Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

My view is the T26 has too much potential to be tied down as a ASW vessel. It has the room to greatly expand its planned capabilities, so build the T31 as primarily a ASW platform with a secondary GP role and plan the reverse for the T26.

You could say we have built them the wrong way around. I worry with a Venator type design we will have a general purpose design that is less general purpose than our specialist ASW asset, and therefore be a waste of time.

Swapping the roles could make sense, a fleet of 8 multi-purpose T26 cruisers, and 8+ small specialist ASW T31 frigates would work well. Unfortunately I think that may be undoing too much work to be feasible.

[Rambo]

Been reading this thread and i agree with the last few posts. Traditionally our ASW frigates are nowhere as big as the cruiser size type 26 ie Leanders / Type 23 etc.. so it seems we have gone the opposite by specialising our cruiser' for ASW and then build a lighter frigate for a general purpose role. I think the type 26 due to it's size could morph into a more general purpose role so why would we need an inferior smaller type 31? Could the type 31 be our primary ASW asset instead as mentioned above? But if the type 26 ends up like the type 22 B3's could they be seen as too manpower intensive when / more maintenance down time etc thus the govt cuts their numbers in later years ala Type 22 B3.
Not sure how the costs add up. but we should have made the lighter type 31 our primary ASW asset with Mk41, 5" gun. perhaps even omit CIWS like the type 23. Then the type 26 with its mission bay can be upgraded over years to be a true multi purpose vessel that can be stand alone or work with carrier group depending upon the threat level.

[shark bait]

Could the type 31 be our primary ASW asset instead as mentioned above?

There is no technical reason why it couldn't, and you could reason it makes more sense to be that way round, however I would say the issue is one of economics, too much has been invested into the T26 as our primary ASW asset to turn back now.

[Engaging Strategy]

Been reading this thread and i agree with the last few posts. Traditionally our ASW frigates are nowhere as big as the cruiser size type 26 ie Leanders / Type 23 etc.. so it seems we have gone the opposite by specialising our cruiser' for ASW and then build a lighter frigate for a general purpose role.

The problem is that the "multirole cruiser" also needs a decent ASW fit. Type 26 is the well balanced cruiser we need and that includes the towed array & Merlin that allows it to be an excellent ASW platform even when operating alone. What we're missing is that the "lighter frigate", built in numbers (8-10) as a cheap towed array ship, could cover all our North Atlantic and NATO commitments plus the task group ASW escort role. That would leave only a few commitments (the long range cruiser work) to the Type 26.

I think the type 26 due to it's size could morph into a more general purpose role so why would we need an inferior smaller type 31? Could the type 31 be our primary ASW asset instead as mentioned above?

Yes, we've been looking at this backwards. Use the smaller frigate as the task group/near seas ASW asset and the GP cruiser (with capability in all areas, AAW, ASW, land attack etc...)for the long range deployments.

But if the type 26 ends up like the type 22 B3's could they be seen as too manpower intensive when / more maintenance down time etc thus the govt cuts their numbers in later years ala Type 22 B3.

Unlikely, the manpower requirements of T22B3 vs T26 are virtually incomparable, 250+ vs 110+. The last four T22s ended up as a strange orphan class after most of the others were paid off in the late 90s/early 00s. With eight hulls in the water this won't ever happen with Type 26, the class will always have the numbers to justify its logistic support structures. Something that, by 2010, the Type 22s just didn't.

Not sure how the costs add up. but we should have made the lighter type 31 our primary ASW asset with Mk41, 5" gun. perhaps even omit CIWS like the type 23. Then the type 26 with its mission bay can be upgraded over years to be a true multi purpose vessel that can be stand alone or work with carrier group depending upon the threat level.

Agree, no reason to delete the CIWS (it's cheap and can be bolted on pretty much anywhere).

[Caribbean]

I dont think that can be taken as a dismissal. The plan has always been at least 13, maybe more if it works out well.

