Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[marktigger]

the chances of getting more vessels is zero. the minehunter/survey vessel needs to be a seperate program!

Agreed, but there will be points where it is more appropriate to operate the MCM kit from the escorts.

Any ship can be a mine hunter once!

HMS Alacrity's run down Falkland sound prior to the landings in San carlos in 82 was partially to prove the channel wasn't mined

[Repulse]

if Type 31 itself is not to be a proper escort, and it does not seem it will be for all we have been told and shown so far, it makes absolutely no frigging sense to have two consecuite low-end ship programmes good only for constabulary tasks.

Agreed, if the RN wants first rate ships it needs to buy more T26s. What the T31 should give osbthe opportunity for is a single design that can cover the Patrol (GP) and the MHC roles. Perhaps a single design with modular options depending on the threat level.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Escort vessel: one that is equipped to credibly protect itself and other ships in the group from surface, air and sub-surface threats.

What do you think about Venatro 110 frigate, 4000t with CAPTAS-2?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Lets introduce some figures then, none of this technology is expensive.

• We bought 10 REMUS 100 for £2.5 million
• We bought 2 REMUS for £5 million
• Flexible Agile Sweeping Technology was developed for £4 million

REMUS is equivalent to RNZN's Moa class IPBs carrying side-scan sonar for Q-route survey. Denmark's MSF1 class do carry side scan sonar and can be remotely operated. It was existing there for a decade, but RN did not considered it as a replacement for Hunts. Why? I suppose this is because the level of survey a side-scan sonar can provide is much less than the sonars onboard Hunts/Sandowns can. Having REMUS is very nice thing. I love it. But, it is NOT REPLACING Hunts/Sandowns. I admit this is guestimate, but I do remember RN's less enthusiasm against side scan sonar, when many of minor Navies are struggling to use side scan sonar as a "cheaper solution for MCM".

In short, my point here is, comparing REMUS and Hunt/Sandowns is not fair. In that case, you should compare Danish MSF1 vs REMUS. Yes, REMUS is more cheaper. Good. But, here we are talking about Hunt/Sandown replacements, not Danish MSF1.

A sonar is not going to cost £40,000 and hour to operate though. There is no way it is going to be as expensive as a big ass hello full of people hovering in the air. The Americans boat is big too, much bigger than anything we could reasonably deploy from a T31 or T26.
The Americans are aiming to operate the final ACTUV for £20,000 per day. Even if they swing and miss with it costing 200% that, it will still be 24 times cheaper to run than the Merlin.

I really hope you are right = ASW USV will be so cheap. Two thing to comment here;
- more than half the cost of Merlin HM2 is on its ASW suits and the rest is airframe, I think. If you are asking for the USV to have the same "ASW sensor" as a Merlin, you need to pay for it. Remember Merlin HM1 costed 97M GBP each (sorry it is from T23 wiki), while AW101 cargo helicopter is reported to cost less than 20M GBP.
- Merlin's helicopter nature (being fast, can dip sonar in many places) is different from ASW-USVs nature (permanent existence). I am NOT against ASW USV. I am just saying it will not be cheap.

I admit, for both MCM kit and ASW kit, my cost estimate may be a bit large = too pessimistic. But, I can NOT foresee being it "less than half" when you require the same level of operation.

It will almost certainly be cheaper than Merlin, which is a massive complex bit of kit, which also has to fly. Complex systems are indeed cheap, but going unmanned created huge savings. Autonomy is being pushed from the commercial world to reduce costs, the equipment already exists in the off shore industry, and is used regularly to reduce costs. Although autonomy is expensive, skilled humans are way more expensive, and often worse at the job

No objection here. I am just saying it will not be THAT cheap.

[Gabriele]

What do you think about Venatro 110 frigate, 4000t with CAPTAS-2?

I'm not sure there is a compelling rationale for adopting a second type of "tail", even if it is a relative to the one already in service. Other than that, assuming the "medium helicopter" encompasses Merlin, it would work. Even though i'm concerned that all these surface ships are yesterday's stuff, not tomorrow's. I'm seriously concerned about their ability to keep up with the changing world over the next few decades. Even Type 26 itself. The Type 45 disaster has generated a retrograde push that i really dislike.

