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

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by marktigger »

shark bait wrote:
rec wrote: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.
Fine then BaE should be excluded from MHC program

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 »

Repulse wrote: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.
May be you have already stated, but can you make it clear again what "level" of ship are you thinking about?

- From your cost estimate, 200M GBP with CAMM(12?), 3in gun, a hangar and so-so large mission bay, it is Floreal added with CAMM and mission bay, am I right? In this case, you are proposing T31 to be "a Floreal added with CAMM and ASW kits on the mission bay"?

- For MHC, I was thinking River Batch.1, using its mission deck for MCM kit, is the MHC. Yes, add a helicopter deck and possibly a hangar. Similar to the concept of Canadian MCDV Kingston class, but with 18-20kt speed and helo facility. And, for T31, VENATOR 110 long endurance light frigate.

Do anybody know how is the reputation of Kingston class? (not as a patrol vessel, but as an MCMV).

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:May be you have already stated, but can you make it clear again what "level" of ship are you thinking about?
What I am thinking about an extended version of the Venator 90 design to a length of say 113m (same as the old Leanders), so say about low 3k tonnes, with a speed of 25+kts and range @7,000nm. The hull should be inheritently quiet, with limited sound proofing of engines etc, and diesel-electric propuldion. The ship can be configured in a lite role or beefed up for when working in a hot environment and can be adapted after a short stint in a dock. I see this similar to the PPA concept that Italy is following, but smaller and more focused as a mothership.

Base design would include Artisan and 16 Camm, 2x30mm Sigma guns, decoys and a refurbed 114mm main gun.

In "hot" configuration this would be increased to include 2 additional 24 VLS for Camm, ASuW and possibly ASROC.

Edit: Phalanx could also be added like the EoS RFAs.

In addition to this the modules UAVs/USVs/UUVs plus containerised kit (Supplies/TAS/etc) can be employed depending on the mission.
”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
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Repulse wrote:What I am thinking about an extended version of the Venator 90 design to a length of say 113m (same as the old Leanders), so say about low 3k tonnes
What is different from the Venator 110 (which, despite the name, is 117m at waterline)?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/could-t ... t-frigate/
- and comes to 4k tonnes
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Repulse »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:What is different from the Venator 110 (which, despite the name, is 117m at waterline)?
Venator 110
Image

Venator 90
Image

For me it's about having the open rear mission deck space for mission modules and easy deployment of UUVs / USVs. With the additional 20+m I'd extend the mid mission bay and either put a hangar on top, or a lift.

Nice pick below on how the additional modules could be added.

Image
”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
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

There are two separate but linked issues, the first being the BAE monopoly (which on its own might not be impossible to overcome) and the political situation with regards to shipbuilding on the Clyde.

I saw a similar discussion on another forum, where some people who have had time to read through the BAE TOBA pointed out that there are clauses regarding value for money and using other yards, which could be used by the government as a get out of jail card (I haven't read it so can't verify it's actually there or whether the wording would even work in the government's favour as they suggest).

Has there been any statement or guarantee from the government that the general purpose frigate will be built on the Clyde? I remember a debate a few months ago where Emily Thornberry (the then Shadow Defence Secretary) directly asked Philip Dunne (the then Minister for Defence Procurement) whether the 5 general purpose frigates would also be built there, or if there have any been any changes to the plans to build 13 frigates on the Clyde and he gave a non-reply that the 8 anti-submarine frigates would be built on the Clyde (I understand he would not want to make any promises on a project that's still very much in its infancy). Has there been some confirmation that I may have missed?

Whether they have actually promised it or not, or if the government can edge out BAE in favour of another builder on technicalities of it being a less capable vessel and BAE not offering value for money, the SNP and its fanatical followers will hold the government to the original plan for 13 frigates, which gives the government little room to manoeuvre.

Even if another yard were to be selected, there's no guarantee that they would be cheaper than if built by BAE on the Clyde.

