Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Repulse »

SKB wrote:I'd put a tenner on PoW not leaving Rosyth's basin in the next ten years. Odds?
Slim - nice big shiny Aircraft Carriers are good at deflecting criticism on defence budgets - plus I actually believe they are needed more than a much larger number of Escorts.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Repulse »

So in my view by the mid 3030’s the RN could be going towards a fleet of:
- 4 x SSBNs
- 7 x SSNs
- 2 x STOVL Carriers
- 1 x LHD
- 6 x AAW T45s
- 10 x ASW T26s
- 20 x new MHPCs, B2 Rivers, Echo class
- 1 x Ice Patrol Ship
- 18 x Fast Patrol Craft
- 3 x LSDs
- 6 x Tankers
- 3 x FSSs
- 4 x Point Class RoRos
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Pseudo »

The government might as well just increase the budget and build thirteen Type 26's. They're going to be borrowing to fund everything else for a while, so they may as well.

R686
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 28 May 2015, 02:43
Australia

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by R686 »

Repulse wrote:The 21st century is going to be able sea control rather than amphibious invasions- better to ditch the Albions first before selling a carrier. We saw this in the leaked defence cuts.

I’d still go for a LHD replacement for the 2 LPDs and RFA Argus, to be built at Cammell Laird along with the 3 FSSs, would be a real pipeline for a UK yard.

EDIT: I do see a cap on the F35B order though at @63 - 4 x 12 a/c Sqdns + 1 x 12 a/c OCU Sqdn + 3 OEU a/c

Agree on the LHD, but unfortunately the Bays are not a real substitute for the Albions in my book and neither is a QEC, I don’t think the UK could take the risk of a 10 year gap in Albion replacement program. problems for the RN are not just escorts manpower is a real problem.

I think most hear have to accept the fact that the UK defence is in real decline and the political elect will continue to take the electorate down the garden path,T31 is a fools errand

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:... I would make them bigger, at least 6000t and truly multipurpose. Big flight deck, big hanger, lots of space for vehicles and HADR supplies. A mexefloat capability would be a bonus. A true Global Patrol Vessel.
But, this will surely threat the Bays. Be careful, I think.

I think sealift can be done more efficiently with larger hull. 1(+1) Albions, 3 Bays and 4 Points are right choices, and these Global Patrol Vessels do not need its capability. Only HADR, and only as the first wave is enough. A ship something like "CROSSOVER 123 FAST SECURITY" or even a Venari-like ship a bit enlarged to get a hangar, will be better. (but not sure, still thinking).
I take the point about the Bay's and thats why I would replace them with even more Bays.

My original Global Patrol Vessel concept was for 6000t modified crossover vessels capable of 22knts, embarking 2 helicopters and be able to deploy fast RHIBS via a stern ramp and LCVP's and CB90's via side hatches.

Sounds similar to your 123 FAST SECURITY

"A large 140m vessel with a 19m beam capable of around 22knts. Simply armed with a 57mm and 2x 30mm's they are not designed to fight in a peer on peer engagement. They would be constructed to OPV standards to fit within the £250m budget and only patrol in low threat areas. The 22knt top speed would be offset by the embarked helicopter(s) and fast craft (40knts) deployed via the stern ramp. This system works well on the Holland OPV's and I think it is a better method than spending a fortune trying to get a vessel with a 19m beam to achieve 26knts. The priority would be increasing range and endurance as far as possible, certainly up to the region of 10,000nm.

This is the TermaScanter option similar to the RB2's, primarily to save money compared with the full blown Artisan fit out but it would important to ensure that the communications fit is up to a standard to allow these vessels to participate in deployments with Allies. All this should be easily achievable for £250m.
image.jpg
At close to 6000t these vessels have presence and due to their basic weapons fit they would be ideally suited to forward deployment. Embarking up to 2 helicopters and a mixture of LCVP's, CB90's and fast RHIB's these vessels would be ideally suited for a multitude of roles in low threat environments.

