Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

I think it can be designed & built cheaper, and capable of making a credible contribution to a CVF lead TF as well as having credible self-protection when cruising alone. I don't think it has to have a dedicated mission bay in order to do either of those two things.

I struggle to see how it can do that. If it is vastly inferior to the protection provided by the carrier's air wing, the T26 and T45 where is the added value coming from?

I don't doubt the ability to cruise alone and defend its self competently, it would be fine for some of the RN's tasks, however I think it is a mistake to design combatant's to preform our peace time tasks.

[Lord Jim]

As stated, the T31 has to be cheaper than the T26 otherwise we would be building the remaining 5 of the latter. I am sure I will be repeating other comments but if the T31 is equipped as a true escort along the lines of the T23, but with Sea Ceptor, Merlin or Wildcat, TASS and a 76mm Gun it would be able to look after itself especially as it would operate as part of a Task Force. As such it would not need huge range as it would have replenishment vessels at hand, but it would need to be able to operate at the same speed as the CVFs or LSDs.

If we need to deploy ships over large distances to areas where the threat level is high then send a T26 together with a T45, a powerful combo in any ones books (one the engines are fixed in the T45 of course). For low to zero threat areas send a River class, based in the area. If we aim for the T31 to act as part of a Task Force or patrol relatively near a friendly RN Base and hence also under land based air cover, we should be able to reduce the size and complexity of the platform reducing cost.

With its T45s and T26 platforms the RN has a core of top end ships that will match those of any other navy (If properly fired out that is). We will the equal of France and only surpassed by the USN. With a good escort to operate with the RNs heavies, T45s and especially the T26 will be available for independent deployment if needed.

The RN must concentrate on what it really needs from the T31 and not try to build a T26 Mk2 through the back door. We need hulls in the water to meet our global commitments, and we will already have sufficient top end assets to deploy a formidable taskforce if needed with the existing and planned T26 and T45.

[shark bait]

UK is not innovatinve in ship building. No, not any more. I can't believe why you can be so brave believing that UK industry, MOD and RN can find the right choice there

No one has built a massive STO/RVL carrier before, that didn't make a compelling argument to avoid building them.

[marktigger]

with data link you can have extra eyes on the plot, a few tweaks to the ESM system and it steps into a slightly more specialised role that has been lost to some extent in recent years.

[Lord Jim]

Going by recent statements a platform with the capabilities of an evolved T23 would not be adequate for the RNs needs, as all that is acceptable to do so is a T26 Mk2. The T31 HAS TO BE CHEAPER than the T26, as we want at least 8 for the cost of 5 of the latter. Something has to give, size, endurance, performance, offensive and/or defensive capability, any combination of the aforementioned. Yes a River Mk3 with a second hand Oto 76 will not do, but there are already light Frigates out their doing the same job we want the T31 to do.

[marktigger]

lord jim i suspect they will want to keep the gun armament standard across the fleet so I would suggest we will be getting more 5inch guns. As commonality of systems will keep cost down.

[Caribbean]

A cheaper Swiss Army penknife has a fewer number of blades. T31 has to be cheaper.

A point which has to be made repeatedly. We aren't going to get a cheaper T26, no matter what, so some compromise has to be made. As has been discussed earlier, the best bet for reducing costs is commonality of components with other designs and adherence to existing de-facto standards.

If you are going to have a reduced number of blades, then I personally feel that we need to select the most flexible, which to me means the 5" gun, decoy systems and Mk41 VLS are obligatory. All are inherently flexible systems (and, more importantly, there are clear future development plans for all of them). Add into that helicopter facilities (again, an inherently flexible system) and you have the basis for a frigate, whose flexibility is based on the fact that it's built-in systems are themselves flexible. Everything else is driven by the budget that you have, but again, sticking to systems that are in common use in the RN is clearly the sensible way to go (e.g. Phalanx, 2050 sonar, Artisan, Sharpeye and Scanter radars, etc, etc), unless there is a really, really good reason for selecting something else.