[shark bait]

AW101 cargo helicopter is reported to cost less than 20M GBP.

No it isn't, its £34 million per unit, and remember they we're RAF units, not navalised. The navalised ASW variant is more expensive, no surprise there.

I admit, for both MCM kit and ASW kit, my cost estimate may be a bit large = too pessimistic. But, I can NOT foresee being it "less than half" when you require the same level of operation.

MCM kit will be cheap. ASW kit likley wont be.

But coming back to the original discussion, it will likely be cheaper than an ASW Merlin, and will certainly be cheaper than any helicopter in service to operate it. There are clear benefits to unmanned technology, and it wouldn't be pushed so hard by industry and now the military if it wasn't cheaper than fragile humans.

[shark bait]

Even though i'm concerned that all these surface ships are yesterday's stuff, not tomorrow's. I'm seriously concerned about their ability to keep up with the changing world over the next few decades. Even Type 26 itself. The Type 45 disaster has generated a retrograde push that i really dislike.

I agree, the world is changing much quicker than we can change our surface combatants, I worry the GP frigate role is becoming irrelevant, yet we are about to jump in and build 5 more for the sake of saving face.

There are somethings that won't change though. The carriers will be around for the life of this current generation, and will always require protection from subs, and missiles, which are proliferating everywhere.

We will also continue to have a sub based nuclear deterrent through the life of the current generation, and safe passage off the continental shelf must be guaranteed so there will be a continued need for sub hunters here.

AAW and ASW will always have a place whilst we have carriers and a nuclear deterrent, but aside from these two tasks I think there if very little else that will be constant, and traditional platforms will struggle to react and counter emerging threats. I voiced these concerns somewhere way back over 100 pages ago, we need systems that put the payload before the platform, allowing force to be distributed, and rapidly re-rolled to keep pace with fast developing threats.

[Repulse]

Even though i'm concerned that all these surface ships are yesterday's stuff, not tomorrow's. I'm seriously concerned about their ability to keep up with the changing world over the next few decades. Even Type 26 itself. The Type 45 disaster has generated a retrograde push that i really dislike.

Have to say I agree with this, but further delay and yet another design study is the last thing he RN needs. The navy needs to make the best of what it has and start building or everything will be too late.

In my view, that means building 10 T26s and afterwards 3 LPDs at BAE, giving enough work to the mid 2030s and time for technology to be more mature and a real good look at the way the RN design and procurement needs to work.

Alongside this build as many Venators as possible on a common modular hull at Appledore (and elsewhere) but in both heavy (T31) and lite (MHC) formats.

[Repulse]

AAW and ASW will always have a place whilst we have carriers and a nuclear deterrent, but aside from these two tasks I think there if very little else that will be constant, and traditional platforms will struggle to react and counter emerging threats.

@SB seems we agree in this area, whereas as I'd like to see an extended Venator 90 design (90m is too short for global operations) being the baseline (non AAW/ASW) ship with a permanent hangar or even a lift into the mission bay. It can then be configured into either a lite or heavy role as needed, plus with the deck space be a mothership to all the unmanned things we see coming. Most of all though it will conform to naval standards, as that's the lessons learnt the hard way over a century or more.

[rec]

Even though i'm concerned that all these surface ships are yesterday's stuff, not tomorrow's. I'm seriously concerned about their ability to keep up with the changing world over the next few decades. Even Type 26 itself. The Type 45 disaster has generated a retrograde push that i really dislike.

Have to say I agree with this, but further delay and yet another design study is the last thing he RN needs. The navy needs to make the best of what it has and start building or everything will be too late.

In my view, that means building 10 T26s and afterwards 3 LPDs at BAE, giving enough work to the mid 2030s and time for technology to be more mature and a real good look at the way the RN design and procurement needs to work.

Alongside this build as many Venators as possible on a common modular hull at Appledore (and elsewhere) but in both heavy (T31) and lite (MHC) formats.

