Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[donald_of_tokyo]

Designing a small class of small frigates for a specific peace time patrol is such a horrible idea. The environment will change, and tends to change much quicker than we can change frigates, never mind small ones. Such a ship will quickly find its self obsolete, and will not stay relevant in a fast moving world.

I agree. So, we shall be careful how to design T31, as well. If we make it too flexible, we will not be able to have 5 hulls, and the development cost will make it irrelevant/cost-ineffective. (I am not saying, it is impossible. But saying "difficult"). If we make it too specific, the same argument comes in.

In Patrol Frigate concept, as you can see, it is just an "enlarged/up-armored OPV". Not resource eating. If Argentina military get stronger and politically unfriendly with UK, APT-S can be handled with T45/26s. And the 3 Patrol Frigates can be diverted to tasks such as Indian Ocean in 2010s, or to APT-N (now to be handled with River B.2s). Then surplus River B.2s can be either become a training vessel (such as Bulecon is doing). Yes the Patrol Frigate is not "flexible", but "a fleet with (only a few) Patrol Frigate and many escorts and several OPVs" is flexible, I think.

This is why in option-B I am proposing "3 Patrol Frigate and additional 2 T26 combined" solution. Please note it is not "only Patrol Frigate" solution.

[PAUL MARSAY]

What we need are more hulls and the crews to man them , I am beginning to think we should be looking to see how much and maximum numbers we can get out of x amount of money is single role rather than an expensive allrounder. Designed correctly a first rate ASW frigate can do the NGFS and patrol roles adequately. This to me looks like an updated slightly bigger type 23 with as much pull through from the upend 26 as possible .

[seaspear]

Agree with more hulls etc certainly, but the overriding factor on everything about the ship may not be its capabilties or even abilities but its cost ,this ship seems to be designed by those noted designers in treasury.

[marktigger]

there used to be a sub class of destroyers called destroyer leaders which were slightly bigger and had enhanced command facilities bit like the type 22/III maybe the 26 should fulfil this role and we get 12-16 of an ASW/GP frigate

[rec]

Are not the options pretty straight forward and one of the following??

An ASW Specialist T31

A foreign design

Extended Khareeef

Venator 110

Allhave their pros and cons.

It depends onwhether the UK shiipbuilding startegy si really a strategy or a cost saving exercise.

And beneath all this is the bigger issue of low morale and shortage of personel

[Caribbean]

Ron,

Nothing made up, just my interpretation of other peoples writing. My source for the genesis of the Type 21 was Conway - All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1947-1995 p522.

Friedman also notes that the original RN requirement that lead to the T21 was for an "austere interim frigate". He also states "Its initial designation of Patrol Frigate reflected its global low-end mission."

Only 3 were to supposed to be built, as a "cheap" replacement for the last 3 Leanders. The additional 5 were only ordered because the yards were running out of work, as the T22 and 42 designs were running late.

During the design phase, the Limbo mortar was deleted and Friedman seems to state that it was already known that the 2016 sonar would be too large to fit, so it does seem odd that they would continue to develop the design for ASW purposes if they already knew that it would only be able to carry the far more limited 184 M (as fitted to the destroyers).

Thanks for the various quotes. Further information is always good. The RN requirement that you posted is interesting, since, to me, it somewhat confirms Conway's view that "Details of the design did not meet certain naval requirements". It did look pretty, though.

As for my comments about the classification of the ship as an ASW asset, the point remains that the RN decision on classification of frigates and destroyers came into effect in 1975, after all of the class had been laid down, but before all, except Amazon, were accepted into service.

I do however concede the point that effectively every ship had an ASW role, as the range of the sonars of the period was limited, requiring a larger number of sonars to cover any given area.

[marktigger]

A good history of the type 21 is contained in "Modern Combat Ships 5" Type 21 by Capt John Lippiett.

An updated type 22, 42 & invincible would be good.

but the type 21 book gives a good history of the class in UK service

[abc123]

Designing a small class of small frigates for a specific peace time patrol is such a horrible idea. The environment will change, and tends to change much quicker than we can change frigates, never mind small ones. Such a ship will quickly find its self obsolete, and will not stay relevant in a fast moving world.

