Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[crutch00]

I'd be interested what people think of the Black Swan concept in the context of Type 31? Link here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _SwanU.pdf

[Engaging Strategy]

I'd be interested what people think of the Black Swan concept in the context of Type 31? Link here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _SwanU.pdf

It's a solution for MPHC, it absolutely isn't a frigate substitute.

[RichardIC]

I'd be interested what people think of the Black Swan concept in the context of Type 31? Link here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _SwanU.pdf

Ditto

But that discussion paper is all that exists of the Black Swan. At least BMT and BAE have done preliminary work on Venator and those other two things.

[marktigger]

MCMV's are fairly complex vessels and they seam to work fine forward deployed.

[marktigger]

why singapore? we currently aren't deploying a vessel out there?
Why Gib? we can send a 26 or 45 from UK

[GibMariner]

While Gib does have the dockyard (albeit a private one), and it would be nice to have frigate(s) stationed here (and in general a greater RN presence in the strait/Med), I don't see it happening.

Gib is what, a couple of days sailing from the UK at most? I don't think the costs involved in forward-basing a frigate would be justified just to save on a couple of days' worth of transit time & fuel. It should also be taken into account that the MoD has transferred most of its land, and housing stock, to the Gib government.

[marktigger]

we could always ask the maltese then they are more centrally based to cover the mouth of the suez canal, Cyprus, Adriatic, and Libya and gibraltar

[Engaging Strategy]

we could always ask the maltese then they are more centrally based to cover the mouth of the suez canal, Cyprus, Adriatic, and Libya and gibraltar

Are the harbour facilities adequate for a complex warship?

[Aethulwulf]

In many cases the main reason for forward basing is diplomacy; sending the political message to friendly and not so friendly nations in the area that the UK is committed to the area and is prepared to backup UK interests with military force if necessary. It can be argued that this is why we have an OPV permanently in the Falklands and are currently investing in expanding our Base in Bahrain.

[GibMariner]

It would be more politically & economically sensible and appropriate to forward-base a frigate at Gibraltar rather than Malta, but I still do not see the justification in basing a frigate at either location, especially without a substantial increase in funding, escort numbers or personnel.

[marktigger]

we could always ask the maltese then they are more centrally based to cover the mouth of the suez canal, Cyprus, Adriatic, and Libya and gibraltar

Are the harbour facilities adequate for a complex warship?

Grand harbour Malta?

[Engaging Strategy]

It would be more politically & economically sensible and appropriate to forward-base a frigate at Gibraltar rather than Malta, but I still do not see the justification in basing a frigate at either location, especially without a substantial increase in funding, escort numbers or personnel.

Yeah, i'm not really sure why we'd want to either. Gib is a quick transit away from the UK so of no real use as a "forward" base. Aside from riling the Spanish up I can't really see any operational benefits. An OPV based there for Mediterranean work might be nice, but a frigate would be excessive and require substantial enhancements to shore facilities there.

IMO the UK needs very few overseas naval bases. From the UK, Bahrain and the FPDA depot at Singapore we can go just about anywhere we want to, adding more complex shore bases would be a waste of resources. The only caveat I would add is that a handful of small and simple OPV bases would probably be a decent investment for the Caribbean, Falklands (already has one) and possibly Gib.

Grand harbour Malta?

What are the shore-side facilities for complex warships like there?

[donald_of_tokyo]

River OPVs has a sea going days of 300 days/yr. Frigates typically have 180 days/yr.

Since OPV crews are in 3 teams, 2 onboard, 1 on rest, it is 200 days/yr for a crew. Not different.

But, OPV do not need many crew (River 35 vs T23 180, 5 times different), because of less equipments. OPV do not need many maintenance, because of less equipments. So longer sea-going days are available.

OPV can do almost all the constable operations. Can even show the flag. And OPV are cheap, typically 5-7 times (or more) cheaper than a "proper" frigate. Of course, they cannot fight. For me, FIGS and WIGS filled with OPV is reasonable. Maybe also Med. But not Kipion, nor Singapore.

[marktigger]

but the opv has limited capability to look after itself if the situation breaks down......look at endurance in 82!
on likes of WIGS in aid to civil power a frigate or destroyer has greater capability to influence whats happening on the ground by nature of what it has available and can carry......think of the facilities a frigate has and can bring to bare on a small island thats been devastated by a hurricane. I'd be interested to see if you list and mine came anywhere near each other.

[rhodes76]

Ok, this is just my opinion as a civilian.

