Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[marktigger]

repulse I like the numbers you suggest though would like
6 type 45
16 type 26
6 type 31 WIGS,FIGS, east Africa guardship
5 river II for guardship Falklands

[marktigger]

problem we have at moment is to many projects were delayed to release funds for other things and we are having to change allot at once. problem if we build 26 & 31 together in 30 years time we will need to replace

CVF
type 26
type 31
Tide class
River class

all at same time

[rec]

6 type 45
16 type 26
6 type 31 WIGS,FIGS, east Africa guardship
5 river II for guardship Falklands

I think that is unlikely, given the finances, this is more likely:

6 type 45
8 type 26
8 type 31
5 river II

But Ideally: In addition, 6-8 SSKs ( foreign design built under license, would give a better asuw and asw capability than T31), Keep Clyde (for Gibralter), and 3 Batch 1 Rivers (for backing up border force in the English Channel)

[Pseudo]

problem we have at moment is to many projects were delayed to release funds for other things and we are having to change allot at once. problem if we build 26 & 31 together in 30 years time we will need to replace

CVF
type 26
type 31
Tide class
River class

all at same time

I thought that CVF was supposed to have an intended service life of forty or fifty years, and based on the service life of our current oilers I can't see the Tide's being in service for less than forty years either.

[marktigger]

rec i don't see any need for SSK at all apart from Export orders

[marktigger]

I think that is unlikely, given the finances, this is more likely:

6 type 45
8 type 26
8 type 31
5 river II

But Ideally: In addition, 6-8 SSKs ( foreign design built under license, would give a better asuw and asw capability than T31), Keep Clyde (for Gibralter), and 3 Batch 1 Rivers (for backing up border force in the English Channel)

We will need to protect our fishing grounds allot more following leaving the EU as there will be issues with other countries territorial waters bordering ours. so we will need more soverginty presence and yes split that between the Navy and Border agency. so i'd suggest the Minehunter/hydrography vessel will be designed to easily step into the role as well. I'd forget any further expansion of the submarine fleet. we need more surface presence.

[marktigger]

I thought that CVF was supposed to have an intended service life of forty or fifty years, and based on the service life of our current oilers I can't see the Tide's being in service for less than forty years either.

in 30 years the CVF will need major rebuilds same with the oilers

[rec]

rec i don't see any need for SSK at all apart from Export orders

I think the submarine service is too small to sustain an effectice carreer progression and adequate training opportunities. It has to few hulls to effectively patrol around UK and north Atlantic waters, to provide adequate assessments of Russian submarine and surface ship movements, or provide an effective deterent against Russian incursions into UK waters.

A small fforce of 6-8 SSKs would I think counter these weaknesses, they are cheaper than SSNs and more effective in a conflcit situation than any of the T31 designs.

[marktigger]

at minute SSK would be a total waste of resources, I wonder how quickly the russian submarine incursion threat will diminish now the RAF is getting new toys?

[Pseudo]

I thought that CVF was supposed to have an intended service life of forty or fifty years, and based on the service life of our current oilers I can't see the Tide's being in service for less than forty years either.

in 30 years the CVF will need major rebuilds same with the oilers

Yes, they'll need mid-life refurbishment, not as you had suggested replacement. Refurbishment that will be less costly and resource intensive than replacement. I'd think that if the worst came to the worst financially and the Tide's are as solidly built as is hoped the RFA might well be able to get away with the bare minimum of refurbishment on them.

[marktigger]

in 30 years the CVF will need major rebuilds same with the oilers

Yes, they'll need mid-life refurbishment, not as you had suggested replacement. Refurbishment that will be less costly and resource intensive than replacement. I'd think that if the worst came to the worst financially and the Tide's are as solidly built as is hoped the RFA might well be able to get away with the bare minimum of refurbishment on them.[/quote]


That will be very dependent on how much technology moves on. A rebuild could be as expensive as the current build price but cheaper by build prices in 20-30 years

[Pseudo]

Yes, they'll need mid-life refurbishment, not as you had suggested replacement. Refurbishment that will be less costly and resource intensive than replacement. I'd think that if the worst came to the worst financially and the Tide's are as solidly built as is hoped the RFA might well be able to get away with the bare minimum of refurbishment on them.

That will be very dependent on how much technology moves on. A rebuild could be as expensive as the current build price but cheaper by build prices in 20-30 years

The concept you're looking for is called inflation and like most things it's not a bad thing in small doses. It's the reason why the UK's post-WW2 debt to GDP ratio of 225% was roughly equivalent to 10% of GDP thirty-five years later. It also partially explains why austerity without stimulus is a counterproductive response to recession.