I would agree with that. The language used in the SDSR statement was, IIRC, that there would be 13 frigates (something along the lines of "Scotland will get it's 13 frigates"). The implication was that HMG would stick to the original plan of 8 ASW + 5 GP T26 if the FLF didn't work out cheaper. If it did work out cheaper, then there was the prospect of more than 5.
Maybe I'm a glass-half-full person, but I am still quite positive about that. My suspicion is that it isn't so much that the T26 is running over budget (it may well be, though hopefully not so badly as people fear - I have no information on that and would be grateful if anyone has any concrete evidence), but that the T45 problems are becoming more pressing and that the money to pay for that has to spent sooner than planned. Add in the fact that the cash for P8 has to be found (as well as the acceleration of F35b acquisition) and you can see that it would be expedient to start pushing some big-ticket stuff (i.e T26) to the right. That then brings the issue of how do you cope with the fact that the first T23s may then start to retire before we can build replacement T26s. Thus is the T31/FLF idea born - something that you can get in the water quickly, to fill the gap, as well as potentially provide some export potential.

[marktigger]

do we need 13 frigates with all the bells and whistles? or could we get away with 5 built for but not fitted with everything like Mk41 or CIWS? or TASS? or more limited electronics fits but the infrastructure there to support it then slowly build up its capability with gradual capability upgrades?

[shark bait]

Maybe I'm a glass-half-full person, but I am still quite positive about that.

I exercise some cautious optimism, there is a big equipment budget that is growing slowly, the overall budget is growing slowly, and the language coming out of Westminster is much more positive than it ever has been in the past 6+ years. I'm still not holding my breath for an increase, but there is at least some hope.

do we need 13 frigates with all the bells and whistles? or could we get away with 5 built for but not fitted with everything like Mk41 or CIWS? or TASS? or more limited electronics fits but the infrastructure there to support it then slowly build up its capability with gradual capability upgrades?

Its not a bad strategy, its how the Danish have managed to afford some big capable platforms, spreading the capital expenditure out over many budget cycles to ease the pressure. The Italians are looking at doing the same thing with a common hull fitted in full, light+, and light modes, I assume the light could be upgraded over time if the money is there, and the Italians are using this more novel approach to aim for a surface fleet of 25 surface combatants. Something like that could work for us.

[marktigger]

you can also swop kit out with ships going into long refits or stepping down to training cycles

[shark bait]

Yep, such a system could work well and save some money if done well.

We might see that happen with the 4 harpoon launchers shared between the 6 type 45's, however I think it's still unknown if Dauntless and Defender will be harpoon capable. A similar thing could be done with a sonar and torpedo tubes on the T31, sharing the hardware depending on the deployment.

[Repulse]

My suspicion is that it isn't so much that the T26 is running over budget (it may well be, though hopefully not so badly as people fear - I have no information on that and would be grateful if anyone has any concrete evidence), but that the T45 problems are becoming more pressing and that the money to pay for that has to spent sooner than planned.

Possibly, but its as much to do with uncertainty on the T26 design also I think. There seems to be issues with weight which are still ongoing. I like the idea of the T26 being an all rounder with better AAW capabilities even if it means we ditch the Mission Bay. The Mission Bay concept should go on the MHC.

[marktigger]

Mk 41 can solve allot of the AAW capability on Type26 is the 3d radar can talk to Standard

[donald_of_tokyo]

Mk 41 can solve allot of the AAW capability on Type26 is the 3d radar can talk to Standard

Are you proposing to use SM-6 in Mk.41 of T26? Or ASTER30 ? In the latter case, are they integrated?

Anyway I think ASW T26 is OK with 48 CAMMs. If RN are forced to increase AAW capability (future ASM threat increase or so), for me, increasing CAMM will be the better option (from 48 to 96), and 2nd better will be adopting CAMM-ER, for commonality issue.

[Repulse]

Could be that the size of the T31 ends up close to the old broadbeam Leander Class:

Beam‎: ‎13.1 metres (43 ft)‎
Length‎: ‎113.4 metres (372 ft)‎
Speed‎: ‎27 knots

Having a Merlin capable landing pad would be useful, but the hangar should be scaled towards a Wildcat.