On the mission bay - I'm not convinced that it's an essential, but you could perhaps put one (say 2-4 TEU sized?) under the flight deck and/ or take up Donald-san's idea of a multi-purpose/ partitioned hangar.

[marktigger]

and what can be recycled from type 23 so Artisan and allot of its mission systems

[Ron5]

I think it can be designed & built cheaper, and capable of making a credible contribution to a CVF lead TF as well as having credible self-protection when cruising alone. I don't think it has to have a dedicated mission bay in order to do either of those two things.

I struggle to see how it can do that. If it is vastly inferior to the protection provided by the carrier's air wing, the T26 and T45 where is the added value coming from?

I don't doubt the ability to cruise alone and defend its self competently, it would be fine for some of the RN's tasks, however I think it is a mistake to design combatant's to preform our peace time tasks.

I'm struggling to understand how adding a mission bay changes any of this. I do know that it adds a lot of ship cost and a lot of cost of buying the stuff to fill it.

I also know there will not be enough T45's and T26's to protect the two CVF's their RFA train and any attached amphibs. Taskforce operations have a million and one tasks that my cutdown T26 (and Lord Jim's updated T23) could perform equally as well as a T45/26.

[Ron5]

A cheaper Swiss Army penknife has a fewer number of blades. T31 has to be cheaper.

A point which has to be made repeatedly. We aren't going to get a cheaper T26, no matter what, so some compromise has to be made. As has been discussed earlier, the best bet for reducing costs is commonality of components with other designs and adherence to existing de-facto standards.

If you are going to have a reduced number of blades, then I personally feel that we need to select the most flexible, which to me means the 5" gun, decoy systems and Mk41 VLS are obligatory. All are inherently flexible systems (and, more importantly, there are clear future development plans for all of them). Add into that helicopter facilities (again, an inherently flexible system) and you have the basis for a frigate, whose flexibility is based on the fact that it's built-in systems are themselves flexible. Everything else is driven by the budget that you have, but again, sticking to systems that are in common use in the RN is clearly the sensible way to go (e.g. Phalanx, 2050 sonar, Artisan, Sharpeye and Scanter radars, etc, etc), unless there is a really, really good reason for selecting something else.

On the mission bay - I'm not convinced that it's an essential, but you could perhaps put one (say 2-4 TEU sized?) under the flight deck and/ or take up Donald-san's idea of a multi-purpose/ partitioned hangar.

Yup.

[marktigger]

for the missions being envisaged for a T31 by itself the Mission bay and overload accomodation make more sense than on the T26. The T31 needs a huge degree of flexibility and the ability to absorb additional mission systems, additional stores etc

[Ron5]

Generally it performed well and proved trimaran frigates could work. There were some ship movements in quartering seas that would make helicopter landing a tad tricky but I don't think that was a showstopper.

Thanks, if the concept could indeed work it may make a nice platform. I would be happy if it could enable a big wide hanger / mission bay at the back.

Also I am not familiar with the term displacement trimaran, what does it mean?



I think it is safe to assume such ship installed with an MT30 would be fast, which has a certain quality.

Great picture.

Most warships are displacement. They get all of their buoyancy through displacement of water. Usually made of steel, they are relatively impervious to the addition of extra weight. The waterline stays constant whatever speed they travel. RV Triton is one of these.

Semi-displacement ships raise out of the water as they travel faster. This reduces resistance and therefore enables higher speeds. The hydrofoil is the most extreme example where at full speed the entire hull is airborne. They are extremely sensitive to weight & weight increases. Aluminum hulls are common.

As far as speed is concerned, trimarans have longer center hulls for their weight than monohulls. At speed, most of a traditional ships resistance is due to the energy expended creating waves. Longer and slender hulls create less waves, hence less resistance and higher speed. The anna's are there to prevent the long and slim hull from falling over.

The Freedom LCS design is semi-displacement and uses the shape of its hulls & hull appendages to raise out of the water to enable very high top speeds. It's weight sensitive even though the hull is steel. The weight sensitivity is shown through the lack of endurance, and lack of weapons and sensors that you would expect to see on a warship that size.