The second GPV variant is identical in all respects apart from the radar and weapons fit. This is the Artisan option. This variant has the 57mm and 2x 30mm's but also adds VLS cells for CAMM and a single Phalanx FFBNW. These vessels are not suited and have not been designed for deployment in anything other than low threat environments but if operating in the gulf for example I can understand how Artisan and CAMM could be useful.
image.jpg
I believe these Global Patrol vessels are what RN really need. They would be able to relieve the Bay's in the Caribbean/Gulf (a reoccurring theme for me ) and allow forward basing in Gibraltar, Gulf, Caribbean and Singapore if required. I would retain one or two GPV's in the UK to perform FRE duties."
This was my first attempt at the GPV concept and I still like it but I came to conclusion that for a similar amount of money with a similar crew allocation a lot more was achievable with the Bay class than the Crossover.

My second attempt at the GPV concept was the Patrol Bay, this has moved onto a Mk2 version now but for £150m to £200m these vessels offer a substantial capability increase over a basic Patrol Frigate/Corvette design.

"This concept comes in 2 basic variants,

PATROL BAY (Low Threat)
Length: 150m
Beam: 22m
Top Speed: 21knts
57mm, 2x 30mm, Phalanx FFBNW
image.jpg
PATROL BAY (Moderate Threat)
Length: 150m
Beam: 22m
Top Speed: 21knts
Artisan, 57mm, 2x30mm, 24 CAMM, Phalanx FFBNW
image.jpg
The Patrol Bay LT/MT has a very useful mixture of Aviation and Amphibious capabilities. This design incorporates a number of mission space units in the superstructure, all interconnected to varying degrees and each capable of embarking either a CB90/LCVP type vessel or a Merlin. With its rotors folded, this vessel is capable of embarking 1 Chinook.

This graphic illustrates the layout of the combined hanger and mission spaces.The two areas marked in blue are Wildcat/Apache capable hangers that are big enough to house a Merlin but with limited working clearances on the sides.
image.jpg
The central hanger marked in yellow is Merlin/Chinook capable with rotors folded/removed. This hanger is joined to the forward mission space which is capable of embarking up to 4 CB90/LCVP type craft.

For example,
A Littoral Raiding package may include 2 Apache, 2 Merlin and 2 CB90's.
An Amphibious Assault package may include 2 Wildcat, 1 Merlin and 4 LCVP's.
A Patrol/HADR package may include a single Wildcat and a lot of ISO's.

The flight deck has two landing spots for Merlin/Chinook and 3 for Wildcat/Apache.

Unlike the Bay's currently in service this concept has a number of important differences which reduce the initial and ongoing costs of the vessel. The beam has been reduced by almost 5m and the floodable well dock has been removed in favour of a hybrid stern ramp/ steel beach arrangement.

This graphic gives an idea of the stern arrangement which would be primarily used to load mexefloats on HADR deployments.
image.jpg
The double mexefloat capability carried externally has been retained.

In my opinion the implementation of successful small/medium and large scale HADR missions are paramount for RN to stay relevant and make new friends and supporters in certain political circles. The importance of this capability to help secure further generous funding cannot be overemphasised.

Successful HADR deployments can help make friends and open doors all over the world. The VENARI 95 is an excellent example of a highly versatile multipurpose vessel but it can't deploy a mexefloat!

So how much does the Patrol Bay cost? With the beam narrowed and the well dock replaced by a simple stern ramp/steel beach, I think the price would be very comparable with a VENARI 95, around £150m.

Hard to believe but it's a very simple vessel with very basic technology, if built in a reasonable quantity I think £150m is achievable. Considering that is in the region of what the RB2's cost, this graphic illustrates the difference in size (and possibly value for money)
image.jpg
With the Moderate threat package installed and Artisan cross decked from the T23's it should be possible to build a Patrol Bay MT for around £200m.

The crew allocation is also attractive, I think a core crew of around 80 is realistic for a basic Patrol deployment rising to a much higher level depending on the amount of aviation assets and number of Marines embarked.
Personally I really like the general Global Patrol Vessel concept, it adds a short endurance Littoral Strike capability that RN currently lacks and integrating some Amphibious capability into the wider Escort/Patrol fleet it may help to secure the future of the Royal Marines as well.

I simply can't see the point of cheap 'Frigates' that can achieve very little apart from wave the flag and chase a few pirates and drug runners. In a conflict scenario they will be little more than floating targets.

The Type 31 programme has been paused in its current form. Personally I feel it's time to think again...

