Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[RichardIC]

If simple and robust are the top priorities then CODAD is definitely the way to go

They're general purpose frigates replacing general purpose frigates.

[Roders96]

Having guided NGFS out to 40km with VULCANO would make a massive difference to the FCF.

So it's the ammunition rather than the gun.

Would I be incorrect to say it's the calibre of the gun? That the guided munitions aren't available in narrower sizes?

[RichardIC]

Would I be incorrect to say it's the calibre of the gun? That the guided munitions aren't available in narrower sizes?

Guided ammunition is being developed for the 57mm.



I think it's extended range that is the issue. Bit is there a particular reason an extended range 57mm can't be developed?

We're off news now aren't we?

[Poiuytrewq]

Would I be incorrect to say it's the calibre of the gun? That the guided munitions aren't available in narrower sizes?

As said, guided rounds are available for both and due to the BAE connection I always expected that the 57mm would be chosen for the T31.

It's been debated endlessly but the only real reason to choose the 76mm over the 57mm is NGFS. If that isn't a requirement then the 57mm will do just fine.

Ideally the T31 would have the Mk45 127mm backed up by a 40mm or 57mm in the 'B' position and a Phalanx installed on 'C' but unfortunately due to budget cost constraints it's not going to happen.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Off to... the RN guns thread?

[Ron5]

These new concept graphics and models are extremely interesting but totally contradictory.

I can't post a detailed visual analysis as the files won't attach but it's clear that the 4th mission bay on both the Amalgam model and the updated Babcock graphic has been removed from the design.

On the model the amidships mission bay has been retained and the aft mission bay deleted. This is strange as that means the original mission bay location from the Iver Huitfeildt design has now been removed. What has taken its place? That's a lot of extra sqm that could be easily incorporated into, or accessed from, the existing hanger space. The existing hanger is already very generously sized even for a Merlin.

Conversely on the official graphic supplied by Babcock it shows the mission bay located amidships on the port side being removed and the aft mission bay being retained, just as on the Iver Huitfeildt. This would seem like the more logical outcome if one mission space was to be deleted.

I think this raises a few questions.

1. Has the 57mm been ditched in favour of the 76mm? As Tempest414 points out the addition of a NGFS capability would be a game changer for the T31.

The Babcock graphic still shows the 57mm, 2x 40mm and 12 CAMM.

2. Has the RN requirement for 4 RHIBs now been dropped? If not, at least one mission bay is going to have to contain 2 RHIBs which means going from a davit mounting to a gantry crane system. Excellent for deploying UUVs especially if the amidships mission space has been enlarged to incorporate the ISO containers used to operate, control and maintain such systems. If this enlarged mission space was connected to the hanger like the T26 design things would most certainly be looking up and the T31's would be starting to look very very inexpensive.

IMO the Arrowhead140 design has two major drawbacks. The first is the CODAD propulsion system and the second is the closed architecture design of the mission spaces, none of which are interlinked, even with the hanger. The mission space under the flight deck is bizarre as it is accessed through the flight deck but with no suitable crane on-board can't be properly accessed whilst at sea. Useful but not as useful as it could be which a modest redesign.

Of course this is all conjecture at this point but Babcock wouldn't release an image with one of the mission spaces deleted without good reason so somethings changed, hopefully for the better.

Interesting analysis

I've always thought that the forward (midships) bay was the full width of the ship, Type 26 style, so if both port and starboard doors were open, you could see right through the ship. As far as I know, there's nothing on that deck in the IH's to preclude that arrangement. The only thing impinging on that space would be the CAMM VLS from the deck above at the aft end.

[tomuk]

I've always thought that the forward (midships) bay was the full width of the ship, Type 26 style, so if both port and starboard doors were open, you could see right through the ship. As far as I know, there's nothing on that deck in the IH's to preclude that arrangement. The only thing impinging on that space would be the CAMM VLS from the deck above at the aft end.

Yes the deck is open if no Stanflex module are loaded. IH has five Stanflex slots amidships. Four shorter slots (Harpoon and SeaSparrow) and one taller larger slot for the MK41. On T31 the deck is raised to the height of the MK41 presumably for extra headroom in the boat bays.
See video:

https://youtu.be/0lRLJbofrxc

[ArmChairCivvy]

from a davit mounting to a gantry crane system. Excellent for deploying UUVs

Would bet that the dilemma has been solved (as per above; aren't the re gantry cranes with upto 20 t capacity)

[Poiuytrewq]

I've always thought that the forward (midships) bay was the full width of the ship, Type 26 style,

Again, can't post the visual analysis but look carefully at the graphics.

https://www.arrowhead140.com/

Would bet that the dilemma has been solved (as per above; aren't the re gantry cranes with upto 20 t capacity)

All of the boat bays are self contained with no sign of a gantry crane anywhere.

[ArmChairCivvy]

\\\\\\is there something that fundamentally is stopping, at this stage, knocking thru (as Ron was indicating) the whole width, in this way https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... 14x487.jpg
in which piccie one needs to ignore the T-junction layout between hangar and boat bay (i.e the Merlin needs to be mentally erased from the 'proposed' layout)

[Ron5]

I've always thought that the forward (midships) bay was the full width of the ship, Type 26 style,

Again, can't post the visual analysis but look carefully at the graphics.

https://www.arrowhead140.com/

Would bet that the dilemma has been solved (as per above; aren't the re gantry cranes with upto 20 t capacity)

All of the boat bays are self contained with no sign of a gantry crane anywhere.

