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

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by RetroSicotte »

Cutlass basded on the photo has a 5 inch gun, 12x CAMM and nothing else.

Going by Khareef class weaponry, it could also mount 8x Harpoons and 2x 30mm guns.

Tonnage wise, Khareef is about 2,660. With the extra size here, it's probably about a 3,000 tonne warship we're looking at.

But then, which ASMs? I almost feel like that entire single weapon is overhanging so much of this class' viability. If they go for LRASM, then they may have a land attack missile (IF the US goes for that mode option, not likely) matching the SCALP in range that brings a lot more viability to ASuW and Land Attack.

If it's NSM...well it's not bad, it's still better.

But if nothing's announced for them soon? What on earth could it even be? Harpoon is being phased out by 2018. The next one isn't due until 2035 or so.

Would they truly be willing to lose all ASuW capability from the ship itself for 15+ years?

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

That is going to be one of the decisions they will have to take and a standard weapon for

Astute
Type 26,31,45
Typhoon,Lightning II
P8
Merlin

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by seaspear »

That sized ship could be equiped with captas2 for asw which is not expensive and provides a reasonable capability

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by rec »

seaspear wrote:That sized ship could be equiped with captas2 for asw which is not expensive and provides a reasonable capability

And reasonable is all we can realistically afford, given the cost of the T26s, 8 is all we can afford on the current budget.
The best reasonable best would be 8 Type 31s.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by RetroSicotte »

marktigger wrote:That is going to be one of the decisions they will have to take and a standard weapon for

Astute
Type 26,31,45
Typhoon,Lightning II
P8
Merlin
Well, thus far we've seen (including in development concepts)

LRASM:
- Mk41 capable
- Canister Capable
- F-35 Capable
- P-8 likely

NSM:
- Mk41 capable
- Canister Capable
- F-35 Capable
- Submarine Capable

MARTE-ER:
- Typhoon Capable
- Helicopter Capable

Sea Venom:
- Helicopter Capable

From that listing, LRASM is the clear option given the Royal Navy already have Sea Venom for the helos. While NSM's submarine launch concept is cool, it's unlikely to get made and Astute at least has the Spearfish already.

Elsewise, NSM is the clear option.

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by WhitestElephant »

seaspear wrote:That sized ship could be equiped with captas2 for asw which is not expensive and provides a reasonable capability
Absolutely agree, and then get 8 of them.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by WhitestElephant »

RetroSicotte wrote:Tonnage wise, Khareef is about 2,660. With the extra size here, it's probably about a 3,000 tonne warship we're looking at.
Size wise, the Khareef derivative looks to be in the exact same category as the Anzac-class frigate, so yep, 3-3,500 tonne range. Lets hope it has the range and endurance of an Anzac, and not a Khareef.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Engaging Strategy »

RetroSicotte wrote:Cutlass basded on the photo has a 5 inch gun, 12x CAMM and nothing else.

Going by Khareef class weaponry, it could also mount 8x Harpoons and 2x 30mm guns.

Tonnage wise, Khareef is about 2,660. With the extra size here, it's probably about a 3,000 tonne warship we're looking at.
Just like "Avenger" the "Cutlass" concept straight up is NOT a frigate. Frankly I'd only call those designs "warships" in the loosest sense of the term. Strip off the token CAMM cells (whatever anyone says 12 VL CAMM for a surface combatant is simply a joke) and they're coast guard cutters.

The talk of "Cutlass" having greater resilience than "Avenger" is simply laughable, neither would last five minutes anywhere near a war zone. The threats these ships will face over their ~25yr lifespan are already pretty clear: increasingly fast and lethal anti-ship missiles and rapidly proliferating submarines. In the face of those threats these concepts are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and that's being generous. If they ever see serious combat these ships will most likely sink catastrophically and remind us what a sodding stupid idea it was to pretend that patrol boats were frigates.

As for their armament, at least Type 21 could reload it's mostly useless Sea Cat launchers at sea, once these ships twelve CAMMs are gone they've got to return to a friendly port with the correct facilities to reload the VLS cells. This could be literally hundreds of miles and several days steaming away.

