Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[marktigger]

Back on topic, what are people's thoughts on the trimaran concept as a means of getting the most out of a relatively compact platform? I think it has the potential to neatly solve the problem of the more limited volume and deck space of a "lighter" platform compared to Type 26.

By increasing the ship's beam with outriggers you can make space for larger aviation facilities and a mission bay on the back-end without creating a much longer (and thus substantially more expensive) ship overall.

the letters page of the daily torygraph would go nuts as Admiral (retd) choke on their porridge

[Engaging Strategy]

The letters page of the daily torygraph would go nuts as Admiral (retd) choke on their porridge

That's probably why they're retired

[marktigger]

at minute we'd be better sticking with the proven given limited budgets and how much vessels are being expected to do

[seaspear]

The Triton was developed and tested off Scotland more than a decade ago with some success

[marktigger]

its interesting it wasn't taken further. Was it to much of a step change for a very conservative service.

[Engaging Strategy]

its interesting it wasn't taken further. Was it to much of a step change for a very conservative service.

Of all the things you could call the Royal Navy, technically conservative isn't one of them.

[shark bait]

I think the trimaran concept is great, and has potential to tick all the boxes.

If that the plan we should have crew spending time on the LCS, learning what does and doesn't work. We should have engineer's talking, working through the issues and avoiding the problems with the LCS. We could learn from our partners, and use the knolage to execute a solid program.

The trimaran hull could certainly solve some of the challenges we have highlighted over the last 120 pages. The extra width allows a shorter hull to accomadate a larger mission bay, enabling it so carry specialist mission specific equipment, tailored to each deployment, making it thoroughly useful, alone, or in a group. The hull allows us to stick an integrated mast on top with no worries about stability.

Lean manning is possible, a core crew of 50 should be achievable, with space for an additional 50+, again building on the experience of our friends across the pond. Lean manning is clearly a must have, especially if we want an uplift in overall hulls. We may even want to experiment with double crews per hull, stretching the capex further, which is only feasible if we achieve a small crew and further increase in head count.

A more advanced, streamline, lighter hull, fitted with the same power and propulsion as the T26 would be a quick platform. Nothing excessive, but probably the fastest ship in the fleet, which I'm sure would have its advantages. We shouldn't go chasing high speeds, but as a 'byproduct' of the concept it could be useful.

Weapon's, again we would learn from the Americans and choose a displacement trimaran as the platform, making the performance much less sensitive to weight, enabling it to have a proper weapons and decoy fit, a gun, CAMM, missiles ect...

It may even be worth buying into the Americans sonar program for their LCS, an option to add a modular towed sonar could be extremely valuable.

Over all I think the concept has a lot going for it, the problem is the LCS has tainted the idea. The LCS is great in concept, poor in execution (they will probably fix it). As long as we analyse and take on board the lessons learned from the Americans program I would totally advocate dusting of the RV Triton's blueprints.

As you say, the RN has never been technically conservative. For the first time in a long time they have been presented with the opportunity to build a platform free from the historical tags of "antisubmarine frigate" or "guided missile destroyer". I think not doing something innovative would be a huge waste of the opportunity.

[seaspear]

A tri marine without "the need for speed" would likely be cheaper ,there no stability issues reported for the triton trals so the mast height and size with sensors should be without issue, lots of potential for growth

[Repulse]

The issue with the trimaran design I believe is the lack of below deck space, limiting endurance.

[marktigger]

its one of those concepts that still is in early stages. If LCS can be made work in a cost effective way then the trimiran may go through. However I suspect that the MoD given tight budgets and the current issues with surface fleet will be more cautious and conservative.

[downsizer]

@downsizer

Take your foul mouthed crap and go pollute someplace else.

Yawn. Do one, who appointed you the fun police?

Don't bother answering, it was a rhetorical question.

[Caribbean]

The T31 is perfectly capable of having a Mk 41 VLS. I have no idea why you think it's impossible. I think it's highly likely.

