The Atlas Elektronik UK bid for the Type 31e frigate programme is based on the MEKO A-200 frigate. Although perhaps seen as the outsider of the 3 candidates, the A-200 design has several unique and innovative features that make it a very credible contender for the Royal Navy’s requirements. Without going into the unknowns of weapon and sensor fit, here we examine the pedigree and design of the A-200 platform.
Industrial background
The Mehrzweck-Kombination (MEKO) warship concept (which translates as ‘multi-purpose-combination’) has a proven track record as one the world’s most successful warship export programmes. More than 50 frigates and corvettes have been built since the 1970s for navies across the world. MEKO was developed by Blohm+Voss, its warship business is now a subsidiary of the giant ThyssenKrupp group. Atlas Elektronik, headquartered in Bremen, was briefly owned by BAE Systems but its naval business was sold to ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) in 2005. Atlas Elektronik UK based in Dorset, is in the lead for the Type 31e frigate bid, but the design and warship construction expertise is coming from TKMS and its shipyards in Hamburg and Kiel.
TKMS have worked with shipbuilders outside of Germany during many of the MEKO construction projects to facilitate the transfer of technology and expertise. Their bid proposes Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine would be the shipyards building the Type 31. Both now have a modest number of employees and no recent warship construction experience. These yards would be heavily reliant on help from Germany, at least for the construction of the lead ship. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the winner of the competition then involving UK shipbuilders from the losing consortia, if capacity is not there. Harland & Wolff and Ferguson Marine are already members of two of the three bidding teams.
Building warships is always a demanding business. BAE Systems’ problems with the construction of HMS Forth pale beside TKMS’ recent quality control issues. The first of the giant 7,000-tonne Baden Württemberg class frigates built for the German Navy was supposed to have commissioned in 2014. She was delivered late, so riddled with defects that the navy refused to accept her. She remains in the hands of the builders as the cost of major rectification work spirals. The K130 Braunschweig-class corvettes also suffered major problems with their gearboxes that caused significant delays to the programme. TKMS have now been banned by their government from involvement in the next major German naval project – the MKS-180 warship competition.
Both the A-200 and Arrowhead-140 concepts raise some interesting issues around exportability. If the Type 31e programme is partly intended to stimulate UK warship construction for export, then how is the intellectual property licensed? Will the Danish and German government retain control over the use of their respective designs and will permission be needed every time the British yard wishes to export? From a commercial perspective, it seems unlikely TKMS would allow their design to be used by British shipbuilders, potentially in direct competition for warship orders with their own yards in Germany.
-
-
SAS Spioenkop during exercises in the South Atlantic with the Royal Navy, 2015. -
SAS Amatola on a visit to Devonport, February 2017. The minor disadvantage of the ‘stern funnel’ can be seen as exhaust gasses may envelop the aft end of the ship at low speed. The entire transom has been painted black to hide the stains that are left by the diesel fumes. -
El Radii was commissioned into the expanding Algerian navy in April 2016. The lack of funnels frees up deck space for weaponry amidships, in this case, 16 x Saab RBS anti-ship missiles. -
The X form hull of the and can clearly be seen in this photo of El Radii.
The South African navy placed an order for four A-200-SAN in 1999. The ships were constructed in Germany between 2001-03 and delivered unarmed to S.Africa where the weapons, sensors and combat system were integrated, a process that took 2-3 years per ship. TKMS also provided a comprehensive set of spare parts, documentation and training to support the ships in service. The four ships are known as the ‘Valour’ class and have proven successful, especially in maritime security roles. Their design with high buoyancy forward offers a stable platform in the rough seas encountered around Southern Africa.
Two further A-200-AN were ordered by the Algerian navy in March 2012. Both were built and fully fitted out in Germany before delivery in 2016 – 17. The hulls are almost identical to the South African ships but have been fitted with significantly heavier armament, notably the OTO Melara 127/64 lightweight 127mm naval gun and 16 Saab RBS 15 Mk3 anti-ship missiles. The Algerian navy has an option to purchase two further ships and there were unconfirmed reports late in 2018 that Egypt has signed a $1Bn (not including weapons) deal for two A-200s to be built in Kiel. If the options are taken up and the Egyptian deal is completed, then there will potentially be ten A-200s in service. As will be the case with the Type 26 frigate, a larger class of similar ships not only adds to the design’s credibility but may offer some economies of scale in equipment purchase and logistic support.
