more heavily armed than the RN vessels.
JulioCompactus
Member
Rob do you know if the 32 is an upgraded 31?
Wouldn't have a clue, all my information is from 2.5 years ago. That said I think it probably will be, when I went to the supplier open days held by Babcocks and Cammel Lairds both companies said the first 5 were going to be the first batch. I believe Type 32 has been planned for quite some time.
Looking at the spec of the TKMS competitor, they'd have to be packing a punch to have won the competition.
I'm hoping that somewhere post launch, the first of the type 31s will gain more cells etc - it's a big old OPV otherwise.
The cabling and shielding can be very sensitive in terms of placement and - my experience is in the automotive sector, which is a bit simpler and we'd still see some stuff that had us scratching our heads. One car with a persistent ABS light fault ended up getting bought back - and when we got it into the workshop prior to disposal, it turned out that the dealer had fitted an aftermarket CD auto changer and to run the cable, they'd nicked a chunk out of the EM shielding in the transmission tunnel - and that was it - ABS light-agogo.
Or the old chestnut of one of the premium end exec cars, which was getting on a bit - every now and then we'd get a call in from a puzzled punter who suddenly had a transmission fault light on. The seasoned hands would always ask "have you changed the distributor cap or HT leads ?"
Because, as it turned out, the OEM part was the only one that worked - everything else, even aftermarket parts by the same firm that made the OEM spec kit didn't work - they just leaked a bit too much EM for the transmission controller to cope with.
Two really out of date examples that does ram home how these things can be more complicated than they look.
Found this on Linked IN earlier this evening.
Posting it here so I can hopefully get a read during my lunch hour !
UK National Shipbuilding Strategy Refresh document.
Posting it here so I can hopefully get a read during my lunch hour !
UK National Shipbuilding Strategy Refresh document.
I noticed a couple of changes in the latest render of the T31 frigate. Firstly, the sea sentor decoy launchers have moved ahead of the main mast, above the bridge. Secondly, the vessel has ASM launchers fitted (looks like harpoon). That would represent a significant firepower increase on a vessel some have called a glorified OPV. First time I've seen ASMs on a specific T31 render (they are always on A140 renders).
www.navalnews.com
Babcock Lays Keel of Royal Navy’s First Type 31 frigate - Naval News
Babcock has started construction of the first of five Royal Navy Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer, at its Rosyth facility.
www.navalnews.com
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
This is true. However, as the Type 31 contract is turn-key they will absolutely be delivered without any AShMs. More importantly there remains no budget for them for the Type 31, and the only Harpoons in Royal Navy service (AGM-84 1C) would definitely be obsolete if not out of service by the time HMS Venturer is commissioned. Even Block II+ wouldn't be that fabulous - I expect something like FC/ASW would be more likely.
Probably a bit of artistic licence or the Royal Navy trying to get support for a budget for AShMs - "see how nice they look with anti-ship missiles, minister!"
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Royal Navy to be the first European force to field maritime ballistic missile defence capability - Navy Lookout
Today the MoD has announced the Tye 45 destroyers will be upgraded to intercept ballistic missiles. The destroyers will be the first European warships with a full sensor-shooter BMD intercept capability. In 2016 France and Italy committed to developing the Aster 30 Block 1NT (New Technology) for...
www.navylookout.com
Good news that a contract has been signed and that it has been confirmed the Type 45 will have upgraded Aster 30s to deal with ballistic missiles. Although I remain sceptical as to how easily they can be deployed against vessels moving at high speeds, they're always a threat to stationary ships and land targets.
''Module compatibility'' per see or compatibility for whatever system is in the module? From what little I know about this issue the main challenge in having such modules; whether AAW or ASW; would be for the sensors in the module to be integrated with the ship's CMS, radar, trackers and other things.