Meanwhile, the navy and the nation at large will suffer.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

From an archived page of the old navymatters.beedall.com site, a look back at some of the concepts that were being looked at around a decade ago with regards to the Future Surface Combatant and the C2 frigate's estimated capabilities compared to the new general purpose frigate being discussed here: http://archive.is/qvcMx

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

GibMariner wrote:Has there been any statement or guarantee from the government that the general purpose frigate will be built on the Clyde?
The PM's statement when doing the SDSR read-out to the Parliament pretty much said so; the operative words being "can" and "the only way":

David Cameron told the House of Commons:

“There will be eight of the Type 26’s and at least another five of the new type of frigate, probably more, and they can be built in Scotland if the conditions are right. The only way these ships wouldn’t be built in Scotland is if Scotland was independent and didn’t have the national resources of the Royal Navy.”
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)

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by Repulse »

I think the key bit for Scotland and the SNP is ensuring jobs, which translates to a sufficient pipeline of work.

This for me could be building 10 T26s and 3 LPD replacements leaving the T31/MHPC for other yards.
”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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by shark bait »

Good find @GibMariner. Interestingly the only things that came true is CAMM will be ready by 2018, and the authors prediction the RN cannot maintain 23 escorts.

I can't help but wander if the RN would have a brighter future if they stuck with the C1, C2, C3 concept? The C2, and C3 on that page look more capable than what we're expecting now, and we would probably avoided the river class fiasco.

Whenever I read back over the history of the T26/FSC project I do so with despair, we are completely unable to design a project that is deliverable. It makes me wander if we are too exacting, too focused on a 100% solution first time around. I compare specifically to the LCS which is not perfect, but it is in production, in service, and now with operating experience they are fixing the shortcomings. The danish take a similar approach too.

Is that a better approach to the RN trying to fix all the problems before construction? It is acceptable to recognize the platform will need continuous development after the in service date? can the RN afford that approach?
@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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: can be built in Scotland if the conditions are right. The only way these ships wouldn’t be built in Scotland is if Scotland was independent and didn’t have the national resources of the Royal Navy.
You can paraphrase that in the way of saying "if there is a prospect that the long delivery period for the two classes won't complete while Scotland is part of the UK" and put that together with the SNP pulling out a new referendum as a prospect whenever they see any issue as important (to get their way)... and it is difficult to see this stand-off ending any time soon (isn't the target to get a settlement with the EU implemented in 2020?)

=> bookies could start taking bets on the following:
- the first 3 T26s will be built (in Scotland) as the long advance items have been ordered and at least one global cruiser would always be available for the (single) Task Force
- the other 5 tails will be put on T31 hulls, to act as run-arounds for any HVU (including those that are part of the Task Force, in case one such has been stood up)
- another 5 T31s will be built as GP, to a schedule dictated by the T23s' withdrawal from service
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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by shark bait »

Repulse wrote:For me it's about having the open rear mission deck space for mission modules and easy deployment of UUVs / USVs. With the additional 20+m I'd extend the mid mission bay and either put a hangar on top, or a lift.
I read a BMT paper a while back, they ran lots of simulations and decided the open rear 'tail gate', with a contiguous garage was a huge advantage in operational efficiency. Any MHC platform should defiantly recreate that feature, for ease of loading, unloading, and operating off board systems.
GibMariner wrote:Meanwhile, the navy and the nation at large will suffer.
Agreed, there would be outrage on this forum if the government was reversing its promise to build ships in England at Appledore, but doing the same to BAE in Scotland is fine.

