Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

The latest Incheon even has the MT30!

Looks quite a lot like the Venator concept, but the newest batches come with an MT30 and a towed array sonar, which certainly boosts the credibility of the platform, and makes it look a lot more interesting to us. The Korean Navy class it as a coastal frigate, like us the operate a lot of big ships, and the Incheon is very much their second tier.

I would also add we don't know what the requirements are, the only on that is a solid requirement so far is it must be cheaper than the T26.

Rumours so far;

• £300m Budget
• Off the shelf design and systems
• Globally deployable / Foward based
• Lower end of Royal Navy operations
• More exportable (*urgh*)

Anything else?

[marktigger]

Best option: Type 26.

totally agree

How much of the Type 26 budget is being wasted in this T31 concept drawing war

[marktigger]

How often doe people realistically think a CBG is going to deploy?

It won't be that often the carrier will probably spend their lives in company of one or two ships.

[shark bait]

I think there will be one at sea often, with continuous availability guaranteed, which means there must be a continuous supply of credible escorts.

We made what, in retrospect, was a quite extraordinary decision to define a highly ambitious future for the Royal Navy, based around 3 core capabilities of Continuous At Sea Deterrent and Carrier Strike, together with Amphibious Readiness.

It seams they have set that goal, and there is a plan in place to realize that goal. I believe the small increase in man power was to enable this, which will presumably be followed by another small increase in 2025 to fully enable POW too.

Next step is making sure we have enough credible escorts, so I'm going to repeat myself here, 2.5 ASW frigates it no enough to protect a carrier and trident.

[GibMariner]

Could Babcock's offering be a foreign licence such as the Incheon?

Wouldn't a foreign design kill any export hopes? Not saying that we are likely to export, but since all the rhetoric coming from the MoD indicates that exportability is a factor in the design, surely that would rule out any foreign designs?

Surely adapting something like the Incheon to RN standards would likely result in an almost entirely new design. Wouldn't it make more sense to just further develop the Venator concept into a more capable platform, which seems to be the most credible of the "barely a frigate" designs offered so far?

Some similar discussion seems to be going on across the Channel regarding the FTI. Interestingly, it seems that ASW looks likely to be a primary focus: http://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/f ... casse-tete

[shark bait]

If we want something built quick a modified foreign design would likely be the quickest and lowest risk.

For Babcock's offering they must almost certainly be partnering with a foreign design office, they have a lot of naval talent within the company, but a clean sheet design from them seems unlikely. Building to others designs, and modifying designs are where Babcock's expertise lie so I'd put my money on it being a foreign design modified for the Royal Navy.

It does seem counter intuitive to build expert hope of that, but suppose they buy the rights to produce an Asian design to Nato standards there may still be some potential in there.

The FTI does seem to be born out of similar needs to the T31 we should look closely.

Interesting the four biggest Navy's within NATO are maintain their fleet size with cheaper smaller frigates, the LCS, FTI, PPA and T31. The difference is the LCS, PPA and FTI seem to be taking their ASW roles seriously. (they all like horrible acronyms too!)

[rec]

I am not sure that this is the first time that replacement kit was less capable than current.
After all The Invincible was less capable than Ark Royal IV. The type 22 batch 1 less capable as ships than the batch 2a or modified batch 3 Leander's.

I think Venator is the best of the batch, especially if there is space for a light towed array sonar, and if 10 lynx wildcats are modified to take dunking sonar and mad, then they will be relatively capable second tier escorts. Which after all us all the T81s and T21s were.

We had to tier escorts before: After all the type 12ms (Rothseays) and Type 12 God (Leander's) were tier one escorts, and the Tribals and Amazon's tier 2.

[ArmChairCivvy]

future for the Royal Navy, based around 3 core capabilities of Continuous At Sea Deterrent and Carrier Strike, together with Amphibious Readiness

You can put those 3 into 2 words: CASD and CEPP
-this will explain what SB is repeating all the time: the primacy of protecting the carriers
- fail that one, and there won't be much left

BTW, anyone with spare time can check from here
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/11/t ... 1-context/
that we are pretty much in the same discussion... this much later!

