Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[seaspear]

If a towed array is used then there should be an accompanying system to do something about detected submarines ,wouldn't a vls system with some asroc equivalent be cheaper than a Merlin .
Another system that may be looked at that could provide some special options is the towed airborne array system us patent 6422506b1 that would provide a number of advantages in capabilities over similar sized ships I would suggest cheaply

[Engaging Strategy]

If a towed array is used then there should be an accompanying system to do something about detected submarines ,wouldn't a vls system with some asroc equivalent be cheaper than a Merlin.

Wildcat with Stingray is your best bet without a Merlin. Lightweight torpedo tubes would be cheap, but are essentially a suicide weapon: The range is so short that the sub will very likely kill you before you get close enough to kill it. ASROC is better, but you need an expensive VLS and even then the range isn't great against modern long-running high speed submarine torpedoes.

That's really why you need a helicopter-based offensive system, a modern submarine is going to likely match or out range any ship-based system currently available.

[seaspear]

Thee is not an argument about Merln ,but would its costs and that of the Wildcat to purchase and operate be more expensive than a vls system with an asroc equivalent

[Engaging Strategy]

Thee is not an argument about Merln ,but would its costs and that of the Wildcat to purchase and operate be more expensive than a vls system with an asroc equivalent

The ship will be getting a utility helicopter anyway (wildcat in future) because it's an extremely flexible bit of kit for all sorts of things and has already been bought and paid for. There's no point in building a frigate without helicopter facilities in the modern world. The GPFF won't require extra funds to buy Wildcats to operate from them, whereas ASROC and a VLS requires additional space and complex systems on the ship, which are more than a little expensive.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think we could;
Features;

• 76mm gun of the front
• CAMM in the middle
• NSM on the roof
• Big hanger and merlin deck at the back
• Towed sonar and mission bay under the flight deck
• 50 core crew + 30ish mission crew
• 25kn
• 1 Phalanx

Compromises;

• No big gun
• No MK41
• Average to low endurance
• Just enough speed to work with the carrier
• Poor margins for growth

...That is probably the minimum we could accept and still be able to call it credible, with good self defence from ASM, a token ASuW capability, and a the ability to see off subs. Could that be packed into the 117m Venator hull? I hope so.
There are some comprises, the biggest I think would be the lack of endurance, that would be ok within the carrier group and its dedicated logistics chain, but it would become difficult to support on solo tasks. I suppose it will have to do lots of port visits. Also a big deal is poor growth margins, which is difficult to get around, would we just have to accept a shorter life than what we have got out of the T23?

I share this idea. Even with 4000t FL hull, this light frigate will be almost full (not totally full. Mission bay itself is a margin). But, this set of system will make it credible enough = good contribution to the escort fleet, which will be a mix of 6 AAW destroyers, 8 ASW large frigates, and 5 light frigates capable of ASW.

Also this is why I am struggling to understand Repulse-san's idea. How can a frigate added with a large mission bay be packed in 3200t FL class hull? At this moment, I have no idea, may beed big compromise, such as very short range, 20kt low speed, and no large hangar. Still Khareef with full of compromise is 2700t FL, 140M GBP per hull (there is a rumor it costed more). And she has very short range. Thus, at least at this moment, I have no good image of how to unify MHC vessel and GPFF.

Gabriele-san's idea is understandable, because I think he is proposing 8 multi-mission frigate in place of 5 GPFF AND 8-10 MHCs to come. The hull shall be very large, as large as 6000t I guess, like adding large mission bay by spending 2000t on the Venator 110 4000t light frigate.

About Type 31, if the cost will really be about 400 mil. of pounds per piece ( so about 2 billions for 5 of them ), isn't it better to spend say 400 mil. GBP for another 3 Forth-class OPVs ( let's add them a hangar ) for constabulary duties, and use the rest of the money ( assuming that the cost of Type 26 will be somewhere around 750 mil. GBP ) for 2 additional Type 26 frigates...
Yes, it will be just 10 frigates for the RN, but I wonder what use will the RN have for 5 ships armed with 76 mm gun and handfull of CAMMs ( if that's what Type 31 will be )...

10 T26ASW and 3 heavy OPVs as a replacement for 13 T23, I also propose it as an option-2 (*1). This, however, inevitably require to abandon one of the standing tasks carried out by an escort. I propose making Kipion from 2 escorts to 1. If yes, I think this is the most low risk, technically foreseeable option, because surely the 9th and 10th vessel of T26 will be 30% cheaper (I think this will be 600 MGBP per hull) than the first 3 to be ordered within 2-3 years from now (might be 780M GBP per hull).

*1: 5 Venator 110 4000t frigate as a T31 is my "option-1", but surely has technical risk in it.

