Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

I think we can all agree that once these vessels are off the drawing board they aren't going to be tasked against Submarines.

Shouldn't we refer to the the T23's without the ASW fit as a basis?

They certainly aren't going to be hunting subs down themselves as the T23 currently does.

However they could perhaps host a merlin from the carriers to extend their reach. Remember this frigate will be operational around the 2030 mark, I don't think it is unrealistic to expect unmanned sub hunting sensors by then. These will relay targeting information back to larger combatants, such as this lighter frigate, to then launch an anti-submarine missile.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Dear Shark Bait-san

# XX-san is "Mr" or "Ms" XX in Japanese, an honorific way of calling one's name. I am a bit comfortable with this way, as I am Japanese. Please ignore it...

I am a bit confused about what you are talking about. Start point is "there is not enough money to build 13 T26 because of its cost over-run." But your "light frigate" is

a ship of a simple hull form, similar size to the T23, with a big mission bay, lots of VLS and with a reduced sensor fit, instead getting its data from off board modular systems. Savings can be made from simpler propulsion, simpler hull form and simpler sensors. The steel is cheap, it is the systems that drive the price up.

Already T26 has only a minimum set of sensor, only 1 MFR Type-997, which is NOT gold-plated in any sense, and what is more, to be retro-fitted from decommissioning T23s. I'm afraid there is no sensor remaining to make it "simpler"? Maybe the hull sonar?

As you say, "it is the systems that drive the price up". This clearly means VLS is expensive. It is not just the bulks, it includes every wirings, commanding and launch control systems. Your "light frigate" is very similar to T26 itself and I am afraid only cost saving looks like coming from "non-quiet hull" and CODAD propulsion. Thus, I am afraid I'm not understanding your point correctly....

But, if yes, I would suggest to just use the T26 hull, with CODAD propulsion. But I know this will not be cheap, and assume there will be no chance to build 13 frigates, maybe only (10 or) 11. This is not a bad option, I agree, reduction in escort numbers from 19 to 17.

I myself is just talking about "light frigate option", if we are going that way, what kind of ship will RN have.

[shark bait]

Anti-ship missiles is what Sea Ceptor is specifically designed to counter, and I have consistently argued that they must be a part of the lighter frigate specification

Indeed, now you have a ship that can protect its self for a time, but can't do anything about the people throwing missiles towards it. It needs anti ship missiles, the best way to achieve that is through the MK41 VLS, which you can either load with anti ship missiles, or quad pack sea captor. Flexibility and lethality in one package.

Costs aren't prohibitive either, around £5 million of a module of 8 launchers, well worth the investment in my opinion.

[Tony Williams]

- strip all the extras (gun, CIWS and Seaceptor are not extras, nor is helo capability... does not need to be onboarded all the time!)

Considering that the light frigates seem likely to be operating by themselves for much of the time, I think that a hangar for a permanently on-board helo is essential - but it doesn't need to be bigger than a Wildcat (plus a couple of small UAS for cheap recce/surveillance). The flight deck should be sized to take a Merlin, of course.

[Tony Williams]

Anti-ship missiles is what Sea Ceptor is specifically designed to counter, and I have consistently argued that they must be a part of the lighter frigate specification

Indeed, now you have a ship that can protect its self for a time, but can't do anything about the people throwing missiles towards it.

I have also consistently argued that the lighter frigate needs both the 5" gun and precision-guided long-range munitions to fire from it. It will also have a Wildcat, with its own teeth.

[shark bait]

I have also consistently argued that the lighter frigate needs both the 5" gun and precision-guided long-range munitions to fire from it. It will also have a Wildcat, with its own teeth.

Your gun will be out ranged by missiles. The wild cat cant carry a big enough punch. Both are serious credibility issues.

[shark bait]

Already T26 has only a minimum set of sensor, only 1 MFR Type-997, which is NOT gold-plated in any sense, and what is more, to be retro-fitted from decommissioning T23s. I'm afraid there is no sensor remaining to make it "simpler"? Maybe the hull sonar?

Thank you for teaching me some Japanese.

Yes I mean the hull sonar, and the towed sonar, and artisan, and the processing equipment.

I imagine the nice curves of the acoustically quite hull are expensive to produce, along with all the acoustic isolations on all the onboard machinery.

I am also going to be controversial and say, why bother with a gun. The BAE Mk 45 costs £25 million, and then a hell of a lot of steel to support it.

I am not saying my proposal would be a cheap frigate, but cheaper than the T26. The royal navy doesn't need cheap frigates, we need good frigates. Seaspear summed up my feeling rather well so I will quote him instead.

it should not be there to just make up the numbers otherwise it is an expensive waste of money what ever the cost

[Tony Williams]

Your gun will be out ranged by missiles. The wild cat cant carry a big enough punch. Both are serious credibility issues.

The Italian Vulcano GLR (Guided Long Range) projectiles for the 5" gun have a maximum range of 80 km against ships, 100 km against land targets. That should deal with most threats. And at a lot less than these ranges, a terrorist group will be firing "blind".

[shark bait]

The Italian Vulcano GLR (Guided Long Range) projectiles for the 5" gun have a maximum range of 80 km against ships, 100 km against land targets. That should deal with most threats. And at a lot less than these ranges, a terrorist group will be firing "blind".

Indeed it does, and would be great if we had it now. However in 2030 when this ship will likely be operational who knows weather that will be enough. What I do know is a VLS will be able to accommodate any weapons in 2030. You will never get that kind of flexibility with a gun.

[donald_of_tokyo]

@Shark Bait

Thanks for reply. I am go for, 5in gun, 24 CAMS, Merlin capable deck and Wildcat (or Merlin) capable hanger and good range. No quiet hull, no S2087. So your issue is, how cheap the light frigate can be WITH strike VLS and mission bay.

I do agree we can make room for 16 cells Mk.41 VLS "fitted for but not with", which IS cheap (only steel and air). This could be located near the hanger and can be used as a "tentative small mission bay". Depending on the future trend on Land attack, and UAV, SUV improvements, we may use it in future.

Here we are again designing ships to fight this imaginary low threat enemy. I don't know who this low threat enemy is, and I don't think they exist. Everybody has anti ship missiles, so there is no such thing as a low threat enemy.

Here is another point. For me, there are MANY "low threat enemy", such as:
- escort duty within the T45 and T26 air and ASW cover. Need only self defence for ASMD, and need only "a marginal contribution" to ASW. As a close defnece ship for CV, this will be good contribution (final guard).
- at the theater away from the main threat, such as South Georgia in Falklands war. In future they may have SSM, but surely not in large number. 24 CAMMs will be enough.
- hi-risk operation like naval gun support to Goosegreen (HMS Ardent's task), which you cannnot afford T45 nor T26 (also too large for shallow water, I suppose). BUT this time, the air is partly controlled by a T45 which can be ~50 km away, as well F35s and Merlin AEWs combined. What is more, 24 CAMMs is huge huge improvements over 4 SeaCats of T21, even considering the threat's improvement.

# Degressions ....
As you know, there are many "quasi-peace time" low threat operations, such as
- Sierra Leone operation, needs a frigate as a guad ship for almost NO threat
- Kipion (duty with many allied ships, including US Aegis destroyers)
- APT-S, Fleet Ready Escort, British contribution to NATO standing maritime groups (gapped so long...)
but I do not think this is on debate.

[shark bait]

@Shark Bait

Thanks for reply. I am go for, 5in gun, 24 CAMS, Merlin capable deck and Wildcat (or Merlin) capable hanger and good range. No quiet hull, no S2087. So your issue is, how cheap the light frigate can be WITH strike VLS and mission bay.

I do agree we can make room for 16 cells Mk.41 VLS "fitted for but not with", which IS cheap (only steel and air). This could be located near the hanger and can be used as a "tentative small mission bay". Depending on the future trend on Land attack, and UAV, SUV improvements, we may use it in future.

So when I say mission bay, what I mean is a covered area to put things in, such helicopters, boats or anything else. It just need some space that can be reconfigured to keep it flexible. (Hanger/mission bay, its the same thing). That is nothing expensive, only steel and air as you say.

It could be "fitted for but not with" similarly to the T45, but at roughly 5 million pounds for a module of 8 I think you should go with it. It is a great capability.


I did some brief back of a napkin sums on this during my lunch. Obviously take these numbers with a pinch of salt.
Lets suggest a ship twice the size of the rivers we are building now, so lets double their steel and systems, and double the overpriced unit cost for the latest batch. With that lets put the Thales Integrated mast on top, its a nice self contained module coming in at 30 million euros. The rest of the prices come from an Arleigh Burke cost sheet I found on gabby's excellent blog. To accommodate for US prices being cheaper than what the UK would pay I used an exchange ratio of 1:1.

Code: Select all

Name                    Qty     M£    Total
--------------------------------------------
River class hull         2     116     232
Thales Integrated  mast  1      25      25
MK41 VLS (module of 8)   4       5      20
Sea ceptor               1      10      10
Phlanx CIWS              2       5      10
                                                                      
--------------------------------------------
Total                                  297
                                                  
--------------------------------------------
Optional Mk 45 gun       1      25      25 

Obviously this is very very rough, and my prices are deliberately inflated to accommodate this. I like to think it shows a VLS bomb truck could be affordable. I'm not sure why VLS is viewed as prohibitively expensive around here. The Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate does MK41 very affordably, so could we.

[donald_of_tokyo]

@Shark Bait
I did some brief back of a napkin sums on this during my lunch.

I agree your calculation is not so bad, of course based on the fact that we both know it is not that simple. But, rough estimate it is, I agree.

The problem is that when we do the same thing for T26, we come to a number not so much different, say around 400-500 MGBP.

So, maybe it is "integration" of all these pieces which is making T26 so expensive. Or it will be more than expected "British premium" RN needs to pay for lack of national ship building strategy for a long period.

I'm not sure why VLS is viewed as prohibitively expensive around here. The Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate does MK41 very affordably, so could we.

This is simple because I am starting from T26, and cutting something. As you said, it cannot be that expensive, but it is. Thus I assume it is "British premium". Britain cannot build complex warship with good price. This will be caused by lack of technology, experience and too high standard (as NAB says). (I personally think that it is simply the currency. If pound is the same price as Euro, I think Britain can do it with similar cost. This is personal opinion, though).

To make your system simple, the easiest way is to completely omit something. Other than quiet hull and GT, strike VLS and mission bay were the only two I could find to cut. This is because I think the light frigate do not need to have it by themselves.

If you need land attack missile, you can have it from a T26 10 miles away. What is more, the CV, also 10 miles away, can do much better strike. If you need long range SSM, it is the same.

If the light frigate is alone, that means she is in low-threat environment. No need for long-range missiles. SeaVenom and/or SPEAR3, as well as LMM will make most of the tasks required for anti-ship and land. Low-threat means no submarine. UAV/UUV is another issue, it will be worth having it in future. So here comes my proposed light frigate without VLS, with small mission bay.

I suppose only two points are different among us.
- you want the light frigate to be powerful by itself, I propose it to be an asset integrated within the escort flotilla (to save money and increase number).
- you start from scratch to estimate the cost (optimistic), I start from cutting the T26 (pessimistic).

Am I clear?

[Tony Williams]

The Italian Vulcano GLR (Guided Long Range) projectiles for the 5" gun have a maximum range of 80 km against ships, 100 km against land targets. That should deal with most threats. And at a lot less than these ranges, a terrorist group will be firing "blind".

Indeed it does, and would be great if we had it now. However in 2030 when this ship will likely be operational who knows weather that will be enough. What I do know is a VLS will be able to accommodate any weapons in 2030. You will never get that kind of flexibility with a gun.

Indeed, we don't know what will be needed in a quarter of a century. Perhaps by then powerful lasers and rail guns will zap incoming missiles quite easily, but might have more problems with a salvo of shots from a gun. We can only plan on the basis of what we know.

[shark bait]

I suppose only two points are different among us.
- you want the light frigate to be powerful by itself, I propose it to be an asset integrated within the escort flotilla (to save money and increase number).
- you start from scratch to estimate the cost (optimistic), I start from cutting the T26 (pessimistic).

Am I clear?

Yes very clear.

However I dont want a light frigate at all. I have explained my dislike for the type many times around here, I think it is a truely terrible concept. What we need is a real frigate that is a bit cheapr than the T26. It needs to be a fully capable escort becuase 6 escorts is not enough.

[Tony Williams]

However I dont want a light frigate at all. I have explained my dislike for the type many times around here, I think it is a truely terrible concept. What we need is a real frigate that is a bit cheapr than the T26. It needs to be a fully capable escort becuase 6 escorts is not enough.

Just what is so terrible about a general-purpose T23? Since that's roughly the size and capability a light frigate might reasonably have, while being sufficiently cheaper than a T26 to be worthwhile.

And the alternative to a light frigate is likely to be no frigates - but maybe some more OPVs

[marktigger]

Anti-ship missiles is what Sea Ceptor is specifically designed to counter, and I have consistently argued that they must be a part of the lighter frigate specification

Indeed, now you have a ship that can protect its self for a time, but can't do anything about the people throwing missiles towards it.

I have also consistently argued that the lighter frigate needs both the 5" gun and precision-guided long-range munitions to fire from it. It will also have a Wildcat, with its own teeth.

Merlin would be a better option giving ASW capability and with investment anti surface warfare

[shark bait]

Just what is so terrible about a general-purpose T23? Since that's roughly the size and capability a light frigate might reasonably have, while being sufficiently cheaper than a T26 to be worthwhile.

And the alternative to a light frigate is likely to be no frigates - but maybe some more OPVs

The type 23 is not a light frigate.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

I suppose only two points are different among us.
- you want the light frigate to be powerful by itself, I propose it to be an asset integrated within the escort flotilla (to save money and increase number).
- you start from scratch to estimate the cost (optimistic), I start from cutting the T26 (pessimistic).

Am I clear?

Yes very clear.

However I dont want a light frigate at all. I have explained my dislike for the type many times around here, I think it is a truely terrible concept. What we need is a real frigate that is a bit cheapr than the T26. It needs to be a fully capable escort becuase 6 escorts is not enough.

With the best of intentions mate i think you are at present a little too hung up on the termingology behind this new initiative. Now we do know that the MoD/Treasury can be very slimy when it comes to exploiting marginal or vague terms but i personally feel it is far too early to call anything either way on that at the moment. Caution may be advised in time but now is not the moment IMHO.

Also, 'light' need not equal a downgrade - as i have been saying for the past few days, look to our continental neighbours when it comes to light concepts done right. Honestly, provided this programme is done justice, i am of the opinion that this new initiative has the potential to be just what the RN needs going in to the future.

[Tony Williams]

The type 23 is not a light frigate.

It's half the size of the T26 and similar to the French La Fayettes, which have been built as lower-cost and capability ships to complement the FREMMs and Horizons. Anything much smaller and you're getting towards corvette territory.

[Ron5]

If the primary purpose of the T45 and T26 is to protect the carrier task force, why would only one-third of them be available at any one time?

Historically that's what you get.

Official stats on the T45, for the period April 2012-April 2015, give operational availability percentages ranging from 47% (Daring) to 61% (Diamond) with an average of 55%.

This is considered unsatisfactory and largely put down to "some equipment reliability issues, which was to be expected with a new class of warship......the majority of those have been resolved and that work is continuing to address those that remain outstanding. On the specific issue of the ships' power and propulsion system the MoD have identified a number of issues that can be addressed in the short term and are making progress in resolving them." (etc)

So it sounds as if T45 availability can be expected to improve as the problems are sorted, and I would have thought two-thirds (four ships) a reasonable target.

No-one knows about the T26 of course, but given that it is technically simpler than the T45 and much of the equipment is being carried over from the T23, it seems reasonable to expect a higher availability from the start, with a target of around three-quarters (six ships).

Tony, I'm pretty sure that excludes time spent in scheduled refits i.e. it's the percentage of time the ship is available when it is supposed to be available. As opposed to percentage of all the time.

[Ron5]

Yes, and that's what the T45 and T26 are there for.

But Tony there's not enough of them. Even the goverment says so (we need 19 escorts) so the t26-lite will have to play a part.

I understand your arguments but their premise is false i.e. 14 frigates & destroyers are enough to protect a carrier goup.

[Ron5]

I think we can all agree that once these vessels are off the drawing board they aren't going to be tasked against Submarines.

If I was designing a light frigate, i'd refer to the the T23's without the ASW fit as a basis then see what luxuries can be done without.

So when you go shopping for a new car, do you tell the salesman: I want a 40 year old design but please leave out the one thing that the design was built around. In other words, please give me a slow 40 year sports car or a 40 year old minivan with 2 seats or a 40 year old city car that's big as a bus?

[Ron5]

If I was designing a light frigate, i'd refer to the the T23's without the ASW fit as a basis then see what luxuries can be done without.

Exactly so. A basically more efficient ship, with lower manning levels and cheaper machinery, but much the same size. With the 5" gun likely to have PGMs available, the Harpoons aren't essential.

I think we can all agree that once these vessels are off the drawing board they aren't going to be tasked against Submarines.

If I was designing a light frigate, i'd refer to the the T23's without the ASW fit as a basis then see what luxuries can be done without.

A new ship HAS to be designed to current RN standards. Non optional. That means a much larger ship. If you need more details read "Not a Boffin" on the Think Defence forum. A same size, year 2015, Type 23 is impossible. Even without ASW. Which as I pointed out above, seems a tad illogical.

[abc123]

What the hell would the RN do with a frigate that has no ASW capabilities?

Better to name it OPV then...

[WhitestElephant]

What the hell would the RN do with a frigate that has no ASW capabilities?

Better to name it OPV then...

What does it do with the 5 T23s without S2087? Quite a lot actually,