Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Engaging Strategy]

TSR2 and CVA01 are recent?

CVA-01 was exactly 50 years ago, still feels like yesterday for some. Never forgive, never forget...

[rec]

In answer to recent, if CVA01 and TSR2 had been proceeded with, both would be coming to the end of their service lives around now (assuming CVA01 was followed by 02, and 03, and TSR2 production continued into the late 1970s), so recent in the sense that they were post 1960s, given the lenght of time procurement takes.

[rec]

In answer to recent, if CVA01 and TSR2 had been proceeded with, both would be coming to the end of their service lives around now (assuming CVA01 was followed by 02, and 03, and TSR2 production continued into the late 1970s), so recent in the sense that they were post 1960s, given the lenght of time procurement takes.

And yes T45s will not be that old, but I imagine by the early 2030s they will be worn out.

[ArmChairCivvy]

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

It will probably proceed on those lines, something else to be built sandwiched into the transition from ASW to AAW. It is simply not feasible to maintain a specialist fitting out yard without build activity in the same "neighbourhood"... that is from the trades point of view and their uneven loading in the different stages of build and the fitting out.

To take each of these mentioned, in turn: TSR2, CVA01, Nimrod AEW and MR4
1. counter-measures developed faster than the capability being designed/ built
2. budgetary reasons, resulting in the opposite of "mission creep" for the RN as a whole
3. stupidity in project and budget management: a world-leading radar was developed, but it fed a computer that should have been COTS upgraded *twice* during the project, in line with chip developments - but wasn't because *the spec* was up to the ministers, not the project to decide and do trade-offs within
4. a sorry tale, discussed ad infinitum (already, and no doubt into the future, as well)

[marktigger]

In answer to recent, if CVA01 and TSR2 had been proceeded with, both would be coming to the end of their service lives around now (assuming CVA01 was followed by 02, and 03, and TSR2 production continued into the late 1970s), so recent in the sense that they were post 1960s, given the lenght of time procurement takes.

And yes T45s will not be that old, but I imagine by the early 2030s they will be worn out.

tsr2 would have gone by late 90's

[clinch]

I don't know how much BAe needs from the Government to run the Clyde shipyards, but what's wrong with the Government saying this is the plan to replace the escort fleet over the next 24 years: we want 8 ASW frigates, 10 light frigates and 6 AAW frigates to replace the Types 45s - presumably an AAW Type 26. We will pay you £12 billion for those 24 ships. It guarantees you half a billion a year for the next 24 years. Outside that, try acting like a company and sell some stuff.

Other UK yards can produce 20 minor vessels - OPV, mine whatever the concept over the same period. We pay £4 billion tops for the lot. In all it works out at £666 million per year on average for the Government.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Hpw many of their recent ship exports went to the planned customer?

Ron was able to share the background about what happened with Brunei. Anyone know the T&B story (which, through the resale, deleted the T& from the customer's initials)?

[Engaging Strategy]

tsr2 would have gone by late 90's

I'd say CVA-01/02 would've gone out of service by the mid-2000s. Mostly because their deck and equipment simply couldn't handle anything heavier than an F/A-18C (which they'd probably have ended up operating, IMO). Also those ships would have been viciously manpower intensive (3,250 crew plus air group!), being mid-60s designs.

[ArmChairCivvy]

those ships would have been viciously manpower intensive (3,250 crew plus air group!)

TG! that we did not build them: both absorbing the submarine service twice over (+ the not-existing FAA on top).

[Engaging Strategy]

TG! that we did not build them: both absorbing the submarine service twice over (+ the not-existing FAA on top).

I ran the numbers a while back, the structure makes sense looking at it from the 1960s. A great many older carriers, principally Ark RO9, Eagle, Victorious and the remaining Centaurs would be replaced by almost half as many, large and modern ships. It is supremely unlikely that CVA-03 would ever have been built, the late 70's being what they were for the UK, leaving the UK with a much more manageable carrier force through the 70s and 80s. Even so it's undoubtedly true that the whole fleet structure would have been totally different if CVA-01 had been given the go ahead. Much less focus on the GIUK and the retention of a more "expeditionary" raison d'etre for the RN. In some ways it would have more closely resembled today's fleet; a core of large capital ships surrounded by fewer, but likely more potent, escorts.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The new B-21 bomber reminds me of T31 as an attempt to get off the trending cost line (often quoted as a compounded 8% pa for current generation kit =just keeping up, and 10% for complex = trying to better what the "other" side has now or is likely to get).

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-con ... .59-pm.png

We almost managed to do a B-2 with our T45 (Prgrm cost element on par, per unit!, with actually building the thing). The extra £46m per ship to rectify design errors goes into...roundation error.

If the prgrm cost for T26 is 1.5 bn minus, say, .3bn for the long lead items for the first batch of 3, then we have (for the 8 planned units) half of the target T31 cost already in the prgrm cost element for each T26. What does this imply?
- T31 will really be a MOTS design, only modified for global deployability
- the kit (save for the ASW sonars) from the T23s will end up on T31s (not on T26s), and the sunk cost will be deleted from the unit cost, just to be able to say that the "target" has been hit, for a change

[marktigger]

TG! that we did not build them: both absorbing the submarine service twice over (+ the not-existing FAA on top).