I'm confused, what can't you post? If its your own pictures, they may be too large. Try making them smaller. Just a suggestion.

As for ancient graphics, meh. It seems to be an empty space between the bays when viewing the video, why not open it up T26 style?

[Repulse]

If the T31 got a T26 style boat bay, hanger space for 2 Merlins and more sensible access to storage areas, then I could even start to like the idea of a T31e (Sloop).

[Poiuytrewq]

It seems to be an empty space between the bays when viewing the video, why not open it up T26 style?

Couldn't agree more. It's been a mystery to me since the A140 was unveiled.

I really hope the mission spaces aren't being downgraded to make the T26 design look superior.

Hopefully the recent changes are at least an attempt to maximise the potential.

[Poiuytrewq]

is there something that fundamentally is stopping, at this stage, knocking thru....

Structurally, it's difficult to see any justification especially considering the relatively low amount of weight being supported by this space.

the T-junction layout

Due to the design of the A140 I can see no practical reason why the mission spaces cannot emulate the T26 design.

If only 12/24 CAMM cells are required then virtually the entire amidship area could be allocated as mission space. This could potentially be more generously proportioned that even the T26 mission space.

[Jensy]

If only 12/24 CAMM cells are required then virtually the entire amidship area could be allocated as mission space. This could potentially be more generously proportioned that even the T26 mission space.

Can't speak to the accuracy of the below, however it would suggest that without the recessed deck launchers and MK41 launcher that there's plenty of space for a full width mission bay. Might have to lose the 'B' gun for a Sea Ceptor VLS though.



Arrowhead 140 is only marginally narrower than Type 26 and without the direct hangar link doesn't need to concern itself with additional helicopters or UAVs, like their more glamorous step sisters.

Might require relocating the inflatable life rafts that are currently Infront of the forward doors, in order to have a long enough hatch for the sort of 12m boats that have been proposed.



Either way you'd probably end up losing at least one of the current boat bays to accommodate this alteration. I also have vague memories of BAE learning the hard way, that there is more to a mission bay than just creating an empty space amidships. I wonder if OMT have done any research on this in the past?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Pen to paper, a quick redesign, push the button ... and a video comes out (run time 5:00 to 5:12)


Looks like I was slow to click the mouse ( took all but the last of those seconds, but rolling back is easily done).

[Ron5]

Oooo 5" gun. Even the Brazilians (sorry Brazilians) knows it makes sense

[Ron5]

Pen to paper, a quick redesign, push the button ... and a video comes out (run time 5:00 to 5:12)


Looks like I was slow to click the mouse ( took all but the last of those seconds, but rolling back is easily done).

Pretty sure that's the AH120 design with the through mission deck. It's a crappy video, several other ships portrayed as Type 31's.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the AH120 design with the through mission deck.

what a pity.... the launch method isn't davits, either (at that point of the video)

[Ron5]

Wrong thread

[Lord Jim]

Could the two bays on each side to merged into on large bay with variable width davits to accommodate one or more craft of a different size each side? Just a thought.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The CAMM VLS silo is in the middle of the area.

Then, how about simply moving the CAMM to the port side-wall, if a gantry (or alike to slide the boats *1) can be equipped?

This will generate a large space with
- 19.5- CAMM VLS width (~4 m?) wide
- ~10 m long
- 5+ m high
space as the forward mission bay.

And, at the starboard side, it can be connected with the 2nd boat bay which will be 5W x10L x5+H m.

*1: may be even just rails on the floor, with "trays" to carry boats, and a simple crane near the door?

[ArmChairCivvy]

generate a large space

this was my point, combined with
" stop playing with" davits when there are better methods for launch/ recovery of varying sizes (the nomenclature for 'the what in that' being rather wider than just boats)
- just for starters, take the CUSV compatible with both USN LCS configurations, with a length of 39ft; beam of 10.25ft

[Aethulwulf]

While everyone here is busy making their last minute changes to the T31 requirements, can I point out that the T26 has a boat bay plus the multi-mission space. Thus, if the multi-mission space is used by 4 RM craft which are all off doing some maritime interdiction (for example), the T26 will still have a ship's boat for man-overboard safety tasks.

The T31, with just 4 boat bays, means that just 3 boats will be available for operations with one always remaining behind for ship safety tasks.

[Tempest414]

While everyone here is busy making their last minute changes to the T31 requirements, can I point out that the T26 has a boat bay plus the multi-mission space. Thus, if the multi-mission space is used by 4 RM craft which are all off doing some maritime interdiction (for example), the T26 will still have a ship's boat for man-overboard safety tasks.

The T31, with just 4 boat bays, means that just 3 boats will be available for operations with one always remaining behind for ship safety tasks.

At 1 billion pounds Type 26 is in a different class on every maker except range to type 31 so it should be able to do more the problem is we have spent 8 billion on 8 ships that will do only 2 jobs i.e Carrier group ASW and TAS. Again we will have to see what we get from type 31.

This brings us back to the fact that type 31 should have been built as a Carrier group only ASW ship allowing type 26 to be the Global combat ship we needed post Brexit and there should of been 8 ships in each class