Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

What will be the result of the 'Lighter Frigate' programme?

Programme cancelled, RN down to 14 escorts
52
10%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
14
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
127
25%
An LCS-like modular ship
22
4%
A modernised Type 23
24
5%
A Type 26-lite
71
14%
Less than 5 hulls
22
4%
5 hulls
71
14%
More than 5 hulls
103
20%
 
Total votes: 506

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Repulse »

marktigger wrote:But maybe 133m x 16m the size of the type 23 would be a good size
My view is @110m is enough. The T31 can end two ways, the first is to be laser focused on what is needed, spend limited money on design and keep as close to what is there and real as possible. The second is to repeat history and start with something more ambitious, add more future proof ambition, pay more and more on design, end up with something close to a T26, which we cannot afford in numbers, cancel the whole lot.

I know my preference :) They just need to start now!
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

correct they need to get something in the water.

but i'd rather we spent a little more on inital build that has some margins for modernisation and we don't run into the issues with the blackwood, type 21, and type 23

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by PAUL MARSAY »

i agree we need something in build asap not more studies and that should be the type 31 , 2 for 1 on replacing the early type 23 would be fantastic . ASW focused with a 5inch gun for NGFS, CAMM for AAW and a hangar/ flex deck sized as hanger on the type 23 with a merlin sized flight deck . I would carry a Tass probably containerized for ASW detection and a Wildcat to prosecute the contact as with the type12/ wasp combo . The type 26 has become the GP warship and should be developed further to pad out this role ie improved radar more vls silo,s forward and more CAMM silo,s midships .

rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by rec »

On the type 31 frigate, do read http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... cts-delays

I think there are just two options for T31, that would make sense within a shipbuilding strategy.

1) T31 is to T26 as T14 was to T12. A smaller version, which had a wildcat size hanger (that could be used for UAVs instead) a wildcat size flight deck, a cheaper TAS. But the same gun, smaller VLS silo, and one hanger mounted CIWS, and as tts as the T26. Also with the same engines but in a single shaft single engine room arrangement.

2) The Vneator 110 as the T31, being built between Camil Laird, Appledore, and Harland and wolf.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

type 14 had 2x limbo mortars and bofors 40mm so were much reduced firgates.

the size of hanger and hull are straightforward steel is cheap

rec
Member
Posts: 241
Joined: 22 May 2015, 10:13

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by rec »

marktigger wrote:type 14 had 2x limbo mortars and bofors 40mm so were much reduced firgates.

the size of hanger and hull are straightforward steel is cheap
Yes , know them well spent a short amount of time on one, however the concept wasn't a bad one, they were too lightly armed, however a scaled down T26 in size is not a bad thing, beggars cant be choosers and there is not the political will to fund 13 or even more T26s. So it is a case of gettign the most capable second tier scourt. Hence the straihgt choce between a scaled down T31 ot a Venator.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

shark bait wrote:
GibMariner wrote: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. I those instances it is fully reasonable to to allocate fewer resources.
Yes they are required. It might be fine having an OPV as a station ship, just to say "we have a ship in the region", the minimum presence possible (only because we don't have enough frigates in the first place) but the Rivers are essentially useless in the Caribbean, partly due to a lack of embarked helicopter. They have very little to contribute to what is the mainstay of the Royal Navy's duties in the Caribbean - countering drug smuggling and providing disaster relief. They are essentially unarmed, and provide next to no deterrent value. HMS Clyde isn't so much a problem in the Falklands, but both need to be reinforced by credible frigates in the north and south Atlantic.
I think you missed the most relevant part to the T31, its ability to use operate unmanned and manned systems effectively
Yes, the future may well lie with unmanned systems, but can you, as an advocate of large vessels with spacious mission bays seriously say that a River OPV or a derivative corvette could have sufficient space or growth margin for such features in future? The T23 we have at present are too small for this kind of capability.

The Italians and French seem to be going in the right direction, and they can't even boast that they have "the second biggest defence budget in NATO".