[donald_of_tokyo]

On 3in gun, I have 2 comments.

1: With Strales and Volcano, it will never be cheap. But, make it an option, and stick to re-used turret and abundant cheap ammo, it will be cheap. For support, you can collaborate with Italian/French/Norway/German/Spanish (europe)/Oman/UAE/Bahrain (gulf)/Japan/Phillipin/S.Korea/Malaysia/Thai (far east) navies. I see little problem here.

2: Key of the 3in discussion will be "what to arm on MHC?". If it is 30mm gun, 5 GPFF does not have enough volume. In this case, it will be better to,
- stick to 5in gun, accepting significant degradation in growth margin and higher cost (maybe only 2 out of 5 GPFF will have CAPTAS-2).
- go for 3in gun, but stick to "normal" ammo, to save future margin and, what is more, cost.

Note here I am in the standpoint that, normal 3in gun is cheap enough and easy to support worldwide, but newest guided ammo series will require high introduction cost which need "more than 5 units" to justify its introduction.


A little related, about the armament of MHC vessels. How about a 3in gun with Strales ONLY, and no CAMM?. It will be able to defeat incoming hi-speed ASM 1 or 2 (20mm CIWS has no chance). It is compact, and will free-up the CAMM location for hangar. No need for hi-level CMS, for a moment.

[LordJim]

I've said it before and I will say it again, the T-31 should simply be a T-23 Mk2, replacing the 4.5 with a 76mm and fitted for but not with the same TAS as the T26 with no extra units bought. No Harpoon which will have gone by then anyway and RAM launcher on top of the hanger as its main CIWS, with the same missile being used in updated Phalanx systems across the fleet.

[Repulse]

needs the 5in for the NGS role its fairly much doctrine that this is one of the roles any of the escort flee should be able to carry out.

Would say that was a nice to have, as refurbed 4.5" would do the job also.

you put a Merlin sized hanger on it you have the flexibility to use it for wildcat or merlin (any mark) if you are using wildcat you have room to carry other stuff in it like Like ROV's aid packs ect. You also enhance its asw capability

Not disagreeing it's a nice to have, but if you have to do a major redesign to get it, then I'd say it could go, especially as in a Venator 90+ design it would have a large mission bay.

[shark bait]

Is unguided ammunition going to become unusable over the coming decades? That is the biggest threat to the 4.5"

[Gabriele]

Gabriele-san's idea is understandable, because I think he is proposing 8 multi-mission frigate in place of 5 GPFF AND 8-10 MHCs to come. The hull shall be very large, as large as 6000t I guess, like adding large mission bay by spending 2000t on the Venator 110 4000t light frigate.

No, something closer to 3000 tons. Venator 90 has room for a main gun, some CAMM, a decent sensors fit and a huge mission space. Change it just enough to have a hangar and if possible some more accommodations, and it is fit for the job. Keep it simple, it has to have a modest cost.

The result is, unavoidably, a big fall in the number of hulls as MCM and hydrographic ships go out (perhaps with the exception of HMS Scott, she is the one who might require a dedicate, purpose-built replacement unless the entire capability is lost. Which might well happen, it wouldn't be anything new) but a net growth in capability. Current minesweepers have literally an endurance of 2 weeks, and limited seakeeping, no helicopter, little in the way of sensors and weaponry. But with MHC, that can all be fixed. It is the one and only real opportunity for the RN to make some capability gains. Type 31 is not set to deliver anything more than that anyway. But if it stays as a separate programme, it is pretty much 100% certain it will NEVER deliver more than 5 hulls, and that MHC will follow as a sad OPV with garage. This would be an enormous wasted opportunity (and a waste of money too).

[marktigger]

Is unguided ammunition going to become unusable over the coming decades? That is the biggest threat to the 4.5"

Given the Mk8 and the 5in are both now BaE products I suspect the support for the Mk8 will be run down as the 5in is more internationally exportable and certainly agree the range of ammo for them will be limited by the limited export market for them.

[Repulse]

Not the BMT brochure I'm looking at (the top one on google)
2,600t for the 90m Venator
3,200t for the old 107m Venator
4,000t for the 117m Venator

You're right for the Venator 110, but I am thinking of an extended version of the 90 by 25% so was thinking it would be closer to 3,200t.

[abc123]

Perhaps. But if the T26 is a billion pound frigate

In that case, you can simply disband the whole RN and get rid the country of it's misery.

[Repulse]

Also this is why I am struggling to understand Repulse-san's idea. How can a frigate added with a large mission bay be packed in 3200t FL class hull? At this moment, I have no idea, may beed big compromise, such as very short range, 20kt low speed, and no large hangar. Still Khareef with full of compromise is 2700t FL, 140M GBP per hull (there is a rumor it costed more). And she has very short range. Thus, at least at this moment, I have no good image of how to unify MHC vessel and GPFF.

