Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Pongoglo]

If you look at the images of them, you can see for yourself. Avenger seems to have a 127mm gun and some CAMM at least. Cutlass is likely armed similarly to a Khaleef.

Looking at the way this discussion is going have we completely written off BMT and the Venator design ?

[shark bait]

Hope not, they're actually designing a modern light frigate, not pimping a dated patrol boat.

[dmereifield]

Hope not, they're actually designing a modern light frigate, not pimping a dated patrol boat.

Bit for the money being talked about, it looks like it's going to be derived from an off the shelf design, presumably?

[RetroSicotte]

If you look at the images of them, you can see for yourself. Avenger seems to have a 127mm gun and some CAMM at least. Cutlass is likely armed similarly to a Khaleef.

Looking at the way this discussion is going have we completely written off BMT and the Venator design ?

For the money rumoured to be set aside for it, I'd be surprised if they got it.

[marktigger]

If you look at the images of them, you can see for yourself. Avenger seems to have a 127mm gun and some CAMM at least. Cutlass is likely armed similarly to a Khaleef.

Looking at the way this discussion is going have we completely written off BMT and the Venator design ?

For the money rumoured to be set aside for it, I'd be surprised if they got it.

I suspect its a done deal and they will have to be built on the clyde

[shark bait]

there is no 'off the shelf' design, all of the options are only part engineered solutions.

[Repulse]

For the money rumoured to be set aside for it, I'd be surprised if they got it.

Amen - the navy needs ships not more designs. Build as many of these as possible and get the modular build process working, coupled with 1-2 more T26s. The Venator design can then be looked at for ships to cover the eventual decommissioning of the MCMs / Echos.

[jedibeeftrix]

For the money rumoured to be set aside for it, I'd be surprised if they got it.

Amen - the navy needs ships not more designs. Build as many of these as possible and get the modular build process working, coupled with 1-2 more T26s. The Venator design can then be looked at for ships to cover the eventual decommissioning of the MCMs / Echos.

For the money rumoured to be set aside for it, I'd be surprised if they got it.

but this isn't just about the RN is it?
it is also about complex warships being deemed a strategic industry.
which means preserving not just the ability to build, but also to design new complex warships...

[Repulse]

But we have that with the T26 and then next with the T45 design. The T31 is a political fantasy, but ultimately it's about money / lowering costs (exports) and number of RN hulls in the water - both are linked. It's not about the design IMO.

[donald_of_tokyo]

That is an OPV, not even vaguely a frigate.
...
Significantly less so. This thing doesn't even have an Artisan or CAMM on it. No VLS at all in fact, or any missiles it seems outside the RAM, which the UK doesn't use. Also note only a 57mm gun. Absolute minimum must be a 76mm with modern ammunition, 127mm preferable.

Hull edge is inclined = stealthy. Also, inclining the super structure is very easy, please compare the Vard7-80 classes, "GRSE Mauritius offshore patrol vessel" and "Roisin-class patrol vessel", which has very different super structure.

The Vard design used by USCG and seen in those CGIs would be a jump back in time of decades. It doesn't even have basic RCS reduction features. It can't possibly be what they have in mind, it just cannot be brought anywhere without people laughing in your face. At the very least a Type 31 derivative would need completely different superstructures.

Surely rearrangement of the super structure and armament will be needed. But, Vard7-110 design is as large as Venator 110.

- adding 24 +24FFBNW CAMM in front of the bridge,
- option to carry, CAPTAS4CI and 8x NSM canisters, or 3-4 ORCs, or a few containers at the stern deck (as is in all Vard7-80/85/90 designs)
- option to equip Prairie/Masker (but anyway needs a little more quietizaition over all)
- reduce the range to 6000nm and endurance 35 days, also reduce the crew size to 70+air-crews, to open up space for the armaments.

Then, it it not so bad, at least in its specifiction-list (but out-look is not good, I agree). But is it the out-look or specification-list which is important?

Carrying canistered armaments on cheap vessel will never be "cheap". Canistered anything other than inherently offboard systems (= MCM drones, Helicopters, UAV, RHIBs, ORCs) will only make things expensive (equipped-as-built CAMM is much chepaer than canistered CAMM, equipped-as-built good CMS is much cheaper than containerized CIC, equipped-as-built radar/ESM/ECM kit is cheaper than canistered ones. It is crystal clear). Thus, T31 as Vard7-110 or Cutlass has its own rationale, for many of the standing tasks, I think.

