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

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Spinflight wrote: I think what I liked most was his repeated use of the word urgent, specifically that the T31e should be considered an urgent project.
I think the word is used with a double meaning:
1. as per the above
2. a veiled reference to UOR, a process created quickly and turning out quick results (fit for the prupose of [that] day)
Spinflight wrote:With 5 yards building 2 blocks each you could probably roll three frigates out per year, though fitting out would take longer.
- that is why even the Treasury will like this
- the single military fitting-out yard becomes the bottle neck; keeping the escort numbers at the present level through T23 decommissioning is a political imperative (the Chancellor for PM... sooner than we think?)
- therefore the T31s will push the build rate of the double-priced T26s further out than currently envisaged (from the 3rd boat onwards one every 18 mths)... and on a year-to-year basis the Treasury sees less money going out - perhaps with the exception of support for yard infrastructure investments, but hey-ho, they are dual use, not wasteful, non-productive defence spending
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)

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Spinflight »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- that is why even the Treasury will like this
Yep, he's written it very skillfully. Basically made a Keynesian case without ever mentioning military capability. If you note he has also suggested selling OPVs from the RN's order book in the appendix, though no-one would buy them at BAes rates. I doubt he's talking about River batch 2s here, more a Venator patrol configuration. Which I think would be attractive to many navies, the Hollande class isn't far off Venator size and seems to be regarded as an 80% solution.

Also his thinly veiled attack on the rates charged by BAes. He couches it in terms of the capability they provide but one does get the impression he isn't impressed! Hence he advocates block building but also partial fitting out by the smaller yards, with the Clyde merely getting installations of combat systems and 'design support' whatever that is. Basically not a lot, though of course they can bid at their extortionate rates if they have capacity.

Bearing in mind that the Type 26 was explicitly excluded from the report by calling for delivery as early in the 2020s as possible he's basically putting the shits right up BAes.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:- the single military fitting-out yard becomes the bottle neck; keeping the escort numbers at the present level through T23 decommissioning is a political imperative (the Chancellor for PM... sooner than we think?)
You're assuming that the Clyde has to be the fitting out yard, which I don't think is a given. It would be based upon the bids and we are back to BAes rates. The combat management system is their intellectual property but that doesn't mean they have to install the bog roll holders.
ArmChairCivvy wrote:- therefore the T31s will push the build rate of the double-priced T26s further out than currently envisaged
And this is the thing that will really shit BAes up. If they are looking for £750m+ and it takes them 2 years to build whereas the smaller yards with their lower costs can bang a Type 31e out in 12 months then questions will be asked about just how much more effective a Type 26 is and why they cost so much more. The more T31es are built the lower the costs become, the more attractive they are for export. Wouldn't be long before there would be calls for the other yards to build blocks to reduce costs or even buy 31s instead.

Basically he's calling out BAe System's monopoly bullshit prices even though he wasn't meant to be commenting on the Type 26.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Spinflight wrote:he advocates block building but also partial fitting out by the smaller yards, with the Clyde merely getting installations of combat systems and 'design support' whatever that is. Basically not a lot
I think you captured most of it in one sentence! On the TD site I have been advocating the model of reducing BAES monopoly to the (high-end) military fitting out ( as a single yard, to keep it busy; call it a Centre of Excellence if the word "monopoly " is distasteful).

But elaborating on the "not a lot"
- the T26s stand for more than half of the pot
- fitting out is anywhere between 40 and 60% of the total value for the rest (for SSS less)
- the next "replacement run" is likely to be for the AAW (in the surface fleet, that is), where BAE , seen more widely than just the builder of the vessel, sits comfortably as the incumbent

Bottom line: max. 25% of the future orders are up for grabs (in part, or as a whole , sans the final fit-out). BUT, within every split order charge-out rates would be moderated, and it all will add up in the long run.
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 [News Only]

Post by shark bait »

Spinflight wrote:Well my impressions on first read through are that he isn't talking about building 5 or even 8 of these, series and parallel production he's thinking at the very least double digits. And hoping for an awful lot more.
What gives you that impression? I saw no indication of numbers.

The government will publish a full response, and implementation plan, in spring 2017, that will be where we find out how much cash is available, and the numbers we will actually get.
Spinflight wrote:Effectively he's talking about the Royal Navy holding and operating a pool of configurable ships ( Stanflex anyone?) which could be sold in short order.
As I understand it the base design will be configurable, not the actual in service ships, no swapping modules in and out like Stanflex.
Spinflight wrote: Also he's effectively proposing it as a replacement for the mine countermeasures vessels. Which could also add weight to the project, and arguably budget.
Possibly not extra budget, this has been the plan for a long time. The mine clearance kit will become a platform agnostic off-board system, which will be operate from auxiliaries or civilian vessels in low intensity environments, or frigates in hostile environments, or even from the shore. This is why mission bays are important because moving forward we will probably lose the specialist MCM hulls, which those roles being distributed around other platforms.

He also mentioned leasing civilian vessels, something the Unmanned Warrior report also mentioned, so that is perhaps an indication where the low end will go, with the high end going on the T26 and T31.
Spinflight wrote: I think what I liked most was his repeated use of the word urgent, specifically that the T31e should be considered an urgent project.
Yes, I hope this is something the government can act on, and push this through more like an Urgent Operational Requirement, because the standard procurement model is far too slow and crappy.
Spinflight wrote: I'm rather optimistic for the first time in decades!
I’d agree, the report is generally positive. What really matters is how much the government takes on board and implements in the spring. Are they really bothered about the content? Or are they just trying to scare BAE?
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:As I understand it the base design will be configurable, not the actual in service ships, no swapping modules in and out like Stanflex.
That is my understanding, too, but then again I have not come across any details about the "flexible weapon stations".
shark bait wrote:Possibly not extra budget, this has been the plan for a long time.
The original four-letter programme (before "P" was dropped from it) outlined £1.4 bn, and this provisioned for the kit (incl. the R&D) and for (some 1:1?) hull replacement.
- so, extra frigate budget is a possibility
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)

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Spinflight »

shark bait wrote:I’d agree, the report is generally positive. What really matters is how much the government takes on board and implements in the spring. Are they really bothered about the content? Or are they just trying to scare BAE?
Well I did see a response from Fallon, thanking him for the report etc.

He did witter on a bit, as politicians do, to say that the Type 31 would come after the Type 26, which sounds like nigh on 2030 to me.

Also sounds as though he didn't read the report.

shark bait wrote:As I understand it the base design will be configurable, not the actual in service ships, no swapping modules in and out like Stanflex.
It's part of the Venator design. From their catalog..

"VENATOR-110 includes BMT designed Adaptive Weapon Positions that allow freedom in the choice of weapon fit, both at the time of build and through-life."
ArmChairCivvy wrote:But elaborating on the "not a lot"
- the T26s stand for more than half of the pot
- fitting out is anywhere between 40 and 60% of the total value for the rest (for SSS less)
Type 26 should keep BAEs busy until almost 2030 so I'd assume the fitting out of Type 31s, should they appear as per his recommendations, would be carried out elsewhere. Probably Rosyth.

Combat system and design support, doubt he could have written it to include fewer goodies for BAes.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Spinflight wrote:He did witter on a bit, as politicians do, to say that the Type 31 would come after the Type 26, which sounds like nigh on 2030 to me.

Also sounds as though he didn't read the report.
The two ladies (North and South of the Border) pre-read the report, and told Fallon to make it sound like nothing is/ will be taken away from Scotland?
- the beauty of one-man reports is that it is very difficult to get to tweak the report itself (unlike in Committee work, when there is always someone standing behind the nominated members)
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)

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Spinflight »

Possibly, but the actual strategy will be the MoD's response in the spring.

Once you start wondering whether a politician is lying, incompetent, hasn't read the report or telling the truth you end up with so many possibilities that you wish you hadn't bothered.

Another point on the in service ship's weapon fit.

He recommends buying a couple, maybe the first two, as 'for but not withs' so that they can be configured however the first export customer wants them.

Hence changing the fit is very much in the plan. Might as well name them HMS Jolly and HMS Gin Party as I'd imagine they'd be doing coincidental port visits anywhere that has a requirement open. :)

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Spinflight wrote:Another point on the in service ship's weapon fit.

He recommends buying a couple, maybe the first two, as 'for but not withs' so that they can be configured however the first export customer wants them.

Hence changing the fit is very much in the plan. Might as well name them HMS Jolly and HMS Gin Party
Or no fit required, just delete "HMS" from the latter name... has happened, e.g with the frigate sold to Ghana,
- the destroyer conversions market is already saturated:
http://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirew ... nset-1.jpg

0k... back to serious business
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)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by bobp »

Janes reporting on the T31 not being built by BAE....
http://www.janes.com/article/65843/uk-t ... recommends

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by shark bait »

I don't believe the report ever said that so directly did it?

I though it was saying the work should be spread across and alliance of UK yards, that will ultimately still include BAE, just like the carrier build model.

