Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[donald_of_tokyo]

does the Cutlass or Avenger concepts have the projected endurance that is being put as one of the requirements? or are we going to then have to provide a fleet of "Rover II" tankers to support them?

Let's guesstimate !

River B2 having 5500 nm@15kt range with 35 days endurance. Avenger, being its stretched version, will at least have the same length. Is it too short? I do not think so. As a CVTF escort it will have Tides/Waves together = no problem. At singleton operation, it will have at least 6900nm@12kt (assuming resistance proportional to v^2, and fueld/power curve is flat in diesel gen) = no problem. (35 days endurance is so so OK).

Cutlass, cutlass .... no idea. Its base hull Khareef has very short range (4500nm@7.7kt) and endurance (21 days). But the "15m in the middle" will make it possible to increase it as much as you like.

Overall, I guess it will be 5500-7000nm@15kt, 35days.

"Naval Fire support" so the gun isn't there for anti aircraft work!

Congratulation. But, it still states midium calibre gun. Let's wait for the conclusion of the 12months study.

[donald_of_tokyo]

1: On crew.

Do you all remember, T23 crew number was quoted to be 146 on Janes 1989-90, 2 years before commissioning (also it was 4200t full load!). Now it is 185, 28% increase. Thus, quoting 118 for T26's crew is a bit optimistic, I think. Better estimate to be 150 (of course including Merlin aircrew).

Thus, 8 T26 replacing 8 T23 will provide 280 crew, I guess. If T31 is of 90 crew, 5 T31 replacing 5 T23 will provide 475. Since "I think" at least 1 and possibly 2 escorts are in reserve because of manpower crisis, 180-360 crew shall be already in short. So, 280+475-180 (or 360) = 575 (or 395) crew will be provided.

2: Man power cost

Is it still "dominant?". I read somewhere, Burg class destroyers, 50% is procurement, and 30% is manpower.

[ArmChairCivvy]

base hull Khareef has very short range (4500nm@7.7kt) and endurance (21 days). But the "15m in the middle" will make it possible to increase it as much as you like.

Overall, I guess it will be 5500-7000nm@15kt, 35days.

Admittedly, the Floreal class fuel tank arrangement is interesting, but at least it is globally deployable:
" Floreal: Frigate: Dimension. Length: 93.50m. ... Range / Endurance: 10000nm @ 15kts. ... Aircraft Operated: AS.565 Panther"
- boat bays, RAS stations, reserved space for tail
- somewhere the extra space disappears

[marktigger]

its would be very much dependent on the type of propulsion used...Straight CoDaD might give better endurance.

[dmereifield]

does the Cutlass or Avenger concepts have the projected endurance that is being put as one of the requirements? or are we going to then have to provide a fleet of "Rover II" tankers to support them?

Let's guesstimate !

River B2 having 5500 nm@15kt range with 35 days endurance. Avenger, being its stretched version, will at least have the same length. Is it too short? I do not think so. As a CVTF escort it will have Tides/Waves together = no problem. At singleton operation, it will have at least 6900nm@12kt (assuming resistance proportional to v^2, and fueld/power curve is flat in diesel gen) = no problem. (35 days endurance is so so OK).

Cutlass, cutlass .... no idea. Its base hull Khareef has very short range (4500nm@7.7kt) and endurance (21 days). But the "15m in the middle" will make it possible to increase it as much as you like.

Overall, I guess it will be 5500-7000nm@15kt, 35days.

"Naval Fire support" so the gun isn't there for anti aircraft work!

Congratulation. But, it still states midium calibre gun. Let's wait for the conclusion of the 12months study.

Are you referring to the NSS when you say 12 months study?

[donald_of_tokyo]

its would be very much dependent on the type of propulsion used...Straight CoDaD might give better endurance.

Yes, but if it includes Diesel, anything else is OK. CODAD, CODOE, CODLAD, CODLAG, CODOG etc etc ...

Are you referring to the NSS when you say 12 months study?

Sorry, just referred to "... Naval Design Partnering (NDP) team of eight people that will manage a 12-month GPFF concept-phase activity.", on http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/4 ... gramme.pdf.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Sign of things to come, half a year later when they'll get the NSS doc out:

"As of early July 2016, DE&S was finalising contracts for the mobilisation of a
core Naval Design
Partnering (NDP) team of eight people that will manage a 12
-
month GPFF concept
-
phase activity.
IHS Jane's
understands that the focus of the NDP's work will be to analyse the capability issues
identified by MARCAP, translate these into a
ship specification, and then review candidate design
solutions
- as they will be built in the UK, this is essentially a peer-to-peer review
- after which it will be either competitive bids or a pre-brokered partnering
- BAE minimum participation being the role of "the fitting out yard" - some countries have that state-owned, we ideologically decided to give it to private enterprise, but unknowingly or naively (same thing?) created a monopoly

[dmereifield]

its would be very much dependent on the type of propulsion used...Straight CoDaD might give better endurance.

Yes, but if it includes Diesel, anything else is OK. CODAD, CODOE, CODLAD, CODLAG, CODOG etc etc ...

Are you referring to the NSS when you say 12 months study?

Sorry, just referred to "... Naval Design Partnering (NDP) team of eight people that will manage a 12-month GPFF concept-phase activity.", on http://www.janes360.com/images/assets/4 ... gramme.pdf.

Thanks. I missed that sentence previously. So we will have to wait until July 2017 at least to get an idea of what T31 is likely to look like. That will be about 2 years after after the announcement of a new non T26 gp frigate requirement. Given that they want to use MOTS (which pretty much narrows it down to the 2 BAE designs?), the requirements must be pretty evident (replacing the capabilities of the gp T23/T26), the NSS is supposed to be released in late 2016 and given the urgency of replacing the T23s, I hoped they might move a bit more quickly.

