Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

it doesn't matter who pays for it up front, it will still be the tax payer who pays for it in the end.

[Ron5]

aren't they being built by a private company? So why doesn't BaE pay for it?
or if its so important to Scotland the Scottish Assembly coul put its hand in its pocket?

So would you spend that kind of money without an order? And if you did, wouldn't you like to choose where to spend the money. How about anywhere but Scotland given the uncertainty?

[marktigger]

So would you spend that kind of money without an order? And if you did, wouldn't you like to choose where to spend the money. How about anywhere but Scotland given the uncertainty?

UK shipyards used to do it regularly to get the facilities they wanted without "British Ship Builders Ltd" or "Harland & Wolff" having to pick up the bill for modifications to their yards before any new project putting forward they needed investment or the Yard would close. Funny they were quick enough to pocket the profits whilst the tax payer picked up the bill for the investment in infrastructure.

[Caribbean]

Numbnuts at the Treasury have zero idea what is an "investment" even though every piece of Government spending is labelled as such

I suspect it has as much to do with the SNP threatening a "neverendum" scenario. What's the point in investing in a frigate factory in Scotland, if it ends up being in a "foreign country" and never gets used again (except for a few "Scottish Navy" OPVs - which are currently being built)? Hence the SNP trying to drum up a storm about the Government reneging on the pre-referendum promises, to cover for the fact that independence will loose a lot of people in the region their jobs.

[rec]

It depends on the UK shipbuilding strategy, and how strategic it is.

Why not 8 T26s built at the old Yarrow yard
8 streached Khareefs at Govans T31
8 Venator 110 at Cammil Laird T83
3 Mars SSS built between H&W A&P and assembled in Rosyth aka aircraft carrier alliance.
3 Samuel beckett built at Appledore, paid in part by Gibralter, Falklands and Channel Island (fo Gib, Faliklands and channel islands)

then if yo cancell successor programme.
5 batch 2 Astutes, and 6 SSKS built at Barrow.

[ArmChairCivvy]

never gets used again (except for a few "Scottish Navy" OPVs - which are currently being built

I like your humour... so the Treasury actually knows what they are doing ( a cunning plan to build the "proper" ships a tad later, South of the border?).

[marktigger]

khareef built in govan would be good flagship for the scottish navy SNS Nicola Sturgeon or Alex Salmond about right size for it

[Galloglass]

I agree Mark.....It would more likely be called "HMSS Culloden" though. You could even transfer the Rivers to create a "Scottish Squadron" and transfer control of Scottish EEZ resources (fisheries oil gas etc) to Holyrood. That would be a nice gesture.

[ArmChairCivvy]

transfer control of Scottish EEZ resources (fisheries oil gas etc) to Holyrood.

Scotland already has its own fisheries protection... that's how just three Rivers were meant to be enough for these shores:
- one to the East, one to the South, and one for the Irish Sea, to ward off the Irish (err, the Spaniards in reality).

Oil & gas; no laughing matter, but of national interest. First it was the SBS, the the Comacchio(s). who knows for now (perhaps it is meant to be that way):

""43 Commando Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines ( 43 Cdo FP Gp RM )

Once known as 'Comacchio Group', then later 'Fleet Protection Group', this specially trained and equipped cadre of Royal Marines Commandos are responsible for the security of Britain's Nuclear Weapons. They are also on the front line in Britain's fight against piracy on the high seas."

[Galloglass]

Yes Armchair...Was principally responding to Marks suggestion for getting a start on the Scottish Navy....."Out of these dead hands" comes to mind when thinking of Westminster transferring Oil and Gas etc to Holyrood....but if ya'll go for Brexit the "negotiations" over Fishing Rights alone will make the Cod War look like a walk in the park.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the "negotiations" over Fishing Rights alone will make the Cod War look like a walk in the park.