[Gabriele]

The hangar should be as large as it can possibly be. Because helicopters are the one thing that is always useful; because Wildcat is useless at ASW and because it'll be more and more commonly required having the possibily to mix UAS and manned helicopter.

[marktigger]

if the hanger and mission bay run into each other it gives a large flexible space that could Accommodate 2 wild cat or a Merlin and maybe a wildcat. but with handling gear for containers/heavy equipment. How much height do you need to do an engine change on a merlin?

[donald_of_tokyo]

T26's mission bay was told to be able to handle a Merlin (in store). I guess its derrick-structure shall be moved to, e.g. port side.

Then the issue is how about it's rails?
- Wildcat will be OK, it's height is small
- If the rail is not compatible with Merlin, I guess we shall design the rail to be able to be removed = bolted. For example, make half (= the starboard side) rails removable (easily bolted).

I think this can solve, "Hangar + Missionbay complex".

[Repulse]

The hangar should be as large as it can possibly be. Because helicopters are the one thing that is always useful; because Wildcat is useless at ASW and because it'll be more and more commonly required having the possibily to mix UAS and manned helicopter.

The Merlins will remain based on the T26s and assigned to the QEs, meaning only occasional visits to a Patrol Frigate. Yes, you could turn a T31 into a ASW frigate also, but not a first class one given the budget, unless you are willing to sacrifice numbers. Keeping to a smaller hangar is in line with the current designs being proposed, I'd also like to see a flexi-deck ahead of a larger hangar.

[marktigger]

Could be that the size of the T31 ends up close to the old broadbeam Leander Class:

Beam‎: ‎13.1 metres (43 ft)‎
Length‎: ‎113.4 metres (372 ft)‎
Speed‎: ‎27 knots

Having a Merlin capable landing pad would be useful, but the hangar should be scaled towards a Wildcat.

The type 21 is actually the "average" size of a British Frigate since WW2

But would say the 117m long overall (If we are going for a small frigate) and a Beam of 12.7m (but would go for a wider beam like 16m )

But maybe 133m x 16m the size of the type 23 would be a good size

but yes a speed of about 26-30 knts

[GibMariner]

OPV utility will have future relevance

Offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) will be able to play a number of roles in future operations by services like the UK Royal Navy and, together with corvette-sized vessels, offer a faster way to regenerate capability for shrinking fleets.

At present a Royal Navy Batch 1 River-class OPV, HMS Mersey, is deployed to the North Atlantic on counter drug smuggling and defence engagement duties. The vessel recently assisted the Royal Canadian Navy and US coastguard in seizing a large shipment of narcotics near Nicaragua.

Meanwhile HMS Clyde, a modified Batch 1 River-class, is forward deployed to the Falkland Islands.

At the Offshore Patrol and Surveillance conference and exhibition in Portsmouth on 20 April, an official from the UK Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre said that OPVs had a range of roles to play in future navy planning.

‘I see an increased requirement for maritime security around UK and overseas territories and I see a use for OPVs there. UK OPVs could also find themselves forward deployed to assist in responding to incidents, such as disaster relief.

‘High-end platforms are unlikely to be regenerated quickly, so how do you do this? For this, corvettes and OPVs can offer utility,’ said the official, particularly if such vessels can operate remote [unmanned] systems.

OPVs could also see themselves taking part in maritime task groups, particularly in the littoral areas, and for force protection, maritime security, counter-piracy and defence engagement.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... re-fleets/

[marktigger]

OPV utility will have future relevance

Offshore patrol vessels (OPVs) will be able to play a number of roles in future operations by services like the UK Royal Navy and, together with corvette-sized vessels, offer a faster way to regenerate capability for shrinking fleets.

At present a Royal Navy Batch 1 River-class OPV, HMS Mersey, is deployed to the North Atlantic on counter drug smuggling and defence engagement duties. The vessel recently assisted the Royal Canadian Navy and US coastguard in seizing a large shipment of narcotics near Nicaragua.