Indeed - I see no physical reason why the T31 should not have Mk 41 VLS - 8 cells take up around 6 sq metres of deck space and are not expensive in military equipment terms. I doubt it will get all the control circuitry for TLAM, which is where the major costs lie, but it would give a huge amount of future flexibility for relatively little cost. Personally I would drop the 5 inch before I dropped the Mk41s

Still - it all depends on the budget we have to work with, I guess

[marktigger]

it will need Mk41 to carry quad packed CAMM's and other stores like Antiship missiles
5inch gun
Ds30 preferably sigma
Phalanx

would be a good combination of weapons it also means the weapons fit can be adapted to the perceived threat

[shark bait]

Personally I would drop the 5 inch before I dropped the Mk41s

I would say the same. The Mk41 is a very valuable addition to the T26, and will be to the T31.

[marktigger]

would 1x 8 cell mk 41 be enough but be fitted for a second or third?
to carry CAMM? in peacetime and more and more varied weapons on deployment

[Engaging Strategy]

I would say the same. The Mk41 is a very valuable addition to the T26, and will be to the T31.

The same logic meant the deletion of the gun from the Type 22 Batch 1 and 2s. Hard-won combat experience proved that the gun was an extremely useful piece of kit, much more useful than many had considered it to be. Let's not fall into the habit of repeating our mistakes.

[marktigger]

I would say the same. The Mk41 is a very valuable addition to the T26, and will be to the T31.

The same logic meant the deletion of the gun from the Type 22 Batch 1 and 2s. Hard-won combat experience proved that the gun was an extremely useful piece of kit, much more useful than many had considered it to be. Let's not fall into the habit of repeating our mistakes.

Hear Hear

but it needs to be a common gun to the bulk of the fleet of a calibre that gives sufficient weight of fire.

5inch is the best option

[Old RN]

I suspect the 5in was chosen for practical reasons, but it is worth noting that it has a lower rate of fire, lower muzzle velocity and therefore (theoretically) a lower range than the Mk8 Mod 1. So I am not sure it is the obvious technical choice.

[marktigger]

its fairly standard naval gun across our main allies?

good explosive yield for projectile?

[Old RN]

I agree it is a reasonable choice, but its ability to laydown weight of fire is no better than a Mk 8, with a 70lb shell at 15 per minute vs. 56lb shell at 25 per minute. I hope the rationale for the change is in part due the the options with the 5in to have guided munitions.

[marktigger]

any idea how 5in HE breaks up compared with 4.5 HE? which has the better fragmentation effect?

I would agree about next generation projectiles it would be madness for us to try and follow the latest developments but trying to fit it into our projectiles.

[shark bait]

If we're talking Kg per minute, doesn't the 76mm Super Rapid take the crown ?

The same logic meant the deletion of the gun from the Type 22 Batch 1 and 2s. Hard-won combat experience proved that the gun was an extremely useful piece of kit, much more useful than many had considered it to be. Let's not fall into the habit of repeating our mistakes.

I never said remove the gun, but there will compromises to make the T31 successful. If one such compromise is swapping out the 5 inch and replacing it with a 76mm and some Mk41 modules, I would class that as a reasonable compromise, giving a great all round package, which is what we expect from the general purpose surface combatant.

[marktigger]

so shark Bait you want 3 main gun calibres

76mm
4.5in
5in

5inch gives best weight of charge in a single projectile and the new generation of guided munitions. 76mm is far to light for NGFS which is the reason we have kept guns on our ships.

[Repulse]

If the T26 went to 5" surely the T45s would be upgraded soon after. The 76mm is interesting, but I err towards using the BAE 57mm for Patrol / MHC ships due to its shared use within the USN.

[shark bait]

No, if the 76mm was adopted inwouild advocate putting dual 76mm cannons on the T45 giving us a medium and heavy mixture.

I'm not sure 76mm is too light, especially when it can fire much more per minute. For the occasions when it is too light use the T26 or missiles.

I think really what will mater is the advanced precision shells, which are offered for both calibre's. The balance of medium on the 'GP frigate' and heavy on the 'cruiser' could work well.

Additionally look at carrying something like this a couple in the well dock of a bay, or one in the mission bay of the T31. 120mm motor, 30 round's a min.


Different options exist that are still effective, and more importantly cheaper.