The modular frigate
The MEKO concept is based on modular and easily interchangeable or upgradable weapons and sensors. The reduced construction and through-life ownership costs make the MEKO designs particularly attractive to navies with restricted budgets. Until the last decade or so, the modular warship was perceived as a less capable, suited to second-tier navies and would not have been considered by the RN or US Navy. The ballooning costs of exquisite high-end warships such as the Type 26 has been a driving factor in the birth of the Type 31e programme and the search for alternative ways of building warships. Even the mighty US Navy is building the Littoral Combat Ships which have modular mission packages.
The newest MEKO frigates and the Danish Stanflex system are increasingly attracting admirers who recognise the need to reduce costs and the advantages of modularity. While by no means a panacea, by decoupling the payload from the platform, it makes maintenance and upgrades easier and the ship can be reconfigured more quickly for new missions. The trend towards a reduction in hull numbers in most navies and the increasing pace of technological change adds to the attraction of modular systems which help reduce time in port and offer a quicker means for new technology insertion.
The A-200 design is an evolution of the MEKO 200 series frigates built for the Turkish, Australian and New Zealand navies. Blohm+Voss completed the 36-knot superyacht ‘Eco’ in 1991 and the experience gained optimising weight distribution, trim, low noise and manoeuvrability also helped inform the A-200 design. The frigate’s designers, focussing on budget-conscious customers, sought to keep the crew compliment low, provide comfortable accommodation, allow plenty of space for future upgrades and have a high payload to displacement ratio.
A propulsion oddity
The A-200 has a propulsion system that is unique amongst warships. Using a CODAG-WARP arrangement (Combined Diesel And Gas turbine – Waterjet and Refined Propellers) Two controllable pitch propellers and driven by cross-connectable diesel engines. In the diesel-only mode, this is very fuel-efficient, as a single engine can drive both shafts for speeds of up to 18 knots. An independent centre-line, gas turbine drives a water jet coupled by a small reduction gear, eliminating the need for another combining gearbox. The water jet can be used alone or combined with the diesel to achieve the maximum speed of over 27 knots. There is also a reverse-thrust bucket fitted that can be raised to redirect the water jet forward. This gives the A-200 the shortest stopping distance of any ship in its class.
This propulsion arrangement a very flexible and offers redundancy and survivability. The A-200 vessels constructed so far use the ubiquitous GE LM2500 Gas Turbine engine but potentially the RN could select the Rolls Royce MT-30 which is of similar size to retain commonality with the propulsion of the QEC aircraft carriers and Type 26 frigates.
What no funnel?
The A-200 makes a valuable space saving by channelling the engine exhaust to an outlet in the stern of the ship. The lack of funnel and uptakes in the centre of the ship frees up space for more above-deck weapons and accommodation. The entire propulsion system can be sited further aft than in most conventional warship designs and this allows for unbroken areas for useful payload that extend over 66% of the of ship’s length. The ships are exceptionally quiet and vibration-free as a result of the lack of a vertical funnel and uptakes amidships, which is a significant noise source in conventional layouts.
The hull and superstructure are built from steel with extensive use of high tensile material, there is no use of composites or aluminium. The hull was subject to extensive tank tests to ensure for low resistance over the whole speed range. There is a sharp-edged, bulbous bow which reduces resistance and noise through the water and maximises the performance of the hull-mounted sonar. Using active fin stabilizers, the ship can sustain up to 24 knots, engage weapons and operate helicopters up to sea state 6.
Of the three Type 31e contenders, the A-200 has the smallest flexible mission bay with space for just two ISO containers and a single recessed boat bay on each side of the ship. However, the lack of funnels makes it is probable that the design could be modified quite easily to expand the mission bay space, if it were a requirement. Maintenance, upgrades and stores replenishment is aided by wide passageways and the main RAS position amidships is serviced by a lift to the storerooms below. The hull is designed to survive action damage and is divided into zones with independent fire fighting, electrical, and HVAC systems. Developed especially for the A-200, a Low Weight Splinter Protection Panel System consist of kevlar/ceramic panels bolted to the inner side of the ship’s shell that provide ballistic protection for vital compartments. After being fitted out with weapons and sensors, the South African vessels still retained 200-tonne margin for future growth, 20% spare electrical generation and 37% spare cooling capacity. Despite their bulky appearance, the A-200 actually has slightly smaller displacement than a Type 23 frigate but has greater enclosed hull and superstructure volume.