Ohh, good news that there are a few fish left! The Norvegian campaign not to join at all was aptly named "we fight to the last fish"
... well, their key slogan, at least

[Ron5]

Yes Armchair...Was principally responding to Marks suggestion for getting a start on the Scottish Navy....."Out of these dead hands" comes to mind when thinking of Westminster transferring Oil and Gas etc to Holyrood....but if ya'll go for Brexit the "negotiations" over Fishing Rights alone will make the Cod War look like a walk in the park.

Wouldn't the UK just revert to the state prior to the UK entry? I would have thought Scotland (who suffered the worst by the rape of British fishing by the EU, Spain in particular) would vote 100% for Brexit just to get back what once was their birthright. 20 years or so, the fishing might recover.

[Ron5]

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.word ... e-frigate/



Contract with DSME reported to be worth $410 million. I'm sure that excludes weapons & systems. Still 280 million pounds probably meets the T31 target if weapons etc can be freely transferred from expiring T23..

T26 target build cost: 400 million with 25 million contingency not to be exceeded. Current cost: speculated to be around 600 million.

T45 build cost: 651 million with nearly 200 million for PAAMS.

(edited for typo)

[Ron5]

To me, and I'm sure others, the hardest part of discussing the T31, is knowing what the budget might be. After all, its defining feature is that it be cheap enough. But how cheap is cheap? And how expensive is expensive?

Anyhow, I stumbled across a recent T26 article in AW that attempts to explain how that ship became "unaffordable" by the costs escalating to nearly match the T45. Here's the highlights.

The article argues that the enemy is size. "Steel is cheap and air is free" is wrong. Even though steel is at an all time low, the bigger the ship, the bigger the price. Size & cost are strictly linear.

4 examples are given that drove T26 size:

Strike length VLS add 2- 2.5m draft (bit puzzled by this).
Chinook deck adds 6-10 meters and 400-600 tons.
Mission bay adds several hundreds of tons by adding another ships section.
and #1 crew standards: more bigger cabins, showers, women's facilities. If the T23 was built to todays standards it would be a 6,000 ton ship i.e. 1500 tons more than it does today.

UK is not alone in suffering warship price escalation. A survey of recent European frigates shows GP versions cost about $100,000 a ton, ASW specialists, $125k.

T26 at 7,200 tons should therefore cost 620 million pounds to be at the average. Lo and behold, it's around that.

In hindsight, T45 at 8,500 tons comes in at $110,000 per ton.

The article raises more questions than it answers but taken at face value gives us a methodology for T31. If the T31 target is 400 million pounds, then it must not weigh more than 5800 tons. If the target is 300 million, 4,400 tons.

Jimthelad seems well connected and he proposed 4500 tons if my memory serves me. By my slide rule, that makes a frigate a tad smaller than a T23. Say 130m x 16m. A single Mt30 plus MTU diesels in a T26 CODLOG, would give 32+ knots and 600 tons of fuel, approx 5k miles range.

Big enough for a 5" gun plus plenty of CAMM plus a Merlin/twin Wildcat hangar plus the usual sensor & countermeasure suspects. One Phalanx maybe. Mk 41 might be a VLS too far. Canister ASM would be OK or a few extra CAMM cells for Sea Spear. No dedicated mission bay or Chinook deck though. Crew size would have to be around 100 I would think.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Totally agree with the contributions above re: cost estimating
- if T45 seems to be out of line I think the correction alluded to (replace PAAMS ticket with the price of having an "off-the-shelf air defence system); and, for the residual of the cost, some inflation correction should be added, to make the comparisons in a cross-sectional study accurate.

As a detail, funnily enough the T45s already have the space for strike length tubes , so this fitting - what they were FFBWO spacewise - done now, when they need to enter the dock anyway could have been a big saver in the T26 build prgrm.

[marktigger]

but if you are expecting a vessel to be a "global" combat ship it needs to be habitable in all climatic conditions. So for example you crew quarters are cool enough to sleep in in the gulf in mid summer and warm enough in the antarctic winter. I have heard anecdotal evidence that when the type 23's were initally deployed to the gulf the crew accomodation was almost uninhabitable in the heat. Because they were designed specifically to work in the North atlantic.