These concepts make me genuinely angry. Has nobody learned anything from our own recent experience of naval combat? Are we seriously going to send young sailors to sea in under-armed and barely credible warships again, so they can get sunk and good people can get killed again?

As Ron5 points out the cost of building new ships is negligible compared with the cost of running them. A fleet of 13 Type 26 makes sense. Unless BAE and others come out with some less insultingly dangerous and under-armed designs I'll be arguing to bin the whole rotten lot and simply build as many Type 26s as humanly possible.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

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 »

Engaging Strategy wrote: Just like "Avenger" the "Cutlass" concept straight up is NOT a frigate.
Call it as you like, but in the world, it is called a frigate or light frigate. So BAE calling it a frigate cannot be blamed, sorry.

I totally agree the CAMM number shall not be 12. I think it must be 24 at minimum. As CAMM requires significantly less area compared to SeaMICA, and Khareef has 12 SeaMICA, I think 24 CAMM will be surely doable.
The talk of "Cutlass" having greater resilience than "Avenger" is simply laughable, neither would last five minutes anywhere near a war zone.
AAW wise 24 CAMM is a half of those carried on T26. T31/GPFF is intended to be half the cost, so there will be 2 T31 in place of 1 T26. Thus, CAMM number do not change. If you say "would last five minutes anywhere near a war zone", T26 as well. Five minutes. No difference. (note with a resource for 1 T26, there will be 2 T31 there).
If they ever see serious combat these ships will most likely sink catastrophically and remind us what a sodding stupid idea it was to pretend that patrol boats were frigates.
Please tell me how T26 can "better" survive in your idea. ASW wise, I agree. But how can T26 more survivable than 2 T31s, AAW wise? Also, if your enemy is not that powerful, 2 T31 can be sent to 2 places happily, but 1 T26 cannot be divided. Please note I am NEVER proposing to replace all T26 with T31. But, having ALSO a few T31 in the fleet has its own merit. This is my point.
As for their armament, at least Type 21 could reload it's mostly useless Sea Cat launchers at sea, once these ships twelve CAMMs are gone they've got to return to a friendly port with the correct facilities to reload the VLS cells.
Totally agree here. BAE shall say it is 24 CAMM, which is anyway quite easy. CAMM is design to be packed "compact". That's the basic concept of the cold launch.
As Ron5 points out the cost of building new ships is negligible compared with the cost of running them. A fleet of 13 Type 26 makes sense. Unless BAE and others come out with some less insultingly dangerous and under-armed designs I'll be arguing to bin the whole rotten lot and simply build as many Type 26s as humanly possible.
I also totally agree to this point. That is what I am proposing as option-2. 10 T26 and 3 (a bit up armored/elongated) River-mod OPVs (much modest one than Avenger = much cheaper one). In this case, MOD shall let one of the standing tasks to be either "abandoned" or "replaced with the elongated River B2s". May be making Kipion from 2 escorts to 1. OR accepting "Fleet Ready Escort" to be just "Fleet Ready OPV".

Anybody comparing 1 Cutlass vs 1 T26 is simply proposing additional resource or reduced escort number. Here, I am basing my comment on the assumption that, "MOD only has resource for 8 T26ASW + 3 T26GPs" AND "MOD wants to keep 19 escorts = keep the standing tasks as it is, so looking for 8 T26ASW and 5 T31". If the baseline is different, conclusion shall differ. Not a surprise.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:NSM:
- Mk41 capable
- Canister Capable
- F-35 Capable
- Submarine Capable
Lumping NSM and JSM together there; the latter for
- Mk41
- F-35 (internally only for "A")
- submarine capable

... laeves the canister option for smaller vessels, short of space. But the same supplier would mean (with some shared components) practically one and te same logistics chain. not to be sniffed at.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

We could always leave the OpFor guessing whether the mid-ship openings, on the side, will yield SBS guys with daggers between their teeth, or this:

Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Astute
Type 26,31,45
Typhoon,Lightning II
P8
Merlin

Well, thus far we've seen (including in development concepts)

LRASM:
- Mk41 capable
- Canister Capable
- F-35 Capable
- P-8 likely

NSM:
- Mk41 capable
- Canister Capable
- F-35 Capable
- Submarine Capable

MARTE-ER:
- Typhoon Capable
- Helicopter Capable

Sea Venom:
- Helicopter Capable

From that listing, LRASM is the clear option given the Royal Navy already have Sea Venom for the helos. While NSM's submarine launch concept is cool, it's unlikely to get made and Astute at least has the Spearfish already.

Elsewise, NSM is the clear option.
Sea Venom and LMM are wildcat capable I would suggest something with longer legs and fire and forget would be better option for the merlin.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

Engaging Strategy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Cutlass basded on the photo has a 5 inch gun, 12x CAMM and nothing else.

Going by Khareef class weaponry, it could also mount 8x Harpoons and 2x 30mm guns.

Tonnage wise, Khareef is about 2,660. With the extra size here, it's probably about a 3,000 tonne warship we're looking at.
Just like "Avenger" the "Cutlass" concept straight up is NOT a frigate. Frankly I'd only call those designs "warships" in the loosest sense of the term. Strip off the token CAMM cells (whatever anyone says 12 VL CAMM for a surface combatant is simply a joke) and they're coast guard cutters.

The talk of "Cutlass" having greater resilience than "Avenger" is simply laughable, neither would last five minutes anywhere near a war zone. The threats these ships will face over their ~25yr lifespan are already pretty clear: increasingly fast and lethal anti-ship missiles and rapidly proliferating submarines. In the face of those threats these concepts are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, and that's being generous. If they ever see serious combat these ships will most likely sink catastrophically and remind us what a sodding stupid idea it was to pretend that patrol boats were frigates.

As for their armament, at least Type 21 could reload it's mostly useless Sea Cat launchers at sea, once these ships twelve CAMMs are gone they've got to return to a friendly port with the correct facilities to reload the VLS cells. This could be literally hundreds of miles and several days steaming away.

These concepts make me genuinely angry. Has nobody learned anything from our own recent experience of naval combat? Are we seriously going to send young sailors to sea in under-armed and barely credible warships again, so they can get sunk and good people can get killed again?

As Ron5 points out the cost of building new ships is negligible compared with the cost of running them. A fleet of 13 Type 26 makes sense. Unless BAE and others come out with some less insultingly dangerous and under-armed designs I'll be arguing to bin the whole rotten lot and simply build as many Type 26s as humanly possible.
Our "Recent" experience you talk about of naval warfare has been chasing pirate skiffs of East africa and picking up refugees in various oceans of the world and providing Naval gunfire support to special forces and landing platforms for Attack Helicopters. off the coasts of failed states who don't have credible naval forces. We don't do high end warfighting remember the future of land warfare was airportable forces that can be lifted and dropped out of a C130 thats what the Generals in they're funny Maroon berets have convinced the Civil service and Ministers.

but where are we going to face a major naval threat? are we likely to take on the Chinese? will we be trying to force convoys through the Baltic? Anyway the Americans will do the heavy lifting and we can provide a token vessel.

That is the mentality there has been in whitehall the Special forces and Airforce have convinced their civilian masters that Counter Insurgency and rapid small interventions are the future of warfare. And the treasury love it because its cheap. Unfortunately it will take losses like we took in the Falklands to wake them out of their complacency.