Signatures and stealth
For a low-end warship design, the A-200 has especially low infrared signature and Radar cross section. The clean superstructure and totally enclosed forecastle and quarterdeck are typical of modern combatants. The less familiar ‘X shape’ of the superstructure maximises internal volume while reducing RCS and even the anchor pockets are enclosed by doors to reduce radar reflections.
Although not in the same class as a high-end frigate like the Type 26, there A-200’s hull is designed to minimise acoustic signature. The three engines and the four generators are raft-mounted to reduce radiated noise and improve shock resistance. (BAE System’s Leander does not have raft-mounted machinery). While propelled just by the gas turbine and water jet, the ship’s acoustic signature is said to be low, with little propellor cavitation noise. In this mode the ship can reach up to 23 knots, considerably faster than CODLAG or CODLOG propelled vessels when running on their electric motors. Although the RN’s Type 31e specification is for a ‘general purpose combatant’, a hull that is sufficiently quiet to be an effective submarine hunter is a major selling point for the A-200, given the obvious need to increase UK ASW capability.
A real contender?
If the reports are correct that Egypt is paying 1 Billion in US Dollars for two ships (to be built at experienced German shipyards) not including armament, this would give an A-200 an approximate UK price tag of £380M per ship. (This may include some spares and through-life support) This is considerably above the £250M per ship Type 31e budget and raises questions about affordability or what corners would have to be cut.
As a platform, the A-200 is a similar size to the Leander but is already proven in service and has some innovative features. If it is felt the Arrowhead-140 is too big or Leander is too basic, the A-200 could provide the RN a middle way. In a future article, we will examine the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class which is the basis for Arrowhead-140 candidate.
(Main image: Second of the Algerian ships, El-Moudamir. Photo by Norbert Möller)
I like the MEKO a lot more after reading it’s specifications. I wonder how much cheaper than £380 million a UK version could be if we factor in all the kit transferred from the T23’s for the first 5?
I still think in terms of pure capability and future potential Arrowhead is the clear winner, but it looks to be the most expensive of the 3 which is obviously a big problem!
Leander is a crudely stretched River Class that looks to be significantly behind the others in a whole host of areas. Plus it hardly gets shipbuilding away from being a purely BAE monopoly (i mean if supporting Cammell Laird really matters to the government then making it the lead yard for FSS would be the logical move).
Unfortunately it may all be academic as i still don’t see how we can get anything more than a sparsely equipped corvette for £250 million.
Stretched Khareef class you mean surely?
It certainly has the credentials, but the price issue is concerning. Even accounting for GFE, the MEKO is the most expensive of the 3 contenders, which means it faces the most compromises of the 3 to get down to the price point.
Say what you will, but BAE may have the right idea. They’ve started with a smaller, cheaper design and added what they can within budget, as opposed to trying to cheapen a more capable platform. As much as we all love Arrowhead, or even the A-200, the Leander bid is the most economically sound: single yard build, least ambitious design, support from one of the biggest defence companies in the world. We can only hope Babcock put forward a convincing argument.
Our government needs a good kick up the backside and place these navy orders before any more British yards close like Appledore in north devon, were an island nation they don’t seem the lessons of history
I still think a warship less then 125 metres, is a Corvette! If the UK procures this vessel, there will be the risk factor of quality control issues.
I do agree this vessel is expensive, for what we are getting!
You’re falling into the trap of thinking size is the most important feature in warship classification. In the same way that the Zumwalts and Type 055s are destroyers despite being bigger than many past and current cruisers, the T31 is a frigate and not a corvette because its designed for global, blue-water operations instead of littoral combat in home waters.
In any case, most corvettes are under 110m, while most frigates seem to be between 120 and 150m.
I have been calling some of the contenders for the Type 31 frigate contact, a corvette, because I look at modern warships from a post cold war perspective. As you say, the classification yardstick has change over the last half Century. But surely, the proposed Leander dimensions are a step backwards to the old Type 12 Leander(113m) 2500tons.
In some ways, perhaps the T31 programme IS a step backwards, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, and it’s something many of our allies are doing too.
Modern first-rates are so expensive that they can’t be procured in the numbers necessary to meet every role, but since not every deployment NEEDS a billion pound destroyer,not every ship has to BE a billion pound destroyer. A relatively small GP frigate with nothing but a big gun, helicopter, and self defence capability (decoys, SAMs, CIWS, etc) is more than adequate for 90% of the operations a peacetime navy has to fulfill.
A simple question.
Why a Corvette must be defined as short-range brown water ship?