LCS Independence combines trimaran and semi-displacement to reduce resistance. The center hull is long and thin plus it is shaped & has wings that lift it upward at speed. It is very sensitive to weight increases.

So Triton is a tri to increase topside length and is heavy steel. Top speed under 30 knots. Independence is an aluminum, winged tri to enable high speeds. Top speed over 45 knots.

[donald_of_tokyo]

2. A typical CODAD system has two smaller diesels for cruise and two large units to add power for Vmax. All connected and cross-connected by a massive and massively complex gearbox. To keep shaft lengths to an minimum all 4 diesels and the gearbox would be located in the same engine room. Problems: 1) if the gearbox fails or is put out of action, the ship has no propulsion, that's a single point of failure, 2) if the compartment is compromised i.e through flooding, the ship has no propulsion, that's a single point of failure 3) none of the 4 diesels contribute to power generation so a 5th diesel is required to generate electricity, if that fails, the ship has no power and cannot fight, that's a single point of failure 4) If two diesel gensets are installed to provide power generation redundancy, the ship now has 6 large diesels. In terms of machinery weight and volume, a CODLAG system of equivalent power would be smaller and weigh less. The gearbox itself, having only to cross connect the turbine to two shafts, would be an order of magnitude simpler. The CODLAG could easily be distributed over three machine rooms with one located anywhere in the ship. No single point of failures. No single compartment flooded would stop the ship or disable power.

This is very different from what I know. CODAD in 2 shaft is made of 4 diesels, 2 per each shaft connected via a medium speed gear box. They often also generate electric power (at least HMNZN Canterbury does). But anyway you need another generator for electricity (redundancy). If you want to put it in a single room or not is another story.

On the other hand, CODLOG needs, 2-4 diesels with electric generator, 2-sets of a electric power controller (this is big), 2 motors (this is also as big as a mid-speed gear box), a GT with "huge" gearbox (this is really big) connected to "both shafts".

3. CODAD systems are very noisy, lots of reciprocating parts and lots of mechanical gears. Worst choice for ASW.

Agree. But many frigates are using diesels.

Ron5 for the size of the navy a common machinery spaces with type 26 would make more sense saving both on training and spares holdings.

Agree. So it is the "simpleness of CODAD with smaller funnel = larger open space on deck" vs "commonality with T26". I also think about CODLAD, using the same DE system for cruise, and add a larger diesel engine in place of GT. It will require smaller gear-box as well. Noise of the large diesel is only evident when splinting. No problem.

[donald_of_tokyo]

No one has built a massive STO/RVL carrier before, that didn't make a compelling argument to avoid building them.

Maybe. But it also looks like a "2 times enlarged Cavour". I agree Invincible was a great innovation. But CVF is continuous development. Not so large risk.
The T31 large LSD-like, is an idea historically we see many failures. How can RN overcome this difficulty? It may work in 2020s technology I agree, but the good-balance is yet to be found. I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying it is difficult.

And again, I do not understand you saying a light frigate (with 5in gun and CAMM) is useless because they need to be escorted by T45/26.

T45 needs T26 to escort her. T26's CAMM will also contribute the T45 self-air-defense, thus T45 can concentrate on long-range AAW. This is the same for T31-T45 combo.

T26 can concentrate on ASW, taking the best position to guard the fleet from submarine attack, while T45 will provide inner layer final guard. This is the same for T31-T26 combo, as well.

No problem here.

[seaspear]

Another alternative is the proposed patrol frigate from Huntington Ingalls pf4921much smaller and cheaper than a type 26 but having a wide range of capabilities

[marktigger]

Another alternative is the proposed patrol frigate from Huntington Ingalls pf4921much smaller and cheaper than a type 26 but having a wide range of capabilities

the 2 key words in that are "huntington Ingalls" the UK frigate procurement program is all and exclusively about British Aerospace. It has to be designed and built by British Aerospace.