I agree. So, we shall be careful how to design T31, as well. If we make it too flexible, we will not be able to have 5 hulls, and the development cost will make it irrelevant/cost-ineffective. (I am not saying, it is impossible. But saying "difficult"). If we make it too specific, the same argument comes in.

In Patrol Frigate concept, as you can see, it is just an "enlarged/up-armored OPV". Not resource eating. If Argentina military get stronger and politically unfriendly with UK, APT-S can be handled with T45/26s. And the 3 Patrol Frigates can be diverted to tasks such as Indian Ocean in 2010s, or to APT-N (now to be handled with River B.2s). Then surplus River B.2s can be either become a training vessel (such as Bulecon is doing). Yes the Patrol Frigate is not "flexible", but "a fleet with (only a few) Patrol Frigate and many escorts and several OPVs" is flexible, I think.

This is why in option-B I am proposing "3 Patrol Frigate and additional 2 T26 combined" solution. Please note it is not "only Patrol Frigate" solution.

X

Considering that RN has few not-sofisticated tasks ( Caribean patrol ship, Pirates of Somalia, replacement for HMS Clyde etc. ) that need at last 2-3 such ships to fulfill I consider 4-5 such simple firgates/enlarged/up-armored OPVs as a great solution.
Frankly, IMO sending fleet tankers as Caribean patrol ships is perversion...

For anything more demanding RN will send Type 26 and/or Type 45.

[Caribbean]

A good history of the type 21 is contained in "Modern Combat Ships 5" Type 21 by Capt John Lippiett

Thanks for the recommendation - I'll see if I can find a copy - we're a bit short on bookshops here and I tend to only get stuff that's available on Kindle

Frankly, IMO sending fleet tankers as Caribean patrol ships is perversion...

The tankers are not ideal, I agree, and could be better utilised doing their "proper" job, but they do a good job when they have to and they are certainly more use than the Rivers for HADR,

I do quite like Donald-san's idea of a stretched OPV as an interim "patrol frigate", but I don't think I would make the effort to up-arm them particularly (maybe mount 50 cals on stabilised mounts). Add a bit of speed, better boats and the hanger and keep them very simple to minimise crew and maximise availability. When (if) the T31's come on line, they can drop back into the OPV/ Guardship/ Trials/ Training role.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I do quite like Donald-san's idea of a stretched OPV as an interim "patrol frigate", but I don't think I would make the effort to up-arm them particularly (maybe mount 50 cals on stabilised mounts). Add a bit of speed, better boats and the hanger and keep them very simple to minimise crew and maximise availability. When (if) the T31's come on line, they can drop back into the OPV/ Guardship/ Trials/ Training role.

Thanks, but one of the reason for my proposal is to
- abandon 2-3 T23 GP to relax/solve the manpower crisis at 2020.
- not get T31 but add T26.

I guess your idea is to make the River B.3 a bit more "long legged". Yes, if we add a hull, say 5m long at the middle, it can gain BOTH speed (by 1-2 knots, with better L/V ratio) and range/endurance, as well as adding a fixed Wildcat hangar. I agree this is a practical and valuable option (although will not solve the man-power crisis).

In this case, how about
1: adding a 20mm CIWS on top of the hangar? Or even just make a mount there, to claim, FFBNW?
2: adding an ESM/chaff/flare system?
3: adding a "Sigma" option (7 LMM/StarStreak) for the 30mm gun mount?
(If add another 30mm SeaHawk Sigma mount and replace 7.62mm Gatlings, and put a 3in gun on the bow, it is right the "Patrol Frigate" I've proposed.)

If we can have 2 of these (with option 1,2,3) in place of 1 T23GP (and actually also with 2 Sandowns to be disbanded), "most of" the man-power crisis can be solved, APT-S can be covered with these vessels, and diversity in River B.2 and B.3 will make it ideal to task them from simple EEZ patrol to something like APT-N and APT-S.