Modern corvette emerged as Flower-class in WW2. It was slow and short legged. It evolved into River-class Frigate, which is a bit faster and long legged.
Now corvette is as fast as a frigate, not “slow” anymore. Then, why we need to stick to “short legged” either, as a definition for a Corvette?
Modern Destroyer and Frigate have evolved so large and capable. In average cost, it is ~1B GBP ship. Classifying a ship costing 1/3-1/4 of them with the same name will invoke many misunderstandings. On the other hand, OPV costs 1/3-1/4 of a T31 or a modern corvette, so calling T31e an OPV is also pointless.
Sorry for a bit off-topic comment.
*greenwater, not brownwater. Green is coastal, brown is rivers and inshore bodies of water
Ultimately, class designations are up to the owning fleet. The French use the term frigate for their destroyers, for example. So there’s nothing to stop anyone building a small, ocean going combatant and calling it a corvette.
Going by global convention though, a corvette is a short ranged, small combatant anywhere between 60 to 110m in length. Seeing as the T31, regardless of design, will be ocean going and bigger than that (plus the RNs need to maintain frigate numbers), I see no need to call it a corvette
You right that modern corvettes are nearly as fast as frigates, but the issue of corvettes being called ‘short legged’ is to do with endurance and capacity.
A corvette will have limited space to store fuel, supplys and food. Which means more frequent stops at ports, to be resupplied, in comparison to a frigate, which may need to avoid some ports. Also smaller engines will need more maintenance.
Remember, Internal volume increases disproportionately to the length & width.
The same issue with aircraft carriers.
Yes, I agree with you Callum, but T31e, to be interesting for other medium-sized navies, must have growth potential, since for them they will be their first-line ships. A light frigate for the Royal Navy, a medium and balanced for the export, that can have versions AAW and ASW, Leander does not seem to be the best option in those cases.
Very good point, Paul. I wouldn’t be too concerned though, if you look back at the Type 21 this is a case of history repeating itself.
While the RN version itself achieved no export success and had insufficient margin for significant upgrades, Vosper built an upgraded version known as the Mk10 that did fairly well. The Brazilian Navy still operates 6 of them I believe, and their armament is fairly good (4.5″ gun, SAMs, SSGWs, torpedoes, etc). Same thing will probably happen with Leander: the RN gets a simple version to budget, but an upgraded version is available for export.
Warships, the clue is in the name.Designed to be used for warlike activities.
NATO Warships are to Deter War!
By being designed to conduct war.Even if you are only bluffing,it needs to be convincing.Our enemies are unlikely to be greatly troubled by the type 31e.
For me this is all about strategy, Aegir class for all RFA and large vessels (amphib) and only 2 sizes of combatants for the navy.
T26 is the right size for our high end ships and 14 is the right number, when replacing our T45’s in the future (it means they need a better radar from the start however.
Meko is a great ship, but I cant help wondering why we just dont take the current T23 hullform and improve its layout to modern standards, by all accounts the T23 is a great ship and I am sure we can tweak its hull form and propulsion, perhaps in the same way as the meko to create more room.
Once we have the 14 larger vessels, then a 100-120m is ideal for all other duties in my opinion, and something like a C-sword90 would get my vote.
I dont think we need the rivers or a large T31 if we get a right sized corvette that has a good load out. Then we build loads of them and benefit from efficiencies in scale. If we build 1 per year then the new rivers can be replaced in 20 years time onwards, so no real rush.
T31 is important in so many ways for the RN, but it is critical to get a crew that is less than 100 and a ship that can offer full spectrum in a compact form.
An All T26 ASW frigate fleet of 13, is unnecessary. The biggest threat to our frigates east of Suez, is from the Air, and from small surface crafts.
A proposed Type 31 would need to have better AAW capability, and defences to mainly deal with surface threats.
I’d say SSK proliferation poses a bigger risk to our frigates than surface craft.
Not east of Suez, main threats in the east are craft which range in size from speed boats to corvettes.
I think you might be underestimating the proliferation of subs recently.
I am not saying there are No subs east of Suez. Those subs to the East, are mainly subs of friendly nations, eg. India.
Of course, a Type 31 frigate will need some ASW capability.
I think your overlooking the fact that our main threat and the object of our attention is this side of the Suez
It depends how far east of Suez you are talking about. A certain eastern power has been obtaining bases in the Indian Ocean. The northern power you are worried about also exists east of Suez (in the Pacific). Submarines have been exploding in numbers in the Indo-Pacific region. Even Myanmar have been talking about obtaining some.
