UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [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
51
11%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
13
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
120
26%
An LCS-like modular ship
21
4%
A modernised Type 23
22
5%
A Type 26-lite
65
14%
Less than 5 hulls
21
4%
5 hulls
63
13%
More than 5 hulls
91
19%
 
Total votes: 467

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RetroSicotte » 24 May 2019, 09:22

Tempest414 wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Well if we got five of those, especially with the option to fit the multipurpose missile bay, fit a 57mm and two 35mm and I would think the Royal Navy would be very happy. WE might even see a batch two with a more fighty variant later on for a couple more. Now we just need to see more of the competing bids.

Curious, why the 35mm and not Phalanx? Seems odd to introduce a new gun for only it.


I would still like to see what a triple 57mm fit would look like as this would cost about the same as 1 new Phalanx

I have a significant degree of doubt that three of them, with a whole new training, maintenance, logistics, and ammunition requirement, would be cheaper than another singular item of already in service and supported type.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1408
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Tempest414 » 24 May 2019, 10:38

My point is that as a unit off the self you could buy three 57mm guns for the price of a Phalanx. Yes at this time you would have to add the cost of training and logistics but if the RN were to make the 57mm or 76mm the main gun on T-31 that cost would be met . So if the RN go with 57mm and then need 5 more Phalanx it might be better to fit 3 57mm meaning the ship would carry one round and spears (57mm) instead of three (4.5" , 30mm , 20mm )

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2264
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby abc123 » 24 May 2019, 16:24

Well, I think that 57 mm is too small a caliber for a frigate.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Pongoglo » 24 May 2019, 17:01

Good spot .Having looked closely at the video they demonstrate three different options for the main armament, 5 inch , 76 mm and 57 mm. Perhaps more interestingly however the two secondary gun systems would appear to be BAE Systems 40 mm lightweight mounts rather than the 35 mm millennium mounts (also BAE?) that are fitted to all the Danish ships.

What really puzzles me is that when he is demonstrating the Chinook capable flight deck at 3.36 you can also clearly make out two Phalanx mounts port and starboard above the hanger which seems like overkill somewhat, also they would appear to severe!y restrict the arcs of the aft 40 mm? My thoughts are that all they are attempting to show with this model is the wide range of options that a hull the size of the A140 can accommodate rather than a suggested arnament for an actual ship.

Other interesting addition is that I believe this is the first time we have seen a crane on the A140, and also the rather strange telegraph pole like comms antenna attached to the rear of the mast? Good to see that Babcock have now got as far as producing a model, kindof shows they are getting serious although playing a very slow catch up with BAE. Wonder if we will now see an offering from Meko' perhaps ?

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 561
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RichardIC » 24 May 2019, 18:08

Pongoglo wrote:What really puzzles me is that when he is demonstrating the Chinook capable flight deck at 3.36 you can also clearly make out two Phalanx mounts port and starboard above the hanger which seems like overkill somewhat, also they would appear to severe!y restrict the arcs of the aft 40 mm? My thoughts are that all they are attempting to show with this model is the wide range of options that a hull the size of the A140 can accommodate rather than a suggested arnament for an actual ship.


Correct, it's a marketing video. I don't know why some people take such a literalist view of them.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1655
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 24 May 2019, 18:23

Pongoglo wrote:I believe this is the first time we have seen a crane on the A140....
The Iver Huitfeldt's have an amidships crane to service the weapons deck. Although located slightly differently it looks pretty similar.
3e535ad9be3f2935217f9215eaac99d3.jpg
Personally I would also like to see a 16t deck crane to service the misson bay under the flight deck. With a 4 ISO capacity it would make a really useful feature even better.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 24 May 2019, 18:35

For what it is worth, a contributor to ARSE who has demonstrated his access to inside info, has hinted that Leander's beam precludes it from carrying some kit that they would one day like to enable on the T31's.

This was in response to a comment that Leander seemed a slam dunk for the competition based on its perceived lower price point. The reply indicated there were other KUR's that were not cost related (like beam) that have to be met in addition to price.

Scimitar54
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Scimitar54 » 24 May 2019, 19:00

Broad Beamed Leander anyone? :mrgreen:

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Pongoglo » 25 May 2019, 14:11

Scimitar54 wrote:Broad Beamed Leander anyone? :mrgreen:


Just done the maths on this , given that the Leander design is based purely on CAD as opposed to Arrowhead 140 which is an actual ship logic would suggest is that all they would need to do is take the existing CAD and multiply everything by 1.2. This would give you a very credible frigate sized hull of length 140.4, beam 17.52, displacement 4,412. In fact almost exactly an Arrowhead sized ship.

