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

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

I've still yet to see someone point out as to why the Venator is such a flawed design. The term "best of a bad bunch" keeps being thrown around but no one has ever provided a reason as to why this is allegedly the case.

To my mind, it is far better than simply being the "best of a bad bunch".

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by shark bait »

Too small to be truly multipurpose
Too small to have a long endurance
Too small to contain sizable growth margins.

Of course it is only a concept and a lot depends of the systems fit. If it is just CAMM and a medium gun it has no capabilities beyond a patrol frigate, and will certainly have no credible warfighting role.

Just the standard Venator mentions no ASW capabilities which means we will be replacing 5 ASW capable vessels, with 5 maritime security patrol frigates. Bad move, especially at a time where subs are a growing threat, and we have a nuclear deterrent and carrier to protect.

It will always be a second tier, which I dislike, but it could me made acceptable with a gun, CAMM, large mission bay combined hanger, and towed sonar in a small mission bay under the flight deck. I think that would then look like a BMT steel Independence class LCS.
@LandSharkUK

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by bobp »

Whilst I am no expert in warship design, as some appear to be on this thread, I too have always liked the Venator design. Its got a gun, some missile launch tubes, space for other nasty bits, a mission bay with room for expansion, and space for a Helicopter . Arent these all things the T23 has. Ok maybe it doesn't have a top notch Sonar, but it could perhaps be updated later. To me half a dozen of these would be better than nothing. Because the Navy has to few Hulls in the water, when finances are short beggars cant be choosers.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

shark bait wrote:Too small to be truly multipurpose
Too small to have a long endurance
Too small to contain sizable growth margins.

Of course it is only a concept and a lot depends of the systems fit. If it is just CAMM and a medium gun it has no capabilities beyond a patrol frigate, and will certainly have no credible warfighting role.

Just the standard Venator mentions no ASW capabilities which means we will be replacing 5 ASW capable vessels, with 5 maritime security patrol frigates. Bad move, especially at a time where subs are a growing threat, and we have a nuclear deterrent and carrier to protect.

It will always be a second tier, which I dislike, but it could me made acceptable with a gun, CAMM, large mission bay combined hanger, and towed sonar and small mission bay under the flight deck.
A promised range of 7000nm is hardly low endurance. Its small manning requirements mean that there is certainly adequate space for the ship to take a modular approach to through-life support. Sure, it doesn't have a massive mission bay like the T26, but i think people are missing the point that compromises have to be made.

Very few people seem to be working the problem here, only bemoaning, in one form or another, that we aren't getting more T26s. It's disappointing that we aren't, but it is a reality we have to work with.

A T31 based on Venator would be different, but to rule it as simply the 'best of a bad bunch' based only on its preliminary dimensions is unjustified to my mind.

It wasn't so long ago, after all, that people on here were championing the idea of having a smaller, reduced range ASW mission specialist. I see no reason whatsoever why the Venator could not occupy that role should the MoD/RN/Treasury decide to go down that path.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

bobp wrote:Whilst I am no expert in warship design, as some appear to be on this thread, I too have always liked the Venator design. Its got a gun, some missile launch tubes, space for other nasty bits, a mission bay with room for expansion, and space for a Helicopter . Arent these all things the T23 has. Ok maybe it doesn't have a top notch Sonar, but it could perhaps be updated later. To me half a dozen of these would be better than nothing. Because the Navy has to few Hulls in the water, when finances are short beggars cant be choosers.
BMT say that a modular TASS solution is perfectly doable within the constraints of the design. It is simply up for the customer to "tick" the option. Again, like you, i see nothing inherently wrong with the Venator proposal at all.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by rec »

The Venator has much to commend it, as an escort. 8 of these would be good. As I have mentioned before along with 10 wildcat modified to take dipping sonar. We would have a reasonable escort.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

the defence budget was a mess from the invasion of Iraq when Gordo only provided a fraction of what was necessary and penalised the MoD for switching money from other budgets to pay for it. He Knew that the order would go past the next election and he had little prospect of winning it.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