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Engaging Strategy »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Call it as you like, but in the world, it is called a frigate or light frigate. So BAE calling it a frigate cannot be blamed, sorry.
I don't care one jot what other countries call their useless pretend warships. In the RN "frigate" is synonymous with a ship capable of playing a useful role, especially in ASW. If you're calling "Avenger" a "frigate" you might as well just call the B2 Rivers "frigates" as well. The only serious difference is 12 CAMM cells.
totally agree the CAMM number shall not be 12. I think it must be 24 at minimum. As CAMM requires significantly less area compared to SeaMICA, and Khareef has 12 SeaMICA, I think 24 CAMM will be surely doable.
36 is probably the bare minimum I'd consider for a credible platform. If necessary fit an 8 cell Mk.41/A50 launcher and quad pack them to save space. The problem is that the number of missiles it can carry is currently all you've got without sailing home to re-arm. Until someone develops a way of safely rearming a VLS at sea you need to be carrying a decent number of missiles, otherwise you'll run out in combat and die or run out and have to sail home: also removing you from the action for a significant period.
AAW wise 24 CAMM is a half of those carried on T26. T31/GPFF is intended to be half the cost, so there will be 2 T31 in place of 1 T26. Thus, CAMM number do not change. If you say "would last five minutes anywhere near a war zone", T26 as well. Five minutes. No difference. (note with a resource for 1 T26, there will be 2 T31 there).
How can you possibly assume that GPFFs will toddle around in pairs? The difference between T-26 and Cutlass/Avenger is that, as currently configured, the latter would run out of Sea Ceptor very quickly if forced to defend itself from air or missile attack, become defenceless and either successfully flee or die. Type 26 has four times the "staying power" in terms of AAW missile numbers.
Please tell me how T26 can "better" survive in your idea. ASW wise, I agree. But how can T26 more survivable than 2 T31s, AAW wise?
Because Type 26 has twice as many AAW missiles as two Cutlass/Avenger, a substantially taller radar mast, two CIWS and likely the excess power generation to fit laser CIWS.

Cutlass/Avenger have 12 CAMM before they're down to 30mm cannon and small arms.
Also, if your enemy is not that powerful, 2 T31 can be sent to 2 places happily, but 1 T26 cannot be divided. Please note I am NEVER proposing to replace all T26 with T31. But, having ALSO a few T31 in the fleet has its own merit. This is my point.
So if your enemy has no anti-shipping capability whatsoever and maybe a couple of aircraft from the 1970s then you can break out the GPFF. Give me a break. "Low threat" areas these days are just the ones where you're liable to get fewer, older, anti-ship missiles fired at you.

There is a place for a lighter frigate than Type 26 IMO. But it's nothing like these joke "frigates" that offer nothing but a hollow headline about "thirteen frigates" and are good for little beyond light duties and flag flying.
Totally agree here. BAE shall say it is 24 CAMM, which is anyway quite easy. CAMM is design to be packed "compact". That's the basic concept of the cold launch.
Nope, both BAE designs have featured 12CAMM missiles. About 1/3 of the capacity of the Type 23s that GPFF will replace. A very significant step down in capability for about 40% of the UK frigate fleet.
I also totally agree to this point. That is what I am proposing as option-2. 10 T26 and 3 (a bit up armored/elongated) River-mod OPVs (much modest one than Avenger = much cheaper one). In this case, MOD shall let one of the standing tasks to be either "abandoned" or "replaced with the elongated River B2s". May be making Kipion from 2 escorts to 1. OR accepting "Fleet Ready Escort" to be just "Fleet Ready OPV".
Except we all know perfectly well that HMG will not lose face by abandoning standing commitments. They'll just stretch the existing force even thinner. 13 Type 26s are affordable. The build cost is negligible compared with the lifetime operating cost and hulls #9-#13 would be benefitting from massive efficiencies and cost savings. How much extra will it cost to design and build a separate class with its own unique logistics needs etc... If that class is an OPV with 12 CAMM there's no point at all in bothering to go to the expense.
Anybody comparing 1 Cutlass vs 1 T26 is simply proposing additional resource or reduced escort number. Here, I am basing my comment on the assumption that, "MOD only has resource for 8 T26ASW + 3 T26GPs" AND "MOD wants to keep 19 escorts = keep the standing tasks as it is, so looking for 8 T26ASW and 5 T31". If the baseline is different, conclusion shall differ. Not a surprise.
Simply put: three useful ships are better than five useless ones. If HMG want to maintain their international position with a force of 13 frigates they can pay for thirteen frigates, not pretend five barely armed OPVs are frigates. It smacks awfully of a means of pulling the wool over the public's eyes: "on yes we have 13 frigates, no change there." When, in fact, 40% of the frigate force will be made up of ships that would never have been called "frigates" in the past.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Timmymagic »

marktigger wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Well, thus far we've seen (including in development concepts)

