Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
The MoD naval architects when made redundant, formed BMT which is still in operation. they might dispute the claim that Bae has a monopoly in ship design.
-
- Member
- Posts: 365
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Something I am unclear on with regards the Leander design is the decision to install a Mk41 but with only 8 cells and nearby having space for 8 deck canister launched SSGWs. Getting a Mk41 into the design is a considerable bonus with regards flexibility (ASROC etc) but I would have thought, maybe completely wrong, that the main costs of getting it into the design are the hardware aspects such as wiring the ship for Mk41 and the software aspects of enabling the ship to be compatible with the weapons in the cells. I appreciate that the actual cells themselves are not cheap by any means but realistically how much more expensive would it be to make provision for 16 rather than 8?
Likewise I appreciate that just because space has been reserved for deck launched missiles does not mean the RN actually intends to order any but all the same it does seem to me that having a 16 cell VLS would make the design significantly more capable without significantly (guessing) increasing the cost and would allow commonality with whatever vertically launched anti-ship missile the T26 will carry.
Likewise I appreciate that just because space has been reserved for deck launched missiles does not mean the RN actually intends to order any but all the same it does seem to me that having a 16 cell VLS would make the design significantly more capable without significantly (guessing) increasing the cost and would allow commonality with whatever vertically launched anti-ship missile the T26 will carry.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
... as long as the fairly significant deck penetration does not start to add to the overall ship dimensions... then power/ propulsionPhil Sayers wrote:make the design significantly more capable without significantly (guessing) increasing the cost
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
The Leander Mk 41 fits into the mission bay and so decreases its size & usefulness. The more mk 41, the less mission bay.
Personally, I would wonder what missiles would you want a mk 41 for.
Personally, I would wonder what missiles would you want a mk 41 for.
-
- Member
- Posts: 365
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
And indeed you would be right to wonder. Thinking of the longer term future rather than the near term future I do think that at some stage it is possible the RN will conclude that having land attack missiles on T26s which are either conducting blue water ASW where those missiles have no utility at all or are accompanying a carrier group which already has plenty of firepower makes far less sense than having land attack missiles based on frigates which are already forward deployed in the regions where the RN is most likely to be firing those missiles.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3952
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
It made sense when we were getting 13 global combat ships but it makes a lot less sense now that we are only getting 8.Phil Sayers wrote:I do think that at some stage it is possible the RN will conclude that having land attack missiles on T26s which are either conducting blue water ASW where those missiles have no utility at all or are accompanying a carrier group which already has plenty of firepower makes far less sense than having land attack missiles based on frigates which are already forward deployed in the regions where the RN is most likely to be firing those missiles.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
How much would cutting them save? Surely not enough to make it a sensible decisionPoiuytrewq wrote:It made sense when we were getting 13 global combat ships but it makes a lot less sense now that we are only getting 8.Phil Sayers wrote:I do think that at some stage it is possible the RN will conclude that having land attack missiles on T26s which are either conducting blue water ASW where those missiles have no utility at all or are accompanying a carrier group which already has plenty of firepower makes far less sense than having land attack missiles based on frigates which are already forward deployed in the regions where the RN is most likely to be firing those missiles.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
This is a very good argument, but it needs to be considered in the context of standardisation of kit across classes. When we went for the AAW specialists, one of the drivers was substituting for carriers (after the demise of real ones... out 'pocket' carriers were about the size of the one that Thailand has. And that does not get many mentions)either conducting blue water ASW where those missiles have no utility at all or are accompanying a carrier group which already has plenty of firepower makes far less sense than having land attack missiles based on frigates which are already forward deployed in the regions where the RN is most likely to be firing those missiles.
- the decision to go for specialists was the right one, as otherwise what we have as of today (though 6, instead of 12) would not be a meaningful asset against evolving (evolved!) threats
- however, to get the carriers has meant that the surface navy (in other terms) is now so small (counted in units) that we cannot afford specialists amongst surface combatants, anymore
That brings us to standardisation. T31s may not be a meaningful ASW asset when they are rolled out, but having standardised silos makes them instantly upgradeable, to act as the inner layer of ASW defences with ASROC-like (buy the improved ones from Japan ) weapons in those VLSs. Many a time here it has been stated that locating the threat is a team effort, but having a screen scouting at a distance will not provide for an instant response from near the HVUs should that screen not work 100% - and what will, ever, work 100%?
- equally, once we feel the ASW threat is sufficiently countered - which will be far out into the future with the T23/ T26 succession - those same silos will accommodate land-reach for assets that (as argued) would typically be in place geographically to act as 'first responders'
- there is no way we can go back to the days when changes to the functionality of surface combatants were only doable in mid-life refits. The fact that we have done several such to same class of ships and ended up with a mass obsolescense problem is also a pointer for the need for different thinking (of which flexibility and reconfigurability at short notice are parts of). Hence the T31s, with warts and all... the warts being what will not be on them, on Day One
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
£0dmereifield wrote:How much would cutting them save?