[Engaging Strategy]

But, I think Cutlass is too "lower" specified, or Avenger too "highly". The Janes document states Avenger is the cheapest end. But, in your list, it has higher performance parameters than Cutlass.

Avenger // Cutlass

• Light gun (76/57mm) // Light Gun (likely 76mm OTO Melara, the same as the original Khareefs)
  Space for a small CAMM VLS // Small CAMM VLS aft of the gun (12 missiles if it mirrors the original Sea Mica configuration)
  Artisan // Artisan
  CODAD, two engines? Twin shafts // CODAD, two engines? twin shafts.
  ~24kn? // ~28kn?
  35+ days stores endurance // 21+ days stores endurance
  5,500+ nmi Range // 4,500+ nmi range
  Up to Four? seaboats carried externally on davits // Two? seaboats carried within the superstructure.
  Small fixed hangar and Merlin-capable flight deck // Possibly a small mission bay
  Length ~111m // ~120m
  Beam ~13.5m // 14.6m
  34+ crew // 100+ crew

Cutlass ship was extended by 18m for something other than fighting capability. Avenger by 22m for fighting capability. Cutlass is fatter = larger than Avenger. So, Cutlass must have "better" performance parameters than Avenger. If not, Avenger cannot be cheaper than Cutlass.

Those figures are based on observations of the concept images, the Jane's article and the existing designs they're based on. Wherever I've marked something with a "+" it denotes what is probably a minimum figure, based on what we definitely know about the characteristics of the existing ship it's based on, it would've been more appropriate to say "more than".

If we forget its cost (but it risks built number), I agree, but for a few points.
- 24 CAMM is good enough, 32 is "better be", I think. (I base my comment on 12-module system = 2 subsystem).

I think you're over estimating the cost of that system. The specialised CAMM VLS is cheap, doesn't occupy much deck space and is capable of having the missiles quad-packed. It appears to come in units of four cells, each with four missiles for a total of 16. Two of these would make 32, giving it the same AAW missile capacity as its predecessor.


The CAMM VLS

- "bow dome sonar" can be a simple hull sonar. Better use bow space for efficient propulsion. Merlin capable hangar will be of higher interest for me.

We'll have 5 spare Sonar 2050 sets left over from the Type 23s. Re-using those would save cost over buying new sets.

- (canistered ASM is given, just swap from T23-mod).

Harpoon OSD is 2018 with no immediate replacement in sight. This may be extended but it's unlikely that GPFF will come along before it's long out of service. Type 26 doesn't have need for a canister-launched missile, as it has the strike length VLS for that.

- I also hope to "hear" that the stern can accomodate (at least) CAPTAS-2 FFBNW, which will make it "almost equivalent to FTI", in future if RN buy CAPTAS-2.

On the Venator 110? The brochure doesn't mention it, so i'd assume not.

Would the Incheon class from South Korea meet some of the requirements? ,there are several versions starting from one hundred million U.S

I think that's a fantastic example of why we may be setting our sights too low on this. For its weight class the Incheon is a very well armed little ship. The batch IIs will have a 5" gun, 48 cell "K-VLS" (cheap locally produced launch system, not a million miles from the CAMM launcher), C-Ram, ASW torpedo launchers, 8 canister launched AShM and a Phalanx CIWS. 4500 mile range, CODOG propulsion (one MT-30 GT and two diesel gensets) withey twin shafts and aviation facilities for a Lynx or Seahawk. I believe they also have thexperience ability to take a towed array. Crew is ~140.

All for ~$232m (£179m with the current exchange rate) Even if it came in at double the cost, "because it's built in the UK so it's more expensive" factor that's still only £358m. For a very fighty little frigate that could cover any standing task the RN currently performs.

So can we please ditch the "£300m will only buy you a gash OPV on steroids" rhetoric?

[shark bait]

I also hope to "hear" that the stern can accomodate (at least) CAPTAS-2 FFBNW, which will make it "almost equivalent to FTI", in future if RN buy CAPTAS-2.

On the Venator 110? The brochure doesn't mention it, so i'd assume not.

The Venator design specifies a stern ramp for a RHIB, so there must be a 'mission bay' below the flight deck.

The Italian PPA, also has a ramp and 'mission bay' under the flight deck, and they also include the capability for a towed array in there.