I ran the numbers a while back, the structure makes sense looking at it from the 1960s. A great many older carriers, principally Ark RO9, Eagle, Victorious and the remaining Centaurs would be replaced by almost half as many, large and modern ships. It is supremely unlikely that CVA-03 would ever have been built, the late 70's being what they were for the UK, leaving the UK with a much more manageable carrier force through the 70s and 80s. Even so it's undoubtedly true that the whole fleet structure would have been totally different if CVA-01 had been given the go ahead. Much less focus on the GIUK and the retention of a more "expeditionary" raison d'etre for the RN. In some ways it would have more closely resembled today's fleet; a core of large capital ships surrounded by fewer, but likely more potent, escorts.

if the cold war had run the sam course the UK would have had to step up to the GIUK gap issue could we have seen them try and introduce something like Viking or the CVA-01 go more helicopter heavy. But agree post phantom/Buccaneer the F18 woulf probably been the best option

[ArmChairCivvy]

introduce something like Viking or the CVA-01 go more helicopter heavy

Sure, but that gap is a big place so having more units to disperse across it would definitely have been an advantage. It was the job/ role of the USN CBGs to take offensive action against the submarines bases.

[ArmChairCivvy]

rec wrote:
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



It will probably proceed on those lines, something else to be built sandwiched into the transition from ASW to AAW. It is simply not feasible to maintain a specialist fitting out yard without build activity in the same "neighbourhood"

A lawyer reading through the TOBA made this observation on TD:
"it would be pretty hard to argue that T31, as a frigate, is not caught by the exclusivity provisions which require the MOD to appoint BAE as lead contractor on all future complex warship programmes while the contract is in force."

Never bothered to dig up the TOBA text, but to me this would imply that
- the design could be BMT's
- they could oversee the works
- even some blocks could be built elsewhere,
but from putting the blocks together onwards it would happen on the Clyde, including the high-value phase of military fitting out.

Lead contractor to me reads differently from "Prime contractor" as the latter can order the others about, but at the same time will have to assume full responsibility for all deliverables. Different from the Design/ Build separation in house construction

[marktigger]

If BaE in govan don't get the lions share or all the work stand by for the Scottish Nazi's to be up on their hind legs and BaE to use any opportunity to attack who ever gets the contract through the media or their "friends" in Parliment!

[shark bait]

The RN for damage control reasons requires two outside passageways to the flight deck either side of the hangar

It that true? That isn't the case for the T45

[Engaging Strategy]

It that true? That isn't the case for the T45

It is the case for the T45. The passageways go either side of the hangar but are housed within the superstructure and include the boat bays.

You can see it in this picture:

[shark bait]

So south Korea are selling the Philippine Navy 2 Incheon-class frigates for USD337.

What strikes me is how similar that are to BMT's design in looks and in size. The new batch comes with;

• a 5 inch gun,
• MT30 gas turbine,
• VLS,
• Anti-Ship and land attack missiles
• and a towed sonar!
• Also included is an ASW wildcat

Sounds great, especially next to a BAE avenger!



Any hope babcock are offering the Incheon?

[ArmChairCivvy]

Take the front half from Venator and the back from Incheon... would look v good to me.

[donald_of_tokyo]

So south Korea are selling the Philippine Navy 2 Incheon-class frigates for USD337.
What strikes me is how similar that are to BMT's design in looks and in size. The new batch comes with;

• a 5 inch gun,
• MT30 gas turbine,
• VLS,
• Anti-Ship and land attack missiles
• and a towed sonar!
• Also included is an ASW wildcat

Sounds great, especially next to a BAE avenger!

Uhm, I am a bit confused by your new standard here. How about the future growth margin, quiet hull, damage control, lean manning (it has 140 crew), long range (it has 4500nm), RN living standard, as you have been always quoting. Nothing the Inchon class can provide. Yes, it is nicely designed for coastal escort. But, if you need coastal escort, why not just buy Khareef class, added with CAPTAS-2 sonar?

[shark bait]

Since the "short list" came out my expectations have been lowered.

I think it's clear endurance and growth margins are going to have to take a hit, in order to make a compromise and still remain credible. We may just have to accept these frigates will only have a 20 year useful life, seems like a false economy to me!

It not the right decision, but increasingly it seams this is the route we're heading down.

Incheon is BMT Venator size, and the batch 2 are an extended variant, so I think they are still quite reasonable option's, and a dam sight better than Avenger!

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think it's clear endurance [and growth margins are] going to have to take a hit

Globally deployable - that has been stated very clearly?

[shark bait]

Globally deployable is still possible with lower endurance, it just means we need more support facilities around the world. We have 2 in the works in the middle east, we have Gibraltar and Falkland for Mediterranean and south Atlantic and a token presence in Singapore we could reestablish for indo-pacific tasking.

It seems like smaller forward deployed frigates are going to be more achievable than a big independent Globally deployable combatant. Otherwise, what stops it becoming another T26 "maritime FRES" fiasco?

[marktigger]

we could also increase support in Bermuda or negioate with the Americans or Dutch for support arrangements in the Caribbean

[ArmChairCivvy]

Too easy an example, and supporting narco-patrols does not bear a real resemblance to having facilities for supporting warfighting in the area (without having to return back to base, which is a huge transit away).
- example: one day of action could leave the VLSs empty; what then?