[ArmChairCivvy]

if you are expecting a vessel to be a "global" combat ship it needs to be habitable in all climatic conditions.

I totally agree, and in honesty I don't expect anything to be shaved off the T26
- hence, don't be surprised if the numbers will be reversed (5 of them, and the rest of the new type... with a mission deck that is interchangeable - I guess that will mean reconfigurable - between TAS and other uses. Or, you just build 3 of them as a bit noisy sub-hunters; still usable in the task force context (where a lot of noise is created anyway, and the ship's own can be partly eliminated by the towing distance of the quite hefty TAS).

[ArmChairCivvy]

Our friend in Tokyo (thereabouts?) could run these numbers (quantities x prices) through the spreadsheet and tell us how that would stack up?

I tried to change my vote to
- LCS-like modular ship &
- more than 5 hulls
... but no luck?!

[shark bait]

It is clear weight inflation is both natural and unavoidable. Working environment standards are increasing everywhere, and a modern navy that wants the best people has to keep up, and thus the ship grows, even with the crew getting leaner.

We try and rebuild the T23, and it turns out way bigger. No surprises there, it is simply the manifestation of natural inflation, and can't be avoided. The best way to offset this effect is to continually make the crew leaner. That actually makes the case for a new class a lot stronger, a class that is not constrained by the same historical specifications can be more flexible in its approach to offsetting that inflation.

I'm not sure the cost per tonne metric is strictly valid, mainly because they systems contribute much more of the value than the displacement, but it certainly gives an easy ball park metric to work with.

Working with that metric, does it suggest a small specialist ASW frigate would be more affordable than another big flexible ASW frigate?

Some observations I have on good reference designs; following the metric, all these would look affordable.

• Absalon (GP) @ 4,500t
• Independence (GP) @ 3,000t
• Formidable (ASW) @ 3,200t
• Valour (ASW) @ 3,700t

Also, QE certainly throws the metric coming in at £43,000 per tonne. Makes it look like a bargain, but I suppose that is what scale does to the metric.

I tried to change my vote to
- LCS-like modular ship &

I could get on board with that, as long as it is a modified Independence class, and we stay well away from the Freedom class. I struggle to see the value in the freedom class, a Visby class would surely be better for the 'dog fighting' with fast boats.

As for the Independence class, the Americans should put CAMM on it, its almost perfect for that class of ship, along with an I-Mast and ASM IT would become a much more credible package. I think its fairly sound in concept, put poor in execution, perhaps we could learn from our friends and an improve the execution.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Is there a way to do a simple schematic on your thoughts, rather than the full image, as in here?

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/05/navy ... i=29742125

[marktigger]

sharkbair the reason we won't go for any of those options is the plan is a full build process to safeguard the whole chain from design through to hand over. more Expensive yes but saves the expertiese of designing warships.

[Ron5]

but if you are expecting a vessel to be a "global" combat ship it needs to be habitable in all climatic conditions. So for example you crew quarters are cool enough to sleep in in the gulf in mid summer and warm enough in the antarctic winter. I have heard anecdotal evidence that when the type 23's were initally deployed to the gulf the crew accomodation was almost uninhabitable in the heat. Because they were designed specifically to work in the North atlantic.

I don't think the T23 had air conditioning but that was later retrofitted. I've read the same stories.

[shark bait]

Is there a way to do a simple schematic on your thoughts, rather than the full image, as in here?

Independence class UK mod; a light GP Frigate.

• Same hull
• More equipment, accepting less speed
• Gun either 5inch BAE or 76mm Oto
• ASM, either VLS or deck launched
• All sensing handled by an integrated mast
• Cold launch VLS on roof for CAMM and Spear 3
• Retain extra wide flight deck
• Remove water jets for cheaper propeller
• Capable payload handling equiptment
• Large extra wide mission bay
• Common power plan to T26
• Common suite of EW and countermeasures
• Retain small core crew

sharkbair the reason we won't go for any of those options is the plan is a full build process to safeguard the whole chain from design through to hand over. more Expensive yes but saves the expertiese of designing warships.

