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

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Calling T31e a Patrol Frigate (or ocean going corvette) is correct, I guess. NOT CALLING IT A FRIGATE is something I can surely agree. On the other hand, saying T31e and River B2 "is the same" is nonsense. River B2 differs from T31e, as much as T31e differs from T26.

Hoping for 19 escort is something I also share. But, "2-active CVF policy" killed that possibility. A "global cruiser" concept of T26 also killed that possibility. It is not the T31e which is killing it. RN was again and again too much optimistic in their future, which cost a lot on them a few years later. This is repeating so many times.
The RN was not too optimistic at all. Blaming them is entirely inaccurate. Theyt haven't ever wanted something beyond what they ought to get.

The RN defined the requirements. They don't just make up their wishes or requirements out of thin air.

The only blame here goes to the MoD and BAE. This is nothing like the Army's inconsistent decisions that blame them as much as the MoD, the RN has known what they wanted for a long time now. They used to have 3 carriers plus Ocean not too long ago, while ALSO having a larger escort fleet than will be coming, plus a larger nuclear sub fleet. (And a larger mine hunter fleet, and a larger landing craft fleet, and more helos...)

They were not too optimistic if their requirements were wanting that to stay roughly equivalent to a modern world, and even reducing the scale in many areas. It's not like they wanted some giant extra added on. The whole "cruiser" nonsense is entriely inaccurate. Type 26 is, outside having some extra CAMM, not all that different from a FREMM (And in some ways less than one). The Type 26 was what was needed, it's not some Zumwalt class breaking the budget.

The RN's requirement for 19 credible escorts and 2 carriers is actually BELOW the requirements of even less than 10 years ago.

That was until the budget got absolutely destroyed from 2010. If that hadn't been done, then they'd have 13 Type 26 still as the plan and none of this OPV/Corvette nonsense would have occurred.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by inch »

I agree it should be reported that the navy is losing 5 frigates full stop and I just don't understand why the 1st sea lord is not standing up and saying so ,not spinning the guv line about having another 5 opv and calling them frigates ,it really is a joke and the national newspapers should be reporting it so even if the general public not bothered ,or the guv opposition parties should be making a noise about it even to make point scores ,even tho we know they would scrap the entire navy if they had a chance and send really strongly worded letters to any opponents

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Jake1992 wrote:Say that because the T26 is more capable than the T23 we can lose numbers but still keep to the same level of capability is the very same thing Tony Blair said about the T45 cuts, but we all know that is just rubbish and a cover to the cuts
RetroSicotte wrote:That was until the budget got absolutely destroyed from 2010. If that hadn't been done, then they'd have 13 Type 26 still as the plan and none of this OPV/Corvette nonsense would have occurred.
The same thing. Defense must be designed according to the budget.

If RN did not required the mission bay, how much T26 would have been cheaper? (I think you will not agree), but I think it may amount to 10-20%. Steel is so cheap, while escort hull is so expensive worldwide = it is NOT the steel BUT the standard which is costing. And, if we include 3-unit cost equivalent design cost, the 8 hull T26 program amounts to 11 unit costs. If the unit cost were 15% cheaper, you can build 2 more T26s with the same total cost. Adding the 1.25-1.5B GBP T31e program cost, building 2 more is easy. Then 12 T26 (without a mission bay) shall be achieved. This opportunity was missed.

I agree this is all guess, but I guess this is not that far away. This is what I meant.

Also two 65000t CVF is much more than four 20000t CVS/LPH. Asking F35B 138 jump jest is much much more than ~90 Harrier GR9. Sorry but I cannot call it "the same"... Sorry... The economic bubble of financial sector around 2000-2008 made RN so much optimistic, when I was looking at, from the far east. I remember so much impressed with RN future then = much better RN than then it was.

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by inch »

in fact if I was the head of the usn id be calling the 1sl and saying why you cutting your credible fleet for opv fleet whats going on ?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

inch wrote:in fact if I was the head of the usn id be calling the 1sl and saying why you cutting your credible fleet for opv fleet whats going on ?
He shall say, "just lack of money, the same as it is in the other side of the Atlantic..." :D Actually, USN is not in good form, either...