Completely moving the build away from the Clyde will be difficult, as well as being a political mine field.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Gabriele »

Ugh. That Avenger thing would literally never be exported just because of how ugly it is. And believe me, i'm serious. It really doesn't look the part, and this has more weight than you believe.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote:Ugh. That Avenger thing would literally never be exported just because of how ugly it is. And believe me, i'm serious. It really doesn't look the part, and this has more weight than you believe.
I agree, but what you and SB say are not opposites and leave a lot of the field uncovered.
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 [News Only]

Post by shark bait »

Spinflight wrote:It's part of the Venator design. From their catalog..

"VENATOR-110 includes BMT designed Adaptive Weapon Positions that allow freedom in the choice of weapon fit, both at the time of build and through-life."
That's essentially 3 hollow spaces where things can be put, on in front of the bridge, one behind, and one under the flight deck. I remain unconvinced by the StanFlex swappable modules, because most things would be needed all the time. The LCS 'hot swappable' modules proved to be a poor idea, and looking at it now it does seem unrealistic.

Thats not to say a modular approach isn't good, a modular approach is essential, but perhaps just not swappable containers all the time.

We need to ask what makes sense to containerise? Things like CAMM, missile, guns, radars you would need all the time, so I don't there isn't much value containerising them for the T31 (however there might be for auxiliaries).

The only thing I can think of that makes sense to containerise for the T31 is a towed sonar, with that being something that would only be used when escorting, which will only be part of the T31's job, and may be worth sharing between the fleet.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

shark bait wrote:The only thing I can think of that makes sense to containerise for the T31 is a towed sonar, with that being something that would only be used when escorting, which will only be part of the T31's job, and may be worth sharing between the fleet.
- ASW as a specialism is manpower heavy... shall we say a team of 30 (as they will have to work shifts; more so than a helo support team ... they would be under 20?)

MCM is another part-time (read: container) job?
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 [News Only]

Post by shark bait »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:MCM is another part-time (read: container) job?
Good point, yes it is.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by GibMariner »

I thought today was 01/12 not 01/04...

BMD option touted for UK frigate
Raytheon has called on the Royal Navy to consider adopting its SM-3 short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile defence (BMD) system, on its future Type 31 frigate.

No official requirement for this exists, and the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) released in November 2015 did not indicate that a sea-based ballistic missile defence system would be required, so Raytheon is looking towards the next SDSR to address this capability gap.

Andy Rhodes, business development lead for missile systems at Raytheon, told an industry technology day on 29 November that the UK MoD should consider this in its 2020 SDSR, which could pave way for integration on the Type 31 by 2023-24.

The vessel is expected to carry the Mark 41 vertical launching system, which can fire Raytheon’s SM-3 interceptor, Rhodes told Shephard. Current planning could also see MBDA’s Sea Ceptor used and there is an aspiration to operate the Raytheon Tomahawk missile from the frigate, he says.

However, industry sources have observed that the role of the frigate is yet to be determined, and at best it is designed to be an affordable and agile vessel. A BMD-capable SM-3 would increase costs.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... k-frigate/

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by shark bait »

Yeah right, for the same Navy that is struggling to fund it on their specialist AAW platform.
@LandSharkUK

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

"The vessel is expected to carry the Mark 41..."

Seems a bit strong, "expected"???

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by RetroSicotte »

This same article that calls Sea Viper as Sea Venom?

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Not in a million years. To my mind, given the broad direction that T31 already seems to be heading in, it would be totally inappropriate for the vessel to boot.

Perhaps Mr Rhodes might instead try his hand at getting the government to commit to the Mk41 on our Type 45s instead?

User avatar
Engaging Strategy
Member
Posts: 775
Joined: 20 Dec 2015, 13:45
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Engaging Strategy »

Why would we not include provisions for T31 to mount the most popular VLS system in the world? If the idea is to be modular and adaptable to the customer's needs the ability to fit Mk.41 cells, maybe not full length strike cells, but certainly the shorter cells for ESSM, would seem pretty important.

I don't expect to see Strike length cells on the RN's T31, but I don't think that's what's necessarily being floated here.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

^ If the above was in response to my post - i was referring to the SM-3 not the Mk41.

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 579
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Spinflight »

The Venator design does include the option of 8 strike length Mk41s.

I seem to remember there is three configurations they offer, with 12 Sea Ceptors, 24 Sea Ceptors or 24 + 8 MK41's. Whether it is likely.. Not completely convinced I can see a requirement.

Most interesting thing in the article is the date though, 2023 would indicate steel cut around 2021.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by seaspear »

The inclusion of a VLS is ideal , but what type of long range radar is used for this ship to take advantage of the options available to the VLS , this is where cost can increase , if a ship like this is used with the superior sensor array of a Daring class are its capabilities able to be directed ?

Post Reply