[shark bait]

for the missions being envisaged for a T31 by itself the Mission bay and overload accomodation make more sense than on the T26. The T31 needs a huge degree of flexibility and the ability to absorb additional mission systems, additional stores etc

Agreed, without it we will have a GP platform with less flexibility than our specialist platforms which seams wrong.

I'm struggling to understand how adding a mission bay changes any of this. I do know that it adds a lot of ship cost and a lot of cost of buying the stuff to fill it.

I also know there will not be enough T45's and T26's to protect the two CVF's their RFA train and any attached amphibs. Taskforce operations have a million and one tasks that my cutdown T26 (and Lord Jim's updated T23) could perform equally as well as a T45/26.

I can agree the Royal Navy will struggle to match its ambitions with just the T45 and T26, and will likely need the input of European partner's to work properly, as well as a capable T31.

Our general purpose surface combatant also needs the ability to deliver specialist capabilities. On its own a GP T31 can patrol and maintain standing commitments just fine, but it lacks the specialist capabilities needed to make it a valuable addition to a task group. Otherwise its capabilities and sphere of influence is so much less than the air wing, T45 and T26, a platform with a gun and CAMM struggle to realistically contribute to the group

I think it has to have the mission bay so it can be rapidly adapted, and given specialist capabilities that are tailored to each deployment. Examples may be;

• A bunch of CB90's and a wild cat to make it a powerful littoral protection platform
• A mine counter measure package
• A Merlin and towed sonar
• A humanitarian assistance package
• A UAV to provide feedback to NGFS
• A tethered blimp for long range early warning
• A swarm of UAV's for broad area surface survalence
• or nothing and it act as a simple patrol frigate
• or a future package rapidly developed to counter emerging threats

We need something that can act as a simple patrol frigate for the simple tasks, but can then embark specialist equipment and crew that allow it do deliver a high end capability. The rest of the fleet will find the flexibility and extra capability options very useful, the very specialist AAW and ASW roles require excellent performance and will be in very high demand. They need to focus on delivering their core capabilities with maximum effect, and allow a flexible surface combatant to perform the 'auxiliary' tasks.

[marktigger]

I'd also add:
Containerised Aid modules
emergency equipment
Stores
Equipment for Landing parties
Additional sensors or analysis modules
Hard lying accommodation

[shark bait]

Yes, that is rather the point. There are many potential roles, some will be realised, some wont. Thats why a big flexible space is desirable, so it can be rapidly reconfigured to meet a short term demand.

Ok gents there does, to my mind, appear to be an existing class of ship that could fulfil most of the criteria set out for the "Lighter Frigate" and the wants of the "proper warships" and "off-board systems carriers" lobbies that've developed here.

The US Navy's Independence Class Littoral Combat Ship. * braces for howls of protest*

Had to come back to this one. The more I think about it the more I like it.

An Anglicized displacement trimaran variant could be a very valuable asset. (thanks for the clarification @ron5)

Look at this lovely big mission bay; http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/virtual/index.html
Something like this could enable our general purpose surface combatant to acquire specialist capabilities as demanded by each deployment.

T45 needs T26 to escort her. T26's CAMM will also contribute the T45 self-air-defense, thus T45 can concentrate on long-range AAW. This is the same for T31-T45 combo.

I dispute that's how it will work, T26's CAMM will not contribute to the T45's air-defense. If the fleet has a high speed missile heading towards it no one on any of those ships would suggest using CAMM over Aster.

By the time CAMM has failed it may be too late to try with Aster. They would use the far superior Astor from the T45 in the first instance, because that's what it was designed to do.

[marktigger]

if the container handling gear is right like the rolls royce stuff you could directly land containers/gear on an austere dock side

[shark bait]

if the container handling gear is right like the rolls royce stuff you could directly land containers/gear on an austere dock side

That is exactly what should be in there. Maintain commonality and increase interoperability. Any mission packages should be developed to work across the T26, T31 and MHCP.