@LandSharkUK
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
No decisions have been made yet as to which missiles will populate the T26 Mk 41.Phil Sayers wrote:And indeed you would be right to wonder. Thinking of the longer term future rather than the near term future I do think that at some stage it is possible the RN will conclude that having land attack missiles on T26s which are either conducting blue water ASW where those missiles have no utility at all or are accompanying a carrier group which already has plenty of firepower makes far less sense than having land attack missiles based on frigates which are already forward deployed in the regions where the RN is most likely to be firing those missiles.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3952
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Nothing really new here but the answer does through up a few questions.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... g226207.r0
Looks like the T31's going to be tasked with ATP(N), ATP(S), FRE and Gulf etc. Interesting as ATP(N) and ATP(S) have been mainly covered by the RFA and OPV's in recent years. Stretching the Frigates fleet out again?
HMS Protector to be freed up for Northern duties or extra presence in the South Atlantic?
What is the second Wave going to do if not conducting APT(N) or (S)? If it is to form part of LSG (West)?
If any of the three T31 candidates are to take on APT(S) in the winter I know which one I would rather be on.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?i ... g226207.r0
Looks like the T31's going to be tasked with ATP(N), ATP(S), FRE and Gulf etc. Interesting as ATP(N) and ATP(S) have been mainly covered by the RFA and OPV's in recent years. Stretching the Frigates fleet out again?
HMS Protector to be freed up for Northern duties or extra presence in the South Atlantic?
What is the second Wave going to do if not conducting APT(N) or (S)? If it is to form part of LSG (West)?
If any of the three T31 candidates are to take on APT(S) in the winter I know which one I would rather be on.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5548
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
You say that the Valour class are proven in the South Atlantic
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
In this instance why waste money on packing that into a little frigate? Far better options out there so simple jobs like this.maritime security and defence engagement
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
For what reason would they spend time there (as opposed to the more pleasant Indian Ocean)?Tempest414 wrote:You say that the Valour class are proven in the South Atlantic
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Mark Lancaster The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence
The Type 31e Frigates will be tailored toward maritime security and defence engagement, including the Fleet Ready Escort role at home, our commitments in the South Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf, and to NATO. These ships will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles in support of the strategic nuclear deterrent and as part of the carrier strike group.
- No T45 nor T23/26 is now used in South Atlantic nor Caribbean for a few years.
- No T45 nor T23 was sent to Persian Gulf for nearly a year, but maybe one would be needed there.
- One T45 or T23 on average is sent to NATO fleet these years.
- One T45 or T23 is at FRE.
So, if T31e "will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles", they will be
- One in Perusian Gulf
- One for FRE
- One for NATO fleet.
This is "good" for 5 hull program. Considering FRE is "stand-by" task, and NATO fleet is actually not-always one escort, even 4 hulls may work.
I do not understand why APT-N and S was mentioned.
The Type 31e Frigates will be tailored toward maritime security and defence engagement, including the Fleet Ready Escort role at home, our commitments in the South Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf, and to NATO. These ships will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles in support of the strategic nuclear deterrent and as part of the carrier strike group.
- No T45 nor T23/26 is now used in South Atlantic nor Caribbean for a few years.
- No T45 nor T23 was sent to Persian Gulf for nearly a year, but maybe one would be needed there.
- One T45 or T23 on average is sent to NATO fleet these years.
- One T45 or T23 is at FRE.
So, if T31e "will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles", they will be
- One in Perusian Gulf
- One for FRE
- One for NATO fleet.
This is "good" for 5 hull program. Considering FRE is "stand-by" task, and NATO fleet is actually not-always one escort, even 4 hulls may work.
I do not understand why APT-N and S was mentioned.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
What use is the current low spec T31 to NATO? I'm sure they prefer a T45 or T23/26...donald_of_tokyo wrote:Mark Lancaster The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence
The Type 31e Frigates will be tailored toward maritime security and defence engagement, including the Fleet Ready Escort role at home, our commitments in the South Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf, and to NATO. These ships will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles in support of the strategic nuclear deterrent and as part of the carrier strike group.
- No T45 nor T23/26 is now used in South Atlantic nor Caribbean for a few years.
- No T45 nor T23 was sent to Persian Gulf for nearly a year, but maybe one would be needed there.
- One T45 or T23 on average is sent to NATO fleet these years.
- One T45 or T23 is at FRE.
So, if T31e "will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles", they will be
- One in Perusian Gulf
- One for FRE
- One for NATO fleet.