As britain is known for decent anti submarine warfare give the T-31 a captas-4 sonar, make it merlin capable, camm for protection, a cwis and a gun, use it for asw in the carrier fleet and free up the T-26 to do solo work. This in my opinion might make it more exportable.

[abc123]

nor Singapore.

I wonder, what's the reason that the RN should keep ships in Singapore in 2016+? Not that the RN has some surplus ships that can be sent there anyway...

And I still don't see what's so bad about Absalon-class that RN couldn't find good use for 5-6 of them...

[marktigger]

ok so the theoretical risk from Submarines has risen.........what is the actual risk?

[marktigger]

nor Singapore.

I wonder, what's the reason that the RN should keep ships in Singapore in 2016+? Not that the RN has some surplus ships that can be sent there anyway...

And I still don't see what's so bad about Absalon-class that RN couldn't find good use for 5-6 of them...

we still have an agreement with Singapore to use the base but if we're basing ships out there why not base in Australia?

[ArmChairCivvy]

forward-base a frigate at Gibraltar rather than Malta, but I still do not see the justification in basing a frigate at either location

As "wulf" said in the post above yours, there has to be a reason:
- Falklands a frigate-, and
- Gulf+, a frigate+

Now, please remind me of how many standing tasks the RN has (not taken on, but been given)?

[abc123]

nor Singapore.

I wonder, what's the reason that the RN should keep ships in Singapore in 2016+? Not that the RN has some surplus ships that can be sent there anyway...

And I still don't see what's so bad about Absalon-class that RN couldn't find good use for 5-6 of them...

we still have an agreement with Singapore to use the base but if we're basing ships out there why not base in Australia?

But why send ships in SE/E Asia at all? What's the so important national interest of the UK to do that?

And also, where are the resources ( ships and other things )?

[marktigger]

nor Singapore.

I wonder, what's the reason that the RN should keep ships in Singapore in 2016+? Not that the RN has some surplus ships that can be sent there anyway...

And I still don't see what's so bad about Absalon-class that RN couldn't find good use for 5-6 of them...

we still have an agreement with Singapore to use the base but if we're basing ships out there why not base in Australia?

But why send ships in SE/E Asia at all? What's the so important national interest of the UK to do that?

And also, where are the resources ( ships and other things )?

Correct if we are playing in that area of the world we will be playing with Aussies

[abc123]

I mean, if the goal of HMG is to put pressure on Chinese, I really don't see what a occasional frigate of RN can do that whole US Navy ( with Pacific Pivot ) doesen't do allready...

[Engaging Strategy]

ok so the theoretical risk from Submarines has risen.........what is the actual risk?

As severe as ever. In the event of an actual conflict with even a half-respectable power conventional submarines are going to be a nightmare. Just look at what 2 old and unreliable diesel boats did to the Falklands task force, a fleet drawn from a Royal Navy whose raison d'etre at the time was pretty much ASW. Even a handful of modern SSKs could cause severe problems for Amphibious shipping operating in the littoral, or even threaten the carrier group itself.

Proliferation of modern, quiet, submarines is a serious threat to the RN's ability to project power into the littoral. A key part of many countries burgeoning maritime A2AD capabilities.

[Aethulwulf]

nor Singapore.

I wonder, what's the reason that the RN should keep ships in Singapore in 2016+? Not that the RN has some surplus ships that can be sent there anyway...

And I still don't see what's so bad about Absalon-class that RN couldn't find good use for 5-6 of them...

we still have an agreement with Singapore to use the base but if we're basing ships out there why not base in Australia?

But why send ships in SE/E Asia at all? What's the so important national interest of the UK to do that?

And also, where are the resources ( ships and other things )?

To state the obvious, a growing percentage of world trade is now based in SE/E Asia with a large proportion passing through the Straits of Malacca. This has a direct link to the UK economy. At the same time there is a growing instability in the region and increasing militarisation - leading to a certain nervousness in some countries in the area that are friendly to the UK. Although not yet as unstable, there is a bit of a similarity between the Gulf region and SE/E Asia. It is no coincidence that in his recent speech the 1st Sea Lord spun the idea of maybe basing ships in Bahrain and Singapore as this is probably where they would have greatest diplomatic effect (mostly on friendly nations).
Of course this is all at least 10 years from now and entirely dependant upon on an increasing level of funding for the Navy over that time. (Ha ha ha)

[R686]

If there are 5 there will only ever be 2 of them on operations.

We would need 15 to maintain that list!

Yep generally the rule of three's, 1x operational, 1x working up, 1x refit/maintenance.

You could get away with two's but that rely's on things going your way most of the time