Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EPV for naval service

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Do you think then we may get an Arrowhead 140 MRV version, aka Absalon FSS, with a cheaper electronics fit e.g. Saab Giraffe AMB and 9LV CMS? I assume Babcock would have a license for it as well as the Frigate.

    Comment


    • I would not rule out a "no frills" Arrowhead. We have a good relationship with Babcock, and Absalon was identified from the outset as a benchmark for where we want to be, just on a lesser scale.
      For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by ias View Post
        Do you think then we may get an Arrowhead 140 MRV version, aka Absalon FSS, with a cheaper electronics fit e.g. Saab Giraffe AMB and 9LV CMS? I assume Babcock would have a license for it as well as the Frigate.
        The Danish company OMT owns the rights to the design but it no longer has a shipyard to build any ship. It would be similar to the P50/60 procurement where the design was owned by STX Canada (now VARD) and we selected Appledore to build them. It would be an open competition and it is not a given that Babcock would win. The biggest problem will be the price which would be €280-300m (Saab electronics are not cheap!).

        To put this in some perspective Peru just commissioned the first of their two new Makassar class ships, (similar to the Philippians Tarlac class) which cost $60m (€52m). So for the same price as one Arrowhead 140, we could get 2 Makassar/Tarlac vessels and still have enough money to buy 4 AW101s to provide them with integral lift capability!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          The Danish company OMT owns the rights to the design but it no longer has a shipyard to build any ship. It would be similar to the P50/60 procurement where the design was owned by STX Canada (now VARD) and we selected Appledore to build them. It would be an open competition and it is not a given that Babcock would win. The biggest problem will be the price which would be €280-300m (Saab electronics are not cheap!).

          To put this in some perspective Peru just commissioned the first of their two new Makassar class ships, (similar to the Philippians Tarlac class) which cost $60m (€52m). So for the same price as one Arrowhead 140, we could get 2 Makassar/Tarlac vessels and still have enough money to buy 4 AW101s to provide them with integral lift capability!
          Babcock own the rights to the Arrowhead 140, which is based on Odense Staalskibsværft's Iver Huitfeldt hull. BLRT in Estonia now own the Former Odense Staalskibsværft yard. OMT have teamed with Babcock to design the Arrowhead 140.
          For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

          Comment


          • As NG points out the Arrowhead 140 is a Babcock proposal in cooperation with OMT. As the Type 31e is so export focused, then one would imagine that Babcock, a company that the NS has a good relationship with, would love to show that their design already has export interest (and from an EU country).

            On the cost of Saab equipment, looking through different announcements it appears that the Saab AMB plus the 9LV CMS costs about USD 13 million for a medium armed vessel (i.e. based on an Aussie support vessels fit, and a Philippine Navy Frigate).

            Comment


            • In terms of Arrowhead, given the original 31 tender was to be spread across multiple yards can Appledore handle it all on their own? If not we're talking about relations with 4 different yards with all the additional complications that brings.