Ron5 wrote:
Caribbean wrote:
R686 wrote:You could have a more exportable programs if you take a leaf out of the US play book, and that's after sales support, what we receive from the US is over and above the original sale price of said item.
That was the point that I was trying to make about France. We don't necessarily need to sell ships at a profit, we need to reduce the cost of subsidising our own capability to keep building them. Which is better - building at a sensible rate that minimises unit cost, then selling the surplus at knock-down (even below cost) prices, with follow-up income streams from the service and support contracts, or building at sub-optimal rates that increase the cost so much that we never sell any and then have to pay BAE for their workforce to sit on their backsides and drink tea once our own orders are filled?
I think I understand your point but I don't like using France as a model, I much prefer Japan:

France:
a) will sell to anyone, even potential enemies, they are the whores of defense sales.
b) builds stuff down to a price that's attractive to 3rd world countries which means in many, many cases, it's 2nd rate.
c) have nationally owned defense companies which pass on their losses to taxpayers i.e. are heavily subsidized. Fair enough you say? but when competing against companies that don't get home country subsidies, that's unfair competition that in non-defense industries would break world trade laws and would be subject to huge fines.
d) stays well clear of any conflicts where their 2nd rate equipment will get shown up

Japan:
a) accepts that maintaining a home industrial base is strategically very important and is willing to pay for it
b) decommissions ships early to create work for home industry
c) understand it can't develop everything so builds lots of foreign kit under license

Britain:
a) does not think or act strategically, just bodges along from one crisis to the next while make huge swerves every change of government and at all times tells lies that would make Baghdad Bob blush.

P.S. the 2% of GDP that Pinocchio George used to boast was an increase in defense. Well first of all, it wasn't. In previous years spending was over 2%. Not only that, when his lackey's actually calculated MoD spending it came below 2% so what do you think he did? Buy some more tanks or aircraft? Heck no, he just moved some irrelevant stuff from another ministry's budget into defense. The toothless defense committee said it was done with smoke and mirrors but who listens to them.

read an article about the australians looking at the Mistral class LPH noticed the modules didn't match up properly and weren't impressed with the build quality of the French ships. Also How many times has Charles De Gaulle been towed home?

the Changes in UK policy have become more pronounced since the Civil service lost the battle to provide long term stability they used to plan 20-30 years down the line then Governments decided they had to work to the 5 year election cycle so if a project takes longer than 5 years to complete its very unlikely it'll happen as originally planned.

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 »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:I've still yet to see someone point out as to why the Venator is such a flawed design. The term "best of a bad bunch" keeps being thrown around but no one has ever provided a reason as to why this is allegedly the case.

To my mind, it is far better than simply being the "best of a bad bunch".
My feeling is that it would have similar problems to the Type 21s in terms of growth margins. It's not a problem if we were to replace them after ~20yrs of service, but knowing the RN they'll serve for 30.

I agree that it's a decent design, with CAPTAS 2 I think we could all get behind it. Personally I'd like to see the design modified to accommodate the 5 spare bow dome sonar sets we'll salvage from the Type 23s, after the Type 26s take the first 8 sets. No sense letting good equipment we already own go to waste.

Okay, here's my oh-so slightly fantasy fleet-y Venator 110 Mk.2:

General:
CODAD, 4 gensets running two shafts
~25kn sprint, 15kn cruise
6,000nmi range at 15kn
40 days stores endurance
>100 crew

AAW:
Artisan (mounted on the tallest mast the ship can carry without negatively effecting stability)
32 CAMM cells
76mm OTO Melara gun as CIWS (a bitter compromise)

ASW:
Sonar 2050 bow dome
CAPTAS 2 (fitted at build)
Hangar and flight deck for Wildcat w/torpedoes

Anti-surface:
76mm gun
Helicopter launched Sea Venom

General Purpose extras:
Small combined multi-mission/seaboat bay
Twin DS-30 cannons for close-in defence

The trade-offs here are quite apparent, most of the offensive "punch" is delivered by the helicopter rather than the ship itself, leaving money for a more ambitious underwater sensor suite and defensive anti-air armament. This ship could happily replace a Type 26 as a CV escort, operate as the RN ASW ship in the Gulf or contribute to a Nato standing maritime group in the North Atlantic area. It wouldn't break the bank either.
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~ »

Engaging Strategy wrote: My feeling is that it would have similar problems to the Type 21s in terms of growth margins. It's not a problem if we were to replace them after ~20yrs of service, but knowing the RN they'll serve for 30.