^Italian PPA; stern mission bay

The PPA will have two mission spaces: one is located in the stern, under the flight deck, and includes one launch ramp for a boat, flanked by two spaces for container-sized payloads. On the Full, these two spaces will be used for a towed array sonar and for two 533mm Heavy Torpedo Tubes facing aft.

So the Italians have a light frigate, 16.5m wide and manage to fit a stern ramp, towed array, and torpedo tubes under the flight deck.

There is no reason the Venator design couldn't do the same and become a pocked multi-role frigate. Sonar, USV and torpedo could and should be packed in under the flight deck, and give the platform a shred of credibility. Also similar is the Independence class.



Comparing sonars it looks like the standard CAPTAS-4 may be too large to fit in like that. However the CAPTAS-2 looks the perfect size for such are arrangement, its also cheaper.

Our friends are all developing small frigates, so perhaps the idea isn't so bad, however our friends small frigates all look much more capable than the concepts that have been thrown around lately. Its very worrying.

[Engaging Strategy]

The Italian PPA, also has a ramp and 'mission bay' under the flight deck, and
So the Italians have a light frigate, 16.5m wide and manage to fit a stern ramp, towed array, and torpedo tubes under the flight deck.

Our friends are all developing small frigates, so perhaps the idea isn't so bad, however our friends small frigates all look much more capable than the concepts that have been thrown around lately. Its very worrying.

Here's a crazy off the wall idea, liscence build PPA. It's not like we're ever actually going to export whatever we end up building anyway.

[ArmChairCivvy]

a crazy off the wall idea, liscence build PPA

What's crazy about that? Two questions, though (they are somewhat interrelated):
1. Will the length of it fit in the builder's dry dock (diagonally, to give a hint of who I have in mind!)
2. Range/ endurance => will it need to be lengthened purely to fit in with these requirements?

[rec]

We have been down the two tier escourt route before: 1st rate (leanders and Rothseays) second rate (Tribals and Amazons).

We have had less capable replacements before Invicibles for Ark Royal !V and Eagle

If there is any chance of a sizeable (6+)light frigate programme, then tying the shipbuilding strategy into the upcoming industrial and infrastructure strategy iis the best bet. Therefpre a UK base design is best placed to try and take advantage of that. Which in my opinion puts Venator as the best bet, espcially if coupled with fitting 10 wildcat with dipping sonara and providing 10 lightweight TAS for the Venators.

[Aethulwulf]

How does the detection range of Captas 2 (30 to 60 km) fit in with the operational range of a ASW equipped Wildcat (i.e. dipping sonar, 1 or 2 stingray, etc.)?

[ArmChairCivvy]

BMT is having considerable success with the MoD (and elsewhere, too).

I would not rule out an Italian license, a British Yard and BMT overseeing it (now, that would be off the wall, but in my opinion, not crazy).

After all, we are not like the good old USA (if you want to build warships for them, buy a yard first):
"Fincantieri Marinette Marine’s performance on government contracts is impressive. Its portfolio includes the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship, the improved Navy Lighterage System, mine countermeasure vessels and ocean tugs, as well as U.S. Coast Guard icebreakers, buoy tenders and response vessels."

[shark bait]

1. Will the length of it fit in the builder's dry dock (diagonally, to give a hint of who I have in mind!)

Doesn't matter because they're going to be built on the Clyde.

[Engaging Strategy]

Doesn't matter because they're going to be built on the Clyde.

Unless they're block built around the country (including Scottish yards) and assembled on the Clyde.

[donald_of_tokyo]

• It doesn't look like something that could escort.
• At the moment it has no ASW capabilities.
• It doesn't look like a credible war fighter.

So its really difficult to call it a normal frigate by Royal Navy standards. On paper the Venator seems quite like the Floreal, designed for maritime security and patrols, but not escorts or anything too flighty, therefor patrol frigates.

Not agree. Floreal do not have CAMM, and CAMM is NOT cheap. (UK lost bids for Chillian T23mod against ESSM). Floreal do not have navy damage control standard, nor good CMS.
Venator has hull sonar, CAMM, built with CMS (full-set of GP-frigate armaments), look very similar to ANZAC-frigate-NZ-mod. So it is typical "light frigate" for me. Also as you stated, retrofitting CAPTAS-2 to Vanator will be "doable". It is the same to T23GP, which do not carry TASS nor Merlin now. "RN can buy CAPTAS and equip it, when need arises". I see no difference here. Quiet hull, will be the only difference.