Even though i'm concerned that all these surface ships are yesterday's stuff, not tomorrow's. I'm seriously concerned about their ability to keep up with the changing world over the next few decades. Even Type 26 itself. The Type 45 disaster has generated a retrograde push that i really dislike.

Have to say I agree with this, but further delay and yet another design study is the last thing he RN needs. The navy needs to make the best of what it has and start building or everything will be too late.

In my view, that means building 10 T26s and afterwards 3 LPDs at BAE, giving enough work to the mid 2030s and time for technology to be more mature and a real good look at the way the RN design and procurement needs to work.

Alongside this build as many Venators as possible on a common modular hull at Appledore (and elsewhere) but in both heavy (T31) and lite (MHC) formats.

I also agree, that the Venators can both be the basis for type 31 and MHPC, that Type 26 has to happen now and Type 45 needs sorting out now. In shipbuilding strategy Venators built at Camil laird and Babcock. Type 26, and LPHD at BAE Govan. Tecnology is moving fast hence build T26s between 2017 and 2027. MARS at Camil laird/Smioths/Harland & Wolf/Rosyth and assembled at Rosyth.

[rec]

Also I still think Type 31 is a way the government can challenge BAE's monopoply, and all the VFM discussions re Type 26 are part of that too.
So I wouldn't be supirsed to see the Venator design accpeted as the basis for T31 and MHPC, buily by a colalition of Babcock and Camil Laird.

[shark bait]

It isn't. Already committed to BAE on the clyde.

[marktigger]

if Type 31 itself is not to be a proper escort, and it does not seem it will be for all we have been told and shown so far, it makes absolutely no frigging sense to have two consecuite low-end ship programmes good only for constabulary tasks.

Agreed, if the RN wants first rate ships it needs to buy more T26s. What the T31 should give osbthe opportunity for is a single design that can cover the Patrol (GP) and the MHC roles. Perhaps a single design with modular options depending on the threat level.

NO the Type 31 should be nothing to do with the MHPC program at all it should be kept as far away from it as possible or it will be used as an excuse to cut the heart out of the mine counter measures and hydrography fleets as they will be pushed by politics in service and from outside to abandon the MCM and hydrography roles and concentrate on being frigates and escorts.

[marktigger]

Type 31 can be a viable escort if its properly thought throuh and that means not forcing it to be Single role ASW platform or Jack of all trades ASW/AAW/MCMV/Hydrography/patrol vessel depending on what mood their lorships in the admiralty are in!

But if you give a ship more than one role you open it to the label that 1 ship can replace multiple ships in different roles and make it so easy for politicians and the treasury to cut the fleet even more. If you spread the roles across ships it makes it harder for them to do that!

[donald_of_tokyo]

No it isn't, its £34 million per unit, and remember they we're RAF units, not navalised. The navalised ASW variant is more expensive, no surprise there.

Does not change the discussion. More than half is ASW kits. USV will be cheaper than Merlin. But, USV with ASW kit will be expensive than "half a Merlin".

MCM kit will be cheap. ASW kit likley wont be.

Can you tell me why you are so confident the remotely operational MCM kit will be so cheap. REMUS with side-scan sonar is only a part of the kit, and the cheapest, lowest level part. Where is the high resolution sonar? Where is the disposal RoV? And, you need "good maintenance" for these kits. I have no idea RoV based new generation MCM kits can be cheaper than current one. As I said, hull will be cheap. Japanese newest MCMV Enoshima class costs 160M GBP per hull. I believe at least half of it are the MCM kit itself. That's why I say remote control MCM kits, which is as high spec as "real front-line modern MCMV has" will not be cheap. I may be wrong, it could be cheap, but I could not find any evidence it is cheap.

But coming back to the original discussion, it will likely be cheaper than an ASW Merlin, and will certainly be cheaper than any helicopter in service to operate it. There are clear benefits to unmanned technology, and it wouldn't be pushed so hard by industry and now the military if it wasn't cheaper than fragile humans.

Yes, I never talked against making it unmanned. I am just saying it will be not drastically cheap. For example, maintenance load will not decrease, it will rather increase. Crews on the mothership will be very very busy, I guess.