I wonder how long the various modules take to swap with these designs? Would the navy possibly look to purchase a reduced number of fighting modules to save costs and then move them around like it does with phalanx? If you have a look at the Danish Navy’s Stanflex inventory it would certainly be a very compelling proposition for a larger T31 fleet.
The quiet engine is a plus, but reading it I was wondering if they won’t one day just move the whole ASW issue outside of the hull by slaving something like the US Navy ACTUV remotely to a frigate?
The mission bay is a deal breaker for me with this one, I’d like to see them raiding other budgets to increase T31 numbers so I’d prefer it to be as large and as versatile as possible, I think I read somewhere that the Leander’s mission bay is an adaption of the one for the T26, don’t know if that’s true. Capability to operate an 11/12m boat must surely be a consideration for the navy to allow cross platform capability in the future.
Not sure we can read anything into a $500m price tag yet, they could have written things like through life service contracts into that.
Leander must trump MEKO in this weight category for the all British design but looking forward to your piece on the wildcard 6000 tonner.
Am I missing something here?…..one of the motivating factors behind the Type 31e is not just to produce a low price General Purpose Frigate for the RN but also to produce an exportable ship. So we adopt a German ship notable for its` export success!…..so much for promoting British ship building!
I agree! It’s a contradiction!
It’s not quite as bad as it seems, TKMS haven’t built the majority of the ships themselves usually they design them, and the work is then done locally in the case of the Turkish and Australian ships or at other yards in Germany so you could market them as”Designed in Germany, built in Britain” comfortably and as long as the contracts are well written and TKMS are getting their cut it shouldn’t be a problem. Incidentally if the MOD’s lawyers did their job properly then both the Meko and IH designers have already signed contracts agreeing to let British yards compete (using the same/near the same designs), in the case of TKMS as they have been happy to let other yards build their designs in the past I can’t see an issue forming, there might be one with the IH but I’ve no idea what the capacity of the Danish yards are in the first place.
Saying that, I do have a strong suspicion the Meko consortium is just in the competition to keep the other bids honest (possibly just one of the other bids) and TKMS may well know that so if their consortium lose they won’t mind anywhere near as much as Harland & Wolff or Ferguson will.
But, in case of MEKO 200, even though the Australian Tennix shipyard was the first of a few ship yards building MEKO 200 other than German ship yards, non of Turkish nor Greece MEKO200 was built in Australia.
Similarly, Brazilian Tamandaré-class corvette (MEKO A100 based), if added with a few meters of extension amidship, can be a good T31e candidate. (It is with Artisan 3D, 12 CAMM, helo, even SSM and hull sonar). But, UK will never order T31e from Brazilian ship yards.
Then, how can a German MEKO A200 ship nor Danish I-H class based T31e design be built in UK shipyards to be exported for other nations? Are there any such example in the past?
South Korea are presently exporting their version of German type 209 submarine to Indoneasia. The ability to export anothers design (legally) depends on the terms of the contract. Royalties may apply, permission of the originating country may apply, there could be a pre-aproved export list or a designated area eg South America, etc. Older tech often has less restictive terms.
I see little problem in regard to A140. OMT are a member of the consortium & would remain so for any export orders. Denmark is likely to agree to any export request by UK (if that is part of the agreement) & OMT no longer have their own shipyard, so anything they build has to be built somewhere else anyway. MEKO A200 though is a problem in that TKMS still have shipyards in Germany & any potential buyer would be silly not to be asking both UK & Germany for a price.
The IPR intellectual property rights of the danish ship are fullyUK based now after licensing it I believe.
The MEKO concept goes back nearly 25 years. It is in some respects all things to all people.
If the 250M per ship stands, you would be making a huge assumption that the MEKO 200 on offer to the RN has any relationship to the South African or Algerian ships in terms of CODOG WARP.
The MEKO 200 has had various propulsion systems installed to suit various customers and their budgets. The RN offer could easily be CODAD. It is about the only thing that would allow a striped down MEKO 200 into the race.
It is amazing how may people don’t want to pay attention to 250 mil per ship including new non T23 GFE. hat figure is simply not going to pay for a lot.
Some ideas for reducing costs on Meko while trying to meet the basic RN requested spec but still producing a flexible and adaptable ship that navies would want.
