Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[marktigger]

the main role for the gun on British warships is Naval Gunfire support and for effect and efficiency the 5in gun is best.
and that not only includes in direct support of land forces but also "Gun Raids" that naval forces can carry out independently.

How many LCVP's or LCU's are you prepared to sacrifice to put in a limited number of fire support vessels?

ok

57mm Bofors
projectile weight 2.4 KG
Max Range 17Km
Rate of Fire 220 rounds per min

76mm Super Rapid
Projectile Weight 6.3Kg
Range normal 16Km
Volcano 40km
rate of fire 120 rounds per min

127mm
shell weight: 34.5kg
max range normal 24km
volcano 100km
rate of fire 16-20 rounds per minute

so which is more efficient?

[shark bait]

That defends how you define efficient.

127mm had a greater range and effect per round
76mm has a greater mass per min and less cost per round.

I'm not going to dispute that bigger is better, but it is also more costly. The T31 is not suppose to be the best we can do rather it should be the cheaper workhorse. I think the 76mm make a good compromise between cost and capability.

[Caribbean]

The 76mm STRALES with DART ammunition also makes a pretty decent CIWS

[marktigger]

That defends how you define efficient.

127mm had a greater range and effect per round
76mm has a greater mass per min and less cost per round.

I'm not going to dispute that bigger is better, but it is also more costly. The T31 is not suppose to be the best we can do rather it should be the cheaper workhorse. I think the 76mm make a good compromise between cost and capability.

problem is to get the same weight of explosive on the ground you are firing more rounds which will spread our giving a mean point of impact as opposed to a point of impact there by the explosive yeild is spread out.

[marktigger]

The 76mm STRALES with DART ammunition also makes a pretty decent CIWS

as has been stated the main guns primary role is NGFS not ciws and 5in is the more efficient for that.

[Repulse]

the main role for the gun on British warships is Naval Gunfire support and for effect and efficiency the 5in gun is best.

For T26s and T45s yes, and hopefully a future hybrid LPD+ could also get a 5" upfront also - Patrol vessels no, the gun is there for self defence (ASuW and AAW) and to stop ships trying to escape or get close to HVUs.

[marktigger]

type 31 is envisaged as a Light frigate therefore it will be expected to provide NGFS as part of its role.

Hybrid LPD+ where did that come from?

The LPD's Albion and Bulwark will be around for a few years yet and should be replaced by LPH(D) like the Canberra class, Juan Carlos I class. Wasp class and America classes. It provides a much more flexible approach to amphibious warfare.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

^ Agreed on both counts.

As an aside, I still think the Venator 110 design is the way to go on this. It already partially exists, it's realistic and while it doesn't offer everything that various people have asked for here, i'd say it nonetheless has the potential to be a credible, useful warfighting asset.

[marktigger]

union jack
I agree the Venator 110 would be great starting point however the govt wants it initally to keep BaE's drawing office in business so goodness knows what will come out.

[Engaging Strategy]

Not entirely impossoble. The Venator concept is just that, a concept. Not much beyond a powerpoint. You'd need to actually design the thing before you could build it. I'm still keen on the trimaran idea though.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Surely there is nothing to say you couldn't have a consortium based effort going in order to develop BMT's base Venator design? That is of course, if the government really is adamant about involving BAE in all elements of the T31 project for industrial reasons. You never know, they could tell BAE to take a hike when it comes to their involvement in the design process?

[shark bait]

The BMT Venator is no more of a design than that steamer that was 'Dreadnought 2050'. It is a concept and some studies put together to make a nice render to put on their brochure.

BMT are a consultancy group not a design house. They make their money by partnering with design houses and producing high level studies to ultimately reduce the project risk. They rose to fame doing exactly this with the carriers, which is a joint engineering effort by BAE, Thales and BMT as consultants. The BMT Venator design does not exist, we couldn't simply purchase the blue prints, and the effort would require significant engineering input from BAE.

All that is not a bad thing, it is just wrong to think BMT could hand over some engineering drawing is exchange for cash, removing BAE and all the problems with British defence procurement.

On to the Venator concept, its not a very good one. Its a design for regional and coastal navy's, which the Royal Navy clearly isn't it has SSN's, Carriers and cruisers to support. A regional frigate doesn't fit into its structure at all. The concept is a poor choice on many levels, the idea a ship with a 5 inch gun and CAMM will solve all the navys problems at one is very mislead. That concept may have worked well in 70's, but the type 31 will be with us for the next half a century, in which case CAMM and a gun just wont do.

The T26 designers recognised this, and that what it is equipped as a large go any where, do anything light cruiser, with a flexible combat system, with flexible weapons and a flexible mission bay. However the T26 is in a different position, submarines will never go away, the T26 will have a job for life, just chasing submarines.

The type 31 will not have any job for life. Things are changing now faster than they ever have done before, and the T31 need to be equipped to be as credible in 2050 as it is in 2020. CAMM and a gun will not achieve that.