I agree that it's a decent design, with CAPTAS 2 I think we could all get behind it. Personally I'd like to see the design modified to accommodate the 5 spare bow dome sonar sets we'll salvage from the Type 23s, after the Type 26s take the first 8 sets. No sense letting good equipment we already own go to waste.
I'm no naval architect, but to my layman's eye, given that the Venator is not drastically different to the T23 in terms of its dimensions, apart from in length length (some 117 metres according to BMT compared to the 131 of the T23), and yet operates with less than half the crew, i think that puts it in a strong position so far as future growth prospects go. This is all without even mentioning that the design appears to have been conceptualised from the ground up to be extremely modular friendly and is has in-built mission spaces.

PAUL MARSAY
Member
Posts: 217
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 11:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by PAUL MARSAY »

I like Venator when fitted with Tass it ticks all my boxes , without well then it drops to being a patrol frigate . In fantasy world I would like it the same length as the type 23 a further 14 metres(I think ) to provide a larger CAMM silo and a larger margin for growth.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by shark bait »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:A promised range of 7000nm is hardly low endurance. Its small manning requirements mean that there is certainly adequate space for the ship to take a modular approach to through-life support. Sure, it doesn't have a massive mission bay like the T26, but i think people are missing the point that compromises have to be made.
That best case figure published in the brochure of a conceptual frigate means nothing.

Endurance is so much more than range, there is no way a small frigate can remain in combat as long as a large combatant like the T26, weapons store's, crew and workshop spaces all contribute.

There are of course compromises to be made, depending on the final specification a lower endurance may or may not be an acceptable trade off.
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:It wasn't so long ago, after all, that people on here were championing the idea of having a smaller, reduced range ASW mission specialist. I see no reason whatsoever why the Venator could not occupy that role should the MoD/RN/Treasury decide to go down that path.
I hope that is the route we go down, it then gives some credibility and should help it remain relevant over the decades. It also creates an upgrade path to grow it beyond a second rate escort.

The concept ES outlines above sounds close to the mark, it's far from excellent, but to me it sounds like the most credible platform that we could actually deliver considering the poor constraints the government has placed on the Navy.

If 8 of those could be delivered I would probably consider that a good outcome for the Navy.
PAUL MARSAY wrote:I like Venator when fitted with Tass it ticks all my boxes , without well then it drops to being a patrol frigate . In fantasy world I would like it the same length as the type 23 a further 14 metres(I think ) to provide a larger CAMM silo and a larger margin for growth.
Agree with the first part, without the TAS it becomes a patrol frigate with no warfighting capability. The sonar is the valuable part that allows it to flex between the patrol and escort roles.

More CAMM silo's would be beneficial, especially if Spear gets it's naval variant that fits in a CAMM silo. Spear with guided 76mm should also provide and increased land attack capability.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:the Changes in UK policy have become more pronounced since the Civil service lost the battle to provide long term stability they used to plan 20-30 years down the line then Governments decided they had to work to the 5 year election cycle so if a project takes longer than 5 years to complete its very unlikely it'll happen as originally planned.
Let me use that comment, to paint the canvass (as a background), before I colour it in:
- meaning the burst of emotion by Engaging Strategy
- the funny thing about it is... (I think) We are saying about the same thing?
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Caribbean »

shark bait wrote:Endurance is so much more than range, there is no way a small frigate can remain in combat as long as a large combatant like the T26, weapons store's, crew and workshop spaces all contribute.
Of course it's not going to match the stores capacity of a ship that is rumoured to be twice the size, but the fact that it is c. 40% larger than the T21, with around half the crew (with CODAD proposed rather than COGOG) does lend some credence to the 7000 nm and endurance claims.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I think I understand your point but I don't like using France as a model, I much prefer Japan:
Only Japan doesn't subsidise it's domestic defence industry via export sales, so it's not what I was getting at
Ron5 wrote:France:
a) will sell to anyone, even potential enemies, they are the whores of defense sales.
b) builds stuff down to a price that's attractive to 3rd world countries which means in many, many cases, it's 2nd rate.
c) have nationally owned defense companies which pass on their losses to taxpayers i.e. are heavily subsidized. Fair enough you say? but when competing against companies that don't get home country subsidies, that's unfair competition that in non-defense industries would break world trade laws and would be subject to huge fines.
d) stays well clear of any conflicts where their 2nd rate equipment will get shown up
a) France sells a little more than Germany and the UK and about one sixth of what the US sells.
b) Yup - they can see where the market is. But because they are building 2nd rate stuff for export, they can afford to build more stuff for themselves - they also sell stuff that they don't use themselves.
c) As opposed to the UK which has a privately owned naval shipbuilding company that is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.
d) Yup, like Afgan, Iraq, Mali etc.
Ron5 wrote:tells lies that would make Baghdad Bob blush
Lived there for 6 years, never met him, so I can't comment but, if he blushes, he's an amateur compared to the average suq trader
Ron5 wrote:the 2% of GDP that Pinocchio George used to boast was an increase in defense
Yup - know about that - the slippery barsteward counted the same stuff in as the rest of NATO. Most people were just relieved that it didn't drop below 2%
You keep repeating that the UK subsidizes its shipbuilding. That is just not true. Losses are born by the company and its shareholders.