I assumed that it would dove tail with the NSS and the autumn budget late this year. How can the NSS be of any value if it doesn't really include the T31 or the T26 (I think I read that T26 was only peripheral to, or even outside of, the NSS)?

[marktigger]

we shall see the NSS could be concentrating on capability for Major vessels program like the SSS, Argus replacement and then the LPD/LPH issue. We can't go on reconfiguring Govan for each new project we need a yard that can handle big jobs like the carriers and others that can cover the other capabilities including subs.

[bobp]

The Janes article mentions that the Cutlass design is designed for replenishment at sea. Does that mean that the other design based on the stretched River cannot be replenished? Also can the River Batch II be refuelled at sea.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Given that they want to use MOTS (which pretty much narrows it down to the 2 BAE designs?), the requirements must be pretty evident

Is it not also evident that the bigger BAE design is a hastily thrown-together copy of the bigger/ updated Venator design? So this is a mechanism to hoist an independent architect, whose design is chosen, onto the sofar careless "Bob the Builder".

[ArmChairCivvy]

Does that mean that the other design based on the stretched River cannot be replenished?

Caught my eye, too. It is there only as a filler, to make this look like a competition. It will also set a bottom of the range cost benchmark so every upping from it will have to have a rationale (just to be grounded in the requirement... a doc that we have not seen... as the provisers will cook it together... as all internal capacity to do such a thing has been done away with)
- isn't this GREAT?
- but it will be made to look great, no problem

[shark bait]

The wave class is fitted with a stern hose, which means any ship can be refuelled at sea, any ship can also accept vertical replenishment.

That's done at a near stand still with calm seas, replenishment underway is a much more complex task, requiring specialist equipment on the frigate which the river's, and presumably the avenger don't have. Pretty much means they cannot be used in a task group.

[marktigger]

any ship can also accept vertical replenishment.

Not necessarily true! depends very much on layout of masts, antennas and rigging and having an open deck area in a place an underslung load can be landed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The Janes article mentions that the Cutlass design is designed for replenishment at sea. Does that mean that the other design based on the stretched River cannot be replenished? Also can the River Batch II be refuelled at sea.

It can be also read as, Cutlass has RAS station in both sides, while Avenger has on a single side, but I may be wrong. Anyway, RAS station itself is not that expensive. It is rather manpower intensive, to my understanding. But, LCS has RAS station, to maybe not a big issue. It is only a matter of requirement. Venator, Cutlass and even Avenger can have it, if needed.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As long as you have the meters (in the right place, on the ships side) to accommodate it, it is kids' play (and only happens every so often).

When your ship is too small to accommodate boat stations, this & that... then it becomes an issue with the RAS station.

[shark bait]

maritime counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, escort duties, and naval fire support

I would be very happy if in 10 years we have a platform that can make a credible contribution to all of these roles.

However looking at the 'short list' we have seen so far I am left rather underwhelmed. Does any of the 'short list' look like its capable off all those tasks, whilst remaining effective and being cheap enough to make the whole endeavour worth while?

There is going to have to be a lot of compromise, otherwise we will end up with another T26.

[marktigger]

would totally agree with you on the current short list. They look to me like companies who are more interested in building for 3rd world countries trying to get the product up to 1st world standards at someone elses expense so they devlopment costs are met by HMG and the remainder can be sold at pure profit to Malaysia or timbuktu.

[PAUL MARSAY]

Damen crossover for me guys

[Think Defence]

Just done a T31 write up if you gents have a few minutes

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/type-31-g ... gate-gpff/

[SKB]

Great... now expecting a 500 page T31 thread by Christmas wholly based off some early imaginary concept images...

[RetroSicotte]

Just done a T31 write up if you gents have a few minutes

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/type-31-g ... gate-gpff/

There's always something pretty zany or intriguing I've never seen before when I get into one of your articles TD. Cheers for all the hard work.

[shark bait]

brace for impact in the TD comment section

[rec]

There is a long recent history of procurement disasters and cancelations: TSR2, CVA01, Nimrod AEW and MR4 to name but a few.
We also seem over confident in our designs, and have produced ships that are inadequatley armed (the Falkands war highlighted the failings in both AAW and ASW). Even Good designs were underarmed, I was suprised how much more weaponry a modified Dutch Leander had compared to a batch 2 mod RN Leander.

What is needed with the T31 is a capable escourt that has useful capabiliies in the surface, aerial and subsurface warfare, is capable of deploying drones and is not so bespoke that it becomes unaffordable. No matter how tight we think the budget is, and how more money would help, what would help more is some decent long term planning and procurement (after all long term planning has enable team GB to prosper at the Olympics). While fitting that into a 5 year poltical cycle takes some doing it is possible.

If the BMT Venator or another design can produce that, then we may have a winner, and have a surface fleet that is of a more useful size

On the Clyde question and numbers promised, is not a way around that blaatntly simple in the next 15 years 16 frigates will be built on the Clyde, firstly 8 batch 1 Type 26s (asw), followed by 8 Batch 2 T26s (AAWs) which will be T45 replacements.

That frees the MOD to look at other yards and other options besides BAE for the T31

The aim should be 8-10 T31s to back up 8 T26s, then eventually 8 batch 2 T26s, then by 2032 a surface escourt fleet of 26 vessels.

[shark bait]

TSR2 and CVA01 are recent? Also a comprehensive list of 'procurement disasters' surely must include FRES? Or the T26 as the 'maritime FRES'?

Fully agree with you comments on the T31, but aren't your proposing to replace the T45 a little early there? they wont even be 20 years old at that point.