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Repulse »

R686 wrote:Agree on the LHD, but unfortunately the Bays are not a real substitute for the Albions in my book and neither is a QEC, I don’t think the UK could take the risk of a 10 year gap in Albion replacement program. problems for the RN are not just escorts manpower is a real problem.
Agree with this, which is why I accept a LHD is needed to allow for a part time capability and a seedcorn for future expansion if ever needed. If the UK thinks it’s going to do any large scale (bigger than a battlegroup), then the lack of the landing platforms is just one of the many issues - it is one that will hopefully make the government realise they can’t do everything without significantly more cash.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Opinion3
Member
Posts: 352
Joined: 06 May 2015, 23:01

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Opinion3 »

I cannot picture any Board of a plc signing off on a contract to build either proposal for that price and that maximum margin. Essentially the frigate needs to be constructed for £234m. Is it worth the risk for £16m?

Higher volume means the risks can be mitigated with more automation, better training, more units etc. What I am saying is not rocket science. That said I don't think the money invested in the T31e has necessarily been wasted but credibility certainly has.

When I voted above I chose T31 cancelled and reverted back to 13 T26s this needs happen.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote:My second attempt at the GPV concept was the Patrol Bay, this has moved onto a Mk2 version now but for £150m to £200m these vessels offer a substantial capability increase over a basic Patrol Frigate/Corvette design.
.....
Personally I really like the general Global Patrol Vessel concept, it adds a short endurance Littoral Strike capability that RN currently lacks and integrating some Amphibious capability into the wider Escort/Patrol fleet it may help to secure the future of the Royal Marines as well.

I simply can't see the point of cheap 'Frigates' that can achieve very little apart from wave the flag and chase a few pirates and drug runners. In a conflict scenario they will be little more than floating targets.

The Type 31 programme has been paused in its current form. Personally I feel it's time to think again...
Umm, when I see these proposals based on Bay, I am always confused why you all think it can be build cheap, while a 4000 t sloop cannot?

If we can build a Patrol Bay ~8000t FLD with a 57mm gun and a CIWS within 250M GBP, why not can we build a 3000-4000t FLD Sloop, armed with a 57mm gun and a CIWS within 150M GBP? Using Bay for patrol means, using merchant ship standard hull for patrol. If so, the "3000-4000t FLD Sloop" can also be a merchant ship standard hull, used for patrol.

Of course, BOTH these Patrol Bays and patrol sloops will be "in a conflict scenario they will be little more than floating targets", as well.

If 150M GBP sloop can be built, build 4 of them with 600M GBP, and use remaining 650M GBP left (+ ~100M GBP from efficiency) for "9th" T26. This is my thought.

[EDIT] My point is,
- if the GPV were to be armed with "a 57mm gun and a CIWS", we must consider rushing into enemy to go active fighting, and accept the risk of getting counter-fire. In this case, large bulky hull with huge cross-section, large cargo bay which can easily "transport" fire throughout the ship, must be avoided. Large hull is not agile, which could be also critical.
- Bay-LSD with 20mm CIWSs is no problem, because it is a self-defense system of a logistic support vessel = NOT intended to "go active fighting" with any enemy.

Mixing these two will increase pressure on selling Bay-class, and increase these Bay-based GPV to be sent to war fighting (say, against fast boat attacks from terrorists), and losing the crew. For a navy like New Zealand, mixing these two is inevitable, because there is only a single Multi-Roll-Vessel affordable. But, not good for a navy like RN, I think.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Lord Jim »

Wait a minute! Can someone point me to where it has been announced the T-31e programme has had the brakes applied or have I misunderstood things?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok found it. Well it does look like they first cuts have been announced, though not worded as such, as a result of the MDP. So we are left with nine T-26 and six T-45s as the escort fleet and I think the RN is going to have to fight tooth and nail to keep those numbers. What else could happen, well I think the list of standing commitments is going to be revised downward, to take into account that he RN will now operate around its new core of a Carrier Group, so other NATO members will have to step forward to fill the gaps. The idea of growing the RN was only really a PR exercise anyhow, so the Government could appear to still be a strong advocate for defence. The RN like the other services is having to realise it cannot provide the full suite of capabilities the MoD's "Spin" department constantly announces to the media as part of it's usual "The UK is still a global power", press releases. Fixing the personnel issues is probably the one thing the RN can do so that it can get the most out of what it has or will have moving forward.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Caribbean »