As Gabriele said, the RN will find it difficult to escort a carrier/task group in future, with only 6 x AAW T45 and 8 x ASW T23/26 - when the RN is escorting the carrier, there will very likely be no escorts available for any other tasking, as one of each would be actively needed around the UK. More escorts/warships/surface combatants are required to fill that vacuum that OPVs and corvettes cannot fill.

Sure, the fact that ~12 AAW destroyers became 6 T45 and that dozens of ASW frigates became 8 T23 is terrible, but the other end of that problem is that nothing really replaced the Rothesay (in their post-1982 role), Tribal, T21 and T22 Batch III classes which pretty much filled the roles we'd need the "future light frigate" for, instead we make do with 5 handicapped T23.

It's shambolic that the government has now signalled a return to a concept similar to what the C1, C2 & C3 proposed almost a decade ago and then abandoned in 2010, only for now to be possibly reversed again. While details are still scarce at present, and perhaps the so-called shipbuilding strategy might shed some light later this year, it currently seems that the RN is heading for a small C1 and small C3 fleet.

Why aim so low as to a 117 m corvette like the Venator, likely end up repeating the same mistakes that were made with previous classes, when we could aim for c.5000-ton, 140m-long "light" frigates like the Italians are doing and the French and Americans are likely to do.

Oh right, that would mean the government actually spending money and investing in the Royal Navy, which is the core problem, and something that all the OPVs in the world couldn't solve.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Gabriele wrote: 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.
How do you define "a glorified, super-expensive OPV"? For me, VENETOR 110 light frigate is NOT a such thing. It is "as escort as" a T23 GP. Floreal class is "a glorified, soso-espensive OPV".

By the way, I agree a TASS should be (at least) FFBNW for T31. But, I think CAPTAS-1 is OK. Then, it shall be as cheap as S2050 (am I wrong?), lightweight (1 ISO container size), easy to be added to both T45 and VENETOR110, or even elongated Khareef. Not as good as CAPTAS-4, but at least for shallow water ASW, CAPTAS-1 can do something better than S2050.
marktigger wrote:how wide would a vessel need to be to have a full width hanger capable of having 2 Merlins side by side?
JMSDF Shirane was 17.5 mm wide, can carry 3 Seakings in 1+2 orientation. RCN Iroquois class destroyer is (only) 15.2m wide, and carries 2 SeaKings side by side. Merlin is designed to be similar in size to SeaKing. So, I guess at least with a beam of 17.5m, or even 16m or so, the ship can carry 2 Merlin side-by-side.
shark bait wrote: T31 must be able to embark some specialist roles, otherwise it is just not relevant, and the resources should be spent elsewhere.
T31 with ASW similar to T45 (FFBNW CAPTAS-1), AAW similar to T26 (24 as built, +24 FFBNW) is "relevant", I think. Their "speciality" is in its number, which is "existence". They are light cruiser, as compared to the heavy cruisers (T45 and T26). RFA logistic fleet escorted by a single T31 is 100 times safer than those with no escort. This is great addition to the RN fleet.

What shall be discussed is, what is the minimum (for now and FFBNW) as a least credible escort. I propose,
- CAMM for T31 is, "full-set of SeaWolfs for T21" (or even better). By far "credible" than the real T21 built with SeaCat. CAMM is a quantum leap in AAW compared to SeaWolf. So yes, T31 should carry CAMM.
- embarking UAV, USV is must, I agree. It is only a matter of "with what size of mission bay". I guess a "18x18m mission-bay + Hangar complex" is right the size T31 needs. I can carry, a Wildcat with "2/3-size of T26" off-board system, a Merlin with "half-size of T26" offboard system, or even 2 Merlins or 3-4 Wildcats.
- keep a stern space open for 1 ISO container = CAPTAS-1 FFBNW.
- a 5 in gun

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

so with a 16m wide hanger we could have 2 merlins side by side or 1 merlin and use the spare space as part of the mission bay

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Gabriele »

16 meters beam unlikely to be good for 2 Merlin. On PPA, that beam results in 1 Merlin or 2 NH-90.
ASW similar to T45