1. Fit 57mm gun (adaptable to 127mm).
2. Fit 16 cell CAMM launcher
(adaptable to 32)
3. Leave space for future fit of strike length VLS. (Adaptable)
4. Remove AShM midships and enclose space for mission bay.
5. Replace Gas Turbine with third Diesel engine rafted mounted for ASW noise reduction.
6. Remove rafting from other two diesel engines so no ASW noise reduction.
7. Remove Water Jet propulsion.
8. FFBNW phalanx.
9. FFBNW cannister AShM.
10. Transfer kit from T23.
When running at low speeds generally only one engine is required. Operating on the one rafted mounted engine gives you the noise reduction required for ASW operations. Generally higher speeds are used to quickly transit from one area of operations to another when noise reduction isn’t a priority and you are unlikely to be conducting high speed ASW operations anyway.
I’m afraid that you’re defining an up-gunned OPV there. The T31 still has to be a true blue water frigate as they have to operate as part of a 19-strong escort fleet. Any regression on T23 standards will damage the RN’s standing as a capable, blue water navy.
As T31e program cost is 1.25B GBP for 5 hulls, I suspect Don-san’s armament list is the best we can wish.
Brazilian Tamandaré-class corvette, based on modified TKMS MEKO A100 design is ~1.2B GBP program for 4 hulls. It’s armaments are, a 76mm gun, 12 CAMM, 40mm CIWS, hull-sonar, SH60 helo, 4 Exocet SSM, and AS torpedo tubes, packed within 3400t hull. (Good news they selected Artisan 3D).
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/04/germanys-meko-a100-won-the-brazilian-navy-tamandare-corvette-competition/
So, 1.25B GBP T31e as 5 hulls with longer range larger hull (3700-6000t, depending on the design), with similar armament to Tamandaré-class, is already “a bit optimistic”. Of course, direct comparison of building budget is not easy, because there are big difference in “what is included in those contracts”. But, anyhow, expecting “a true blue water frigate” from T31e is, sorry to say, impossible.
It was clear from the begining, when the “1.25B GBP for 5 hull” budget was released. Clear. So, yes, 5 T31e will be “less than” 5 T23GP, for sure. As 8 T26 is “more than” 8 T23ASW, is could be partly balanced.
I think calling T31e a “frigate” is misleading. T31e cost is “right in the middle” of a large Corvette.
It will depend of which contender is chosen for the Type 31e frigate contact, for it to be know if it is a real frigate.
The answer is Yes if it is the Arrowhead!
Thanks.
I am not sure “Arrowhead” can be a real frigate.
It has larger hull, has four 8MW diesel engines surely expensive than two 9.2MW engines on Leander. Also, UK has no STANFLEX container to re-use (*1). I see zero possibility Arrowhead 140 is “more armed” than as listed by Don-san. If we have another 1B GBP added (*2) to the total program budget (2.25B GBP in total), I agree Arrowhead 140 will give a “real frigate”. But, with 1.25B GBP, it will just be a big vacant ship, wasting fuel to deploy.
*1: Any equipment (GFE) will anyway be costed and be included in the 1.25B GBP, as clearly stated many times. So transfer from T23GP, if ever happens, does not solve the problem.
*2: But if I have this 1B GBP, I shall buy a few more P8, P7, add data-link to Wildcat, add modest ASW capability to T31 (even Leandner can do) etc etc…, and not use to make T31e “a real frigate”. Also note MOD is “short of” 4.8-10B GBP in 10 years equipment budget…
You seem to be a tad confused. The GFE being included in the contract means that things like the Artisan radar AREN’T part of the £250mn cost per ship. It’s part of what makes the entire competition actually viable.
https://www.navylookout.com/type-31e-frigate-competition-restarted/
Thanks.
1: The actual sentence is: “Type 31e is to cost not to exceed £1.25 billion, inclusive of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)”.
I think “inclusive” is on £1.25 billion, which means it will be costed. I do not understand why people think GFE is free, from this sentence.
2: In twitter answer to Engaging-srategies-san’s inquiry “will those cost constraints be mitigated by recycling some equipment from Type 23s as they decommission?”, 2nd Sea Load says, “some bit not significant systems”.
So regardless of the GFE cost, only a little equipments will be transferred from T23 to T31e.
https://twitter.com/VAdmJWoodcock/status/972057974071054336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E972057974071054336&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%23972057974071054336
3: Even if some GFEs can be re-used, Arrowhead 140 benefits from it much less than Leander, because they use TACTICOS CMS, while Leander uses BAE-CMS1 (now with new name), which is the same to the modified T23. I do not think significant reuse will happen, but, even so, Leander could benefit the most. Therefore, I think Leander “could” be the most heavily armed option among the 3 candidates.