Well, looking at the specific phrases quoted, I think the issue could be to do with the origin of the A140. Not being UK designed and with possible restrictions on world-wide sales (we've only speculated on the possibilities of the contract with OMG on here) could put it outside the terms of the original RFI, leaving it open to legal challenge if selected (and I personally believe that it is of far greater interest to the RN than Leander). HMG still seems to be behind the project, so let's see if it does come back with new terms (and possibly a different combination of hulls and finance).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Umm, when I see these proposals based on Bay, I am always confused why you all think it can be build cheap, while a 4000 t sloop cannot?
I'm not sure who's arguing that a 4000t sloop can't be built for £150m but its certainly not me :D

I would go with the 15000t RRS Sir David Attenborough as a good benchmark for what can be achieved for around £150m.
If we can build a Patrol Bay ~8000t FLD with a 57mm gun and a CIWS within 250M GBP, why not can we build a 3000-4000t FLD Sloop, armed with a 57mm gun and a CIWS within 150M GBP? Using Bay for patrol means, using merchant ship standard hull for patrol. If so, the "3000-4000t FLD Sloop" can also be a merchant ship standard hull, used for patrol.
That is true but if building to this standard it quickly becomes clear that for a very small increase in cost a much larger and more capable vessel can be acquired. We have to be realistic, the RFA are performing many of these patrol tasks now and due to current budget pressures I see no sign of that changing.
Of course, BOTH these Patrol Bays and patrol sloops will be "in a conflict scenario they will be little more than floating targets", as well.
Agreed, but in a conflict scenario the Patrol Bays would have a role as part of the Amphious/Logistic force in the same way the Bay Class would today. Would the 4000t sloop have a role in such a scenario?
If 150M GBP sloop can be built, build 4 of them with 600M GBP, and use remaining 650M GBP left (+ ~100M GBP from efficiency) for "9th" T26. This is my thought.
If HMG really are going to play hardball with the cash flow then RN will have to accept compromises and difficult choices will have to be made. Its clear RN do not want to lower standards and only the best is good enough but we are now at a point of critical mass. Further reductions in hulls will reduce RN's ability to justify its status as a credible blue water navy.

When the axe last fell the RFA was drafted in to fill the gaps. This time there is no backup, no extra vessels or manpower that can be drafted in. Consequently RN are at a crossroads, either reduce global ambitions and put all available resources into carrier strike or build a modest number of cheap patrol vessels to maintain global presence on the understanding that these patrol vessels would have little or no combat role in a conflict scenario.
- if the GPV were to be armed with "a 57mm gun and a CIWS", we must consider rushing into enemy to go active fighting, and accept the risk of getting counter-fire.
Why? The 57mm/76mm is only there for an increased level of self defence. It's not there to up-gun a Patrol Bay so it can go looking for trouble.
- Bay-LSD with 20mm CIWSs is no problem, because it is a self-defense system of a logistic support vessel = NOT intended to "go active fighting" with any enemy.
Agreed but lots of modern threats now exist that a 20mm CIWS won't be able to deal with.
Mixing these two will increase pressure on selling Bay-class, and increase these Bay-based GPV to be sent to war fighting (say, against fast boat attacks from terrorists), and losing the crew......not good for a navy like RN, I think.
Personally I think there is a high likelihood that parts of the current Amphious fleet will continue to get sold off regardless. Without new money, if the Albions are saved something else will get cut. By merging the Amphious and Patrol vessels these cuts are less likely to happen as compared to a stand alone Amphious fleet that has been rarely used to its full potential.

Global Patrol Vessels have no war fighting role.

I am of the opinion that a lot more can be achieved with the money that is currently available but RN needs to understand that spending around £15bn on 2 Carriers and 8 Frigates is a luxury that few other countries would indulge in and now radical choices will have to be made to rebalance the fleet in an effort to maintain RN's global presence going forward.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Caribbean wrote:Well, looking at the specific phrases quoted, I think the issue could be to do with the origin of the A140. Not being UK designed and with possible restrictions on world-wide sales (we've only speculated on the possibilities of the contract with OMG on here) could put it outside the terms of the original RFI, leaving it open to legal challenge if selected (and I personally believe that it is of far greater interest to the RN than Leander). HMG still seems to be behind the project, so let's see if it does come back with new terms (and possibly a different combination of hulls and finance).
Interesting perspective.

A few of us have been saying for a while that buying an off the shelf Danish AAW frigate design wasn't really what Sir John Parker had in mind for the T31e programme.