Type 45 is a godawful ASW ship and should not be in an ASW discussion at all.
It is "as escort as" a T23 GP.
Maybe. Fact is, the Type 23 GP is a horrible "idea" (it never really was an idea, it was just a failure to fund enough 2087 tails for refitting all the 23s) and i wouldn't want it continued. It is just a ruined escort.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

Gabriele wrote:
ASW similar to T45


Type 45 is a godawful ASW ship and should not be in an ASW discussion at all.
Its a GP frigate not a dedicated ASW platform

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Caribbean »

Given the number of Merlin that we have, two Merlins might be stretching resources a bit. One Merlin plus 1 (or 2) UAVs, or two Wildcat might be more realistic
donald_of_tokyo wrote:keep a stern space open for 1 ISO container = CAPTAS-1 FFBNW.
I would have thought that a 2-3 TEU space would be quite possible, allowing a two-container Captas-2 or even (I think) an installed Captas-4
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

yes there is a limited number of merlins but in GP role could be carrying HC variants.

but the space a 2nd merlin occupies could be filled with stores or a wildcat etc

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by bobp »

There is a limited amount of Merlin's, especially as the Carriers will have a few on board as well, I think the Navy will have a problem. In addition there is not that many Wildcats either. I think the RN need to increase the numbers they have. Having a flight deck and Hangar, are I believe essential, but so also is having Helicopters to put on them, allowing for maintenance etc, the fleet size needs to increase.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

could also carry army wildcat or apache

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Repulse »

Gabriele wrote: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.
I agree, buy more T26s and more SSNs, but please let's not reinvented the T31 as a T26 and blow the budget realising we cannot afford them.

Extended River (Khareef), or if absolutely needed a Venator 110, or even an extended Visby, but whatever let's get on with it.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Gabriele »

marktigger wrote:Its a GP frigate not a dedicated ASW platform
You might as well call it a waste of money, then.

Want patrol ships able to survive (CAMM)? Use the MHC programme for that. The Type 31 "GP frigate" risks becoming the third element in a nascent 2nd Tier flottilla, on top of the expanded number of OPVs and the MHC vessels which supposedly will begin to appear around 2028, a date in which only around 5 Type 26 / "Type 31" (assuming they really get built concurrently, something i still don't really believe) will have been built.
Three classes all aiming for the bottom of the capability scale, accompanied by an ever expanding gap in the number of actual escorts.

This is a big part of why i hope in a Shipbuilding Strategy that is not just a brochure filled with buzzwords, but a document that tries to make sense of overlapping timeframes and requirements, instead of just trying to decide if adding 12 meters of hull to the Khareef can achieve "something".
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by seaspear »

Gabriele
Do you have any information as to how much a reasonable towed asw array would actually cost? I have read the U.S.N approval of several that would cost roughly three milllion each certainly that would not cover manning of course

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Caribbean »

seaspear wrote:Gabriele
Do you have any information as to how much a reasonable towed asw array would actually cost? I have read the U.S.N approval of several that would cost roughly three milllion each certainly that would not cover manning of course
Didn't 2087 cost £21m a set? The USN clearly aren't buying from BAE
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Caribbean »

marktigger wrote:yes there is a limited number of merlins but in GP role could be carrying HC variants.
Really? Only if it has provision for a reasonable-sized EMF, I would have thought. That may yet happen, but I doubt it's at the top of the requirements list. I suppose it could ferry one for use in an amphibious op.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

bobp wrote:There is a limited amount of Merlin's, especially as the Carriers will have a few on board as well, I think the Navy will have a problem. In addition there is not that many Wildcats either. I think the RN need to increase the numbers they have. Having a flight deck and Hangar, are I believe essential, but so also is having Helicopters to put on them, allowing for maintenance etc, the fleet size needs to increase.
Agree. RN is now struggling to purchase the "off-board assets" = Merlin and Wildcat. There is no Merlin left to be embarked on neither 5 T23GPs nor 6 T45s.

In future, with CVF (actually 2 of them) coming, the issue gets worse. This is the reason I propose the mission bay on T31 must be there, but can be small. No resource left. Make it small, it may result in tens of million GBP cheaper per T31, which will enable RN to purchase several additional Merlin.
Gabriele wrote:
marktigger wrote:Its a GP frigate not a dedicated ASW platform
You might as well call it a waste of money, then.