To carry "inherently off board system", a ship like PSV (like French B2M) will be perfect. So, PSV as MHCs is I think the right way to go. Yes for patrol we need a top speed of ~25 knots, but there are already 5 River B2 coming, equipped with big mission deck and minimum CMS. We do not need more.

[RetroSicotte]

And it has the same level of survivability, damage resistance and acoustic quietening requires of Royal Navy vessels? I doubt it.

[shark bait]

I doubt it too, would be better off not bothering rather than stooping that low.

[donald_of_tokyo]

And it has the same level of survivability, damage resistance and acoustic quietening requires of Royal Navy vessels? I doubt it.

Exactly. It is not the out look, it is the survivability standard. We have 3 choices; escort-comparable survivability hull in small hull ~3000t FL (because that standard is very expensive), or OPV-comparable (RN upgraded = River B2) survivability in a large hull ~4000t FL. Also, Gabrielle-san is proposing to make it more larger with well-dock = much more low survivability, but with big flexibility. The survivability standard is, I think, mentioned in Sir JP's strategy. I understand he think it must be lower in T31 than those for T45/T26s.

I doubt it too, would be better off not bothering rather than stooping that low.

Sorry I am a bit confused. I thought this is exactly the one of the ideas you liked (other than proper light frigate, like good-armed Venator 110). Low standard large hull, mid-calibre gun and CAMM, with (small) mission deck astern. The armaments are not canistered, but it only mean it is cheaper (for me).

[shark bait]

No, if we're going for a cheap low standard hull it needs to be huge and filled with off-board systems.

Its either small, focused and capable, or big, simple and flexible.

[donald_of_tokyo]

No, if we're going for a cheap low standard hull it needs to be huge and filled with off-board systems.
Its either small, focused and capable, or big, simple and flexible.

Thanks.
- if huge, How huge? 7000t? 10000t?
- from where the cost of those "off-board systems" comes? All Merlins are already have there places, and 5 remaining Wildcats coming from T23GP do not need huge hull. MCM kits has been reserved for MHC, and other many kits must fill T26's mission bay. Also 5 River B2 can carry something.

- if "small, focused and capable", how small? Vard7-110 is ~4000t FL, the same as Venator 110. So you are looking for some thing with a size of Cutlass or "original" Venator 110 (3000-35000t)?.
- I think making a "focused and capable" Vard-7 110 frigate is possible, as I said, with a gun and 24 CAMM at the bow, Merlin, and "CAPATAS4&ASM" or "ORCs" or "containers" at the "mission deck" astern.

[shark bait]

Big, simple and flexible.
A 15,000 tonne bay/enforcer platform, equipped with 2 helicopters and 2 CB90 would be in the region of £260m. Payload over platform.
Source; Polar ship = 200m, Wildcat = £28m and CB90 = £2m.

Small, focused and capable
A 4,000 tonne Venator type Platform with 48 CAMM and CAPTAS 4 Compact.

[Jake1992]

The problem I feel would come from going down the enforcer rout would be when the time comes to replace the bay's HMG will say well you've got the "T31s" so they bay don't need replacing.

In doing so the T31s end up doing the bay job and we end up down to only 14 escorts.

The RN top brass really need to start apply some pressure to HMG and laying it out plain and simple to them that 19 escorts is not enough for what they want the RN to do, they need to make it clear as day that unless extra money is put in then HMG are going to have to accept us having less presence and less influence world wide.

There has been too much pussy footing around hoping that something might come up, it time for them to put it hard to HMG and if no notice is taken, let a few leaks to the media about how bad it really is

[donald_of_tokyo]

Big, simple and flexible.
A 15,000 tonne bay/enforcer platform, equipped with 2 helicopters and 2 CB90 would be in the region of £260m. Payload over platform.
Source; Polar ship = 200m, Wildcat = £28m and CB90 = £2m.

So more "Bay" with 2 Wildcat and 2 CB90. Maybe you need 2 CIWS (£10m each), as well. I understand you are proposing to build 5 more Bays in place of 5 T31s. From 19 escorts and 4+1 LSDs (Albions and Bays) to 14 escorts and 9+1 LDSs, I think it is too much focussed on Amphibious warfare.

Small, focused and capable
A 4,000 tonne Venator type Platform with 48 CAMM and CAPTAS 4 Compact.

