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

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SKB »

Babcock ARROWHEAD 140
Image

BAE Systems/Cammell Laird LEANDER
Image

MEKO A-200
Image
Navy Lookout article, with detailed comparison table: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-ty ... -compared/

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Aethulwulf »

Treat that comparison table with caution. Details of the A-200 in this comparison are based on the specification of the six existing ships in service with the South African and Algerian navies, not what has been bid for the T31. Similarly, details for the other 2 ships may not be 100% accurate.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

It would be nice to see what each team has put forward as there offering at this stage and they differ from before

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Dahedd »

Ahh cheers. Fingers crossed they avoid that then, they'd be as well with a modernised T23 rather than a Meko. They're getting on a bit now aren't they?

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 »

Latest article from Save The Royal Navy.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-foc ... candidate/

Most interesting bit is that all IP has now passed from Denmark to the UK.

Image

.

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

RichardIC wrote:Latest article from Save The Royal Navy.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-foc ... candidate/

Most interesting bit is that all IP has now passed from Denmark to the UK.

Image

.
For the T31, not the parent designs so it seems

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 »

It seems a bit of a grey area, any platforms based on the Arrowhead would be covered by the IP it appears, the question is where the Arrowhead ends and the Huitsveldt begins. It could end up with sales of the design being of benefit to both OMT and BMT, possibly dependant on the level of specification. I must admit that if funding allowed the design to be upgraded before construction, say with rafted engines and FFBNW additional kit my concerns about building the T)31e as against one or more T026 would be less. Having a class of say eight true escort standard T-31e and eight T-26 would be a very good result for the RN. Will it happen, doubtful.

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 »

dmereifield wrote:
RichardIC wrote:Latest article from Save The Royal Navy.

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-foc ... candidate/

Most interesting bit is that all IP has now passed from Denmark to the UK.
For the T31, not the parent designs so it seems
As the design presented in Asian PR only a few months ago DIDNOT included Babcock, I understand the IP is not “exclusive”. OMT has a freedom to sell it regardless of Babcock.

I understand all IP of T26 is also tranferred to Australia?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

Image

Isn’t this image from the Arrowhead 140 derivative? There is no 40mm on the T31 plans (however could be fitted later).
”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 »

Repulse wrote:Isn’t this image from the Arrowhead 140 derivative? There is no 40mm on the T31 plans (however could be fitted later).
The model is a marketing tool. It’s purely designed to show that T31 offers potential customers options. It’s not indicative of the fit out of an RN T31.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:As the design presented in Asian PR only a few months ago DIDNOT included Babcock, I understand the IP is not “exclusive”. OMT has a freedom to sell it regardless of Babcock.

I understand all IP of T26 is also tranferred to Australia?
Donald, having read your comments under the article on STRN, you come very close to saying you back Leander for T31 because it’s inferior (good enough). I don’t get that, with all respect.

As for the IP issue, it seems fairly clear. T31 IP lies with the UK. T31 is not an Iver Huitfeldt. They are aimed at different points in the market.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

In the walk through video of 20th May 19 they looked to have settled on a centre line configuration which I think is the right way to go on A-140. for me as I have said before I really like the idea of having a base line fit of 1 x 76mm , 2 x 40mm and 24 CAMM this mean every main weapon has a anti air and surface capability plus if the 76mm has Vulcano rounds a limited NGFS capability. it was interesting to see on video at the back on each side of the rear 40mm 2 x Phalanx

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

Tempest414 wrote:BAE / CMS
1 x 57mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 8km
2 x 40mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 7km
Stated (BAE catalogue) ranges are 17km for the 57mm vs 12.5km for the 40mm - not sure if you are stating the 3P ranges?

Given that in the next decade the number of MCMs will reduce, a move from a 30mm to 40mm gun for minor warships would probably make sense as said “minor warships” get larger to Sloop/RFA sized, though for the Sloops I’d see a 57mm / 40mm gun combination better, like some of the Swedish Patrol craft. Another 4.5km range buys another 13 secs to try and knock a match 1 SSM out of the sky.
”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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:BAE / CMS
1 x 57mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 8km
2 x 40mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 7km
Stated (BAE catalogue) ranges are 17km for the 57mm vs 12.5km for the 40mm - not sure if you are stating the 3P ranges?