In France, shipbuilders sell at a loss and the difference is made up by the taxpayers. THAT is a subsidy.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Caribbean »

On what planet does TOBA not constitute a subsidy. If BAE Shipbuilding still makes a loss when all it's basic operating costs are covered by a Government payout, then it's in an even worse basket case than I thought.

Or perhaps you thought the River B2s REALLY cost 148m each?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- that is all agreed, but you may want to go and look for the (joint) doctrine publications, for these matters (as I have done) and come back and report what they (if found) say about these matters
British Maritime Doctrine 4th edition. Pg. 3-18 & 3-19 Littoral Manoeuvre:

"340. The UK’s specialist amphibious forces represent a comprehensive range of capabilities, fully able to operate independently or alongside allies and partners. They comprise 3 essential components; specialist amphibious shipping, the landing force and the tailored air group, who contribute the helicopters essential to amphibious operations. In the future, carrier strike will be an additional key element. The Commander UK Task Group, working closely with the landing force commander, will likely command the Response Force Task Group at sea, before becoming the supporting commander once the landing force is ashore and established. The force is intrinsically joint and relies upon elements of all 3 services to function."

"342. The Royal Navy’s specialist amphibious shipping tactically offload, sustain and recover the landing force without recourse to harbours or airfields, in hostile, or potentially hostile environments.They provide the launch
platforms for assaults and raids by landing craft and support helicopters. Landing platform docks have the necessary command and control facilities for up to a brigade size operation, and are capable of landing a company group surface assault, and heavy equipment (such as armour) and landing force vehicles and equipment. The landing platform helicopter can accommodate a
full commando; it generates and maintains all of the support helicopters required to lift the landing force. The landing ship dock (auxiliary) can lift large volumes of heavy equipment vehicles and personnel and then conduct concurrent surface and air offload at sea."

Seems pretty clear to me. All this belongs in the Amphibious thread though, i'd be happy to continue the discussion there.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:As an economist, my slogan is "more is better" like yours, but then again what is efficient might not be the best in the terms of effectiveness?
Have requested the mods move this series of posts to a more appropriate thread. Standby.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:On what planet does TOBA not constitute a subsidy. If BAE Shipbuilding still makes a loss when all it's basic operating costs are covered by a Government payout, then it's in an even worse basket case than I thought.

Or perhaps you thought the River B2s REALLY cost 148m each?
On the planet we both live on. You really need to look up what "subsidy" means.

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:Okay, here's my oh-so slightly fantasy fleet-y Venator 110 Mk.2:
General:
- CODAD, 4 gensets running two shafts, ~25kn sprint, 15kn cruise, 6,000nmi range at 15kn, 40 days stores endurance, >100 crew
AAW:
- Artisan, 32 CAMM cells, 76mm OTO Melara gun as CIWS (a bitter compromise)
ASW:
- Sonar 2050 bow dome, CAPTAS 2 (fitted at build), Hangar and flight deck for Wildcat w/torpedoes
Anti-surface:
- 76mm gun, Helicopter launched Sea Venom
General Purpose extras:
- Small combined multi-mission/seaboat bay, Twin DS-30 cannons for close-in defence
Great. I love this idea. I have 3 comments to add.