In terms of cost given the £250 mil baseline figure this would come in at around £300 mil, pretty much akin to the revised costings we are looking at now with the exclusion of GFE. Actually it would prob be less as all we would be doing would be paying for extra steel, and a large part of the cost lies in weapons , CMS and sensors which in our 'broad beamed' Leander wouldn't change. What this would give us is a design that would easily be able to accommodate a Merlin sized hanger and sufficient CAMM to make it a credible AAW escort to the CSG.

Of course what I haven't factored in is propulsion and Donald would understand this better than I . Would the current 9.1 KW be sufficient to push along the larger hull, Arrowhead has 32.8 KW, or would we have to add another diesel perhaps ?

albedo
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby albedo » 25 May 2019, 14:33

Pongoglo wrote:Would the current 9.1 KW ...


:shock: That's a mighty slippery hull!

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 25 May 2019, 15:42

Pongoglo wrote:
Scimitar54 wrote:Broad Beamed Leander anyone? :mrgreen:


Just done the maths on this , given that the Leander design is based purely on CAD as opposed to Arrowhead 140 which is an actual ship logic would suggest is that all they would need to do is take the existing CAD and multiply everything by 1.2. This would give you a very credible frigate sized hull of length 140.4, beam 17.52, displacement 4,412. In fact almost exactly an Arrowhead sized ship.

In terms of cost given the £250 mil baseline figure this would come in at around £300 mil, pretty much akin to the revised costings we are looking at now with the exclusion of GFE. Actually it would prob be less as all we would be doing would be paying for extra steel, and a large part of the cost lies in weapons , CMS and sensors which in our 'broad beamed' Leander wouldn't change. What this would give us is a design that would easily be able to accommodate a Merlin sized hanger and sufficient CAMM to make it a credible AAW escort to the CSG.

Of course what I haven't factored in is propulsion and Donald would understand this better than I . Would the current 9.1 KW be sufficient to push along the larger hull, Arrowhead has 32.8 KW, or would we have to add another diesel perhaps ?


This might be the dumbest post I've read in some time.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Pongoglo » 26 May 2019, 14:39

I won't bother rising to that but why - quiet a few on here have been proposing a 130 metre Leander based design and just because that doesn't happen to be your view doesn't mean it isn't worthy of debate. Actually the results come out at almost exactly the same dimensions as the current Type 23 which T31 is meant to replace. T23 is 133 metres length by 16. 1 metres beam, and at 4,800 tons pretty much the same displacement as the 'broad beamed' ' Leander described above. Of course with two GEC electric motors delivering 2,980 KW each plus two Rolls Royce Spey delivering a further 19,400 KW the T23 has a lot more power, hence my question to Donald. I am a fan of Leander for a number of reasons but my concern is that for a modern frigate they are trying to cram too much capability into quiet a small hull. I think that is neatly illustrated by the new video on the Team 31 site as posted above.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10905
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 26 May 2019, 15:03

Pongoglo wrote: This would give you a very credible frigate sized hull of length 140.4, beam 17.52, displacement 4,412. In fact almost exactly an Arrowhead sized ship.
Too big (everyone says; not me though)

Pongoglo wrote:which in our 'broad beamed' Leander wouldn't change
the installed weapon systems and their cost that is... but would enable (ASW, which was never to be part of the rqrmnt; so that they could be got "on the cheap")
Pongoglo wrote:I am a fan of Leander for a number of reasons but my concern is that for a modern frigate they are trying to cram too much capability into quiet a small hull.
The RN has 'form' with that and after so many practice runs they are bound to get it right... NOT
- just change the paradigm, rather than run the CAD/ CAM to the 'ground'... my two cents... but will wave the charge (as it is the navy - that we all love)

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3624
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 26 May 2019, 15:29

Pongoglo wrote:I won't bother rising to that but why - quiet a few on here have been proposing a 130 metre Leander based design and just because that doesn't happen to be your view doesn't mean it isn't worthy of debate. Actually the results come out at almost exactly the same dimensions as the current Type 23 which T31 is meant to replace. T23 is 133 metres length by 16. 1 metres beam, and at 4,800 tons pretty much the same displacement as the 'broad beamed' ' Leander described above. Of course with two GEC electric motors delivering 2,980 KW each plus two Rolls Royce Spey delivering a further 19,400 KW the T23 has a lot more power, hence my question to Donald. I am a fan of Leander for a number of reasons but my concern is that for a modern frigate they are trying to cram too much capability into quiet a small hull. I think that is neatly illustrated by the new video on the Team 31 site as posted above.