Could be a good option.

EDIT: I am basically a "as less armed OPV" lover (like SharkBait-san claims), I am here proposing "(apparently) ugly up-armored OPV". Controversy, there is. But, all this idea comes from saving APT-S without using hi-end escorts. Thanks to low level of Argentina military, it is actually doable for a moment. For 10 years future, not clear, but I guess the Argentina military will remain to be low level.

Another aspects comes from adding the T26 number, to enjoy the "learning curve" of ship building, combined with being pessimistic about T31. In this case "more than 13 complex warship" argument can be used. So, call 3 Patrol Frigates "quasi complex", and by saving significant resources out of them, build 2 T26, a "real complex" ship...

[PAUL MARSAY]

Patrol frigate is really a type of OPV but more a OCEAN patrol vessel rather than an OFFSHORE patrol vessel , it has a role in a patrol role but it is not a type 31 . In fact I like the idea of type 26 as leaders and 12-16 ASW type 31.

[marktigger]

if you are going to have an "Ocean Patrol Vessel" I'd combine it with another role like Hydrography

[Ron5]

A good history of the type 21 is contained in "Modern Combat Ships 5" Type 21 by Capt John Lippiett.

An updated type 22, 42 & invincible would be good.

but the type 21 book gives a good history of the class in UK service

I agree. An excellent book written by someone who served on them.

Incidentally, a quick read of the opening chapters provide conformation the class was designed to the staff requirement for an ASW convoy escort with anti-surface and self-air defense.

[Ron5]

Ron,

Nothing made up, just my interpretation of other peoples writing. My source for the genesis of the Type 21 was Conway - All the Worlds Fighting Ships 1947-1995 p522.

Friedman also notes that the original RN requirement that lead to the T21 was for an "austere interim frigate". He also states "Its initial designation of Patrol Frigate reflected its global low-end mission."

Only 3 were to supposed to be built, as a "cheap" replacement for the last 3 Leanders. The additional 5 were only ordered because the yards were running out of work, as the T22 and 42 designs were running late.

During the design phase, the Limbo mortar was deleted and Friedman seems to state that it was already known that the 2016 sonar would be too large to fit, so it does seem odd that they would continue to develop the design for ASW purposes if they already knew that it would only be able to carry the far more limited 184 M (as fitted to the destroyers).

Thanks for the various quotes. Further information is always good. The RN requirement that you posted is interesting, since, to me, it somewhat confirms Conway's view that "Details of the design did not meet certain naval requirements". It did look pretty, though.

As for my comments about the classification of the ship as an ASW asset, the point remains that the RN decision on classification of frigates and destroyers came into effect in 1975, after all of the class had been laid down, but before all, except Amazon, were accepted into service.

I do however concede the point that effectively every ship had an ASW role, as the range of the sonars of the period was limited, requiring a larger number of sonars to cover any given area.

As Friedman describes, the initial requirement that lead to the Type 21, that talks about austere patrol frigates, was not the requirement that the Type 21 was designed to meet. That later requirement was for an ASW convoy escort.

Limbo was not included in the design but ship mounted torpedoes were. They were considered to be more effective and despite my earlier doubts, they were actually fitted to all of the class except Amazon. In fact they were later upgraded to accept Stingray. You'll note that neither the later Type 22 or 23 carried Limbo.

I think we must let the chief Type 21 designer (who later become Vospers managing director) have the last word when he says that "The T21 frigate is essentially an anti-submarine vessel".

[Engaging Strategy]

As Friedman describes, the initial requirement that lead to the Type 21, that talks about austere patrol frigates, was not the requirement that the Type 21 was designed to meet. That later requirement was for an ASW convoy escort.

Limbo was not included in the design but ship mounted torpedoes were. They were considered to be more effective and despite my earlier doubts, they were actually fitted to all of the class except Amazon. In fact they were later upgraded to accept Stingray. You'll note that neither the later Type 22 or 23 carried Limbo.

I think we must let the chief Type 21 designer (who later become Vospers managing director) have the last word when he says that "The T21 frigate is essentially an anti-submarine vessel".