LRASM:
- Mk41 capable
- Canister Capable
- F-35 Capable
- P-8 likely

NSM:
- Mk41 capable
- Canister Capable
- F-35 Capable
- Submarine Capable

MARTE-ER:
- Typhoon Capable
- Helicopter Capable

Sea Venom:
- Helicopter Capable

From that listing, LRASM is the clear option given the Royal Navy already have Sea Venom for the helos. While NSM's submarine launch concept is cool, it's unlikely to get made and Astute at least has the Spearfish already.

Elsewise, NSM is the clear option.
Sea Venom and LMM are wildcat capable I would suggest something with longer legs and fire and forget would be better option for the merlin.
When you chuck in the fact that LRASM has a much bigger warhead, land attack capability, Tomahawk out of production soon and rumours that sub-launch is being looked at it becomes a no brainer.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Repulse »

WhitestElephant wrote:T31 will be deleted from the fleet at the next recession.
Hence the need to get on with it, which is why the 2 promised, but not ordered OPVs should be T31s. These will be built before the T26.
”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
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Repulse wrote:Hence the need to get on with it, which is why the 2 promised, but not ordered OPVs should be T31s. These will be built before the T26.
Or, just stop mucking about and build the Type 26 already.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Repulse »

Engaging Strategy wrote:
Repulse wrote:Hence the need to get on with it, which is why the 2 promised, but not ordered OPVs should be T31s. These will be built before the T26.
Or, just stop mucking about and build the Type 26 already.
Normally I'd agree, but the fact the government hasnt (which would be politically the easiest) means that there are real issues. The need for 8 ASW T26s is a given, what we need to do is get on with the broader surface fleet and start to alleviate the pressure.

As I said earlier the T31 should be a sloop for EEZ Patrol / Surveillance, I think something like the Cutlass is fine to free up 2 of the current standing commitments, plus fill the missing permenant presence in the Med (which currently filled temporary by a River). Go for six, including changing the future 2 OPVs to be ordered, and then get as many T26s as we can afford.
”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 »

Our "Recent" experience you talk about of naval warfare has been chasing pirate skiffs of East africa and picking up refugees in various oceans of the world and providing Naval gunfire support to special forces and landing platforms for Attack Helicopters.
The "funny" (actually no, it is pretty sad) part is that, even assuming the mission looks like this (and i think it irresponsible to plan ahead on these assumptions), the General Purpose frigate is only good at NGS. The other things are better done with a larger "mothership" carrying Marines, boats and helicopters.

Again, we are back to the actual question: what is this "frigate" actually good for? And the answer always is, not much. Everything it can do come with a crapload of caveats and assumptions.
That, to me, is the definition of waste of money, especially when the Royal Navy is going to have some 6 OPVs (and it could easily have more by life-extending River Batch 1s) and, soon enough, it'll have to start thinking about what platform to build to replace the minesweepers. And it'll probably emerge as a platform good enough at a range of constabulary tasks as well.

Suddenly, the Royal Navy goes from having no low tier to having 3 different low tier classes, and an even bigger hole in Escort numbers. This is abject failure in planning and strategic coherence. The result of having few ideas, and well confused, shaped by eternal budget-driven short termism. The same short termism that generated tankers with drogues and strategic platforms with receptacles.

If you think this is the right road to follow, by all means go on. For me, it remains demented.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

We don't have a design confirmed yet, so I'm taking BAE's burnt offerings with a large pinch of salt. Personally I think the Venator looks more likely now.