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 »

inch wrote:I agree it should be reported that the navy is losing 5 frigates full stop and I just don't understand why the 1st sea lord is not standing up and saying so ,not spinning the guv line about having another 5 opv and calling them frigates ,it really is a joke and the national newspapers should be reporting it so even if the general public not bothered ,or the guv opposition parties should be making a noise about it even to make point scores ,even tho we know they would scrap the entire navy if they had a chance and send really strongly worded letters to any opponents
Just a thought but maybe members of the navy board know some things about Type 31 that we commentators do not. Just saying.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:The same thing. Defense must be designed according to the budget.

Also two 65000t CVF is much more than four 20000t CVS/LPH. Asking F35B 138 jump jest is much much more than ~90 Harrier GR9. Sorry but I cannot call it "the same"... Sorry... The economic bubble of financial sector around 2000-2008 made RN so much optimistic, when I was looking at, from the far east. I remember so much impressed with RN future then = much better RN than then it was.
The argument of "they're better now so we need less of them" is wholly inaccurate to reality. That implies that your opposition has not upgraded since the 80's, which is just entirely not true.

The two QE have less crew requirements and drop the amphibious ability that Ocean had entirely, so it's not a direct upgrade.

The "90 Harrier to 138 F-35" is also entirely inaccurate. The F-35 is also replacing well over a hundred Tornados at minimum, and the Navy isn't getting ownership of them alone.

"Defense must be designed according to the budget."

No. Defence must be designed according to what is required to protect the country, its interests and dependents, its servicemen and women and its people. The budget and the acquirement process must then adjust to match that requirement.

Right now, neither of them are. Defence of ones country is not a matter to play numbers and go 'on budget' about.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Well then...The Army's already halfway down the pan, the Navy now following swiftly after it and the RAF is hardly fairing much better. Perhaps i'm just letting my mood get the better of me but it seems we are finished...

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 »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Well then...The Army's already halfway down the pan, the Navy now following swiftly after it and the RAF is hardly fairing much better. Perhaps i'm just letting my mood get the better of me but it seems we are finished...
Nope. Not even slightly.
Blog: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk
Twitter: @EngageStrategy1

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by marktigger »

RetroSicotte wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:The same thing. Defense must be designed according to the budget.

Also two 65000t CVF is much more than four 20000t CVS/LPH. Asking F35B 138 jump jest is much much more than ~90 Harrier GR9. Sorry but I cannot call it "the same"... Sorry... The economic bubble of financial sector around 2000-2008 made RN so much optimistic, when I was looking at, from the far east. I remember so much impressed with RN future then = much better RN than then it was.
The argument of "they're better now so we need less of them" is wholly inaccurate to reality. That implies that your opposition has not upgraded since the 80's, which is just entirely not true.

The two QE have less crew requirements and drop the amphibious ability that Ocean had entirely, so it's not a direct upgrade.

The "90 Harrier to 138 F-35" is also entirely inaccurate. The F-35 is also replacing well over a hundred Tornados at minimum, and the Navy isn't getting ownership of them alone.

"Defense must be designed according to the budget."

No. Defence must be designed according to what is required to protect the country, its interests and dependents, its servicemen and women and its people. The budget and the acquirement process must then adjust to match that requirement.

Right now, neither of them are. Defence of ones country is not a matter to play numbers and go 'on budget' about.

ed balls in his political biography stated that unless the economics are right you can't effectivly govern. That has been the problem since the financial crash the economy was to dependent on 1 sector and when it failed it took the whole lot out.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Engaging Strategy wrote: Nope. Not even slightly.
I see little reason to believe otherwise at present. Whatever genuine capability we have left now, from the carriers and CASD, all the way down through to our small arms inventory, is part of such a disjointed, gutted system they can no longer function as we would wish them to, and as we need them to.