Also those who are talking about Inchon class as a "good" example, I recall you all the arguments we saw here: RN living standard, range/endurance, damage control standard, future growth margin, etc etc. I am pretty sure Cutlass and Venator can be as heavily armed as Inchon easily, if you forget all the "RN-standard issues". I see no problem there.

On the other hand, adopting foreign design will "teach" UK ship building industry "how to design/build an exportable frigate", which I think UK ship industry has "lost". Accept UK ship industry is "inferior". Learn, and rebuild. This will give a good chance for UK ship industry. In this sense, adopting FTI design will be a good option, I think.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Best option: Type 26.

totally agree
How much of the Type 26 budget is being wasted in this T31 concept drawing war

So you agree to reduce escort number. Remember all T31 argument comes from, "13 T26 is not affordable". To keep the frigate number of 13, "T31" program comes out. If not, 10-11 T26 will be the best answer for sure.

[GibMariner]

So you agree to reduce escort number.

I believe marktigger & Ron5 are suggesting continuing the Type 26 run beyond 8 hulls to 13+, not reducing numbers.

Remember all T31 argument comes from, "13 T26 is not affordable".

That should read "HM Treasury doesn't want to pay for 13 Type 26". It's the Type 45 all over again.

The PPA is around the size of the Batch 1 & 2 Type 22 and comes in at almost 6,000 t.

If we're imagining Babcock building the general purpose frigate, why are we limiting it to Appledore? They also have Rosyth with larger docks, could give the government room to manoeuvre as they'd still be built in Scotland. There's also the workforce to consider.

[donald_of_tokyo]

So you agree to reduce escort number.

I believe marktigger & Ron5 are suggesting continuing the Type 26 run beyond 8 hulls to 13+, not reducing numbers.

Remember all T31 argument comes from, "13 T26 is not affordable".

That should read "HM Treasury doesn't want to pay for 13 Type 26". It's the Type 45 all over again.
The PPA is around the size of the Batch 1 & 2 Type 22 and comes in at almost 6,000 t.

Note, Treasury did NOT cut cost for T45 (T45 program cost "exceeds" what was allocated as planned). Treasury just do not support the cost-overrun. I suppose, RN did not want to cut other program, so they agreed to stop T45 with only 6 hull. So it is RN's choice, not Treasury's. It will be the same for T26. If it was within the planned (undisclosed) allocation cost, surely Treasury would have been agreed to go with 13 T26s.

So my question is, to build ALL 13 T26, what are you going to cut? MOD decided to go for 2 CVF (not 1+1 mothballed), regained MPA as P-8s, and proceeded with MARS SSS as well as Tides. Reduction in T26 number was primarily MOD/RN's decision, not Treasury (although I admit you may not agree).

Actually, for me the choice is to, make CVF 1 active + 1 mothballed (as Albion class LPD), and build all 13 T26 with ASW kits. This plan will also provide 500~600 crews "back" to the escort fleets, enabling to operate the 2 (or 1) escorts now "piersided", enable 8 Merlin HM1 to be upgraded to HM2, and resolve RFA manpower problem (by sending some crews to RFA from RN).

[marktigger]

Best option: Type 26.

totally agree
How much of the Type 26 budget is being wasted in this T31 concept drawing war

So you agree to reduce escort number. Remember all T31 argument comes from, "13 T26 is not affordable". To keep the frigate number of 13, "T31" program comes out. If not, 10-11 T26 will be the best answer for sure.

Donald 13 is affordable with a rethink of how he defence budget is allocated!

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald 13 is affordable with a rethink of how the defence budget is allocated!

From where you can get that cost? As you see, I've proposed to reduce 2 CVF to 1+1 CVF.

[shark bait]

Actually, for me the choice is to, make CVF 1 active + 1 mothballed

[abc123]

• CAMM, and CAMM is NOT cheap. (UK lost bids for Chillian T23mod against ESSM). .

Do you know the cost of CAMM missile?