I think it was still completely normal to have a highly credible ASW surface platform without a towed array back in the early 70s when the Type 21s were built. The broad-beam Leanders only got the 2030 sonar conversion in the early 80s and (correct me if I'm wrong) the Batch I Type 22s built over the second half of the 70s couldn't accept a towed array either. So you're not looking at towed arrays being "a thing" in front-line RN service with the surface fleet until the early 80s, more than a decade after the Type 21 was designed. The thing that killed them though was undoubtedly the lack of growth margins, especially for the towed array sets that steadily became a staple of ASW in the decades after they were built. So, yes, when they were built they were acceptable ASW combatants; but I think you could quite reasonably argue that they became more or less obsolete in that role quite rapidly after their initial decade of service.

From the conclusion of the Falklands War in 1982 all the way through to the class's eventual sale in the mid-90s I think it's pretty clear that the RN recognised that they were of limited value as ASW ships, Ambuscade's record isn't atypical in this regard: she spent six of her seven post-Falklands deployments in areas where the threat was reasonably low, such as the West Indies or Falklands.

[Ron5]

@ES

Good summary. Wouldn't argue with any of that.

And I am in an argumentative mood today as you may have seen. It 122 degrees outside right now and I'm getting a tad stir crazzzzy

[Engaging Strategy]

@ES

Good summary. Wouldn't argue with any of that.

And I am in an argumentative mood today as you may have seen. It 122 degrees outside right now and I'm getting a tad stir crazzzzy

It's days like this that I enjoy living in the cool and damp UK!

[Ron5]

It's days like this that make me envious.

Cooling off, only 118 now. If I were a WR21, I'd be flat on my back.

[Engaging Strategy]

It's days like this that make me envious.

Cooling off, only 118 now. If I were a WR21, I'd be flat on my back.

There's something I think we can all agree on, the GPFF absolutely shouldn't have WR21 GTs!

[bobp]

Unread postby Ron5 » 20 Jun 2016, 00:51



It's days like this that make me envious. Cooling off, only 118 now. If I were a WR21, I'd be flat on my back.

Nothing wrong with venting a little steam now and again, better than bottling it up. I spent 12 years in the Middle East, and never really got used to the heat.

[marktigger]

well with indyref2 on the horizon and all the brexit uncertainty thats T26 & T31 parked for a few years

[rec]

All the more reson for a UK shipbuilding startegy that gives us a non Clyde option, therfore Type 31 has to be buildable at somewhere like Camil Laird, has to be relatively cheap and quick to build, and aimed to replace the oldest T23s that don't carry TAS.

In the interim while they are being bult and to cope with the short term man power issues, mothball 2 Tye 23s and keep the batch 1 Rivers, modify the 2 extra Rivers mentioned in the 2015 SDSR to carry a Wildcat plus hanger (see Thailands version of a River).

Then build up to 8 T31s starting in 2017 , when these come into service sell of Batch 1 Rivers.

What design specs for the T31? which ever is the most capable for money we actually have got, which given all the financial issues that Bexit is goign to give us, makes a stretched Khareef the most likely, unless we can produce a cheap ASW frigate.

[abc123]

All the more reson for a UK shipbuilding startegy that gives us a non Clyde option, .

Fully agreed.

[GibMariner]

Warships: Antisubmarine Warfare:Written question - 40451

Asked by Chris Stephens

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the oral evidence given by Sir Mark Stanhope to the Defence Committee on 7 June 2016, HC 221, at Question 3, what anti-submarine warfare capability is planned for the general purpose frigates; and if he will make a statement.

Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne

The General Purpose Frigate Programme has just begun its pre-concept phase activity. This work will consider a range of capability requirements based on the ship's role, operating environment and the likely threats it will face. This work will also take into account the wider capabilities available to Defence, such as those provided through the procurement of the Anti Submarine Warfare capable Type 26 Frigates.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -13/40451/

[Ron5]

"pre-concept phase activity"

So they've got Jim the lad from the mail room on it then.