Thanks Thanks:  120
Likes Likes:  265
Dislikes Dislikes:  2
Page 16 of 17 FirstFirst ... 614151617 LastLast
Results 376 to 400 of 410
  1. #376
    Lt General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,182
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is the type 31e not based on the hull of the p60?
    German 1: Private Schnutz, I have bad news for you.
    German 2: Private? I am a general!
    German 1: That is the bad news.

  2. #377
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by na grohmití View Post
    Is the type 31e not based on the hull of the p60?
    No, the Babcock design is going to be based on the Dutch Iver Huitfeldt class hull, they seem to be just using the P60 build to highlight that Appledore has been building on budget. What the 31 actually ends up picking will be interesting.

  3. #378
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    I'd be really surprised if the 31 was in the mix for the USN frigate.
    Canadians will probably take a look, but not the US, if anything the RN would have been better buying into some of the programs out there or buying a design overseas and buying some and building others, bit like the Australians did with the Spanish.
    Time for another break I think......

  4. Likes EUFighter liked this post
  5. #379
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well this is interesting, the Type 31e tender has been suspended and will be going through a new procurement competition due to "insufficient Competition".
    http://www.janes.com/article/81958/u...te-competition

    Is it that the options put forward weren't up for what the RN wanted? The Price issue? The chances of this getting operational by 2023 seems "doubtful" if the process slips much.

  6. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  7. #380
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Well this is interesting, the Type 31e tender has been suspended and will be going through a new procurement competition due to "insufficient Competition".
    http://www.janes.com/article/81958/u...te-competition

    Is it that the options put forward weren't up for what the RN wanted? The Price issue? The chances of this getting operational by 2023 seems "doubtful" if the process slips much.
    https://news.usni.org/2018/07/12/nav...lia-canada-u-k

    The US DoD is now insisting on 5 Eyes interoperability - commonality and the Type 31e was going off on a tangent that was not exactly convincing as viable surface combatant. Maybe they have had the hard word put on them that they must do better.

  8. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  9. #381
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    https://news.usni.org/2018/07/12/nav...lia-canada-u-k

    The US DoD is now insisting on 5 Eyes interoperability - commonality and the Type 31e was going off on a tangent that was not exactly convincing as viable surface combatant. Maybe they have had the hard word put on them that they must do better.
    That makes no sense, the RN already has it's own Command systems (and that was one of the issues with the Babcock design), can't see them junking that, more over sticking Aegis on the 31 completely kills the very nature of the design. If this is what's actually happening then I'd bet the 26 gets a couple more orders to bring it up to 10 and the RN shrinks again.

  10. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  11. #382
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    It is all speculation based upon HII not showing a model in Jan, but they have been pushing several versions of the NCS for years and this is suspected to be the bases for their bid.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OJZ8eB_mPA

    As for the Iver Huitfeldt its diesel engines eliminate it from the race and also the number of STANFLEX modules is limited as their production ended in the 90's. Also as none of the Type31e vessels has been design they are also eliminated as the USN is looking for something based upon a proven hull/system. Why HII would need to take a foreign design given that they are leading US shipbuilder does not make sense.
    The updated Babcock OMT design is (was) to use RR's MT-30's. The HHI's National Security Cutter based design is said to be problematic with respect to noise viz the ASW role. With FFG(X) the five finalists have not finalised their designs for submission and have been funded by the DoD for further design refinement. The baseline Iver F370 is a proven hull design as is the F100 and the FREMM and qualifies under the USN's RFI.

  12. #383
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    That makes no sense, the RN already has it's own Command systems (and that was one of the issues with the Babcock design), can't see them junking that, more over sticking Aegis on the 31 completely kills the very nature of the design. If this is what's actually happening then I'd bet the 26 gets a couple more orders to bring it up to 10 and the RN shrinks again.
    Note the Type 31 project has been suspended its nature is over. The RN are getting a look into CEAFAR / CLEARMOUNT which are more synergetic with AEGIS / COMBATSS-21. It does not mean that they should or will dump CMS-1 or the Canadians with CMS330 it means that they will need to evolve it - which they can do. The track the Type 31 as opposed to Type 26 was heading down a pathway as a package done on the cheap would have difficulties networking protocols with other FVEYS allies. They may indeed push out more Type 26's for the RN as they can now leverage greater economies of scale with the RAN and possibly Canada who BAE/LM submitted their proposal today.

  13. #384
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Anzac View Post
    Note the Type 31 project has been suspended its nature is over. The RN are getting a look into CEAFAR / CLEARMOUNT which are more synergetic with AEGIS / COMBATSS-21. It does not mean that they should or will dump CMS-1 or the Canadians with CMS330 it means that they will need to evolve it - which they can do. The track the Type 31 as opposed to Type 26 was heading down a pathway as a package done on the cheap would have difficulties networking protocols with other FVEYS allies. They may indeed push out more Type 26's for the RN as they can now leverage greater economies of scale with the RAN and possibly Canada who BAE/LM submitted their proposal today.
    Yeah the 31 was a cheap package, it was a cheap package as the RN budget can't fund a 1-1 23/26 and that budget isn't going to be getting any bigger, and given that the RAN hulls are being built in Australia how is there going to be economies of scale?

  14. Likes na grohmití, DeV liked this post
  15. #385
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    573
    Post Thanks / Like
    It seems that price was the killer with no one meeting the £250m target price per ship.

    https://www.forces.net/news/type-31e...process-paused

  16. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  17. #386
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    It seems that price was the killer with no one meeting the £250m target price per ship.

    https://www.forces.net/news/type-31e...process-paused
    Cheers for that, wonder what exactly they will do so? I mean they are meant for "cheap and cheerful", how much are they going to increase the cap per unit, or alternatively what are they going to pull from the spec?