I may well be wrong, but my take on it is that any GFE is free, but fitting etc is not. This contrasts say to the original IH frigate, where most of the GFE was removed from previous ships & fitted to the IH post delivery to the Danish Navy. ie OMT delivered without – the GFE was mostly installed by the navy at government expense later. With the T31e, I take it the 250 million is it. Any GFE must be removed from T23, refurbished if required & then fitted to the T31. No extra money will be forthcoming for this. The ship is to be delivered ready to go for the stated amount.
As others have said also, if the UK expects to resell the T23s in question rather than breaking or sinking them, then some equipment would need to stay to make them worth buying. There is always some sensitive gear of course that won’t stay & will likely move over.
Thanks, but sorry, from where your idea come? The official sentence says GFE is included in 1.25B GBP, as I read?
And, anyway, Second Sea Load clearly says, not many equipment will be transferred. And this is consistent with “T23 re-selling” hope, as you said.
My idea comes from standard practice amonst the 5 Eyes powers (I assume its the same everywhere but others better informed may wish to comment). GFE is just that – Government Furnished Equipment. ie the government is supplying the equipment, not the prime, therefore the prime does not pay for said equipment, as the government is paying or already owns the equipment (the government is also the end customer). However even such ‘free’ equipment must be installed & integrated. If it is already installed somewhere else, it must be deinstalled first. If it requires refurbishment, then it must be deinstalled & refurbished before being reinstalled. If it needs integration to the CMS or other systems, then that needs to be done. All of this costs money. Exactly where the line is drawn is unclear (primarily, who pays for deinstall & refurbishment), however it is fairly clear that install & integration costs are part of the 250 million. The UK Mod have no intention of paying extra.
Sometimes this GFE is sitting on the shelf (either removed earlier or part of its spare parts or training inventory), othertimes it isn’t. In the case of the IH frigate, a large proportion of GFE was fitted later at additional government expense by the Danish Navy, not by OMT. Australia will soon have 5 x 76mm naval guns on the shelf, all paid for years ago. If nobody buys the remaining 2 much newer Adelaide class frigates, this will rise to 7 guns. All these guns are still supported by Leonardo & upgrade kits are available. Australia has 2 spare self defence mk 41 VLS, which could soon rise to 4. New Zealand has 2 of the same. UK has ordered 3 new towed sonar arrays for the first of the T26. As all the ASW T23’s are retired, they may well end up with 3 spare sets on the shelf. None of this is unusual.
Please do not take offence Donald of Tokyo, but literal reading of UK documents designed for internal UK consumption (all of the primes putting up bids are UK companies or include UK companies or have UK branch companies), can cause misunderstandings. Sometimes things are not stated because they assume you already know what they mean. Documents intended for wider international consumption will often be written differently.
Thanks DJ-san
Sorry if you felt some “offensive”, its not my intention. I was just eager for information/documents I do not know.
Tracing back from T31e RFI. Among the “top 6 message”, they say
————–
2: “Meet the price of £250m per ship, including your development costs, risk and profit, whilst minimising the GFX burden and cost of ownership to the MOD”
Section 8.1
…
“GFX will be minimised as far as possible”
..
“£250M is the maximum average price per ship for an initial order of 5 ships. This includes non-recurring engineering costs, contractor risk and profit, minimal GFX proposed by the contractor, initial training and spares. All costs are at outturn assuming an in service date with the Royal Navy for the first of class of 2023, and a drumbeat of a ship delivered every 12 months thereafter”
————–
So I thought,
– GFE will be costed (may be the money MOD should have got by selling the equipments in store?).
– independently, GFE is minimum.
But, this is just for RFI, and current requirements in competitive design phase is not clear. They recently said “inclusive of GFE”, which makes me wonder it is still costed (as I said in the last comment). But, I agree this is not yet clear.
On the other hand, “GFE is minimum” is repeatedly confirmed by the 2nd-SeaLoad.
I’m afraid CAMM system will not be included in the “minimum”. I’m not sure, if the 4.5 inch gun is within the “minimum”. Hull sonar, MTLS, 30 mm gun, chaff/flare launcher, is also “grey”.
Also, I agree to your point; all the “deinstalled, refurbish, install, integration” cost is there, and this is in general, much higher than the equipment cost themselves.
