~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:I disagree. The Americans have yet to build a frigate and their latest, closet attempt at something even vaguely like one is increasingly considered to be a lame duck without obvious purpose.
The LCS' poor execution really put a big question mark over many otherwise good ideas. As I've said before I think there's a lot of scope for looking at a Trimaran frigate, as it allows you to pack more capability into a smaller overall package than a conventional monohull ship. At its core the LCS isn't a bad idea: modular, cheap and mass produced. It just got horrendously bloated with useless rubbish at the expense of useful capability, the waterjet propulsion and 40 knot speed requirement should never have gotten past the design phase.
Our European colleagues are, as we speak, all in the process of designing and or even finalising aspects of light frigate concepts - some of which look to be highly credible and may well serve as a source of inspiration in our own efforts (PPA, F110, FTI etc).
That depends entirely upon your idea of "highly credible". The current generation of "light Eurofrigates" are useful as heavy patrol ships, but when the shooting starts they're sat at the back a goodly distance from the areas of greatest threat (which is where the USN, RN and a few "first rate" combatants from other countries typically are). I wouldn't be too optimistic about the growth margins (in terms of space and power generation) of such ships either.
Where people are making the mistake in my opinion is assuming that the T31 needs to be a direct shoe in for the T26 GP. Rather than attempt to emulate what the T26 GP variant was supposed to provide, I firmly believe we need to consider the T31 as a whole new approach to the GP concept.
Ok, whole new approach it is. So, first principles: What will it do that another type of escort can't? Will it do one thing well and lots of other things poorly or be a "jack of all trades master or none" like past "GP" ships?
As has been suggested before now, given what was likely to be expected of it, many considered the T26 in the GP role to be a wasted asset anyway. I do find myself asking what exactly did it promise to bring to a task force?
Type 26, without TASS, is a big flexible platform. Cells for CAMM and a range of utility missiles through Mk.41, a big gun, lots of space for a sizable EMF and associated boats, task group command facilities, big multi mission bay for UUVs and manned/unmanned FAC, aviation facilities for 2 Wildcat or a Merlin HM.2 "flying frigate". T-26 brings a massive amount of capability with it. It's far more than just an excellent ASW frigate, it's essentially a tremendously flexible multi mission cruiser.
Why wouldn't a smaller vessel be a more appropriate asset for many of our standing tasks?
Why smaller? If you want a
cheaper patrol ship well suited to WIGS/ATP-S the build a few more Bays, arm them with a 5" gun & a CIWS and stick a hangar on the back. Voila, a long range patrol ship with a useful "wartime role": providing additional amphibious lift and logistics capacity.
Moreover, what is a frigate these days? I say the term is warped beyond all recognition. The ships that we are building today mostly have little to no relation to the core terminology to which they claim to be associated. Take the Type 26. Its closest analogous counterpart would likely be the cruisers of the last century.
I've no problem with that assessment. I think you have to look to the inter-war period for enlightenment on what the modern Royal Navy is evolving into. A strong "battlefleet" in and around the UK (the Carrier group, amphibious group and SSNs) with a series of independent cruisers on distant stations representing the UK's interests there. The question over the "lighter frigate" is fundamentally about what form those "cruisers on distant stations" should take.
Frankly i would consider the Venator or T23+ type concept to be getting back to the roots of what a frigate is actually meant to be. A cheaper, yet credible asset that can be knocked off in numbers to sustain the RN's numerous commitments around the globe.
How? Both are totally different ships. Venator is a classic "light frigate" designed for patrol work and Type 23 is, fundamentally, a cold war legacy platform designed for ASW in the North Atlantic and incorporating key lessons from the Falklands (like the need for a gun and capable self-defence missile system). Ultimately we could produce a ship like Type 23 cheaply because it was built at a time when our cold war military shipbuilding infrastructure was still largely intact. What followed was a severe contraction in orders, which led to a contraction in capacity and skills that drove up costs. The recent "feast and famine" build schedule has exacerbated that and driven up costs even more. A much cheaper Type 26 likely would've been possible twenty years ago, as Type 23 was.
In times of conflict these assets can be gathered together to enhance aspects of the high end capability offered by our capital ships. What they do not need to be, and where we are making the biggest mistake in this thread, is condensed T26s, or condensed T45s. We need to start treating the T31 as an individual concept and properly appreciate what its likely place in the RN will be before moving on with the discussion, IMHO.
Okay, but what will this ship do that the Type 26/45 can't (except be cheaper)?
And just to be clear, no one is advocating building a like for like 'modern day' T23. What people want to see is the essence of what made the T23 so successful for the RN captured in a vessel more appropriate for the 21st Century.
What made T-23 so successful was wartime experience, an unambitious "evolutionary not revolutionary" design and a robust shipbuilding industry with a continuous drumbeat of orders. We built sixteen of them, sixteen!
Some of the proposals bandied about over the past weeks are, in my opinion, just way too ambitious to do that. A little bit of conservatism, with a willingness to accept some compromise, yet offset by a clear and achievable vision is what is required to my mind.
If we want to follow in Type 23's footsteps then actually we should be looking at replicating as much of the equipment developed for the Type 26 as possible, "evolution not revolution" needs to be the guiding philosophy. Fundamentally I think the other key lessons from Type 23 are that you need a robust shipbuilding industry, a continuous drumbeat of order and a long production run to get really impressive savings. Maybe look at building 10+ of these things, if it's just 5 though they won't be cheap.