Where will you find the 1.2 sized sailors to man it?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 27 May 2019, 01:08

On the "Broad-beamed-Leander" --> moved to escort thread.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5858
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 29 May 2019, 08:18

abc123 wrote:I think that 57 mm is too small a calibre for a frigate.

It's a stupid calibre. Too small to use as naval artillery and too big to use against airborne threats.

Ron5 wrote: Leander's beam precludes it from carrying some kit

A consequence of its patrol boat heritage.

I share the concern of the commentator you reference above. The Leander proposal has many advantages, but it is just too small. BMT who started with a clean sheet study, proposed a hull of the same length as Leander, but 25% wider, giving it the same internal volume as a T23. I doubt that's a total coincidence.

Ships need a lot of things on them, so space is a real quality on its own.
@LandSharkUK

NickC
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby NickC » 29 May 2019, 12:00

T31e CIWS - WWII era CIWS and today

WWII

Oerlikon 20mm/70 Cyclic 450 RPM , practical 250-320.(tried to post pic twin Mark V Mtg on Starling though only 61 KB message says sorry the board attachment quota has been reached)

Bofors 40 mm L/60 Model 1936 "British water-cooled version was developed by copying the Dutch Hazemeyer mounting which had arrived in Britain in 1940 aboard the Dutch minelayer Willem van der Zaan. The first issue of locally produced water-cooled Bofors guns was to the Black Swan class sloop HMS Whimbrel in November 1942."

"Late in World War II, the USN started replacing 20 mm Oerlikon guns with the Bofors 40mm guns, as the smaller weapon was found to be ineffective against Japanese Kamikazes. However, even the Bofors was determined to be inadequate against suicide attacks by early 1945, and as a result a crash program was started late in the war to develop a new rapid fire 3"/50 (7.62 cm) gun to replace the Bofors. It should be noted that although the Bofors gun was probably the best anti-aircraft automatic cannon of World War II, the USN considered it to be a front-line weapon for only six years."

To counter Japanese saturation attacks towards end of WWII USN battleships had approx 10 dual 5" guns, 20 quad 40mm Bofors and 49 Oerlikon 20mm cannons.

Today

Israel recently lost 4 civilians in latest attacks from Gaza by Hamas using cheap rockets using saturation tactics. The Iron Dome missile defense system claimed to have intercepted 240 Hamas rockets of the 690 fired, claiming 86% success, which sounds very high even if firing two Tamir missiles (similar to a CAMM) at each rocket, so Israeli fired ~500 missiles? Iron Dome only targets rockets/projectiles that pose possible danger using the radar/ C4I for prediction of where rocket will land.

If we accept Israeli claim of 86% success rate that means 14% of missiles still got through against the 'latest and best' AA defence system.

The impression is todays AAW systems on frigates look underwhelming to counter saturation attacks by aircraft and AShMs eg T31e 12 SeaCeptors and maybe one or two Phalanx?

PS The DS30 Mk 2 is of very limited capability as a CIWS to counter air or missile attacks, it's fitted with the US ATK MK44 30x173mm Bushmaster Chain Gun, a low RPM of approx of 200 and as it uses an uncooled barrel only able to fire a limited number shots in burst of 5 secs ~ 16 rounds for before having to stop to cool barrel.

From <http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_2cm-70_mk234.php>
From <http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_4cm-56_mk12.php>

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 561
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RichardIC » 29 May 2019, 12:29

NickC wrote:PS The DS30 Mk 2 is of very limited capability as a CIWS to counter air or missile attacks, it's fitted with the US ATK MK44 30x173mm Bushmaster Chain Gun, a low RPM of approx of 200 and as it uses an uncooled barrel only able to fire a limited number shots in burst of 5 secs ~ 16 rounds for before having to stop to cool barrel.


That's never been its intended use. It's to counter small surface targets.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3302
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 29 May 2019, 16:58



Zero smell of UK company, Babcock, involved in Iver Huitfeldt-class sales around Asia, in IMDEX Asia 2019. There are Thales, Lockheed Martine, SAAB and many companies' banner, but I cannot find Babcock there.