Want patrol ships able to survive (CAMM)? Use the MHC programme for that. The Type 31 "GP frigate" risks becoming the third element in a nascent 2nd Tier flottilla, on top of the expanded number of OPVs and the MHC vessels which supposedly will begin to appear around 2028, a date in which only around 5 Type 26 / "Type 31" (assuming they really get built concurrently, something i still don't really believe) will have been built.
Three classes all aiming for the bottom of the capability scale, accompanied by an ever expanding gap in the number of actual escorts.
I do not agree it is a waste of money.

1: When deployed to theater with less ASW threat (either no SS in your enemy or you have strong ASW support (P8s with SOSUSS (or SURTASS), T26s, ASW drones, Merlins from CV ...), ASW sonar is of less need. You rather need, NFGS, local-area AAW, radar coverage, sheparding around, and so on.

2: When future threat of SSK becomes VERY high, CAPTAS-1 can be added. It is similar to T23GP not having CAPTAS-4 for a moment. It is just, the need never come into reality till the end-of-life of the T23GPs. Good thing. Its like PPA light.

By the way, Gabriele-san you still think MHC will carry CAMM? I am very sceptical about it. If yes, I agree we do not need T31 (or as you say, T31 shall be merged with MHC). We see many "artists impression" showing SeaWolf carried on T42, Invincible, Forts, and others. Never happened. AAW weapons, other than MANPADS, never be cheap.

One "hope" I have is, if there could be a "degraded version of CAMM system": using the same missile and launcher, but a very simple CMS than can handle only 1 or 2 CAMMs at any moment, even with simpler data-up-link (or even without, only pre-programmed). In other words, "an equivalent RAM missile with ARH homing". This will be good to have on MHC or RFA vessels, in place of Phalanx.
This is a big part of why i hope in a Shipbuilding Strategy that is not just a brochure filled with buzzwords, but a document that tries to make sense of overlapping timeframes and requirements, instead of just trying to decide if adding 12 meters of hull to the Khareef can achieve "something".
Agree. It shall be "shipbuilding strategy". T31 is just one of the piece there.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by seaspear »

In may 2015 Defense Industry Daily announced that Lockheed Martin was providing an option to the U.S.N of seven tb-37 (an/sqr-20) multi function towed array as well as auxilary equipment and support services for 27.3 million dollars this is the latest towed sonar for the U.S.N ,Im not an expert on which is the best towed sonar in the world ,but if BAE sells at a price because of low production numbers and the R.N cannot afford this price perhaps they should go elsewhere in preference to not having this capability .

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

Caribbean wrote:
marktigger wrote:yes there is a limited number of merlins but in GP role could be carrying HC variants.
Really? Only if it has provision for a reasonable-sized EMF, I would have thought. That may yet happen, but I doubt it's at the top of the requirements list. I suppose it could ferry one for use in an amphibious op.
the type 26 is being built with overload accommodation for i think 70 and that should be repeated on the 31 to allow an EMF.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

gabriele the type 26 will be the ASW platform of choice and the Type 45 will be the AAW platform of choice just like the Type 23 was the ASW platform of choice and the Type 42 in the AAW role.......so why where 4 of the busiest ships in the escort fleet post options for change the Type22/III's they weren't optimized for AAW or ASW? why is their loss still being felt? did they carry TASS? no they had a 2050 which maybe will be all the Type 31 will get and probably need.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Lord Jim »

I don't think the RN is going to have major problem with Merlin numbers. IF and it is a big if we purchase sufficient F-35s, moving some of the Merlins onto the T45 and/or what even ASW platforms are part of a Task Force would free up some space in the CVFs hanger. Maintenance work would still be able to be carried out on the CVF is needed, plus it would carry the bulk of the spares for those embarked. The same also goes for the Wildcat. Those Frigates/Destroyers deployed independently must have one as should any OPV on a standing commitment. That should totally no more than five, plus any task force should have between four to six. If the RN obtains a VTOL UCAV that can supplement the Merlins and Wildcat the situation would improve further.

Post Reply