[Repulse]

Ultimately a common high end T26/T45 replacement platform and a common T31/MHC platform is the only way to ensure the capability and numbers for the RN without a significant budget uplift.

[marktigger]

No T31/MHC will lead to lower numbers as Ministers/treasury think that if 1 ship can do the job of 3 then you only Need 1 ship!

And Admirals In order to generate more of what they understand (as how many admirals come from minor warfare vessels) and sacrifice Mine warfare and hydrography training in order to exercise ASW/AAW roles leading to deskilling of the personnel in the MCM & Hydrography branches and them voting with their feet

[rec]

It isn't. Already committed to BAE on the clyde.

I am not totally convinced by that, the deal with BAE is about complex warships only and the Type 31 may not be classed as a complex warship. While some T31s could be built on the Clyde, not all have to be.

The Gov could argue because of the prohibitive cost of T26, they will only order 8
and the T31 is the non complex alternative.

[Pseudo]

The Gov could argue because of the prohibitive cost of T26, they will only order 8
and the T31 is the non complex alternative.

That's not going to happen because the moment that the government refers to T31 as non-complex warships is the moment that they admit that the T31 represents a significant decrease in British naval capability.

[Repulse]

No T31/MHC will lead to lower numbers as Ministers/treasury think that if 1 ship can do the job of 3 then you only Need 1 ship!

And Admirals In order to generate more of what they understand (as how many admirals come from minor warfare vessels) and sacrifice Mine warfare and hydrography training in order to exercise ASW/AAW roles leading to deskilling of the personnel in the MCM & Hydrography branches and them voting with their feet

Whichever way you look at it dedicated "MCM & Hydrography" ships will become a thing of the past. The worst thing is if people believe they can be replaced with cheap commercial designs and the money will magically make its way into other ship building - it ain't going to happen.

[marktigger]

for MCMV's they need to be built as Minehunters not frigates and that means as acoustically, Magnetically and Electro magnetically silent as possible so if they do end up in the field they are looking to clear they have a good chance of survival. I agree commercial designs aren't good enough. But they need to be dedicated vessels well exercised in the role not Jacks of all trades. Because build them like frigates they will be used as frigates. And the frigate fleet will be cut accordingly.
Given how important the Hydrography vessels now are to the Mine hunter fleet as HQ and survey vessels them built to same standard possibly a derived from the Mine hunter design. So there is commonality of equipment.
The systems deployed aboard yes should include ROV's but the Hunters should also carry more traditional sweeps and clearence diving facilities as well and they should be as flexible as possible.
Yes fit them with small calibre guns they should never be used without overwatch to allow the minehunter to concentrate on hunting and not having to worry to much about other things

[shark bait]

While some T31s could be built on the Clyde, not all have to be.

13 frigates will be built on the clyde. That means 5 T31's will be built on the clyde.

If something great happens and the RN gets a boost to 8 T31 is anywhere going to be able to build the three T31 for cheaper than BAE? Especially considering they just finished five of them?

No. The T31 can only be built on the Clyde. The others shall have to become competitive and bid for the other projects.

[rec]

The whole discussion is secondary to the major issue facing the RN, which is the manpower crisis

[shark bait]

I don't think so, lean manned T26, and T31 are part of the solution. A core crew of 50 was thrown around as MOD target last year, add in the specialists and its possible to reallocate 500 sailors by transitioning from T23 > T31

Add in another 500 reallocated from the T26 fleet and that is a significant reduction of man power requirement from the frigate fleet. But of course it does nothing to fix the problem right now.

[marktigger]

The whole discussion is secondary to the major issue facing the RN, which is the manpower crisis

its not just the Navy that has a manning crisis and how is that going to be fixed......well 9 month Deployments aren't going to help.
Yes pay is a major issue 1% is being given to all public sector workers and remember the armed forces still get x factor on top of their pay.
Better accomodation ashore and afloat?
Proper catering arrangements ashore?
Being more family friendly?

Or should we look at sections of the armed forces and change how they are provided?

Defence medical services is effectivley a purple organization do could it become more reserve based drawing from the NHS?
Defence Policing could the civilian MoD police and the service police services be merged into a Paramilitary police force with proper powers?