Thanks…
It would appear that the GFE is not specified & may be different for each team, but UK MoD wants it as low as possible. BAE likely would like to reuse the T23 Artisan radar if it can, as it’s already integrated with their CMS & its a familiar product. If they can’t, well they make the radar so they can discount if they want to. Thales & Co may well have decided to go with a lower spec radar that is good enough, but is already integrated & familiar & new out of the box (it’s also made by them so they can discount if they want to). Is it better to be higher spec second hand or lower spec new? The difficulty with this competition is it’s to a set price with no room to move & a vague wish list.
The programme budget has to include the capital value of the GFE even though the builder will not be charged for it. However the capital value might be low because it will have depreciated. There are usually significant refurbishment, obsolescence and recommissioning costs though.
For £250m per ship it will be difficult to get a fully tooled up blue water frigate. I would argue that the £250m budget is used to acquire the best possible blue water hull to which systems, sensors and weapons which are over and above the £250m budget can readily and easily be added in a plug and play type fashion when finances allow or when there is an urgent operational need. The hull should be designed for this from the outset. So in theory a hull with a basic constabulary configuration could be reconfigured in a matter of hours or days to become a fully tooled up blue water frigate.
Remember the RN has requested a constabulary vessel that can be adapted to a more war fighting role. This is the thinking behind the FFBNW for AShM, Strike length VLS and Phalanx. (I would love a Phalanx / Strike Length VLS if the budget allows)
Moving to the 57mm gun.
Ideally the RN should use the 127mm gun as standard across the fleet but fitting this on T31 out of the £250m budget is unrealistic. Reusing the 4.5 inch gun from the T23 would incur costs for its removal and fitting. On top of this the MOD would be keen to sell on the old T23s to cash in. The would be purchaser would be looking for a main gun so purchasing a new main gun and fitting this on T23 to facilitate a sale would incur further costs. So I am dubious if the 4.5 inch gun will transfer from the T23. Also from a manpower issue the 4.5 inch gun requires more crew than a 57mm and the navy is keen to keep crew numbers down on the T31 to alleviate the manpower issues across the fleet. I am not a fan of the 76mm gun and using it would introduce another gun system that requires crew training, maintenance and logistic chains and ammo stocks. However the 57mm gun would most likely be used on any future mine warfare vessel. So this would standardise the RN on 127mm for larger escorts and 57mm for T31 and mine warfare vessels. But crucially it leaves the door open that the RN could transfer the 57mm gun from the T31 to future mine warfare vessels and have the 127mm gun fitted to the T31 at this time. Also a great range of ammo has been and is being developed for the 57mm and it makes a very good CIWS as well.
( Ideally the RN should try to provide additional funds for a couple of the T31s to get 127mm guns for Naval Gunfire Support. )
Propulsion.
To operate a gas turbine, water jet,and diesel engines will require crew trained on these systems and will require spares for all three systems. This drives up crew numbers, costs and maintenance and logistical requirements to stay operational. By standardising on three diesel engines this will bring down crew numbers, costs and the maintenance and logistical requirements and will help keep the ship at sea longer for less cost.
The savings made in accepting three Diesel engines and a 57mm gun could release funds for something else for example a phalanx / VLS / sonar etc.
To my mind, NGS should be a major consideration. Ideally you would not want to risk a T45 for this unless you had to. So it’s either going to be T26 or T31 that will have to fill the roll. T26 is a very expensive ship in comparison to a T31. If you are going to put a ship within possible range of shore based missiles, rockets & artillary, then the T31 is the obvious choice. A 57mm however doesn’t cut it.
I agree with what you say and would prefer a larger main gun if feasible.
The historic irony of a design from Blohm and Voss is that brings with it the heritage of a number of the opposing warships from the Battle of Jutland as well as KMS Bismarck. Of course they proved worthy adversaries able to withstand heavy punishment which is probably a good sales pitch.
As with the others? Weapon fit has suddenly become an unknown. Despite it being accepted that each vessel will cost in excess of £250 million and now I understand a revised order for 6, we’re suddenly seeing our worst nightmares coming true – basically we’re going down the over-sized OPV route………..
Good evening , reading the write up of the bidding for the Meko A200 frigate , i think the contract should be giving to a british ship builder as we are now should be looking to employ skilled workers from our shores , thyssen-krupp have lost favour with their own countries navy for producing shody work and not just once , i dont think we can afford to throw money down the drain. We’ve got very experienced ship builders here and the navy has got an order book to fill , keep the work at home 👍🇬🇧
hello, what is the hull constructed from ?
i know its steel but what else or what is this steel type and thx .