Just an impression, I agree, but I feel more and more that, UK is just one of the "importer" of Iver Huitfeldt-class as Arrowhead 140 and not in the exporter market of the design. Even if it were selected as T31e for RN, there will be no export from UK, as expected. No merit for customer, nor OMT.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 561
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RichardIC » 29 May 2019, 18:04

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Zero smell of UK company, Babcock, involved in Iver Huitfeldt-class sales around Asia, in IMDEX Asia 2019. There are Thales, Lockheed Martine, SAAB and many companies' banner, but I cannot find Babcock there.

Just an impression, I agree, but I feel more and more that, UK is just one of the "importer" of Iver Huitfeldt-class as Arrowhead 140 and not in the exporter market of the design. Even if it were selected as T31e for RN, there will be no export from UK, as expected. No merit for customer, nor OMT.


It's going to depend entirely on what agreement is reached regarding intellectual property etc if the Iver Huitfedt is selected for T31e. And it hasn't been yet.

In the meantime OMT continue to try and export what is still their design and I don't think we can have any problem with that.

At least we know any future Iver Huitfeldts can't be built in Denmark.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3494
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Lord Jim » 29 May 2019, 22:22

NickC wrote:To counter Japanese saturation attacks towards end of WWII USN battleships had approx 10 dual 5" guns, 20 quad 40mm Bofors and 49 Oerlikon 20mm cannons.

I think you will find that USN vessels by the end of WWII had far more AA than that. The final class of Battleships, the Iowas had 10 dual 5 inch DP guns, 20 Quadruple 40mm Bofors Guns and 49 single 20mm Oerlikons. Even their Light Cruisers by the end of the war had 6 dual 5 inch DP guns, 4 quadruple and 6 twin 40mm Bofors and 10 single 20mm Oerlikons. The 40mm was pretty effective against Kamikaze attacks especially in the quad mountings that were electrically powered and liked to fire directors controlling the fire of multiple turrets.

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 561
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RichardIC » 30 May 2019, 09:05

Lord Jim wrote:I think you will find that USN vessels by the end of WWII had far more AA than that. The final class of Battleships, the Iowas had 10 dual 5 inch DP guns, 20 Quadruple 40mm Bofors Guns and 49 single 20mm Oerlikons. Even their Light Cruisers by the end of the war had 6 dual 5 inch DP guns, 4 quadruple and 6 twin 40mm Bofors and 10 single 20mm Oerlikons. The 40mm was pretty effective against Kamikaze attacks especially in the quad mountings that were electrically powered and liked to fire directors controlling the fire of multiple turrets.


How off-topic can a thread get?

NickC
Member
Posts: 537
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby NickC » 30 May 2019, 13:22

RichardIC wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:I think you will find that USN vessels by the end of WWII had far more AA than that. The final class of Battleships, the Iowas had 10 dual 5 inch DP guns, 20 Quadruple 40mm Bofors Guns and 49 single 20mm Oerlikons. Even their Light Cruisers by the end of the war had 6 dual 5 inch DP guns, 4 quadruple and 6 twin 40mm Bofors and 10 single 20mm Oerlikons. The 40mm was pretty effective against Kamikaze attacks especially in the quad mountings that were electrically powered and liked to fire directors controlling the fire of multiple turrets.


How off-topic can a thread get?


Question what is the operational assessment of capabilities required for air defence including CIWS when under ship under saturation attack by aircraft and missiles, have seen no hint of any out current studies, RN has no unmanned ship with current systems, Artisan, CMS, Sea Ceptor, Phalanx, decoys, jamming that could be attacked simultaneously by numerous target drones, including the supersonic Coyote plus Typhoons firing Brimstone to test ships AAW effectiveness, think that scenario is just a pipe dream as no money.

Presume RN has been carrying out computer simulation of saturation attacks which are classified, so we are left with looking at actual battle field examples from WWII, Falklands and current Hamas attacks on Israel, etc to inform our own assessment of capabilities required for T31, otherwise as in Falklands and WWII ships get lost as Prince of Wales and Repulse. Raises the point what is the operational use of the T31 if it has to be protected by T45 and T23/26?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RetroSicotte » 30 May 2019, 13:48

Alright lads, news thread. :)

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 561
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RichardIC » 30 May 2019, 15:13





Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], NickB and 15 guests

 

 

cron