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 »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote: I see little reason to believe otherwise at present. Whatever genuine capability we have left now, from the carriers and CASD, all the way down through to our small arms inventory, is part of such a disjointed, gutted system they can no longer function as we would wish them to, and as we need them to.
Raise your eyes and look at everyone else for a moment. Capability isn't absolute, It's relative. You think we have problems? The Russians, for example, are shovelling money into their defence establishment and failing to even stand still in terms of capacity.
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~ »

Engaging Strategy wrote: Raise your eyes and look at everyone else for a moment. Capability isn't absolute, It's relative. You think we have problems? The Russians, for example, are shovelling money into their defence establishment and failing to even stand still in terms of capacity.
A nice sentiment, but a little redundant when our capability isn't matched to our requirements.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Spinflight »

The most interesting parts of the RFI are the build standards, which are Lloyds Naval Rules with some flexibility rather than as advertised commercial by default, and the missions it must be adaptable for. Also a return to armour is mooted for crew protection.

Hence proper warships, though lightly armed, not OPV or commercial standard.

Primarily MIFS and MHC though an honourable mention to Land Strike. Hence 5", will use the MCM modules being fast tracked and a yet to be procured precision strike capable SSM. As I said months ago 57mm is a no brainer as it is both CIWS and medium calibre gun.

Hence, more than likely, the Type 31 is going to be the MHC hull. Which is excellent news.

Now you can look at the escort fleet, say a T31 is awful compared to T23 or 26. Or you can look at the bigger picture and factor in the MCM fleet, currently 15 vessels and dropping to 12. 14 with Echo and Enterprise.

Supposedly there's £19Bn devoted to new build surface shipping till 2026, we know the T26 is budgeted at £8Bn, T31 is £1.25Bn, call it a Bn for FSS. I doubt we've actually paid for the carriers yet, though not sure, as still in contractor ownership on sea trials so there's another £6bn.

Leaves £2bn plus change which could equal an additional 11 barebones T31s.

Replacing Hunts and Sandowns, doubt it'll be 1 to 1, with light frigates that can self escort and fit guccier stuff at a later date looks pretty strong to me.

Instead of 36 tubs at present, 17 of which only have a 30mm, a notional future fleet circa 3035 of 8 T26, 6 T45, and lots ( 16 maybe?) T31 is a pretty good way of slicing the cake.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by james k »

There is a citadel although it's limited.
Gabriele wrote:The Royal Navy will accept anything with at least a 57mm on the bow. Artisan 3D highly desirable but not overtly specified.
One aviation ammunition storage area.
"Fit to Receive" torpedo decoys, fitted with RF / IR decoys.
No CBRN citadel, just a "sanctuary" for emergency crew survival.
2x 30mm, 2 miniguns and up to 6x .50.
Point Defence missile OR a CIWS.
2x 7.5 meter boats
Disaster Relief stores will always be carried, amounting to 21 NATO pallets + 9 x 5m lengths of shoring wood
Fit to Receive a hull mounted sonar (note: not fitted with one)
Max speed at least 24 knots
Design life 10 - 15 years (are you fuckin' kidding me...?)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 1e_RFI.pdf

250 million includes design and non-recurring costs.

Certified OPV.

Note to industry: "this should be a ship other countries want to have"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by james k »

Opinions on the 57mm gun anyone?

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by marktigger »

james k wrote:Opinions on the 57mm gun anyone?
same as 76mm not fit for the NGS role which 31 is meant to be capable of carrying out

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Firstly many, many, thanks to Gabriele for finding and publishing the document for us.

Not sure if it is final or a draft. Not dated which is unusual for a government document. But if we take it at face value..

Unlike some commentators above, I read it (like Gabriele, Repulse) cover to cover. Three things really popped out to me:

1. The schedule: first responses due by Oct 16, 2017. Final by Dec 1, 2017. Design Competition contracts Summer 2018. Main gate 4Q 2018, Build contract 1Q 2019. Wow. Seems totally unrealistic.