It needs the size to it can have the sensors, weapons and endurance to hold the enemy beyond stand off ranges, and wait to find a weakness to exploit.

A small coastal frigate simply cannot achieve that;

• Its too small to pack sensors to increase it sphere of influence
• It wont have the endurance expected by a global navy
• It cannot have the space demanded by a modern flexible general purpose frigate
• Terrible margins for growth and rapid developments
• Lacks the space to pack a stand off, multi domain weapons suite
• Lack the influence to command a coalition task force
• Looks like all the other european navy's that do very little

In short all that adds up to make a frigate that lacks the credibility demanded by the Royal Navy. A fleet that operates as a system of system is only as strong as its weakest link. That weakest link will by the Venator, which will damage the credibility of the Royal Navy, there are very good reasons why these types have been avoided for the last few decades, we should avoid making those mistake again in the search for a bigger fleet number on Wikipedia.

Cheap is still money wasted if it doesn't buy credibility.

[Caribbean]

NGFS is, however, not the sole purpose of the main gun - both naval fires and CIWS are relevant considerations. AAA/CIWS was said to be one of the main functions of the 4.5" guns in 82. I even remember a claim that an Exocet was shot down by a 4.5", though I have no idea whether that was actually true, or a bit of misdirection.

[Lord Jim]

The key to this whole project is going to be that the T31 MUST be cheaper than the T26. It may be the same size, even the same hull as that is the cheapest part of the platform.
Same engines? possibly.
Same hanger? probably.
Artisan? probably, this is going to be the common radar for the fleet with the exception of the AAW platforms.
Mk41 VLS? unlikely.
Sea Ceptor? Definitely.
5" Gun? unlikely. Possibly smaller calibre.
Simpler Mission Bay? possibly.
TASS? probably fitted for not with.
CIWS? Probably Phalanx or linked to type of main gun.
Endurance? Less than T26/45 as will probably operate with RFA or home ported in region it is deployed.

The T31 should be called the Future "Cheaper" Frigate because that it what it is going to be. If it is to be equal to the T26 in capability we should simply build the number of T26s originally planned, but someone has decided that somehow we need to increase the size of our fleet and so to get more for the same or even less funds the T31 by default has to be cheaper. So taking the T26 as a starting point, what can be removed, altered to achieve this?

[Engaging Strategy]

The key to this whole project is going to be that the T31 MUST be cheaper than the T26. It may be the same size, even the same hull as that is the cheapest part of the platform.
Same engines? possibly.
Same hangar? probably.
Artisan? probably, this is going to be the common radar for the fleet with the exception of the AAW platforms.

Whatever emerges won't have a Type 26 hull, otherwise we'd just be building T-26 GP. However, it may be a shortened/modified variant of said hull.

Mk41 VLS? unlikely.

To not even have space reserved for Mk.41 and have it FFBNW would be seriously short sighted. Those cells give it easy growth potential and a common pool of weapons constantly under development. I'd say start with 8 cells with space reserved for 24. Put it amidships in order to save on overall length.

Sea Ceptor? Definitely.
5" Gun? unlikely. Possibly smaller calibre.

I don't see the reason for some people's obsession with getting a smaller main gun for this thing. The RN should have, for the sake of logistical simplicity, a single class of main gun for its escorts. Having a 50% 5" and 50% 76mm fleet unnecessarily doubles the size of the back-end logistics support structures, wasting more £ that needs to be spent on getting escort hulls in the water.

Simpler Mission Bay? possibly.
TASS? probably fitted for not with.
CIWS? Probably Phalanx or linked to type of main gun.

How do you make the mission bay simpler? Smaller, sure, but simpler? TASS is unnecessary, a bow dome should suffice. CIWS would be a single Phalanx, possibly on the hangar or bridge roof.

Endurance? Less than T26/45 as will probably operate with RFA or home ported in region it is deployed.

Regional basing facilities don't exist in most of the RN's stomping grounds, we can't assume they will in future either. Warship endurance is cheaper than overseas bases or building more RFAs.

The T31 should be called the Future "Cheaper" Frigate because that it what it is going to be. If it is to be equal to the T26 in capability we should simply build the number of T26s originally planned, but someone has decided that somehow we need to increase the size of our fleet and so to get more for the same or even less funds the T31 by default has to be cheaper. So taking the T26 as a starting point, what can be removed, altered to achieve this?

All the high-end ASW specialisations, TASS, some crew facilities (accept a smaller EMF), mission bay with 50% the capacity of T-26 (maybe have the bay amidships on one side of the ship & space for Mk. 41 Cells next to it on the other side). Reduced sensor mast height (smaller hull).

That's jut off the top of my head.