Meanwhile HMS Clyde, a modified Batch 1 River-class, is forward deployed to the Falkland Islands.

At the Offshore Patrol and Surveillance conference and exhibition in Portsmouth on 20 April, an official from the UK Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre said that OPVs had a range of roles to play in future navy planning.

‘I see an increased requirement for maritime security around UK and overseas territories and I see a use for OPVs there. UK OPVs could also find themselves forward deployed to assist in responding to incidents, such as disaster relief.

‘High-end platforms are unlikely to be regenerated quickly, so how do you do this? For this, corvettes and OPVs can offer utility,’ said the official, particularly if such vessels can operate remote [unmanned] systems.

OPVs could also see themselves taking part in maritime task groups, particularly in the littoral areas, and for force protection, maritime security, counter-piracy and defence engagement.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/imps ... re-fleets/

I would suggest this would be more relevant in the OPV thread. If the Type 31 turns out to be an OPV then the writing is on the wall for the fleet. However I do agree there is an enhanced role for this type of vessel in support of Frigates not in lieu of frigates.

[Gabriele]

The Merlins will remain based on the T26s and assigned to the QEs, meaning only occasional visits to a Patrol Frigate. Yes, you could turn a T31 into a ASW frigate also, but not a first class one given the budget, unless you are willing to sacrifice numbers. Keeping to a smaller hangar is in line with the current designs being proposed, I'd also like to see a flexi-deck ahead of a larger hangar.

If they have to be glorified, super-expensive OPVs with CAMM and a main gun, better not to bother with them at all and put the money elsewhere. Patrol ships other than OPVs will already come via MHC, it is escorts that the Royal Navy is short of. And if a modern escort can't fight back air and sub-surface threats, it is not an escort, but an escorted.

ASW requires numbers. The only platform that can do ASW on its own is a SSN. To escort a convoy, a task group, etcetera, you need to put several towed arrays in the water in the right positions around the ships you need to escort. Someone has to explain how that is remotely possible with 8 hulls.

[marktigger]

how wide would a vessel need to be to have a full width hanger capable of having 2 Merlins side by side?

[GibMariner]

I would suggest this would be more relevant in the OPV thread. If the Type 31 turns out to be an OPV then the writing is on the wall for the fleet. However I do agree there is an enhanced role for this type of vessel in support of Frigates not in lieu of frigates.

Already posted in the OPV thread, also posted here because the content is relevant to this hypothetical/mythical "Future Light Frigate". The RN which has resisted a two-tier fleet for decades is now scraping the barrel and trumpeting the use of OPVs and corvettes for jobs that a frigate - i.e. a credible escort - is required. This "Type 31" could very well end up being glorified OPVs/corvettes, which is why I posted here.

[marktigger]

the danger is we end up with a modern version of the "Blackwood" class

[shark bait]

If they have to be glorified, super-expensive OPVs with CAMM and a main gun, better not to bother with them at all and put the money elsewhere.

Yes

it is escorts that the Royal Navy is short of. And if a modern escort can't fight back air and sub-surface threats, it is not an escort, but an escorted.

Yes

T31 must be able to embark some specialist roles, otherwise it is just not relevant, and the resources should be spent elsewhere.

trumpeting the use of OPVs and corvettes for jobs that a frigate - i.e. a credible escort - is required

I'm not sure they are. Falklands guard ship, and a Caribbean presence hardly require a full blown escort. In those instances it is fully reasonable to to allocate fewer resources, saving them for the more intensive tasks, such as ASW escorting.

From the section you quoted, I think you missed the most relevant part to the T31;

"By 2035 as well, OPVs and smaller vessels will take advantage of unmanned capabilities and better automation, allowed for reductions in deployed manpower.

There is still a place for manned or optionally manned vessels. You really want [unmanned] systems to complement manned systems"

I think that is more telling for what we can expect from the T31, high automation, unmanned systems, reductions in deployed manpower. How do we then build a platform that achieves those goals?