[Caribbean]

Basically what you want is a cheaper T26 - it isn't going to happen

[donald_of_tokyo]

Our general purpose surface combatant also needs the ability to deliver specialist capabilities. On its own a GP T31 can patrol and maintain standing commitments just fine, but it lacks the specialist capabilities needed to make it a valuable addition to a task group. Otherwise its capabilities and sphere of influence is so much less than the air wing, T45 and T26, a platform with a gun and CAMM struggle to realistically contribute to the group.

I know your stance, but I do not think it is "must". To my understanding, you are saying "light cruiser" is useless because it has no better thing than "heavy cruisers". No. There were many light cruisers, was useful than heavy cruisers. The reason was, they were cheap. Great merit.

By the way, I myself is not against mission bay, so many of your list is interesting. I'll just say, RN has large mission bay in 8x T26, and huge ones in CV and LPDs. In addition, 2000t FL (or more) MHC is coming. "Dozens of mission bays". RN may not be able to fill these "existing" mission bays. Each modular mission system (for MCM, ASW and ASuW) will be surely expensive. Container can be carried in LPD, MHC, and any other ships much more easily. No problem here.

I am not convinced why the mission bay on T31 must be larger than those on T26. If T31 gets expensive, it lose its core value. This is top priority, I guess. Cost is value. Cost is number, which is flexibility. Cost is what RN's other escort does not have as a merit. T31 can (or must) do it. That's my point.

T45 needs T26 to escort her. T26's CAMM will also contribute the T45 self-air-defense, thus T45 can concentrate on long-range AAW. This is the same for T31-T45 combo.

I dispute that's how it will work, T26's CAMM will not contribute to the T45's air-defense. If the fleet has a high speed missile heading towards it no one on any of those ships would suggest using CAMM over Aster.

Why not use BOTH? CAMM is design to do it (in shorter range), as ASTER30 is as well (in longer range).

By the time CAMM has failed it may be too late to try with Aster. They would use the far superior Astor from the T45 in the first instance, because that's what it was designed to do.

I do not agree. The CAMMs range of 25 km is enough. It can cover a dozen of vessels. For an ASM reaching to 10-20 km, you do not need large/costy/precious ASTER. Actually, it is a waste if you do it. ASTER is a long-range SAM. For local-area air defense, CAMM is there to do it. With CAMM in their back, T45s can ignore the "remaining" 4-5 ASMs reaching the fleet (may even try to shoot down the attacker aircraft itself, not the ASM).

[marktigger]

donald the bread and butter of the Type 31 will be missions like WIGS, FIGS, Piracy Patrols of East africa, picking refugees up in the med, reinforcing a detached OPV and being first UK ship on scene to disasters. thats why the mission bay on this vessel is much more important and if necessary giving it extra capabilities to step up to high end war fighting. I suspect they if built will be the behind the scenes workhorses of the Navy as I suspect in more defence diplomacy terms the T45 and T26 will be the Shop front face of the Royal Navy with the T31 in the background
It needs the ability to defend itself so CAMM is the best choice alongside a 5in gun and 2x DS 30 just like the Type 23's. Phalanx would be nice though could be bolted to the hanger roof if needed. Torpedo tubes could be containerised! as could TAS or UAV.

[donald_of_tokyo]

donald the bread and butter of the Type 31 will be missions like WIGS, FIGS, Piracy Patrols of East africa and being first UK ship on scene to disasters. thats why the mission bay on this vessel is much more important and if necessary giving it extra capabilities to step up to high end war fighting.
It needs the ability to defend itself so CAMM is the best choice alongside a 5in gun and 2x DS 30 just like the Type 23's. Phalanx would be nice though could be bolted to the hanger roof if needed. Torpedo tubes could be containerised! as could TAS or UAV.

Thank. I am NOT against mission bay. I am just saying T31 need not to have a "large" one. For example, my proposal is to have a T26 equivalent mission bay, but also use it as a hanger. If you have a Merlin embarked, the space left in the mission bay will be "half". If Wildcat. 2/3. If ScanEagle, 80-90%. If none (i.e. when used as a close escort to CV, and helicopters can be more easily embarked on CV), it is a mission bay as a whole.