- Cutlass can have the same specification. With smaller (14.6m vs 18m in width) hull, it will have less margin (or smaller mission bay), but can re-use existing design (Khareef) to some extent, enabling lower design cost.
- I like to have the "electric propulsion" Cutlass is said to have. So, CODOE or DODLAD is my choice, for e.g. quiet loiter for shallow water ASW. Two large diesel generators, 2 motors and 2 small diesel gen is needed, but no need for large gear box. (hi-power gear box is expensive).
- Sonar2050 was hull mounted, not bow, in T42s. So, no need to drastically change the design to handle bow sonar.

To say the truth, I am for Venator, but its design cost is my concern. I am showing Cutlass here "for comparison". As listed up there, Cutlass has its own merit. Then I think we can compare these 2 designs.

#I am ignoring Avenger here, because if armed to the same level, Avenger cannot be "cheaper" than Cutlass. In other words, Avenger shall be less armed, as it is stated to be cheaper option.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:On the planet we both live on. You really need to look up what "subsidy" means.
And you need to look up "hidden subsidy". It's the financial support, not the form in which it is given, that constitutes the subsidy. Since I suspect that you actually do know that, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:On the planet we both live on. You really need to look up what "subsidy" means.
And you need to look up "hidden subsidy". It's the financial support, not the form in which it is given, that constitutes the subsidy. Since I suspect that you actually do know that, I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.
3 River Batch 2 plus spares and support for 348 million pounds making 116 million each with spares & support.

Designed and built to frigate standards in a frigate yard. 2,000 tons. 25 knots. 34 crew plus 50 EMF.

European benchmark for a GP frigate is $100,000 per ton. Which translates to 143 million pounds for a 2,000 ton frigate.

Or put it another way, folks here think they should get a 3,200 ton Venator 117 for 300 million. Scale that down to 2,000 tons and it would cost 183 million.

I don't see a subsidy. I see the cost of building an OPV to RN frigate standards. OPV's are usually cheaper because they're built to commercial standards. The Batch 2's are not.

If you're interested in facts rather than your own opinions, read DK Brown's account of when he asked his staff (as an exercise) to cost upgrading a Castle class OPV to a light frigate. I think it's in his "Rebuilding the Royal Navy". Confirms the above.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:3 River Batch 2 plus spares and support for 348 million pounds making 116 million each with spares & support.
Designed and built to frigate standards in a frigate yard. 2,000 tons. 25 knots. 34 crew plus 50 EMF.
European benchmark for a GP frigate is $100,000 per ton. Which translates to 143 million pounds for a 2,000 ton frigate.
Or put it another way, folks here think they should get a 3,200 ton Venator 117 for 300 million. Scale that down to 2,000 tons and it would cost 183 million.
I don't see a subsidy. I see the cost of building an OPV to RN frigate standards. OPV's are usually cheaper because they're built to commercial standards. The Batch 2's are not.
If you're interested in facts rather than your own opinions, read DK Brown's account of when he asked his staff (as an exercise) to cost upgrading a Castle class OPV to a light frigate. I think it's in his "Rebuilding the Royal Navy". Confirms the above.
Interesting calculation, thanks. I have 2 comments to add.

- River B.2 as a lighter "light frigate": 2000t (standard, presumably), is larger than Oslo-class (1750t) and similar to Wielingen-class (2200t, presumably full load). As a NATO standard "frigate", it shall have a 3in gun, Wildcat hanger, CIWS, a few SSM, hull sonar and torpedo tubes added. Assuming armaments are 30% of the ship cost, I think River B.2 (with CMS and 30mm gun) shall be at least ~20% cheaper = 114M GBP/unit. So, if the hull is of "frigate standard without armament" as you say, it matches your point.

But I am not sure it is really build of Frigate standard.

- Venator 110 is 4000t. Old Venator 110 WAS 3200t. It was vastly updated around SDSR15. With $100,000 per ton = 77,000 GBP per ton, it will be 300M GBP/unit. So the issue is not the build cost but the design cost, I suspect.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I am glad that I could go "out on the town" on a Saturday night, and it has all been solved by our hard-working correspondents to the West and far-far West.
- will read the comments again, to see if there is more to "tune"... but that will be tomorrow
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
cockneyjock1974
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 May 2015, 09:43
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by cockneyjock1974 »

Bump thread please!!

Post Reply