  18. #387
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Yeah the 31 was a cheap package, it was a cheap package as the RN budget can't fund a 1-1 23/26 and that budget isn't going to be getting any bigger, and given that the RAN hulls are being built in Australia how is there going to be economies of scale?
    And part of a National Shipbuilding Programme to keep shipyards open

    They would have been better served insisting on commonality in design between Type 26 and Type 31 or just buy more Type 26 in the first place

  19. #388
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    And part of a National Shipbuilding Programme to keep shipyards open

    They would have been better served insisting on commonality in design between Type 26 and Type 31 or just buy more Type 26 in the first place
    Given the price tag of the 26's and the snail's pace of planned In Service Date is just too far out for the GP 23's. Wonder what chances of getting it back on track before 2019, if not 4 years to build and get into service?

  20. #389
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    573
    Post Thanks / Like
    It seems that they did not have the money, the £1250m for the 5 Type31e vessels was not in the current MoD budget plan.
    Strange how it comes just as they announce £2000m for BAe to develop a new fighter!!!!!!
    Sadly for the RN it looks like they will shrink again with 8 Type-26s replacing the 13 Type-23s.

  21. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
  22. #390
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    3,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    It seems that they did not have the money, the £1250m for the 5 Type31e vessels was not in the current MoD budget plan.
    Strange how it comes just as they announce £2000m for BAe to develop a new fighter!!!!!!
    Sadly for the RN it looks like they will shrink again with 8 Type-26s replacing the 13 Type-23s.
    Most shipyards are in Labour-voting areas, the aerospace industry is more conservative -voting home counties.

    Follow the money, follow the votes...
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  23. Likes EUFighter, na grohmití liked this post
  24. #391
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    Most shipyards are in Labour-voting areas, the aerospace industry is more conservative -voting home counties.

    Follow the money, follow the votes...
    That and the BAE fighter could just be a spoiler attempt at the Franco-German one. And of course there's other issues like the newly announced 2.9% pay increase for the Armed Services, since that's not new money it has to come from within the MOD budget, at this stage I doubt there's any "savings" that can be redirected for that. Could they be waiting for the Autumn Budget to see what the state of the budget is going to look like before letting it become a Program of Record?

  25. Likes Flamingo liked this post
  26. #392
    Hostage Flamingo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the water
    Posts
    3,278
    Post Thanks / Like
    Possible. I'd say lots of areas are dreading trying to find a pay increase from "efficiency savings". The circumcision principle (you can cut 5% off anything) can only apply so often.
    Last edited by Flamingo; 24th July 2018 at 22:19.
    'He died who loved to live,' they'll say,
    'Unselfishly so we might have today!'
    Like hell! He fought because he had to fight;
    He died that's all. It was his unlucky night.
    http://www.salamanderoasis.org/poems...nnis/luck.html

  27. Likes Sparky42 liked this post
  28. #393
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Flamingo View Post
    Possible. I'd say lots of areas are dreading trying to find a pay increase from "efficiency savings". The circumcision principle (you can cut 5% off anything) can only apply so often.
    I'd say pretty much all the UK departments are sick to death at hearing those two words.

  29. #394
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky42 View Post
    Yeah the 31 was a cheap package, it was a cheap package as the RN budget can't fund a 1-1 23/26 and that budget isn't going to be getting any bigger, and given that the RAN hulls are being built in Australia how is there going to be economies of scale?
    The economies of scale is not in the steel fabrication at the yard level but in the commonality of all the other systems even beyond the choice of CMS that BAE will be involved in.

  30. Likes DeV liked this post
  31. #395
    CQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    154
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by EUFighter View Post
    It seems that they did not have the money, the £1250m for the 5 Type31e vessels was not in the current MoD budget plan.
    Strange how it comes just as they announce £2000m for BAe to develop a new fighter!!!!!!
    Sadly for the RN it looks like they will shrink again with 8 Type-26s replacing the 13 Type-23s.
    The reality is that they are going to have to pony up £2500m for 5 hulls to get anything credible as a post 2020 surface combatant. With 8 Type 26's and the Type 45 how on earth will they provide enough hulls to escort even 1 carrier let alone do all that SLOC work which they will have to address post Brexit. As for the Gen 5 Fighter dream ...

  32. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, Tempest liked this post
  33. #396
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    601
    Post Thanks / Like

  34. #397
    Commander in Chief hptmurphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    13,532
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder is it no Type 31es or No ships !

    Given the Type 31e was to be a low tech affair, basically an OPV with low tech systems, whats stopping them from buying our P60 type from the shelf and adding a few bits , possibly a flight deck. You could have a whole lot of them for a far lower price than even half the cost projected on the Type 31e.
    Time for another break I think......

  35. Likes DeV liked this post
  36. #398
    BQMS EUFighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    573
    Post Thanks / Like
    No money by the MoD and it seems the top brass & co were not too impressed either by the Type31e proposals or by the SB, see the interview with Adm. Sir. George Zambellas, former First Sea Lord and former chief of naval staff of the RN

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0zB7Ux2CgI

  37. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
  38. #399
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    21,086
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by hptmurphy View Post
    I wonder is it no Type 31es or No ships !

    Given the Type 31e was to be a low tech affair, basically an OPV with low tech systems, whats stopping them from buying our P60 type from the shelf and adding a few bits , possibly a flight deck. You could have a whole lot of them for a far lower price than even half the cost projected on the Type 31e.
    To a degree I’d agree but the Type 31 was to have frigate armament, big hun, SAMs, SSMs, etc

  39. #400
    2/Lt
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    To a degree I’d agree but the Type 31 was to have frigate armament, big hun, SAMs, SSMs, etc
    All while staying within £250million, which everyone always said was going to be "hard" at best.

  40. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •