Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

So where is your criteria between "light frigate" and "lighter frigate"? At 4500t FL?
And also, you were claiming that only RN has the good standard. Being of Danish design, how much additional cost/weight do you need to make it RN standard = credible?

I don't think I could draw a definitive line under what is a real frigate and what is a light frigate, it depends on a lot of things. I would say a Lafayette and venator sit in the light frigate camp, something like the Anzac probably sits right on the fence, and the T23 is in the real frigate camp.

The build standard is an interesting point. The Danish design comes in at 4,500 tonnes, the Damen concept, which is the same size, comes in at 5,500 tonnes and is specified as built to naval standards.

I can't comment on Danish build standards, but no doubt a British version would likely cost more and displace more. I think both would still come in at an acceptable level. Add 1,000 tonnes to the design, and double the price of the Danish ships, and that is still a cheap ship by British standards.

[RetroSicotte]

La Fayettes is also good at her task. With a descent CMS equipped, it is designed to be "an ordinal frigate" on anti-surface (SSMs and a helicopter = T23), anti-land (main gun and some Marines = better than T23), and anti-air (now with VT1 missiles, and in near future with ASTER probably added). But not on ASW at all, zero. Their range is 4000nm @15kt, but as long as 9000nm at 12kt with 50 days long endurance.

Compared to T23 GP, other than complete lack of ASW, they only lack in "number of SAMs", currently with only 8 VT1 missiles on the launcher with 16 reload. Compared to 32 VL-seawolf of T23, yes their SAMs are not VL, has only 1 FC channels, but the missile itself is similar, to my understanding. So, SAM capability will be "about half" that of T23..

The La-Fayette is far far below the Type 23. Aside from the almsot two-fold drop in SAM quantity, it also has significant drop in quality. VT1 hasn't got even a vague hope of being compared to CAMM, with vastly less range (11km, while CAMM has demonstrated out to 60km in some tests, with even its conservative estimate being "25+") and no active seeker. Not to mention, as you stated, it has a very low fire rate compared to a VLS. They aren't even close to being "about half". Crotale and CAMM are generations apart in missile design. Especially when it's added that the Type 23's are guided by a very good AESA radar, while the La-Fayettes only have a rather outdated antenna of quite low power, designed only for (very) localised airspace and target filtering. La-Fayette is, in effect, barely an air defended ship at all. Crotale is more of a CIWS than it is a real defence system against attack. There is no current program to give it Aster at all.

To say that it has better main gun and "some Marines" is quite inaccurate. The Mk8 has a noticable superior range and shell size, which is fundemental for operating in a land attack mode. (Almost twice that of the 100mm in land attack mode.) While the T23 has a lot more space to store Marines and greater capacity to launch them from permenantly embarked (and larger) helos and boats. Almost half the range of the T23 and almost 10 knots slower. Not to mention the ASW difference and the quantity of "soft" systems on board that change it all up.

They're not even vaguely comparable ships. They're two completely different weight classes in terms of capability.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...
The La-Fayette is far far below the Type 23. Aside from the almsot two-fold drop in SAM quantity, it also has significant drop in quality. VT1 hasn't got even a vague hope of being compared to CAMM, with vastly less range (11km, while CAMM has demonstrated out to 60km in some tests, with even its conservative estimate being "25+") and no active seeker. Not to mention, as you stated, it has a very low fire rate compared to a VLS. They aren't even close to being "about half". Crotale and CAMM are generations apart in missile design. Especially when it's added that the Type 23's are guided by a very good AESA radar, while the La-Fayettes only have a rather outdated antenna of quite low power, designed only for (very) localised airspace and target filtering. La-Fayette is, in effect, barely an air defended ship at all. Crotale is more of a CIWS than it is a real defence system against attack. There is no current program to give it Aster at all.

To say that it has better main gun and "some Marines" is quite inaccurate. The Mk8 has a noticable superior range and shell size, which is fundemental for operating in a land attack mode. (Almost twice that of the 100mm in land attack mode.) While the T23 has a lot more space to store Marines and greater capacity to launch them from permenantly embarked (and larger) helos and boats. Almost half the range of the T23 and almost 10 knots slower. Not to mention the ASW difference and the quantity of "soft" systems on board that change it all up.

They're not even vaguely comparable ships. They're two completely different weight classes in terms of capability.

Some points.

AAW: Replacement of SeaWolf of T23 to CAMM has just started. With similar time-scale, La-Fayette will be replaced with French-FLF. So, you should compare VT1 with SeaWolf (both CIWS-like SAM), not CAMM (local-area SAM). So very similar in missile itself including range. Then the difference is, 1ch fire-control (La-Fy.) vs 2ch (T23), 8 ready + 16 stored darts (La-Fay.) vs 32 ready in VLS (T23). Also radar is DRBV-15 2D vs 996 (not 997) quasi-3D. --> Twice better AAW in T23, as I said.

On helicopter, T23GP has only Lynx, the same as Panther. Merlin you do not have enough number, and the same stands for NH90 for La-Fayette. "Better main gun" for NGS in T23 I agree. In La-Fayette, the gun is rather to compensate AAW. On internal space for Marine, the space in T23 is referred to as a space for "a small detachment of Royal Marines and their equipment". Is it really larger than those in La-Fayette?

My point here is to "analyze" La Fayette vs T23. Comparison/classification will come later, on which I still reserve my conclusion.

My question is: if you completely omit ASW from T23 GP, how it would have been look like? Now T23 is 4900t FL (was 4200-4500t as built). No bow dome, no TASS, no ASW analysis system (=the core of T23), with only Lynx-capable hanger, not-quiet hull, it will be less than 4000t FL. In addition, with half the size for SeaWolf VLS, CDLAG to CODAD (with 27t --> 25kt), 40% lessor range (@15-16kt) but with similar endurance, then I think it would have been similar to the 3600t FL La-Fayette.

In other words, design density of La-Fayette is in similar range to T23 = credible/similar design standard. (? May need a bit more analysis)...

# Design density is very important for me to distinguish e.g. Singapore Formidable class hi-density light frigate (not good for expenditure operation) from what is needed for RN (and possiblly the French MN).


Then finally we come to the "difference in requirement list". T23GP vs La-Fayette (both are of 1990s built).
- (still) good ASW with powerful bow dome and Lynx vs nothing (no-ASW sensor)
- similar endurance, with 40% less range
- half the power of AAW and "half" the power for NGS.
- similar Marine support

Since we shall start from "requirement list" to define RN's FLF, I wanted to make it clear.

[shark bait]

They're not even vaguely comparable ships. They're two completely different weight classes in terms of capability.

Well written, those 2 paragraphs perfectly exemplify the difference between a light frigate, and a credible real frigate.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I don't think I could draw a definitive line under what is a real frigate and what is a light frigate, it depends on a lot of things. I would say a Lafayette and venator sit in the light frigate camp, something like the Anzac probably sits right on the fence, and the T23 is in the real frigate camp.

For me, if the design density is "similar", a light frigate of 1990s are, in 3300-4000t FL (Dutch M-class, La Fayette, ANZAC), a frigate is in 4000-5500t (OHPerry, T23, T22, Georges Leygues).

In 2015, my impression is that a full-frigate is of 5500-8000t FL. A Khareef "corvett" is ~3000t FL. Thus, "light frigate" in my mind has grown to somewhere in 4000-5500t FL.

The build standard is an interesting point. The Danish design comes in at 4,500 tonnes, the Damen concept, which is the same size, comes in at 5,500 tonnes and is specified as built to naval standards.

I can't comment on Danish build standards, but no doubt a British version would likely cost more and displace more. I think both would still come in at an acceptable level. Add 1,000 tonnes to the design, and double the price of the Danish ships, and that is still a cheap ship by British standards.

Then I think it is not much different from "T26GP modified with CODAD made, smaller Mk.41 VLS, not bow but hull sonar". I mean, not cheap... But if you are opting for "70-80% T26GP cost FLF", I think the Damen concept is right the design to be considered.

[shark bait]

For me, if the design density is "similar", a light frigate of 1990s are, in 3300-4000t FL (Dutch M-class, La Fayette, ANZAC), a frigate is in 4000-5500t (OHPerry, T23, T22, Georges Leygues).

In 2015, my impression is that a full-frigate is of 5500-8000t FL. A Khareef "corvett" is ~3000t FL. Thus, "light frigate" in my mind has grown to somewhere in 4000-5500t FL.

It is correct to note displacement has inflated over the decades, which makes these kind of comparisons difficult. Your boundaries probably aren't too far off, and it puts my FLF concept right on the fence.

Then I think it is not much different from "T26GP modified with CODAD made, smaller Mk.41 VLS, not bow but hull sonar". I mean, not cheap... But if you are opting for "70-80% T26GP cost FLF", I think the Damen concept is right the design to be considered.

Well to get 8 FLF out of the budget for 5 T26's you need something that is 62.5% the cost, lets round that up to 70% assuming through life costs will be greatly reduced with hall the crew of a T26 required.

[donald_of_tokyo]

They're not even vaguely comparable ships. They're two completely different weight classes in terms of capability.

Well written, those 2 paragraphs perfectly exemplify the difference between a light frigate, and a credible real frigate.

No. Actually I mean, "only the conclusion" is "not perfect".

We are discussing future lighter frigate. Here we cannot go without comparison with La Fayettes, because a typical "light frigate" UK peeple think is La Fayette and Khareef (these two are also vastly different. "Not even vaguely comparable").

For example, I found the enduarance is the same (or even better) in La Fayette than in T23 (but the range is quite different). In SSM and helicopter, Marine projection, there is NO difference I can find.

But I still support the idea that T23 and La Fayette is vastly different ships. ASW and AAW. as well as NGS. Thus, what they differ can be listed in "the requirement lists" and with that list we can say, "if La-Fayette, you CANNOT do this and that because it is not requiured, of which T23 can do because it is required".

I think we need 2 layered defence in talking about "light frigate". Design density and requirement list.

1: Many of the light frigates in the world has some "good specification". But actually, they suffer very low living standard, very short enduarance (often not listed) and short range (which is in many case clear and a bit easy to compare). To fight against them, "design density" is the key, I think. "No ocean-going navy operated such a hi-density surface combattant", this is relatively easy to address. (in this sense, French MN is a good example to show, along with USN, I think).

2: But if the design density is similar, then you can start comparison of the "requirement lists".

If they (government) say "the FLF do not need to do this mission" its done. But if they want to do it, it will be a clear answer "you should add it in your requirment list" and then only thing you should do is the requirement cannot be addressed in ~3500t-ish light-light frigate.

I hope my point is clear. I am NOT a fan of La-Fayette. I want just to analyze the difference and use it as "one of the (lower-end) templates" to discuss future light frigates.

[RetroSicotte]

Some points.

Happy to offer my thoughts on them.

AAW: Replacement of SeaWolf of T23 to CAMM has just started. With similar time-scale, La-Fayette will be replaced with French-FLF.
So, you should compare VT1 with SeaWolf (both CIWS-like SAM), not CAMM (local-area SAM). So very similar in missile itself including range.

Incorrect. FTI is a long way away, while CAMM is already being installed. Not to mention this marks a significant departure from your claim of the La-Fayette ship.

Then the difference is, 1ch fire-control (La-Fy.) vs 2ch (T23), 8 ready + 16 stored darts (La-Fay.) vs 32 ready in VLS (T23). Also radar is DRBV-15 2D vs 996 (not 997) quasi-3D. --> Twice better AAW in T23, as I said.

Artisan 3D is already in service and is not so much a "better" radar as it is a completely different class of radar entirely. The differences between AESA and what La-Fayette has in the naval area are almost exhaustively long to even begin detailing. It's the little details that matter, but in this case it also has the "big" details of sheer power, reach, quantity of tracking, clutter-recognition and most importantly, the processing power to work with it to the missile systems. A Type 23 is quite capable of ripple firing CAMM at extremely high rates due to active seekers. Crotale VT1 would need guided by the ship's radar into the terminal phase. This isn't so much "less rate of fire" as it is like comparing a semi-automatic rifle with a 32 round magazine to a bolt action rifle with an 8 round clip and 16 more bullets on your belt.

On helicopter, T23GP has only Lynx, the same as Panther. Merlin you do not have enough number, and the same stands for NH90 for La-Fayette.

That is an incredibly large leap of logic. Type 23's very commonly carry Merlins, them being the ASW helo for the ASW ship. They are very common sights on the frigates. The La-Fayette has no such option owing to the French Navy lacking such a large naval helicopter. But thats getting WELL outside the scope of this to start talking about entire inventories of nation vs nation. The important thing here is, the Type 23 can carry a Merlin and operate it completely. It can handle a helicopter described as the "flying frigate" with ease and space to spare. La-Fayette has demonstrated no such capability nor is it yet equipped to handle such a multipurpose and massive machine.

On internal space for Marine, the space in T23 is referred to as a space for "a small detachment of Royal Marines and their equipment". Is it really larger than those in La-Fayette?

Yes, massively so. Not meaning this question as dismissive, it's of genuine curiosity, but have you ever been on board one? There is more than enough space in there for a lot of big heavy lugs should they ever want to carry around more than a drug-squad. It's about the space offering that having an extra 1,000 tonnes of steel offers you.

My question is: if you completely omit ASW from T23 GP, how it would have been look like? Now T23 is 4900t FL (was 4200-4500t as built). No bow dome, no TASS, no ASW analysis system (=the core of T23), with only Lynx-capable hanger, not-quiet hull, it will be less than 4000t FL. In addition, with half the size for SeaWolf VLS, CDLAG to CODAD (with 27t --> 25kt), 40% lessor range (@15-16kt) but with similar endurance, then I think it would have been similar to the 3600t FL La-Fayette.

I'm afraid this is based on so much vagueness and napkin math that it's quite impossible to really consider as any sort of valid point, to be blunt. If Type 23 were designed to not be the ASW ship it is, then it would be a completely different ship design altogether.

Then finally we come to the "difference in requirement list". T23GP vs La-Fayette (both are of 1990s built).
- (still) good ASW with powerful bow dome and Lynx vs nothing (no-ASW sensor)
- similar endurance, with 40% less range
- half the power of AAW and "half" the power for NGS.
- similar Marine support

As you say, extremely high end ASW vs nothing.
Excellent range and speed vs Average range and slightly below average speed. Endurance is not fully known with detail yet to say.
Excellent radar and missile for local area air defence vs virtually no air defence at all. (Again, Crotale is more CIWS than air defence SAM)
Average marine support vs slightly below average marine support.

A more specific comparison for whether the La-Fayette would match a frigate without specialist kit would be the Georges Leygues Class. The La-Fayette is essentially a cut down version of it, without the ASW kit, smaller aviation facilities, less air defence (Notable, given the GL really isn't that good in air defence anyway), speed and range. It is also a smaller ship, closer to the La-Fayette. Indeed, in some French circles, they even question whether the La-Fayette lacked its ASW as a political move to prevent the Georges Leygues class being retired much earlier and threatening the FREMM program.

Type 23, however, is an entirely different beast altogether, and not a comparitive to it.

If we were to look at a Type 23 variant for the FLF, then what we would still be looking at is excellent area defence wit CAM, excellent radar, an even better gun with capability to hit 100km+ with the new rounds, the standard 8x ASM (almost certainly adding a new land attack capability) and facilities for the Wildcat. A Type 23 without ASW, would still be a massive improvement over the La-Fayette. The comparison simply is not there.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Happy to offer my thoughts on them.

Thanks for response.

CAMM or Seawolf, 997 or 996. I think our standpoint is clear, so we do not need to "fight" here. I am comparing La Fayette vs T23 difference in 1990s-2017, you are on 2020-2030 (by 2020, less than half of the T23 will get CAMM, I suppose).

CAMM vs VT1, yes I completely agree to you. I think it is a good summary and I have almost nothing to add! So CAMM update to T23 is very very important.

"On helicopter, T23GP has only Lynx, the same as Panther. Merlin you do not have enough number, and the same stands for NH90 for La-Fayette."

That is an incredibly large leap of logic. Type 23's very commonly carry Merlins, them being the ASW helo for the ASW ship. They are very common sights on the frigates. The La-Fayette has no such option owing to the French Navy lacking such a large naval helicopter. But thats getting WELL outside the scope of this to start talking about entire inventories of nation vs nation. The important thing here is, the Type 23 can carry a Merlin and operate it completely. It can handle a helicopter described as the "flying frigate" with ease and space to spare. La-Fayette has demonstrated no such capability nor is it yet equipped to handle such a multipurpose and massive machine.

You are right as the T23 hardware can carry Merlin. No objection. But, the number of Merlin is quite limited and, to my understanding, T23GP never carried Merlin for at least 5 years and even more. (As you know, T45 is also able to carry Merlin, but they never did, only 1 landing excersise, I remember). This is simply because the small number of Merlin. RN did NOT pay for that. Again the difference in our point of view is clear, and both are correct in their point, I think it is clear.

On internal space for Marine, the space in T23 is referred to as a space for "a small detachment of Royal Marines and their equipment". Is it really larger than those in La-Fayette?

Yes, massively so. Not meaning this question as dismissive, it's of genuine curiosity, but have you ever been on board one? There is more than enough space in there for a lot of big heavy lugs should they ever want to carry around more than a drug-squad. It's about the space offering that having an extra 1,000 tonnes of steel offers you.

Thanks a lot. I do not have chance to walk though T23, nor La Fayette (That's why I ask you). If you have also been in La Fayette, I want to hear the comparison.

# I've been in JMSDF Murasame-destroyers and see there are spaces. I suppose the space is larger in our case (the ship size is very different from Murasame vs T23), but am not sure what size it is enough to handle "detachment of Marines".

T23GP vs La-Fayette (both are of 1990s built).
- (still) good ASW with powerful bow dome and Lynx vs nothing (no-ASW sensor)
- similar endurance, with 40% less range
- half the power of AAW and "half" the power for NGS.
- similar Marine support

As you say, extremely high end ASW vs nothing.
Excellent range and speed vs Average range and slightly below average speed. Endurance is not fully known with detail yet to say.
Excellent radar and missile for local area air defence vs virtually no air defence at all. (Again, Crotale is more CIWS than air defence SAM)
Average marine support vs slightly below average marine support.

T23GP is not "extreamly hi-end" ASW escort, but it is very good ASW. (T23ASW is great)
AAW we have different stand point (I compare as of NOW, you for ~2020).
Marine I have no info comparable to your T23 ones (actually walked in) on La Fayette, so I cannot agree/disagree here.

A more specific comparison for whether the La-Fayette would match a frigate without specialist kit would be the Georges Leygues Class. The La-Fayette is essentially a cut down version of it, without the ASW kit, smaller aviation facilities, less air defence (Notable, given the GL really isn't that good in air defence anyway), speed and range. It is also a smaller ship, closer to the La-Fayette. Indeed, in some French circles, they even question whether the La-Fayette lacked its ASW as a political move to prevent the Georges Leygues class being retired much earlier and threatening the FREMM program.

Type 23, however, is an entirely different beast altogether, and not a comparitive to it.

Georges Leygues Class is a good comparison to T23. It is similar in size to T23 (4500t FL vs 4900t FL). With only 1ch of FCS for VT1 missile vs 2ch SeaWolf in T23 = similar AAW to La Fayette, and (less than) half of T23 original. Speed is faster than T23, and range is similar (not clear in wiki for 7400nm range in what speed?).

So T23 is surely better than Georges Leygues, though I am not sure what you mean by "entirely different beast". AAW wise, T23-with CAMM shall be compared to FREMM, not GL.

If we were to look at a Type 23 variant for the FLF, then what we would still be looking at is excellent area defence wit CAM, excellent radar, an even better gun with capability to hit 100km+ with the new rounds, the standard 8x ASM (almost certainly adding a new land attack capability) and facilities for the Wildcat. A Type 23 without ASW, would still be a massive improvement over the La-Fayette. The comparison simply is not there.

Your FLF shown here is I think similar to those in my mind, look like. I like it. You should not compare La Fayette with RN FLF, but compare French FLF with RN FLF. From 1990s to 2020s, as you have clearly stated, AAW technology has dramatically improved.

[RetroSicotte]

Well, it's fairly clear that we've both said what we want to say from the posts.

The only thing I'll really add is to contest that Georges Leygues is faster than Type 23, which it isn't. The Georges has shown to 30 knots on CODOG, while the Type 23 has demonstrated higher than 34 knots on CODLAG. Especially moreso for sprinting. (And one of the strangest omissions from Type 26 around, especially now that it's not got as heavy a worry about funding 13 ships, but thats for another thread.)

It seems we much share the same approach though. A frigate with enough mass to be variably useful, capable of local area air defence, ASM/LAM combined missile duty, long range guided gun and with big enough aviation for a utility helo, but no significant ASW or high end AAW.

I'd be perfectly happy with that.

Hell, despite the general worry over their suitability, at the rate this thing seems to be angled towards "River Class OPV with a gun" in the news I'd be happy with a Khareef at this point to have something you could at least call an escort.

[CarrierFan2006]

I suppose we won't then be witness to a QE class carrier doing piracy patrols off Somalia...?!

[RetroSicotte]

I don't know, the imagery of a QE simply running them over at 32 knots is fairly amusing to think about. :p

[ArmChairCivvy]

Let me just provide some points published in May of last year, and the question then is have we just borrowed a leaf from someone else's book (and would the same levels of specification also apply):

----------
Initially, the Navy had to rely multimission frigates 17 (FREMM). Then the military planning law (LPM) inspired by the White Paper on defense and national security (LBDSN) of 2008 reduced that number to just 11. And last, although qu'actualisée, did more than expected ... 8.

Currently, one FREMM was delivered (Aquitaine) and another is about to be in Egypt. In total, by 2019, six frigates of this type will be implemented by the French Navy. After, it is about to order two more with enhanced air defense capability (FREDA).[6+2 then; cfr. our 8 T26s]

However, it is claimed that the Royal will have indeed 15 frigates called "Senior" ... if you count the 5 furtive light frigates type Lafayette (FLF), which, for now, can not claim be considered as such because they are not provided with the means of anti-submarine warfare.

But be reassured, the project of updating the LPM [LPM is their EP] provides for the modernization of these stealth frigates light "over their technical shutdowns". And the text to add that this "renovation will include the addition of a sonar". It will be well to the join with the arrival of a new type of ship, namely the frigate intermediate size (FTI), referred to order five copies. [5+5 more, cfr. our 5+ "lighter" and all those new OPVs]

When moving to the Naval Air Station Lann-Bihoue, the Minister of Defence, Jean-Yves Le Drian, explained his decision. "To account for the redevelopment of deliveries of FREMM, I decided to move forward FIT nearly 2 years. The launch of this program will allow a first delivery in 2023, continuing the production of FREMM in Lorient, "he has said.

Always about these intermediate-sized frigates, the Minister argued that "beyond the major challenge for our Navy, he is also a choice of industrial policy" because the analysis of the Directorate General Armaments (DGA), "conducted in collaboration with DCNS and Thales," has "demonstrated the need for a strengthening of a French offer for export, which is complementary product FREMM. [I.e. FREMMs are too up-market to be purchased in quantity] "He added:" The challenge is to differentiate us technologically, within ten years, a concentrated global competition in the segment of mid-size frigates with the launch of similar projects in Spain, Italy and Germany in particular. "

Also, continued Mr Le Drian, "the anticipated launch of the midsize frigate program will allow all at once to the format set by the White Paper, giving DCNS and all subcontractors significant visibility in their workload plans (both in engineering and in production), and finally to provide the FREMM a complementary product enabling DCNS to expand its export competitiveness. "

Regarding this future midsize frigate, the site Mer & Marine recently estimated that it could be designed from the FM-400 (modular frigate), a ship 126 meters long and 4000 tons [ie, against 6,000 tons for FREMM] unveiled by DCNS in 2008. The specialized site believes it could accommodate a helicopter NH90 NFH Cayman and be equipped with sonar, Aster [anti-ship] missiles and 15, as well as torpedoes.

The issue of senior frigates is crucial because this type of building is, with attack submarines, the backbone of a marine who wants powerful. And this while the Maritime stakes have never been higher than now, including the need (globalization forces) to ensure free access of trade routes, fight against trafficking and to protect the exclusive economic zone.

Moreover, and as the minister said, "the Navy knows a quasi-permanent deployment of 5 sea areas [ie, North Atlantic, Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Guinea .. . and even the Persian Gulf], whereas only two were planned in the White Paper. "


Read more at http://www.opex360.com/2015/05/29/m-le- ... DjITlDe.99

[shark bait]

It seems we much share the same approach though. A frigate with enough mass to be variably useful, capable of local area air defence, ASM/LAM combined missile duty, long range guided gun and with big enough aviation for a utility helo, but no significant ASW or high end AAW.

I'd be perfectly happy with that.

Hell, despite the general worry over their suitability, at the rate this thing seems to be angled towards "River Class OPV with a gun" in the news I'd be happy with a Khareef at this point to have something you could at least call an escort.

How can you call that an escort? it doesn't do anything. If it is vastly inferior to the T45 in the AAW domain and vastly inferior to the T26 in the ASW domain what does add to your carrier group besides another hull? How can you be happy with that?

Add a massive mission bay to operate unmanned vehicle's from, and then you can add some utility that is not already in the task group, then you might have an escort.

[Dahedd]

The next option for the FLF might be something modular line the idea of the LCS but need it look like a "warship"

Gabriel has a great bit on his blog just now http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... tasks.html

And over on Think Defence TD has a long running article on the Simss concept http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/08/a ... -concepts/

[shark bait]

It indeed should be modular like the LCS, whist at the same time being nothing like the LCS. I think TD's SIMMS concept is much better suited to the MHCP programme.

There definitely should be some synergies between the FLF and MHCP programme. One needs to be a credible surface combatant that focuses on modular off-board payloads, whilst the other is not a credible surface combatant, more of a cheap utility platform, but one that still focuses on operating the same modular off-board payloads, but from a more permissive environment.

[RetroSicotte]

How can you call that an escort? it doesn't do anything. If it is vastly inferior to the T45 in the AAW domain and vastly inferior to the T26 in the ASW domain what does add to your carrier group besides another hull? How can you be happy with that?

Add a massive mission bay to operate unmanned vehicle's from, and then you can add some utility that is not already in the task group, then you might have an escort.

Let's assume its loadout:

32x CAMM
8x LRASM
Artisan-3D
1x 127mm Mk45 Mod4 with (lets be conservative) Excalibur rounds
1x Wildcat equipped with Sea Venom, Stingray and Martlet on a hanger large enough to take a Merlin if need be
2x DS30M 30mm Autocannons
1x Phalanx
2x Stingray Launchers
Hull Sonar 2050
Provision for Scan Eagle

This is effectively a Type 23 GP + a single Phalanx.

This ship will be capable of launching 900km+ land attack strikes and anti-ship missiles, air defence out to 60km, gunnery out to 100km and be equipped with one of the best naval helos around (Especially by the time it'd be built and Wildcat has all its kit.)

Compare to a Type 23 GP that lacks the ASM/LAM ability (Down to around 150km instead of 900km+), lacks the gunnery (22km against 100km) and lacks the Phalanx.

Add on the low RCS build of modern ships, automation and processing improvements and there is no way this can be considered pointless at its role. It's got good local area air defence (Exactly as good as Type 26 minus a quarter SAMs, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that ship's AAW), excellent land attack and anti-ship capabilities and can aid an ASW effort via helo and local area sonar.

I don't see how this can be anything short of an upgrade from what we currently have in a massive way, and distributing the ability to strike land from smaller ships than 8,000 ton ASW escorts that otherwise will have their hands full.

[arfah]

On soapbox.

Load-out We've got airsofters playing warships, now.

Weapons capability? Equipment schedule?
Kit list?

Off soapbox.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Let me just provide some points published in May of last year, and the question then is have we just borrowed a leaf from someone else's book (and would the same levels of specification also apply):

#French FTI, FREMM and FREDA story...

Thanks a lot. It is very interesting. A "126m 4000t" frigate is not much different to current T23GP (if with 3in gun, smaller hull sonar and smaller hanger with not so quiet hull, reduction from 4900t --> 4000t may be OK). But, it look like lacking in future margin. Anyway they say "it could be designed from", not the final design. But, since FTI will come out with first delivery in 2023, it means you see the real ship before you order RN FLF, to be commissioning from ~2030 (= order at ~2025), I guess. This is good. RN can "learn" a lot from the FTI.

[donald_of_tokyo]

It indeed should be modular like the LCS, whist at the same time being nothing like the LCS. I think TD's SIMMS concept is much better suited to the MHCP programme.

There definitely should be some synergies between the FLF and MHCP programme. One needs to be a credible surface combatant that focuses on modular off-board payloads, whilst the other is not a credible surface combatant, more of a cheap utility platform, but one that still focuses on operating the same modular off-board payloads, but from a more permissive environment.

Sorry pointing out again, if you expect a lot to the mission bay, the "modular systems" to be mounted inside becomes more expensive (= hi-grade), and RN anyway needs to pay for it.

If it is MCM unit, it will surely be as expensive as 70-100MGBP (=current MCM system onboard Hunts/Sandawns). If you make it modular = (not only the UUV but also the control system, mine-CIC, support jigs = as a whole), there will also be an over-head cost for modular system. Thus, you are talking about "in total (less than) 12 units to be used in BOTH FLF and MHCs". Actually, I think it is not bad, opening up a possibility to make your FLF a "well armed mine hunter" AT war, while the MHCs to be used as "less armed mine hunter" AFTER war.

If it is ASW unit, you are talking about a Merlin-ASW replacements (or even a S2087 replacements) in view of cost. UAV/UUV based ASW system will never be cheap, considering its required range, operational sea state, sensor size and analysis system onboard (SSK is very difficult to detect) and network system (multi-static), as well as the system to make it "remotely operable". It will be as costy as a Merlin, and anyway it is not free. Unlike MCM units, there is no resources kept in the list.

Sorry to say, but there is no free lunch here. Modular something is NOT cheap. Its cost merit does not come from making it modular, rather comes from somewhere else (e.g. reduction in total unit number by efficient use, schedule merit = system overhaul can be made independently from those of the ship itself, and so on).

[donald_of_tokyo]

#Sorry for many comments...

...
Hell, despite the general worry over their suitability, at the rate this thing seems to be angled towards "River Class OPV with a gun" in the news I'd be happy with a Khareef at this point to have something you could at least call an escort.

How can you call that an escort? it doesn't do anything. If it is vastly inferior to the T45 in the AAW domain and vastly inferior to the T26 in the ASW domain what does add to your carrier group besides another hull? How can you be happy with that?

Even though I do not like "99m OPV based light-light-frigate", it shall be also considered/analized as an option (and then deny).

Here I assume the ship will be a bit fatter (14.6m -->16.5m), with ~3100t FL, 12CAMM, 3in gun, a Wildcat, 25kt sprint with 4000nm@16kt range, and 30 days endurance.

Only 2 jobs I can find for them.

1: Close support of CV (or amphibious fleet) = final goal-keeper.

As you know, AAW is better be with "layered defense". If 2 "99m-ship with 12 CAMM" is located 5 km away from a High Value Unit, you can position your T45s (and T26ASWs) 10-15 km away. In this case, 1st layer will be F35B from CVs, 2nd ASTER30/15 (T45), 3rd the CAMMs from T26ASW, and the 4th will be the small number of CAMMs carried on these "99m ships". (The final = 5th is the CIWS on HVUs, but it is not effective for hi-speed ASMs). As you know, shooting down ALL ASMs in a limited time is not easy. But if you can let 2-3 ASMs to go though, the tension gets released significantly. The goal-keeper ship will help to some extent on AAW defense.

ASW wise, no idea (because I think the ship may not carry any sonar). Maybe a "living decoy" for CVFs?

A bit shorter range issue can be mitigated by the fact that anyway the CV TF has AOR accompanied.


2: APT-S.

But the range and endurance are the issues. With slower speed, the range can be longer, but the endurance issue remains. (Or/and they need support from RFA-AORs.)

Not easy to "deny", but anyway not effective solution, I think. Can they be exported? If yes, there will be some meanings there.

[abc123]

[

The thing is, the British do know better than everyone else. The only navy to have used a nuclear sub in anger, the only navy to have shot down and ASM in anger, the last navy to have conducted a major amphibious assault in anger, the last navy to have won a naval battle. It may be easy to say all those events where a long time ago, but warship design iterates very slowly, so the lessons learnt from those experiences are very valuable today, and should not be forgotten. They are lessons learned that our friends (bar the Americans) don't have.

At least the 'gold plated' Royal Navy will stand a chance,

.

So, US or Russian sub skippers don't know how to fire torpedo on WW2 vintage cruiser?

Nor do they ( or the French ) know how to fire Standard or Aster on ancient missile?

US Marines didn't know how to make amphibious landing in 1991 off coast of Kuwait?


You seem to don't see that the ever decreasing RN numbers back in 1982 were the thing that convinced the Argentinians to attack the Falklands and the fact that Type 22 frigates were the most expensive frigates in the world at the time didn't deter them.

I would also like to see when was the last peer-to-peer naval conflict by the UK? Trafalgar? Jutland maybe?

Also, that vaunted "experience" didn't help a lot to the sailors of poor HMS Sheffield or HMS Ardent or Type 45 destroyers not to get power outages...

[Caribbean]

There definitely should be some synergies between the FLF and MHCP programme. One needs to be a credible surface combatant that focuses on modular off-board payloads, whilst the other is not a credible surface combatant, more of a cheap utility platform, but one that still focuses on operating the same modular off-board payloads, but from a more permissive environment.

I agree completely with the idea. To repost part of a comment I made over on Gabby's blog

".......I don't think that it is beyond the bounds of possibility that a future MHC design might be used to test out the offboard systems mothership concept, initially for minehunting if nothing else. ............ If the concept works well and a future offboard ASW system can be built, it would not seem unreasonable for an MHC to be paired up with a fairly conventional FLF design to provide the capabilities of a larger ship between them. If offboard ASW systems can't be made to work, then you still have your frigates and a fleet of larger MHCs that would be capable of a number of secondary roles."