[marktigger]

NGFS is, however, not the sole purpose of the main gun - both naval fires and CIWS are relevant considerations. AAA/CIWS was said to be one of the main functions of the 4.5" guns in 82. I even remember a claim that an Exocet was shot down by a 4.5", though I have no idea whether that was actually true, or a bit of misdirection.

The primary reason the 4.5 was put on to the Type 22/II, Type 23 and Type 45 and why the 5in is going on Type 26 is to Provide NGFS. and the 5in Can also be used as part of the Close in defence like the 4.5 was in the past but its a minor role.

[marktigger]

Mk41 VLS? unlikely.
Sea Ceptor? Definitely.

What are you planning on Launching the Sea Ceptor out of?

[Engaging Strategy]

The primary reason the 4.5 was put on to the Type 22/II, Type 23 and Type 45 and why the 5in is going on Type 26 is to Provide NGFS. and the 5in Can also be used as part of the Close in defence like the 4.5 was in the past but its a minor role.

The 4.5" gun's AA capability was proved to be mostly useless in the Falklands, the specialist shells weren't replaced at the end if their lives. I see no reason why we'd want to resurrect an ineffective minor capability for the gun, when it'd just mean less ammunition for NGFS in the magazine.

[Gabriele]

Mk41 VLS? unlikely.
Sea Ceptor? Definitely.

What are you planning on Launching the Sea Ceptor out of?

Sea Ceptor needs little more than a hole where the canister/launcher can slot in. It does not need Sylver nor MK41.

[Engaging Strategy]

Sea Ceptor needs little more than a hole where the canister/launcher can slot in. It does not need Sylver nor MK41.

I believe they could be quad packed in the Sylver/Mk.41 cells though? If this is possible maybe it'd make sense just to have Mk.41 cells and launch your CAMM from those rather than have two separate launchers, one of which is only good for CAMM?

[marktigger]

"Sea Ceptor will operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration, various flexible canister configurations are also available. The Soft Vertical Launch technology reduces system mass and eases installation."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/maritime-su ... ea-ceptor/

so it would appear to need a little more than a hole in the deck Gabriele it needs interfaces with the ships systems and sensors!

The Kiwi's have Quad packed them on the ANZAC and The Type 23 is using them from the old seawolf silos Quad packed. I suspect Quad packing is a good idea and the Mk 41 does give a large degree of flexibility.

[shark bait]

It really does require little more than a hole in the deck. It is a completely non intrusive, platform agnostic system, which is what makes it so attractive. Without that it wouldn't be an impressive system.

Quadpacking into a Mk41 would be nice from a flexibility point of view, the missile fit could be fine tuned to meet each missions demands. However when filled with CAMM there will be a few decks of empty silo left empty underneath the CAMM canisters, and it does rather remove the benefit of CAMM which can be placed anywhere without worrying about exhaust management.

I would vote with minimal CAMM fit, with the option to increase on a deployment by deployment basis through using the Mk41.

[Gabriele]

Sea Ceptor needs little more than a hole where the canister/launcher can slot in. It does not need Sylver nor MK41.

I believe they could be quad packed in the Sylver/Mk.41 cells though? If this is possible maybe it'd make sense just to have Mk.41 cells and launch your CAMM from those rather than have two separate launchers, one of which is only good for CAMM?

You can, but mostly it makes sense when retrofitting a ship that does not have alternative space to use. Why spend considerably more for the same thing, otherwise? You could in theory remove the adapter and the CAMM rounds to carry something else... but in practice it is highly unlikely you would go anywhere without a fixed portion of anti-air missiles, for obvious reasons.

This is probably (part of) why the Type 26 herself does not put CAMM into MK41. The other reason might be that there simply is no depth and beam to put more modules ahead of those already in the design.

[Gabriele]

"Sea Ceptor will operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration, various flexible canister configurations are also available. The Soft Vertical Launch technology reduces system mass and eases installation."

http://www.mbda-systems.com/maritime-su ... ea-ceptor/

so it would appear to need a little more than a hole in the deck Gabriele it needs interfaces with the ships systems and sensors!

The Kiwi's have Quad packed them on the ANZAC and The Type 23 is using them from the old seawolf silos Quad packed. I suspect Quad packing is a good idea and the Mk 41 does give a large degree of flexibility.

You have got your facts mixed up. You can (in theory) quad-pack into Sylver (never actually tried) and you can slot a ExLS adapter into a MK41 cell to carry 4 CAMM.

But you don't need to. The ANZAC already have the MK41 cells and no real space where to cut new holes, so using those is only logical. Type 23 will use the space previously used by Sea Wolf, but the silo will be torn apart and rebuilt differently, and will NOT use any Sylver or MK41 module, but just "holes". The reason is really simple: if there is no hot exhaust to manage, you don't really need a VLS with all its physical strenght and exhaust escape route.

[marktigger]

hmmm interesting Gabriele Type 26 hasn't been built yet !

so MBDA have their facts mixed up?

the quote is directly from their site!