I'm not Scottish, but I want Scotland to make a valuable contribution to the defence of the UK, along with England, Ireland and Wales. I want the government to maintain their commitment of building 13 frigates on the Clyde, to not further alienate a population who already distrusts the UK, who are very important to the security of us all.
@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 »

shark bait wrote:Whenever I read back over the history of the T26/FSC project I do so with despair, we are completely unable to design a project that is deliverable. It makes me wander if we are too exacting, too focused on a 100% solution first time around. I compare specifically to the LCS which is not perfect, but it is in production, in service, and now with operating experience they are fixing the shortcomings. The danish take a similar approach too.
Quite agree; a pity that so far no one has put together the Maritime FRES story with the eloquance that TD did it with for "the other" FRES.
- and building in batches, as I take it is being suggested, is a good idea
- which means that in my post above the T23 design work would not go to waste, as the 4th batch, after the 3 I am speculating on, would be an AAW destroyer on a T23 hull. It comes as no surprise to regular readers that I see this prospect as at least as significant driver for the cost/ displacement growth that has been incurred as any ASW-related decisions.
... soo-o, we would get 3+6 T23 derivatives in the end (but by when; and at what cost for recreating infrastructure that has been run down in a semi-planned/ semi chaotic restructuring)
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
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

Thanks ArmChairCivvy, I'd missed that.

I still think that if the government really isn't satisfied with the BAE monopoly, they could push for Babcock & Rosyth and use that to guarantee Scottish jobs. Whether this is a good idea or not is another question.

Presumably after work on the carriers is done there will be a shortfall of work at Rosyth/surplus of workers - I believe the only thing lined up for Rosyth would be dismantling decommissioned nuclear submarines? A fresh shipbuilding programme could give the government an upper hand as the saviour of Scottish jobs.

Again, not saying it's a good idea to diversify away from BAE/Clyde only to remain stuck in the same political situation, or that a non-BAE solution would be beneficial, just musing on various possibilities.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by rec »

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... DACTED.pdf
The link to the agreement on shipbuilding, there is negotiation space for the government to choose a non BAE yard. As I have mentioned before I do not think there is any gurantee that BAE will get the T31 build. It is possible for A babcock/Camil Laird combination to bid successfully especially if its the BMT design.

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 »

The government promised Scotland thirteen frigates. In the current climate of "will there be another referendum?" thirteen frigates will be built in Scotland. Unless, of course, Scotland leaves the UK; then zero frigates will be built there.

In this case, keeping the kingdom united and giving the SNP as little ammunition as possible comes first. Many won't like it but there it is.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

shark bait wrote:Good find. @GibMariner

I can't help but wander if the RN would have a brighter future if they stuck with the C1, C2, C3 concept? The C2, and C3 on that page look more capable than what we're expecting now, and we would probably avoided the river class fiasco.

Whenever I read back over the history of the T26/FSC project I do so with despair, we are completely unable to design a project that is deliverable. It makes me wander if we are too exacting, too focused on a 100% solution first time around. I compare specifically to the LCS which is not perfect, but it is in production, in service, and now with operating experience they are fixing the shortcomings. The danish take a similar approach too.

Is that a better approach to the RN trying to fix all the problems before construction? It is acceptable to recognize the platform will need continuous development after the in service date? can the RN afford that approach?
Here's another one on the S2C2: http://archive.is/8UAVP

It really was a great site, fortunately some of it has been preserved.

Indeed the C2 and C3 concepts look much more capable - and more importantly, they would have been capable and achievable then - now they look quite ambitious compared to the C3+ option that the general purpose frigate looks set to become.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

Engaging Strategy wrote:The government promised Scotland thirteen frigates. In the current climate of "will there be another referendum?" thirteen frigates will be built in Scotland. Unless, of course, Scotland leaves the UK; then zero frigates will be built there.

In this case, keeping the kingdom united and giving the SNP as little ammunition as possible comes first. Many won't like it but there it is.
Agreed, even if there are clauses and technicalities in favour of the government relocating shipbuilding or supplementing it with a yard elsewhere in the UK, it doesn't seem possible in the current (and likely enduring) political climate.

Investing in another yard would also surely negate some of the cost benefits of the general purpose frigate.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by rec »

Engaging Strategy wrote:The government promised Scotland thirteen frigates. In the current climate of "will there be another referendum?" thirteen frigates will be built in Scotland. Unless, of course, Scotland leaves the UK; then zero frigates will be built there.