I'm suggesting a 23m increase on the Venator 90 design with half of that going on the existing mission bay and the rest in front of the mission bay to add a modular VLS slot (to be fitted on the heavy config with 24 additional Camm). I'm thinking that it would make sense in the short term to just go with the NSM ASuW missile.

Keep it simple, it has to have a modest cost.

Absolutely, also do not get hung up too much on "space to grow". If the fleet ends up 4 Rivers plus 16 T31 (heavy) / T32 (lite / MHCs) then I'd look for projected life of 20 years and knock them out annually on a rotating basis.

[abc123]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/watch-t ... ign=social

[marktigger]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/watch-t ... ign=social

oh they've relaunched that video again

[donald_of_tokyo]

I'm suggesting a 23m increase on the Venator 90 design with half of that going on the existing mission bay and the rest in front of the mission bay to add a modular VLS slot (to be fitted on the heavy config with 24 additional Camm). I'm thinking that it would make sense in the short term to just go with the NSM ASuW missile.

Keep it simple, it has to have a modest cost.

Absolutely, also do not get hung up too much on "space to grow". If the fleet ends up 4 Rivers plus 16 T31 (heavy) / T32 (lite / MHCs) then I'd look for projected life of 20 years and knock them out annually on a rotating basis.

How can it be as cheap as 200M GBP per hull, as you say?

- Floreal was 120M Euro when built in 1992, 6 hull in a raw, and in total 8 hulls built. With 100M GBP in 1992, and with 2% inflation, it is 160M GBP now. 2950t FL, 93.5m x14m. Adding CAMM and mission bay with 40M GBP is not easy. Also this assumes the "Floreal standard".
- Khareef was 133M GBP in 2013. 2700t FL, with virtually the same armament you require, 12 SeaMICA, 3in gun, no sonar, and a Wildcat hangar. The range is quite short, 4500nm at 7.7kt (ref: navyrecognition). Make it 3200t FL, add mission bay, enlarge range to ~4500 nm @15kt, within 67M GBP is not easy, I'm afraid. Also it is said to have very low standard.

Both classes do not have ASW capability. Also, I think they will not have good future growth margin.

My personal impression is that, you must keep Floreal/Khareef standard to make it 200 or even 250 M GBP.

[dmereifield]

Why is it that all of the proposed T31 variants are devoid of strike length VSL? Is it prohibitively expensive or is it a space issue?

[marktigger]

because they are patrol frigates ment to release 1st (T26/T45)rate vessels from Ops like anti piracy, WIGS and SLANT GS roles tha can't be done with an OPV. So what do they need strike VLS they would be better on the T26 or T45

[rec]

because they are patrol frigates ment to release 1st (T26/T45)rate vessels from Ops like anti piracy, WIGS and SLANT GS roles tha can't be done with an OPV. So what do they need strike VLS they would be better on the T26 or T45

Agreed, Type 31 shouldhave anti submarine, antiship and anti aircraft missles, and even just a 3inch gun, they should be the 21st century equivalent to a Type 81 tribal, or a Loch class firgate of WW2, the first rate equivalents would be Lenaers and Battle class destroyers respectively. A general purpose escourt .

[dmereifield]

I thought the T31 was also supposed to be a creditable escort since 6 T45 and 8 T26 is insufficent?

[marktigger]

who says with the right balance and flexibility of design, hardware and software a patrol frigate couldn't be a credible escort?

If we get that balance right it could be a nice little earner on the export market.

[dmereifield]

I have no idea - that's what why I'm asking you guys. The consensus seems to be on forums like this that the BAE and Venator 110 designs don't seem to cut the mustard. I just wondered why they could include say 16 strike length VSL - wouldn't that, if feasible, improve it's credibility and exportability?

[marktigger]

the Bae & venator designs to me are more like corvettes or ships you'd sell to a 3rd world country we need better than that

[rec]

the Bae & venator designs to me are more like corvettes or ships you'd sell to a 3rd world country we need better than that

They are what you get when the government has a budget of X for defence, when Y might be required.
So we can only afford a small number of Type 26s, we only have 19 escourst which are to few, so on a limited budget how do you get enough escourts?

An option is 8 expensive Type 26s + at least 5 less exepnsive escourts. That's one reason why the Type 31 is in the mix.
Japan and France (similar economies and expenses) spend less than the UK on defence, but have larger armed forces, e must be able to learn something from them. Including is it possible to produce a cheaper than T26 but still capable escourt?