By my guesstimate the mid-life refit of CVF should be due just after the Type 45 replacement.

[marktigger]

yeap but if we can spread programs we won't end up repeating the mess we currently have. hope fully a national shipbuilding strategy will solve it

[Pseudo]

yeap but if we can spread programs we won't end up repeating the mess we currently have. hope fully a national shipbuilding strategy will solve it

Yes. That's pretty much the point that I was making. We won't be replacing T26, T23, CVF, Tide and River at the same time as you suggested we would.

[marktigger]

yeap but there are those suggesting we concurrently build T31 & T26 which would create that issue

[Pseudo]

yeap but there are those suggesting we concurrently build T31 & T26 which would create that issue

How? Doesn't it just mean that you have thirteen frigates to replace in a fifteenish year period, which is exactly the same issue as we have now. By my reckoning CVF shouldn't need replacing until after the Type 26 and Type 31 replacements have entered service.

[marktigger]

yes but if you build type 31/26 concurrently you will need to replace them at same time, t45 could be extended to and all that will run into carrier replacement to

[Pseudo]

yes but if you build type 31/26 concurrently you will need to replace them at same time,

Concurrency doesn't mean that they're building all thirteen ships at the same time. When people say concurrently they just mean that the programmes will be running at the same time. The ships will be produced sequentially over a period of fifteenish years, just like they would if we were building thirteen Type 26's.

t45 could be extended to and all that will run into carrier replacement to

I can't see Type 45 being extended to the late 2060's. They'll likely need replacing shortly after the Type 26/31 has been built. However, assuming a thirty year service life for the Type 45 replacement, the first of the replacements for the Type 45 replacement would probably be coming in to service at the same time as the CVF replacement, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem since it's unlikely that they'll be built at the same yard. It could also be the case that those ships might turn out to be a single class combatant based on the same hull as whatever replaces the Type 26/31, so by the time construction starts on the CVF replacement the budget for a single class Type 26/31/45r replacement would be well under control.

[WhitestElephant]

Remember, we lost 2 T45 destroyers for all this rubbish. Apparently back then (2008), we were losing T45's 7 & 8 to "bring forward" a programme that would deliver 18 new frigates.

What we are actually getting; is delay after delay and only 8 (proper) new frigates.

When the time comes to replace T45 and T26, it will be for about 10 ships (4 AAW and 6 ASW).

T31 will be deleted from the fleet at the next recession.

[marktigger]

Remember, we lost 2 T45 destroyers for all this rubbish. Apparently back then (2008), we were losing T45's 7 & 8 to "bring forward" a programme that would deliver 18 new frigates.

What we are actually getting; is delay after delay and only 8 (proper) new frigates.

yes because we didn't need frigates and destroyers in Afghanistan

[ArmChairCivvy]

might turn out to be a single class combatant based on the same hull as whatever replaces the Type 26/31

- mind you, could be the T26 & the nextT45, rather, and hence we are looking for a lighter alternative (with AAW the hull can only grow, or perhaps stay in the dimensions now envisaged for the T26)

[marktigger]

common hull and basic machinery fit is a good idea but then fitting the vessel out for different roles

[Pseudo]

might turn out to be a single class combatant based on the same hull as whatever replaces the Type 26/31

- mind you, could be the T26 & the nextT45, rather, and hence we are looking for a lighter alternative (with AAW the hull can only grow, or perhaps stay in the dimensions now envisaged for the T26)

Yeah. I always wondered if he Type 45 replacement might be a stretched Type 26 with an extra bank of three VLS modules and an upgraded SAMPSON on the integrated mast. Dunno how feasible it'd be but the whole replacement of a replacement thing was getting really confusing anyway so I didn't really want to make it any more complicated.

[WhitestElephant]

Over at warships1 a user named Aethulwulf kindly copy and pasted this hidden portion of the Janes article, regarding the Kahreef derivative:

At the higher end of the cost/capability curve, Cutlass is a significantly stretched and enhanced derivation of the 99 m Al Shamikh-class corvette design, three of which were previously built by BAE Systems for the Royal Navy of Oman (RNO) under Project Khareef. The Cutlass concept design developed with GPFF in mind is, at 117 m, a somewhat larger ship than that built for the RNO, incorporating a 15 m mid-hull stretch, and an additional 3 m on the transom. Cutlass would additionally offer improved resilience and survivability, a more extensive combat system, a higher power electric drive system, replenishment at sea points on either beam, a full NBCD citadel, and space amidships to embark special forces' boats and equipment.

[marktigger]

has cutlass got the following or the capability to:
5in gun
sea ceptor
surface to surface missile
30mm DS30
space and top weight capicity for 20mm Phalanx
Capability to carry Merlin?