In this case, keeping the kingdom united and giving the SNP as little ammunition as possible comes first. Many won't like it but there it is.
But politically there needs to be provison if Scotland does vote out, therefore some English shipbuilding capacity is essential in the medium to long term. Now that's possible by build MARSSSS or LPHD between Camil Laird, Babcock etal. There are many options that could be pursued.

Yes BAE build 13 hulls 8 T26s, and 5 modified Rivers which are also passed of as Frigates! Or simply say 8 Frigates plus 2 LPHDS = more work than 13 frigates. If there are 8T26s and 8T31s, then 5 T31s can still be built on the Clyde and 3 elsewhere.

I think there is deep frustration with the cost of the T26s, and the T31 is an attempt to bargain that down. Yes keeping the kingdom united is key, but that has to include the North of Engalnd as well as Scotland!

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thanks GibMariner,

In the linked (archive) doc, the opening image (which has not been named as for the type in it) to me looks like a MEKO 100.

The reason why I mention it *there must have been a reson for selecting that image; perhaps even for naming the type in it* is that in its size class ( ~the size of the lower half of the T31 alternatives that have been brought up) the MEKO100 is unique for having been designed from start to carry a 16 t helicopter
- would be good to avoid the type of situations that e.g. Canada has been facing: First, they choose a helicopter that meets with the requirements; then, they have to start modifying the hangars on their Halifaxes (which are of good size as such)
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
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Thanks GibMariner,

In the linked (archive) doc, the opening image (which has not been named as for the type in it) to me looks like a MEKO 100.
Which archived page/image are you referring to?

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

GibMariner wrote:with regards to the Future Surface Combatant and the C2 frigate's estimated capabilities compared to the new general purpose frigate being discussed here: http://archive.is/qvcMx
As you open that link, the first image on it
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 »

C3 is the combined Patrol/Hydrography/MCMV concept currently the River II class in patrol role and looking to the future for MCMV/Hydrography vessel replacement.
C2 Is the Type 31
FSC is the Type 26

so we're sticking with this plan

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate

Post by GibMariner »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
GibMariner wrote:with regards to the Future Surface Combatant and the C2 frigate's estimated capabilities compared to the new general purpose frigate being discussed here: http://archive.is/qvcMx
As you open that link, the first image on it
And you say it's a MEKO design? It says the source is BMT - looks more like an early C1/Type 26 design to me.
marktigger wrote:C3 is the combined Patrol/Hydrography/MCMV concept currently the River II class in patrol role and looking to the future for MCMV/Hydrography vessel replacement.
C2 Is the Type 31
FSC is the Type 26

so we're sticking with this plan
Only in the very loosest of comparisons. Nominally we are back to the C1, C2, C3 concept, only with a considerable downgrade in expectations, hull numbers and capabilities.

C1 is the most equivalent to the Type 26 as it exists now, but from what we've seen so far of the general purpose frigate, it bears more of a resemblance to the vessels originally envisioned for the C3 role. C3 no longer exists as a vessel (for now), but rather the systems for MCM and survey work.

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:looking to the future for MCMV/Hydrography vessel replacement.
C2 Is the Type 31
FSC is the Type 26

so we're sticking with this plan
One could say so... especially if the 2007 requirement still holds for C2:
"C2 would meet the policy requirement for operations in support of small-scale stabilisation operations, sea line protection and chokepoint escort."

If we take each of the three in turn
- the Germans have optimised a frigate design for stabilisation (to be able to stay away from home port for two years). V expensive, though, so would not tick the box
- sea line protection: needs range/ endurance, which pushes up the size
- a choke point escort would never be v far from friendly bases, so a small but peppery Visby Class solution, helping to push up the numbers - and by virtue of doing that - helping to rotate them frequently to counter the range/ endurance deficit

Now, try to average these three in(to) one design!
- no wonder we don't know what the T31 will look like

Important note appeared from GibMariner, so for the sake of completeness of response, included here by way of a quote:
GibMariner wrote: C3 no longer exists as a vessel (for now), but rather the systems for MCM and survey work.
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)

Post Reply