Personally I welcome this 'pause' but only if it's to facilitate a better outcome for the project and not a sneaky stealth cut dressed up as something else.

Ideally the project would restart with a UK owned world class Tier2 frigate design. Something really innovative and cost effective that UK PLC could really get behind and build on the export success of the T26.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by shark bait »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Sir John Parker had in mind for the T31e programme.
what did he have in mind?

It sounded a lot like doing the same thing and expecting different results.
@LandSharkUK

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Sir John Parker had in mind for the T31e programme.
what did he have in mind?

It sounded a lot like doing the same thing and expecting different results.
You may be right.

After re-reading this, it looks like a lot of the issues that he raises about previous procurement programmes appear to have just happened, again.....

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 161103.pdf

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

For me when we start talking about frigates for 250 to 400 million pounds we really need to think what we are going to do with them when it kicks off. To take this back over the past few months lots of ideas have popped up and have had some merit and something that Poulytrewq said that gets me thinking that we have to identify a war time role and work back. So If we say we want a frigate type ship that will support Amphib operations then we have identified its war time role. next we need to to be clear what its role will be. so I would go for 4 Absalon type of ships with a cost of 400 million and the main features as so

140 meters ,19 meter beam, Artisan radar , Type 2193 sonar, full width hangar for up to 2 Merlins , Flex deck , Armament of 1 x 5" gun , 1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 48 camm

Its role would be to open a pathway for the Amphib group with use of off board unmanned MCM under air cover from the Carriers and offer local area defence and NGS

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by RetroSicotte »

You definitely won't get that for 400m. Not with all that armament, and even that is still too poorly armed, incapable of offensive action.

Curious, why do your theories always have that one extra 57mm when there's already a 5 inch, CIWS and SAMs?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

RetroSicotte wrote:You definitely won't get that for 400m. Not with all that armament, and even that is still too poorly armed, incapable of offensive action.

Curious, why do your theories always have that one extra 57mm when there's already a 5 inch, CIWS and SAMs?
Firstly can you out line your idea of offensive action. Next up I and most on here do not think we can a full fat naval frigate for less than 600 million so are looking at other options. also the Absalon's them self witch have a similar sensor and armament fit (including a MK-45 5" gun ) to what I am putting forward and were built for 225 million dollars or in to days money 171 million pounds some of this was down to systems and weapons being ported over from old ships as will be the case if type 31 gets running again

to answer the 57mm question I have always been someone who looks for a different way of doing things like my idea of a triple 57mm armament but it comes down to defence in depth

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by RetroSicotte »

Tempest414 wrote:Firstly can you out line your idea of offensive action. Next up I and most on here do not think we can a full fat naval frigate for less than 600 million so are looking at other options. also the Absalon's them self witch have a similar sensor and armament fit (including a MK-45 5" gun ) to what I am putting forward and were built for 225 million dollars or in to days money 171 million pounds some of this was down to systems and weapons being ported over from old ships as will be the case if type 31 gets running again
We all know the Absalons had various other factors in why they ended up so cheap, and were not having to build it in expensive to buy British yards either. The idea of a ship with a Mk45, a 57mm, CIWS, 48 CAMM, radar for said CAMM, and that size and get 4 for 400m is beyond impossible. I doubt you could even get the bare hulls for that money.

Unless I've misinterpreted your wording and you meant that it was 400m EACH, in which case yes that is a lot more doable sounding.
to answer the 57mm question I have always been someone who looks for a different way of doing things like my idea of a triple 57mm armament but it comes down to defence in depth
I do agree, and its something the Italians seem to passionately care about, but just referring to it in that its the first thing I would drop in place of, say, AShM canisters, or a CAPTAS 2 TAS, which have much greater potential.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:140 meters ,19 meter beam, Artisan radar , Type 2193 sonar, full width hangar for up to 2 Merlins , Flex deck , Armament of 1 x 5" gun , 1 x 57mm , 2 x 30mm , 1 x Phalanx , 48 camm
You definitely won't get that for 400m.
If the ammo auto handling system was deleted on the Mk45 and Phalanx was FFBNW, I think £400m each would at least be in the ballpark for an order of 4 or 5 vessels with the above spec.

