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

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

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.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Phil Sayers »

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.

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 »

Phil Sayers wrote:make the design significantly more capable without significantly (guessing) increasing the cost
... as long as the fairly significant deck penetration does not start to add to the overall ship dimensions... then power/ propulsion
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

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.

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Phil Sayers »

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.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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.
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.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
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.
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.
How much would cutting them save? Surely not enough to make it a sensible decision

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 »

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.
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)
- 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)

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 »

dmereifield wrote:How much would cutting them save?
£0
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

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.
No decisions have been made yet as to which missiles will populate the T26 Mk 41.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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.
D04lh5mWwAE07gG.jpg

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

You say that the Valour class are proven in the South Atlantic

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 »

maritime security and defence engagement
In this instance why waste money on packing that into a little frigate? Far better options out there so simple jobs like this.
@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 »

Tempest414 wrote:You say that the Valour class are proven in the South Atlantic
For what reason would they spend time there (as opposed to the more pleasant Indian Ocean)?
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)

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 »

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. :D

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

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. :D
What use is the current low spec T31 to NATO? I'm sure they prefer a T45 or T23/26...

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I do not understand why APT-N and S was mentioned.
It appears to be either a mistake or a change of strategy.

A T31 in the North and South Atlantic isn't a bad idea but it's not high on the list of priorities either.

Aethulwulf
Senior Member
Posts: 1029
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Aethulwulf »

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. :D
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.)

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.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4579
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Looks like the T31's going to be tasked with ATP(N), ATP(S), FRE and Gulf etc.
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.

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. :thumbdown:
”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
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by RichardIC »

And some sort-of T31 related news.

Indonesia leans towards Iver Huitfeldt class for frigate acquisition

Image

https://www.janes.com/article/87175/ind ... cquisition

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5548
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

There will these be built

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 »

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?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by RichardIC »

Tempest414 wrote:There will these be built
Indonesia has their own state-owned shipbuilder

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

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?
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.

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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3952
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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.
This was my first reaction also.

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?

Post Reply