              Comment


              • The Arrowhead 140 is a GP frigate and as such is based upon the Iver Huitfeldt frigate. Although the hulls are similar to those of the Absalon class there are some key critical differences. Primary amongst these is that the Absalon have a ro-ro flex-deck with stern loading ramp. This means that there are considerable internal layout differences between the two vessels. If the Babcock Team where to combine the Absalon hull with the improved upper superstructure of the Arrowhead 140 then a reasonable vessel could be designed.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
                  In terms of Arrowhead, given the original 31 tender was to be spread across multiple yards can Appledore handle it all on their own? If not we're talking about relations with 4 different yards with all the additional complications that brings.
                  This is normal for large ships today, modules are produced at different yards and then a prime contractor pulls it all together. The yard at Appledore would have problems handling a ship of this size. Both the Appledore and Ferguson yards can fabricate large modules but they need a larger yard to put them together. This is where H&W and Rosyth come in, both have suitable drydocks with gantry cranes for lifting large modules. Rosyth is owned by Babcock and have floated out the HMS Prince of Wales carrier end of last year and so have available capacity. H&W we all know so no need to go into more detail.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    This is normal for large ships today, modules are produced at different yards and then a prime contractor pulls it all together. The yard at Appledore would have problems handling a ship of this size. Both the Appledore and Ferguson yards can fabricate large modules but they need a larger yard to put them together. This is where H&W and Rosyth come in, both have suitable drydocks with gantry cranes for lifting large modules. Rosyth is owned by Babcock and have floated out the HMS Prince of Wales carrier end of last year and so have available capacity. H&W we all know so no need to go into more detail.
                    The ideal is to have one Yard building your ship with a Military/Naval contractor overseeing transmission, power, and GFE Naval equipments, togetherwith Operations room and Bridge Layout. All other contractors defer through him to maintain EMC/EMI requirements. A contract is written covering such things as Company failure, Strikes, major ship mishaps such as Fires etc. It also contains the basket of money required to build the ship as equipments may be in a range of currencies such as Swedish K, Norwegian K, Sterling, Yen, USD, Chinese Renminbi, and Euros. Negotiating a complex ship with a number of Yards is not pleasant. There also needs to be one Quality control office with a yard engineer, as a go to man, when problems or clarifications are needed.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                      The ideal is to have one Yard building your ship with a Military/Naval contractor overseeing transmission, power, and GFE Naval equipments, togetherwith Operations room and Bridge Layout. All other contractors defer through him to maintain EMC/EMI requirements. A contract is written covering such things as Company failure, Strikes, major ship mishaps such as Fires etc. It also contains the basket of money required to build the ship as equipments may be in a range of currencies such as Swedish K, Norwegian K, Sterling, Yen, USD, Chinese Renminbi, and Euros. Negotiating a complex ship with a number of Yards is not pleasant. There also needs to be one Quality control office with a yard engineer, as a go to man, when problems or clarifications are needed.
                      No one has to deal with a number of yards, there is normally a prime contractor or a consortium set-up a company to manage the overall project. The UK carriers are built by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance whch includes BAe Systems, Babcock (Rosyth and Appledore), Cammell Laird, Govern Shipbuilding, A&P Tyne, Thales and the MoD.
                      http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/
                      The contract was done with the ACA and not each individual partner and so it is with many projects today. The French/Italian FREMM frigates, the German Type212/214 subs, the German K130 corvettes all are consortium for a particular project. And as long as the customer clearly defines what they want, when they want it and what they are willing to pay this type of arrangement works well. Where it comes undone is when the customer constantly changes the specs.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        Where it comes undone is when the customer constantly changes the specs.
                        Or starts messing around with schedules to hide budget issues.

                        Comment


                        • One thing about the River Batch 2, QE2, Type 26 and Type 31 classes.

                          A primary aim of these is to keep British shipyards open

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                            One thing about the River Batch 2, QE2, Type 26 and Type 31 classes.

                            A primary aim of these is to keep British shipyards open
                            Well the QE's and the 26's make sense (to varying degrees depending on your views), the Batch 2's and the 31's on the other hand are just to keep yards open alright.

                            Comment


                            • Latest batch of Rivers are going to give british yards plenty of work in attempts to make them seaworthy after they have been launched...
                              For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                No one has to deal with a number of yards, there is normally a prime contractor or a consortium set-up a company to manage the overall project. The UK carriers are built by the Aircraft Carrier Alliance whch includes BAe Systems, Babcock (Rosyth and Appledore), Cammell Laird, Govern Shipbuilding, A&P Tyne, Thales and the MoD.
                                http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.uk/
                                The contract was done with the ACA and not each individual partner and so it is with many projects today. The French/Italian FREMM frigates, the German Type212/214 subs, the German K130 corvettes all are consortium for a particular project. And as long as the customer clearly defines what they want, when they want it and what they are willing to pay this type of arrangement works well. Where it comes undone is when the customer constantly changes the specs.
                                Take your point about need for a unifying contractor, who should have the prime capability to produce a Naval Ship whether Logs or frontline. Often delays are budgetry an can be due to change of Govt. or replacement of a supportive Minister. By long fingering , delivery payments are shifted to another financial year. I knew an engineer who served his full 5 year apprenticeship on the building of HMS Eagle. She took 9 YEARS to complete. Not to be too bloody minded, our Irish Contracts had performance penalties if the builder didn't meet Dates. So basically , does the customer want everything on time or can money be diverted pro temp for Political emergencies/priorities??

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X