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Pseudo »

Repulse wrote:Normally I'd agree, but the fact the government hasnt (which would be politically the easiest) means that there are real issues. The need for 8 ASW T26s is a given, what we need to do is get on with the broader surface fleet and start to alleviate the pressure.

Given that Osborne's economically illiterate goal of running a surplus by 2020 has been abandoned there's no reason why T26 construction couldn't be funded in the Autumn statement. Government borrowing costs are at historic lows and economic stimulus through government investment is historically the most successful method of promoting economic growth. Admittedly, public infrastructure improvements would produce a better return on investment than building frigates, but I think that if the government is going to start borrowing to invest then ~£1.5bn a year for the next decade or so isn't too much to find to keep a strategically important industry like complex warship building going when we have ships approaching the end if their service life.
As I said earlier the T31 should be a sloop for EEZ Patrol / Surveillance, I think something like the Cutlass is fine to free up 2 of the current standing commitments, plus fill the missing permenant presence in the Med (which currently filled temporary by a River). Go for six, including changing the future 2 OPVs to be ordered, and then get as many T26s as we can afford.
I think that it's worth remembering that the Type 31 was the brainchild of the Cameron government. There's no guarantee that the May government will be particularly interested in it.

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by WhitestElephant »

If Britannia still has a pulse, let us have as many T26 as possible. If the budget for five T31 only allows for two more Sonar 2087 equipped T26, then so be it. Two full fat T26 frigates are greater than five pathetic skiffs.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Engaging Strategy »

WhitestElephant wrote:If Britannia still has a pulse, let us have as many T26 as possible. If the budget for five T31 only allows for two more Sonar 2087 equipped T26, then so be it. Two full fat T26 frigates are greater than five pathetic skiffs.
^ This. So much this.

The above posters are right, the RN is about to have a lot of very capable platforms for the low end tasks, ranging from Argus, the Bays and (in a pinch) the fleet tankers and Solid Support Ships with helicopters embarked, plus the B2 Rivers which are a sort of "global OPV", the MCMs and the MHC that follows them. Plenty.

What the service desperately needs are real escorts for ASW and AAW. 19 isn't enough, especially considering that five are already languishing in the GP "fitted for but not with the equipment to perform their principal role" category. Simple as that. Build 13 Type 26 and aspire to get them all fitted with TASS. OR build eight plus eight smaller ASW platforms that compromise the Type 26s extra flexibility in order to focus very strongly on ASW.

There's no place whatsoever for these fake frigates that bring nothing to the party that we don't already have in spades. They'd be a pure waste of money.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Pseudo wrote: I think that it's worth remembering that the Type 31 was the brainchild of the Cameron government. There's no guarantee that the May government will be particularly interested in it.

I have to say i am rather hoping this might be the case, especially with Hammond now in the position that he is given his prior experience at the MoD. He wasn't a dreadful minister while over at defence and i would like to think he will remember, with sympathy, some of the issues that he himself had to confront with regards to defence spending.

I'm not saying that something like a GPFF doesn't have a future in the fleet at all, but it would ideally come in addition to the full order of Type 26s, rather than replacing five of them. Hell even if we had two more T26s, equipped with TASS and then had whatever the T31 turned out to be, thrown on top, that'd be a half decent settlement.

I guess we need to hope that May is a woman of substance and decides to give real teeth to Cameron’s rather flaccid rhetoric about ‘extra defence investment’ and properly resourced equipment plans. We also need to watch out for the economic effects of Brexit too.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by RetroSicotte »

I think much of the question needs to rest on "How many low end vessels do we need to cover those requirements?"

Then ask, once that number is met, how many proper escorts can be afforded?

Just to offer a different direction on the thoughtline. Rather than thinking top down, think requirements up.

Which tasks do we currently do that could be done by a lighter vessel, how light does that vessel need to be to do it, and how many are needed?

Then ask, what can be afforded after the requirements are met?

I suspect Gaberiel may be on to something by saying "If we kept the first three Rivers, would these minor requirements be met? Would a couple more auxiliary vessels then meet it? Are the requirements met? Okay, now Type 26."

Post Reply