2. Ship requirements: as detailed by Repulse & Gabriele, base design has no, zero, zip, warfighting requirements. Catching slow pirates, cocktail parties, freedom of navigation trips & the occasional international exercise. Future development to get even the minimal ability to protect another ship. Odd mix of very vague, general requirements and very specific. This is not a frigate by anyone's definition.

3. Cost, this is a direct quote: "£250M is the maximum average price per ship for an initial order of 5 ships. This includes non-recurring engineering costs, contractor risk and profit, minimal GFX proposed by the contractor, initial training and spares. All costs are at outturn assuming an in service date with the Royal Navy for the first of class of 2023, and a drumbeat of a ship delivered every 12 months thereafter; Warranty and Insurance will be treated as risk inside of cost; and it is the MOD’s intent to maximise the transfer of risk to the contractor during this programme, and minimise the dependencies that the MOD would manage"

To me that says, after subtracting design & development costs, each ship will have to be £200 million ($260m?) or less. Worth remembering as we compare to other frigate sales in other countries.

Worth noting that Francis Tusa in a YouTube clip from DSEI claims the average price for comparable warships of between $375 and $400 million.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote: That was until the budget got absolutely destroyed from 2010. If that hadn't been done
So, 9/11 decimated British Forces?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Actually, USN is not in good form, either...
Well, look at the Ruskie rust buckets...so, the winner is: PLAN?
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
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:more than likely, the Type 31 is going to be the MHC hull. Which is excellent news.
Engaging Strategy wrote:Capability isn't absolute, It's relative.
Good to find a few more upbeat comments, was about to swap the red wine for a stiff Scottish refreshment :( :(
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)

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by james k »

That was my thought as well. The 57mm may be good for a River B2 but not a frigate, at least it's not the 30mm DS30M that they seem addicted to at the moment (which may be a fine secondary weapon but not as a main gun). Not encouraged by this unless it's mitigated by the introduction of the 57mm onto the OPV's as well, but even then it's too small for a frigate main gun.
marktigger wrote:
james k wrote:Opinions on the 57mm gun anyone?
same as 76mm not fit for the NGS role which 31 is meant to be capable of carrying out

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4586
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

To be honest I am not disheartened by this, as long as it leads to numbers and the MHPC approach. I do though see the need for another T26.

I must also admit that the more I think about it the more this looks like a UK version of the Holland class.
”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
Halidon
Member
Posts: 539
Joined: 12 May 2015, 01:34
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Halidon »

Gabriele wrote:The Royal Navy will accept anything with at least a 57mm on the bow. Artisan 3D highly desirable but not overtly specified.
One aviation ammunition storage area.
"Fit to Receive" torpedo decoys, fitted with RF / IR decoys.
No CBRN citadel, just a "sanctuary" for emergency crew survival.
2x 30mm, 2 miniguns and up to 6x .50.
Point Defence missile OR a CIWS.
2x 7.5 meter boats
Disaster Relief stores will always be carried, amounting to 21 NATO pallets + 9 x 5m lengths of shoring wood
Fit to Receive a hull mounted sonar (note: not fitted with one)
Max speed at least 24 knots
Design life 10 - 15 years (are you fuckin' kidding me...?)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 1e_RFI.pdf

250 million includes design and non-recurring costs.

Certified OPV.

Note to industry: "this should be a ship other countries want to have"

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This specification reads as a (slightly) uprated Holland-class OPV. The Dutch build some very nice OPVs, but they're no Frigates.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

As advertised it will still be a far better platform for many of the jobs the UK si currently using RFAs and RN research vessels for. It isn't a war fighter but then until possible future refits it won't be used as such. If a Wildcat is carried it still will pack quite a punch and a 57mm, if the right spec is chosen, is a very effective and versatile weapon. I think the idea of using it for NGFS has been finally ditched thank god.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:I think the idea of using it for NGFS has been finally ditched thank god.
I think the idea of using it for anything worthwhile has been ditched, rather.

If you just want to do patrols, then just build a patrol ship. You can do that a lot cheaper than this. This ships primary role and purpose is just to allow Fallon to say we're building 13 frigates.

Never ever mistake that. This is checkbox military at its most extreme.

Post Reply