Given that in the next decade the number of MCMs will reduce, a move from a 30mm to 40mm gun for minor warships would probably make sense as said “minor warships” get larger to Sloop/RFA sized, though for the Sloops I’d see a 57mm / 40mm gun combination better, like some of the Swedish Patrol craft. Another 4.5km range buys another 13 secs to try and knock a match 1 SSM out of the sky.
When I state 8 & 7 Km's for these weapon's it is effective range and not max range as above so yes they can start to engage a target at max range but at the effective range they are really hitting home this is the same for CAMM stated effective range is 25Km but in tests they have reached 60 km

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 »

RichardIC wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:As the design presented in Asian PR only a few months ago DIDNOT included Babcock, I understand the IP is not “exclusive”. OMT has a freedom to sell it regardless of Babcock.
Donald, having read your comments under the article on STRN, you come very close to saying you back Leander for T31 because it’s inferior (good enough). I don’t get that, with all respect.
Why? I'm "OK" with Arrowhead 140, if UK selects it. But, I do not think Arrowhead 140 is superior to Leander in "all respects".

Arrowhead 140 surely consumes more fuel than Leander. Leander has RN-common CMS and common 3D radar, while Arrowhead 140 introduces new CMS and radar. And, Arrowhead 140 has smaller boat alcove (I do not know why).

Also, Leander is built in England, which I think is politically better.

On the other hand, Arrowhead 140 is more "new" in technology, so Babcock can learn a lot from OMT, who is surely superior than Babcock in escort building. It has much larger growth margin, more stable hull, with higher top speed. It has larger hangar/flight deck (but currently RN lack helicopter), as well.
As for the IP issue, it seems fairly clear. T31 IP lies with the UK. T31 is not an Iver Huitfeldt. They are aimed at different points in the market.
This means, Arrowhead 140 needs to compete with, a Huitfeldt's-derivative design which could be built in Indonesian ship yards (for example), or those built in east European cheap ship yards (Babcock do not have access to those), and Babcock do not have any right to stop OMT doing it. It MAY work (Arrowhead 140 may win against Huitfeldt's-derivative), but it (and also MEKO-A200) has more risk than Leander, which has no IP risk.

Again, this is why I'm "OK" with Arrowhead 140, if UK selects it. But, I do not think Arrowhead 140 is superior to Leander in "all respect".

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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Again, this is why I'm "OK" with Arrowhead 140, if UK selects it. But, I do not think Arrowhead 140 is superior to Leander in "all respect".
Agreed Arrowhead is not superior in all respects to Leander but it is in so many respects that the superiority becomes fundamental.

It'll come down to cost though.

Simon82
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 27 May 2015, 20:35

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Simon82 »

RichardIC wrote:It'll come down to cost though.
Exactly, otherwise the Royal Navy would simply be getting a fleet of 13 Type 26 frigates.

cyrilranch
Member
Posts: 96
Joined: 01 May 2015, 11:36
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by cyrilranch »

Simon82 wrote:
RichardIC wrote:It'll come down to cost though.
Exactly, otherwise the Royal Navy would simply be getting a fleet of 13 Type 26 frigates.
Back in time the government (labour I think) said we cannot afford the last two T45 Numbers 7 &8. And said instead we canceĺ these and bring forward the T26 ships earlier.
Then the next government in power cancels 5 off the T26's and says we will have 5 T31 instead.
What are the odds these will be can as well for something else :oops: :problem:

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:BAE / CMS
1 x 57mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 8km
2 x 40mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 7km
Stated (BAE catalogue) ranges are 17km for the 57mm vs 12.5km for the 40mm -
Yes, and those ranges are completely divorced from reality !. :roll: ...in the real world the 57mm has a maximum effective range of about 10 km at best and probably half that against air targets. The 12+ km range stated for the 40mm is downright laughable :lol: as that is close to its maximum ballistic range , with its effective ditto being less than 1/3 of that range.