Why not Vard7-110 based? I agree Venator 110 looks better, but it does not mean it is bad if Babcock proposes something based on Vard7-110.

For me, the term "flexible vessel" is not attractive. T26, River B2, Bay and CVF itself is already "flexible vessels" on their field. For example, see 3 River B1. They are "flexible vessels", with a mission deck astern. But, they did almost nothing with it.

"Flexible fleet" is what I want. This is why I think T31 as a Patrol-Frigate/ASW-light-frigate mixed (by say 3+3, or even 4+2) will be a good choice. It is flexible that we can send PFs for APT-S, and use ASW-version for TAPS or CVTF escort. It is flexible that, when in future the threat changes, the PF versions can be converted into ASW (by adding Prairie / Masker and CAPTAS4CI or 2). If needed, the ASW-version without gun can enjoy large space to be used for CAMM/SPEAR3 at the bow. With ExLS, "more than 48" will be quite easy (even though I proposed to start with reusing reused-SeaWolf canisters). This is what I think "flexible". Adding 5 more Bays are not flexible for me.

I am not saying Bays are not flexible. I also think 1 more Bay I want (and hoping something to come as Argus replacement).

[shark bait]

Why not Vard? Because it looks lille more than a coast guard vessel, nothing gives me confidence it will remain relevant over the next through 40 years of RN service.

The world changes way quicker than we can build ships, so a flexible, responsive platform it essential.

A Bay Class derivative is not necessarily too amphibious focused. I see nothing a Vard-type could do that a Bay couldn't, whereas a Bay can do whole load of things a coast guard vessel can't. Ultimately Bay-type would return greater value, capable of patrol roles, mothership roles and logistics roles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks for prompt response. But Vard-7 110 and Vantor 110 has that big difference? Yes, they have now, but surely the former will be modified, when proposed for T31. If the design was kept as large OPV, we do not need 6 of them, I agree. Maybe 3 is enough (for tasks such as APT-S) and we shall use the resources left for other stuffs (such as 2 more Bay-like, as 1 Bay and 1 Argus replacement, and a few Merlins). In this case, new design for only 3 PF is ridiculous, so it shall be "extended River B2".

So I understand the difference in our attitude is, you think Vard7-110 cannot be converted into a light frigate, while I see it as just a base hull, and see no big difference from Venator 110. Vard7-110 has a detailed design in USA, but needs modification for T31, and Venerator 110 has no detailed design to date, and needs full design activity.

On the other hand, Bay cannot fight, but a light-frigate can. Even a Patrol frigate can fight much-much better than Bays (large = easy to hit, vulnerable with large deck, fuel-inefficient, low maneuverability = sitting duck). So, I cannot agree Bay can do anything a Patrol Frigate can, not to mention a light frigate (here PF is without CAMM, and LF is with CAMM, in my mind...). Of course, Bay can do something a PF/LF cannot do. AND PF/LF can do something Bay cannot.

[jedibeeftrix]

Venerator 110 has no detailed design to date, and needs full design activity.

It's greatest advantage surely, from the perspective to keeping a design capability alive until the T45 replacement comes around?

[shark bait]

A bay could fight, it can take on a hand full of helicopters, with a dozen UAV's, and network them back to some cruise missiles.

Payloads over platforms.

[Jake1992]

Shark bait I take it your thinking of something like this ?

[Gabriele]

That's what i'd go for (more or less).

In the Caribbean, perfect for drug-countermeasures (helo(s), UAS, boats, Marines / LEDET etc) and able to carry and land disaster relief stores in the hurricane season

In the Med, perfect self-escorting Marines SPTG platform.

In the Gulf, self-escorting replacement for the Bay LSD used as MCM mothership, releasing a "normal" Bay for task-group ops.

Out of Somalia or similar, excellent for counter-piracy.

With 42 Cdo on board with ORCs and, hopefully one day, Force Protection Craft, very good mothership for littoral operations.

In a task group, helps sustain helicopter operations; frees up the carrier's deck from some of the Merlins;

Helps carry a more substantial amphibious force when needed.

Room for growth and adoption of future payloads (MCM, for example)

[Jake1992]

Like I said on the other thread my big concern with having the T31s like that is that when the time comes to replace the bay's HMG will say oh you've got the T31s so the bay's don't need a like for like replacement. In turn the T32s will take over the bay's role and we'd be down to just 14 escorts.