This is "good" for 5 hull program. Considering FRE is "stand-by" task, and NATO fleet is actually not-always one escort, even 4 hulls may work.
I do not understand why APT-N and S was mentioned.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3952
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
It appears to be either a mistake or a change of strategy.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not understand why APT-N and S was mentioned.
A T31 in the North and South Atlantic isn't a bad idea but it's not high on the list of priorities either.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
You are ignoring the fact that the ship in the Gulf will be forward based. This trick allows a ship to be physically present all year, but of course only active for a fraction of the the time. (Just like HMS Montrose will be, when she finally arrives in the Gulf.)donald_of_tokyo wrote:Mark Lancaster The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence
The Type 31e Frigates will be tailored toward maritime security and defence engagement, including the Fleet Ready Escort role at home, our commitments in the South Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf, and to NATO. These ships will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles in support of the strategic nuclear deterrent and as part of the carrier strike group.
- No T45 nor T23/26 is now used in South Atlantic nor Caribbean for a few years.
- No T45 nor T23 was sent to Persian Gulf for nearly a year, but maybe one would be needed there.
- One T45 or T23 on average is sent to NATO fleet these years.
- One T45 or T23 is at FRE.
So, if T31e "will fulfil routine tasks to free up the more complex Type 45 Destroyers and Type 26 Frigates for their specialist combat roles", they will be
- One in Perusian Gulf
- One for FRE
- One for NATO fleet.
This is "good" for 5 hull program. Considering FRE is "stand-by" task, and NATO fleet is actually not-always one escort, even 4 hulls may work.
I do not understand why APT-N and S was mentioned.
So that will leave 4 ships to cover time spent in refit, training, FRE, APT N, APT S, and NATO roles. Clearly 4 ships can't do all that at once, so there will be gaps and prioritisation. Its likely that FRE will be given priority for Frigates, and some of the other roles could be undertaken by RFA or OPV ships (much as now). It will be interesting to see how the development of the LSS concept might change this thinking.
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Putting aside the Kipion (Gulf) escort, none of the others warrant much beyond a pimped B2 River Class, at most an Avenger design. You can argue the FRE needs to have the ability to deter, but there will also be T26s/T45s and other assets available in home waters if an OPV is not enough, which will be never unless we are at war when a T31e will not be used in this role neither.Poiuytrewq wrote:Looks like the T31's going to be tasked with ATP(N), ATP(S), FRE and Gulf etc.
So are we really saying we need a completely new class to cover a part time Gulf commitment, which is not something near a T45 and T23 which gives world class capabilities in thier area and a valued asset to our allies?
Rhubarb - buy (or get free from BAE) another T26 and build a few more pimped River Sloops.
”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
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
And some sort-of T31 related news.
Indonesia leans towards Iver Huitfeldt class for frigate acquisition
https://www.janes.com/article/87175/ind ... cquisition
Indonesia leans towards Iver Huitfeldt class for frigate acquisition
https://www.janes.com/article/87175/ind ... cquisition
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5548
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5545
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Positive and negative.
+ Danish IH class is not yet dead.
- Of course, Indonesia will try building them by their own. As the original IH class hull were built in Estonian shipyard, who had little experience on escort building, naturally Indonesian ship yards can build it, like they did with Damen 10514 light frigates.
As expected, it is not related to UK. Can there be a small hope Babcock can join the detailed design and systems integration aspects?
+ Danish IH class is not yet dead.
- Of course, Indonesia will try building them by their own. As the original IH class hull were built in Estonian shipyard, who had little experience on escort building, naturally Indonesian ship yards can build it, like they did with Damen 10514 light frigates.
As expected, it is not related to UK. Can there be a small hope Babcock can join the detailed design and systems integration aspects?
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Indonesia has their own state-owned shipbuilderTempest414 wrote:There will these be built
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
That will, indeed, be an interesting pointer towards the deal done over the IP for the Iver Huitfeldts between BMT and the rest of the Team 31 consortium. It also indicates, as others have said on here, that even being considered for an RN design, raises the international profile and awareness of said design considerably. Potentially, it could be good for OMT - a share of something is always better than all of nothing.donald_of_tokyo wrote:As expected, it is not related to UK. Can there be a small hope Babcock can join the detailed design and systems integration aspects?
OMT were also involved, in their previous incarnation as shipbuilders, in building MV Ocean Trader (aka Craigside), so perhaps some cross-fertilisation of ideas is also coming out of this consortium.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 3952
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
This was my first reaction also.Caribbean wrote:That will, indeed, be an interesting pointer towards the deal done over the IP for the Iver Huitfeldts between BMT and the rest of the Team 31 consortium.
Are we now able to conclude with any certainty that Babcock has not purchased the Iver Huitfeldt IP after all?
Does this confirm that Babcock are, as many suspected simply building a Foreign design under licence?