EDIT: ( £400m EACH) :thumbup:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

To be clear I am saying 400 million each

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Thanks, Poiuytrewq-san.
Poiuytrewq wrote:Agreed, but in a conflict scenario the Patrol Bays would have a role as part of the Amphious/Logistic force in the same way the Bay Class would today. Would the 4000t sloop have a role in such a scenario?
Many.
- keep going the standing tasks
- keep doing FRE
- replace the Bays in Caribbean sea
- do the tasks, Castle class OPV or HMS Endurance were doing in Falkland war
2-3 task for 5 hull is more than enough.
- if the GPV were to be armed with "a 57mm gun and a CIWS", we must consider rushing into enemy to go active fighting, and accept the risk of getting counter-fire.
Why? The 57mm/76mm is only there for an increased level of self defence. It's not there to up-gun a Patrol Bay so it can go looking for trouble.
- Bay-LSD with 20mm CIWSs is no problem, because it is a self-defense system of a logistic support vessel = NOT intended to "go active fighting" with any enemy.
Agreed but lots of modern threats now exist that a 20mm CIWS won't be able to deal with.
So we have a different point of view, that's it.

I do not like arming logistic fleets. It will increase the operational cost = less number of hulls. Anyway, they will be working in safe 99% of the day. Using Bays for anti-smuggler is not a problem, but for anti-terrorists, no. We shall not place them in "modern threats". The sloops with CIWS and 57mm gun may or may not be stationed in anti-terrorits war, depending on the enemy level.

The best ship for logistic operation is of course Point class. Very cheap to buy, very cheap to operate, has very large cargo capacity. If we arm them with "a 57mm and a CIWS", we will not have 4, but maybe only 2 of them.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

A proposal:

Related to MDP, I hope T31e program be reformed, as follows:

- "because of Brexit blah-blha...", just keep 2 of the 4 River B1s in the fleet. We need 90 crews here. (May use the other 2 hulls for training schools, HMS Rayleigh etc).

- "to provide this cost and man power", reduce the number of T31e from 5 to 4 and use the 50M GBP to enable this process (T31e crew is ~100, which matches with those for 2 River B1 with over crewing).

- Then, reform the new-T31e program as "1.2B GBP program for 4 hulls", which means 300M GBP average. With this cost, it might be possible to arm all 4 hulls with 12-24 CAMM, albeit ASW kits may be existing in only 0 to 2 hulls of the 4.

- With this "re-arrangement", MOD can say "RN fleet grows!", and "we have to regrettably cut a single T31e frigate to enable enhancing our Patrol Vessel force by 3 (1 River B2 and 2 River B1) in number. But this arrangement gives us better value for money!!". :thumbup:

Fantasy it is, but I think it is positive.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Repulse »

One of the main objectives of the T31e was to win UK export orders - never understood why anyone would want to buy a low level frigate with the U.K. high build costs, especially on a hull design which has already been built cheaply elsewhere. To be an export success we either need to sell the design and expertise (T26) or have something unique / specialist that can only be built in the U.K.

I suspect the T26 win in Oz (and hopefully Canada) undermined the theory that only a T31e would be exportable. Funny that the River class design has sold also.

Cut our losses and just build a couple more T26s, and go for a specialist (Venari) MHPC design as soon as money allows. Perhaps build the two extra T26s with good AAW/ASW capabilities and role straight into an extra 6 to replace the T45s.

Keeping the 3 B1s for fisheries and investing a little more into B2 River kit to allow them to do more is best and cheapest short term stop gap.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Caribbean »

Poiuytrewq wrote:A few of us have been saying for a while that buying an off the shelf Danish AAW frigate design wasn't really what Sir John Parker had in mind for the T31e programme.
That's the point that I had in mind. If Team 31 failed to secure complete control of the IP for the IH/A140 (and bringing in OMT to the partnership at a late stage may have been an attempt to fix that issue in legal terms), then there is a technical breach (or, at least, a perception of a breach that could lead to a legal challenge). To be fair, there are a multitude of scenarios that could explain what has just happened, and most of them not to do with "you can't build a frigate for £250m".
The fact the HMG has stated that it is restarting the competition indicates to me that this is more of a compliance issue than a technical issue (though I accept that this could be a cover for more fundamental problems).
As an aside, though, if the competition rules are changed to allow foreign designs to compete (albeit under UK control), then there are a lot of interesting possibilities out there.

Edit - changed "technical challenge" to "legal challenge". Getting too technical for my own good :D
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply