The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

KiwiRob said:
I could easily see a country like NZ buying 2-3 type 31's, they won't be old ships when they are sold, they have huge upgrade potential. About the time they are ready to be sold the ANZAC's will be ready to leave the fleet.
Click to expand...
Cannot see NZ acquiring them because they are nothing more than a glorified OPV. By the time you pay for the requisite upgrades it would be just as cheap or cheaper to go direct to OMT, acquire a license for the F370 design and build to your specs in a yard of your choice. Maybe South Korea etc.
 
Musashi_kenshin said:
Interestingly, none of the three main contenders can be fired from the mk41 launcher. Exocet, NSM and the RBS-15 all require box-launchers. There's room for them in the Type 26 and 31 designs, but interestingly that leaves more space for other missiles in the mk41s on the Type 26.
Click to expand...
The problem with deploying SSMs in VLS Launchers instead of Box Launchers is you need to have a decent number of VLS on board or you are going to use up Cells required for SAMs and most SAMs these days are using VLS. You have to ask the question, especially for smaller Warships, what is easier to do? add extra Strike Length VLS to your design or use Box Launchers, i suspect it will be the latter.
 
Redlands18 said:
The problem with deploying SSMs in VLS Launchers instead of Box Launchers is you need to have a decent number of VLS on board or you are going to use up Cells required for SAMs and most SAMs these days are using VLS. You have to ask the question, especially for smaller Warships, what is easier to do? add extra Strike Length VLS to your design or use Box Launchers, i suspect it will be the latter.
Click to expand...

This.
VLS is also good for little extra odds and ends of integration with the CMS.
So for something big and long ranged like MMT (new Tomahawk) or LRASM, or if there ever is a Western supersonic ASCM, it makes sense.

A small medium range subsonic SSM just doesn't need all that.
They're basically point and shoot weapons...very simple interfaces.
 
Musashi_kenshin said:
Interestingly, none of the three main contenders can be fired from the mk41 launcher. Exocet, NSM and the RBS-15 all require box-launchers. There's room for them in the Type 26 and 31 designs, but interestingly that leaves more space for other missiles in the mk41s on the Type 26.



Even so the Type 31s would absolutely need to be upgraded before any sale, and I don't see the point in making a loss on the Type 31s just to get a slightly newer hull in the water but likely with a similar, if not the same, weapon package.
Click to expand...
Has the development of the VL-JSM progressed any further, could it be an option? Exclusive: New Details on the Kongsberg Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM)
 
Pusser01 said:
Has the development of the VL-JSM progressed any further, could it be an option? Exclusive: New Details on the Kongsberg Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM)
Click to expand...

It's always an option, it's just a matter of how many hoops you want to jump through to make it happen. You can stick a topside launcher over compartments allocated for other use. VLS pretty much wipes out everything above and below, and to some extent, around the placement of the cells.

Unless the USN specifically decides they want to field JSM en masse, I don't see it likely to happen. Nobody else really has the numbers to make it worthwhile.
 
ngatimozart said:
Cannot see NZ acquiring them because they are nothing more than a glorified OPV. By the time you pay for the requisite upgrades it would be just as cheap or cheaper to go direct to OMT, acquire a license for the F370 design and build to your specs in a yard of your choice. Maybe South Korea etc.
Click to expand...

As I said huge upgrade potential. We buy second hand vessels for the navy on a consistent basis.
 
ngatimozart said:
No, because they cost a fortune to maintain and operate. We discovered that with the frigates Wellington and Southland.
Click to expand...

The Iver Huitfeldt and the Type 31 were designed using commercial off the shelf equipment, they were designed to be cheap to operate and maintain.

The Ivers didn't even use marine grade HVAC, lighting and electrical components. At least Babcocks decided to be sensible and use marine grade lighting, I don't know what they did for HVAC and other electrical components. I know they also kept the Danish electrical standard 230v 50Hz, a lot of the RN vessels are 110v 60Hz.
 
ngatimozart said:
No, because they cost a fortune to maintain and operate. We discovered that with the frigates Wellington and Southland.
Click to expand...

Point noted but the 31s would theoretically have been in service for 10-15 years and a decent fit out of weapons and so forth would put some work the way of NZ yards,

It's a ways off but the platform is attractive I'd have thought.

Oh - had a conversation with an RN friend of mine about Type 32 - apparently they heard about it the way the rest of us did and literally no-one has any idea what it'd be or do.
 
It’s normal in ships from countries which use 220-240v to provide that as a domestic service while the 110/440v is used for ships services and combat systems, particularly if those are sourced from the US.
 
KiwiRob said:
The Iver Huitfeldt and the Type 31 were designed using commercial off the shelf equipment, they were designed to be cheap to operate and maintain.

The Ivers didn't even use marine grade HVAC, lighting and electrical components. At least Babcocks decided to be sensible and use marine grade lighting, I don't know what they did for HVAC and other electrical components. I know they also kept the Danish electrical standard 230v 50Hz, a lot of the RN vessels are 110v 60Hz.
Click to expand...
Related to T31, I found this in routing thru a couple of different links...

Type 31 progress update - Babcock International
 
KiwiRob said:
The Iver Huitfeldt and the Type 31 were designed using commercial off the shelf equipment, they were designed to be cheap to operate and maintain.

The Ivers didn't even use marine grade HVAC, lighting and electrical components. At least Babcocks decided to be sensible and use marine grade lighting, I don't know what they did for HVAC and other electrical components. I know they also kept the Danish electrical standard 230v 50Hz, a lot of the RN vessels are 110v 60Hz.
Click to expand...
I am very aware of the Iver Huitfeld class, their capabilities, their design philosophy etc. That's why I like them and why I would rather deal directly with OMT and license their F-370 design rather than go with the Type 31 after the Poms have "improved" it. If there's a difficult, hard or expensive way of doing things the Poms will find it, especially the RN.
 
Pusser01 said:
Has the development of the VL-JSM progressed any further, could it be an option? Exclusive: New Details on the Kongsberg Vertical Launch Joint Strike Missile (VL JSM)
Click to expand...
I think its unlikely to go further, NSM is better as a box launcher, its light weight and compact, two things you really don't need in a VL missile but do want on a box launcher. You could put a quad NSM launcher in a lot of places you couldn't put a quad harpoon launcher.
ngatimozart said:
I am very aware of the Iver Huitfeld class, their capabilities, their design philosophy etc. That's why I like them and why I would rather deal directly with OMT and license their F-370 design rather than go with the Type 31 after the Poms have "improved" it. If there's a difficult, hard or expensive way of doing things the Poms will find it, especially the RN.
Click to expand...
I believe OMT has freshened the supply lines for the Indonesians. So OMT IMO would make a fair bit of sense.
 
ngatimozart said:
I am very aware of the Iver Huitfeld class, their capabilities, their design philosophy etc. That's why I like them and why I would rather deal directly with OMT and license their F-370 design rather than go with the Type 31 after the Poms have "improved" it. If there's a difficult, hard or expensive way of doing things the Poms will find it, especially the RN.
Click to expand...


You're still holding Ikara against us, aren't you ? I mean, I don't *blame* you :)

I get the impression the RN have really wound back on this one and Type 31 is a price capped bid with a "no change" clause, I'm genuinely interested to see how well (or otherwise) this goes,
 
swerve said:
IIRC Babcock has said there's a no change clause - specified by the customer.
Click to expand...

That's correct. It's a big reason why they're sure they can deliver on budget, because the Royal Navy/MOD won't be allowed to "tweak" the design and slow things down, thereby increasing costs.

Also this is a turnkey contract, which means that Babcock can dust their hands after each ship is (successfully) delivered.
 
swerve said:
IIRC Babcock has said there's a no change clause - specified by the customer.
Click to expand...

They do seem to be coming at this from a completely new angle compared to previous acquisitions. I'm honestly very interested to see how it goes - it has been pointed out that the timescales for delivery are extremely tight (and have to be to provide replacements for the Type 23 GP variants)
 
Yes. I've heard nightmarish stories of endless changes of requirements after orders have been placed, increasing costs & delaying delivery. High turnover of staff in procurement seems to be one factor encouraging it. New arrivals sometimes seem to feel a need to make a mark, & smoothly facilitating prompt delivery of what your predecessor ordered doesn't do that.

Fingers crossed that this works. Get it in service & see how it works, then think about tweaking in refits, if needed.

But consider this: the TOBA with BAE was supposed to stop some of the MoD/RN silliness, such as buying holidays which led to atrophy of shipbuilding skills. If they had to pay BAE even if they didn't order ships, surely the MoD & RN would place enough orders for frigates & the like to keep everything ticking over, wouldn't they? Ah well, at least we got some improved (if not urgently needed) OPVs out of it.
 
swerve said:
But consider this: the TOBA with BAE was supposed to stop some of the MoD/RN silliness, such as buying holidays which led to atrophy of shipbuilding skills. If they had to pay BAE even if they didn't order ships, surely the MoD & RN would place enough orders for frigates & the like to keep everything ticking over, wouldn't they? Ah well, at least we got some improved (if not urgently needed) OPVs out of it.
Click to expand...
That's far to logical. It'd be against the civil service rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top