There's a hell of a lot of work to do modifying those designs to match Royal Navy standard equipment.

[Ron5]

It is clear weight inflation is both natural and unavoidable. Working environment standards are increasing everywhere, and a modern navy that wants the best people has to keep up, and thus the ship grows, even with the crew getting leaner.

We try and rebuild the T23, and it turns out way bigger. No surprises there, it is simply the manifestation of natural inflation, and can't be avoided. The best way to offset this effect is to continually make the crew leaner. That actually makes the case for a new class a lot stronger, a class that is not constrained by the same historical specifications can be more flexible in its approach to offsetting that inflation.

I'm not sure the cost per tonne metric is strictly valid, mainly because they systems contribute much more of the value than the displacement, but it certainly gives an easy ball park metric to work with.

Working with that metric, does it suggest a small specialist ASW frigate would be more affordable than another big flexible ASW frigate?

Some observations I have on good reference designs; following the metric, all these would look affordable.

• Absalon (GP) @ 4,500t
• Independence (GP) @ 3,000t
• Formidable (ASW) @ 3,200t
• Valour (ASW) @ 3,700t

Also, QE certainly throws the metric coming in at £43,000 per tonne. Makes it look like a bargain, but I suppose that is what scale does to the metric.

I tried to change my vote to
- LCS-like modular ship &

I could get on board with that, as long as it is a modified Independence class, and we stay well away from the Freedom class. I struggle to see the value in the freedom class, a Visby class would surely be better for the 'dog fighting' with fast boats.

As for the Independence class, the Americans should put CAMM on it, its almost perfect for that class of ship, along with an I-Mast and ASM IT would become a much more credible package. I think its fairly sound in concept, put poor in execution, perhaps we could learn from our friends and an improve the execution.

Couple points.

The metric was strictly frigates/destroyers.

If the ASW specialist metric was applied to a 300 million budget, the resulting tonnage (3500) would llimit the ship to no longer than 120m. Too small for global (which as Mark says, is vital for the RN) and might even be too small for a Merlin & hangar. In other words, I doubt if a ASW specialist could be built at that price.

The feature of the LCS designs that attracts most criticism in the US, is the sacrifices made to protection & survivability & armament to make the ships light enough for 40+ knots. Poor subdivision, thin steel, aluminum structures, pop gun armament, weak missile set. There's no way these ships in their current form meet RN standards even assuming the poor range was acceptable.

They are also very expensive, the upgunned version offered to the Saudi's was so expensive that even they blinked and said try again.

The replacement LCS will address some of these issues, additional armor, better radar, better missiles, but brings down their speed by 10 knots or so and they still have poor subdivision, aluminum, and look poorly equipped compared to their European rivals. At a higher price.

If I were the RN, I'd look pretty much everywhere else for T31 inspiration.

[Ron5]

Is there a way to do a simple schematic on your thoughts, rather than the full image, as in here?

Independence class UK mod.

• Same hull
• More equipment, accepting less speed
• Gun either 5inch BAE or 76mm Oto
• ASM, either VLS or deck launched
• All sensing handled by an integrated mast
• Cold launch VLS on roof for CAMM and Spear 3
• Retain extra wide flight deck
• Remove water jets for cheaper propeller
• Capable payload handling equiptment
• Large extra wide mission bay
• Common power plan to T26
• Common suite of EW and countermeasures
• Retain small core crew

sharkbair the reason we won't go for any of those options is the plan is a full build process to safeguard the whole chain from design through to hand over. more Expensive yes but saves the expertiese of designing warships.

There's a hell of a lot of work to do modifying those designs to match Royal Navy standard equipment.

You do know that thing is entirely made of aluminum? Seems daft to load up a race horse with heavy stuff to slow it down to the speed of a cart horse.