Obviously, before we went down that route, the offboard minehunting and survey systems would need to be proved (another job for the B2s, perhaps? I'm beginning to think that 6 might not be enough )

[shark bait]

This ship will be capable of launching 900km+ land attack strikes and anti-ship missiles, air defence out to 60km, gunnery out to 100km and be equipped with one of the best naval helos around (Especially by the time it'd be built and Wildcat has all its kit.)

900km land attack strikes and anti-ship missiles look shit next to you carrier which can preform the same actions over a 2,000 km range. I'm not saying those as bad features, my point is rather can you call it an escort when its capabilities are worse than the capitol ship its suppose to be escorting.

The T26 is an escort because it is better than the carrier as ASW warfare.
The T45 is an escort because it is better than the carrier at local air defence.

If the FLF is not better than the carrier at something, then it is the carrier then becomes the escort for the FLF.

Sorry to say, but there is no free lunch here. Modular something is NOT cheap. Its cost merit does not come from making it modular, rather comes from somewhere else (e.g. reduction in total unit number by efficient use, schedule merit = system overhaul can be made independently from those of the ship itself, and so on).

I understand the point your trying to make, but I don't think its valid.

To be clear, when I mention a modular system, I mean a vehicle, manned (like Merlin) or unmanned (like ACTUV), that is carried by the platform, but operates detached from the platform.

We already have these types of systems. The royal navy will have to pay for these unmanned, modular, off-board systems regardless of the FLF program, so they may as well make sure the FLF can excel operating them.

Only 2 jobs I can find for them.

1: Close support of CV (or amphibious fleet) = final goal-keeper.

I dont buy that as a role for this light frigate, that is the Job of the T45. Whatever we do with this lighter frigate, it will not be as good as the T45, so it is a waste of time trying to make it a local AAW platform.

There are already plenty of layers of defence against air attack;

• 1 - Intelligence
• 2 - F35
• 3 - T45
• 4 - CIWS

If that cant suitably lower the risk of attack to the carrier I don't believe sticking a light frigate near by with a few CAMM is going to make that system any more robust.

That is a whole ship and company just to put another Artisan and a few CAMM near by the carrier, what's the point in that?

If offboard ASW systems can't be made to work, then you still have your frigates and a fleet of larger MHCs that would be capable of a number of secondary roles

Off-board ASW systems are already in service, proven, and our best tools against a submarine, sonobuoys from a MPA, and Merlin from a frigate are both examples of an off board system. Both well proven and highly effective. The next step is making these systems unmanned, to increase their reach, that is the part that has yet to be proven, as you say its starting in the MCM world, and will certainly spill over into the ASW domain.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Sorry to say, but there is no free lunch here. Modular something is NOT cheap. Its cost merit does not come from making it modular, rather comes from somewhere else (e.g. reduction in total unit number by efficient use, schedule merit = system overhaul can be made independently from those of the ship itself, and so on).

I understand the point your trying to make, but I don't think its valid. The royal navy will have to pay for these unmanned, modular, off-board systems regardless of the FLF program, so they may as well make sure the FLF can use them.

Or they could be foolish and ignore the trends, stick to the old way of doing things, get left behind, and then die.

I am not saying RN will not develop it. I am just saying it will be a replacement for Merlin (or S2087), because of the resource. Replacing ASW assets with better one is not bad. Of course it will not be all at once, but gradually/partly be replaced in say ~2025 or so, well matched with FLF actually.

I dont buy that as a role for this light frigate, that is the Job of the T45. Whatever we do with this lighter frigate it will not be as good as the T45, so it is a waste of time trying to make it a local AAW platform.

There are already plenty of layers of defence against air attack;

• 1 - Intelligence
• 2 - F35
• 3 - T45
• 4 - CIWS

If that cant suitably lower the risk of attack to the carrier I don't believe sticking a light frigate near by with a few CAMM is going to make that system any more robust.

That is a whole ship and company just to put another Artisan and a few CAMM near by the carrier what's the point in that?

I almost agree to your point. But, adding another layer in AAW is NOT "nothing". What in my mind is the CIWSs that CVs, LPDs and AOEs (are supposed to) have. For example, most of the AORs and Bays may not have it (only 36 units RN has ordered). A single 12x CAMM-equipped goal-keeper can replace ~6 CIWSs needed (but actually not mounted) in these support vessels and Merchant ships. With this, you can release your T45 from goal-keeping role and concentrate more on shooting down ASMs in much far distance = let a few ASMs leak from their SAM umbrella (not small difference in missile usage, since 90% and 99% kill probability sometimes requires twice SAMs in number).

Buying 10-20 additional CIWS will be another solution, I agree. But, although CAMM is still valid against hi-speed ASM, CIWS is not. So, there is a room the small escort can do AAW-wise. Note that this is by virtue of CAMM, just because CAMM is nice.

The question will be "a 99m OPV" providing that (non-negligible but still SMALL) AAW defense contribution worth their cost or not? (I know you say "NO"). Actually, I am also very near to "no", especially if I cannot find other "merits" on the design. But I certainly cannot say it is "nothing".