In fact the 40mm is considerably less accurate than the Rheinmetall 35mm which has a genuine range of about 4 km against surface targets and +3km in the anti air role
As to the much hyped 3P round, while it is a very flexible round with its 6 different modes of programming and proximity fuze, its lethality and effectiveness against air targets is decidedly less than convincing. Against infantry/personel and other soft targets its perfect though.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Tempest414 wrote:
Repulse wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:BAE / CMS
1 x 57mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 8km
2 x 40mm with 3P ammo ( capable of engaging air and surface targets at 7km
CAMM stated effective range is 25Km but in tests they have reached 60 km
Im fairly certain you would have to launch CAMM from an airplane at altitude to reach anywhere close to 60km :lol: ......I know ESSMs real effective range and its considerably less than that......there is absolutely no way that a missile 1/3 the size and with a smaller propellant to payload ratio, can achieve the same or better range. Cold launch or not( even without the launch grain ESSM has more relative propellant)
I think CAMMs genuine effective range is close to the stated 25km , maybe even a little less which is still impressive, and not as far short of ESSM as many believe. As CAMM is likely also much cheaper it is no wonder they are selling like hot cakes....even without inflating its capability.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Now I did say the Effective range of CAMM is stated as 25KM and was only quoting the article on CAMM on the STRN site where it said the missile reportedly travelled up to 60km I did not say it was able to do anything when it got here

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:. But, I do not think Arrowhead 140 is superior to Leander in "all respects".
No just all those related to combat capability, survivability, flexibility, stability, growth margins, etc ;)
Arrowhead 140 surely consumes more fuel than Leander.
Yes of course its a bigger ship with much more powerful propulsion plant and higher performance, yet if you calculate fuel consumption per tonnes i'd wager that Arrowhead isnt far off Leanders....The Iver huitfeldt is surprisingly frugal when cruising on 1 engine (@18 kts) and Arrowhead has a somewhat lighter displacement.
Leander has RN-common CMS and common 3D radar, while Arrowhead 140 introduces new CMS and radar.
Only if RN wants it......they are free to specify or mandate the use of CMS-1 and Artisan. Though keeping the latter hardly seems as an advantage to me, technologically speaking it is already getting outdated and likely isnt as capable as the newer more advanced NS100 radar from Thales.
And, Arrowhead 140 has smaller boat alcove (I do not know why).
Maybe , Babcock doesnt actually specify the size, but according to STRN it can accomodate the RNs biggest RHIBs....in any case the potential for bigger boat bays/mission bay is amply present if needed.
Also, Leander is built in England, which I think is politically better.
Arrowhead will be built in England just the same way that Leander will. Even though its base design is derived from a danish vessel, the actual A140 is wholly redesigned in the UK. Why should that be an issue?
This means, Arrowhead 140 needs to compete with, a Huitfeldt's-derivative design which could be built in Indonesian ship yards (for example), or those built in east European cheap ship yards (Babcock do not have access to those), and Babcock do not have any right to stop OMT doing it.
Sigh!....you keep harping on about IP Donald-san , despite clear indications that it is not an issue.....we been through this many times before....the (possible, though IMO unlikely) Indonesian deal with OMT concerning an IH derivative , predates Arrowhead and OMTs involvement with Babcock with several years....since then OMT and Babcock (Team 31) have actively marketed the A140, not IH, to amongst others Poland.
And while its true that OMT and Naval Team Denmark have been showcasing(again) the Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon at various Asian defence expos (IMDEX etc) , its important to note that was has been highlighted in those exhibitions has been the Danish companies supplying systems and equipment for the danish vessels, and not the actual frigate design in itself , other than as a reference of OMTs design capability. While i cant be absolutely sure, all things point to the conclusion that it is very unlikely that we will ever see the IH and A140 compete for the same market.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Tempest414 wrote:Now I did say the Effective range of CAMM is stated as 25KM and was only quoting the article on CAMM on the STRN site where it said the missile reportedly travelled up to 60km I did not say it was able to do anything when it got here
Fair enough.....though i still dont buy the 60km....maybe if fired in a straight line and including the distance it glides until it hits the surface.

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 »

Thinking a bit in the fantasy realm here but imagine if the Arrowhead 140 was chosen for the T-31e and then BMT got the IPR to build three lower spec variants of the Absalon, aimed at as much commonality as possible with the T-31e to fill the requirement for the LSS!!!

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4581
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Arrowhead will be built in England just the same way that Leander will.
You’ve missed the point I think, Leander will be built by a Cammell Laird in England. Arrowhead construction would be NI and Scotland. Given the independence noise, for me this is a massive plus in Leander’s favour.
”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

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

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Aethulwulf »

Repulse wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:Arrowhead will be built in England just the same way that Leander will.
You’ve missed the point I think, Leander will be built by a Cammell Laird in England. Arrowhead construction would be NI and Scotland. Given the independence noise, for me this is a massive plus in Leander’s favour.
Not really an issue. If the Leander bid doesn't win, I'm sure Cammell Laird would be more than happy to taken on any Arrowhead block and assembly work offered their way.

Post Reply