Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Opinion3]

Submarines are a serious threat, we have no choice but to get decent numbers of T26s. The Astutes are too few but building more would be a challenge, properly assessing the threats and needs of the RN means that either remote submersibles do the job or we need to be worried about a lack of cover. Lets hope we actually can the T31 and get more worthwhile assets....

[FuNsTeR]

Defence debate in the House of Lords, Earl Howe the Defence Minister is now calling it the T31E as per the Sir John Parkers review.
He also stated the 'intention was to expand the destroyer frigate fleet above 19 hulls from the 2030s...'

In situation when we don't know when will work start on Type 26 ( and it should start supposedly in a few months ), that's same as saying that they will never increase it.

Honourable Earl really has talent for stating alternative facts.

i have serious doubts we will build any type 26 the costs continue to spiral, unless BAE reduces the cost some how i reckon the type31 will end up as the replacements for the type 23, i hope i am proved wrong

Surely we will get at least 3 given that they have already started purchasing the long lead items....

until steel is cut i will remain sceptical about govt plans, May is anything but strong and stable, and i believe our conventional forces are paying for the price of a spiralling trident replacement program

[shark bait]

T31 principally exists to give politicians the ability to plausibly say that they are maintaining escort numbers to people who don't know or care about the difference between a warship and a battleship (e.g. c.98% of journalists)...

That's spot on, which is the crappiest reason ever to start a multi billion pound project, a total waste where other funds are so desperately needed.

1. If BAe and Babcock are favourites, it could mean that they are favourites for the role of lead contractor/ship Integrator. It does not have to mean that their designs are also favourite.

That is what it means. Babcock have said they wont be doing it alone. BAE will be involved whatever we end up with.

Just buy the French FTI frigate like we should of done with the French fremm asw frigate.

I could agree with the first point. No way with the second, the T26 is superior, it is the perfect Frigate (on paper).

[Pongoglo]

Well I spose if there is any accuracy in the report then five has got to be better than six, bringing our numbers of escorts up to twenty which could be worse! Any increase in hulls is better than none and we only only ended up with thirteen in the first place because Chilli took three and the T22 Batch 3's were prematurely scrapped, a real tragedy that, the best all round escorts we had. There has never been any strategic rational for the figure thirteen which the politicians so like to quote?

That having been said I agree with most above, the role of the T31 should primarily be that of ASW escorts for CVF, thus freeing up the T26 'Global Combat Ship' to be just that, a 'Loan Wolf' able to go off and trot the globe on its own, to tether such a highly capable multi role platform to the CVBG is a waste. If we have six T31 that should guarantee us two T31 for the CVBG at any one time with three at a surge, similarly as AAW escorts from the six T45 we should be able to field the same. two routinely, three at a surge.

For the above to work it is total logic that it should be the 'lighter' T31 that is ASW focused and not the other way round. To be an effective ASW escort there is no need for a a Frigate to be 7,500 Tons. It need not have a large and expensive mission bay, strike length silo's or even (heresy here ..) a 127mm gun. It may not even need a Merlin sized hangar as these would be flying off CVF and the accompanying RFA's. Bottom line is if it is going to cost us 2 Billion GBP for six, ie 250 Million GBP each it is the 127mm gun that will sadly have to go. We already know that the 127mm for the T26's are going to cost us a staggering 60 Million GBP each with the contract already placed, so if we put it on the T31 the gun alone will account for a quarter of the cost .

Although a real fan of NGS I have always thought that for a dedicated escort it is a nice to have but not essential, the striking power of CVF being the CAG. Secondly, and in comparison with 4.5 inch or 127mm, modern 57mm or 76mm actually bring a lot to the party that the larger calibres don't. Against ASM they are reportedly a pretty effective CIWS by which the italians swear, and especially if combined with CAMM. Ive often wondered if we had a decent number of modern BAE Systems Mk 110 57mm or Oto Melara Super Rapid 76mm at San Carlos would we have lost so many ships? Within the litterol there is a lot to be said for the gun.

However notwithstanding the above the main argument has got to be the massive difference in cost. The USN reckon that for LCS they could have either the 57mm or 76mm for approx 5 Million USD per gun. If we were to go that road for the T31, even allowing for a crappy exchange rate it should cost us say 4 Million GBP, meaning we would be saving 56 Million GBP per ship and have 246 Million left to spend on everything else - CAPTAS 4??

The respective arguments supporting the Mk 110 57 and Oto Melara 76 are summarised nicely here:

http://www.leonardodrs.com/news-and-eve ... e-frigate/

[shark bait]

Except it's increasingly looking like it won't be bringing our escort numbers up to 20, instead it will be dropping to 14 if the T31 turns out to be a patrol frigates.

[RetroSicotte]

Bingo.

Anyhow, lets not let us get too much into the eternal Type 31 discussion on the news thread. Escorts thread from now on, I think.

[marktigger]

will believe the reports when no6 is commissioned.

Given ministers wan an exportable frigate they could easily start building then sell on the stocks and the ship be completed for another Navy.

[marktigger]

Ive often wondered if we had a decent number of modern BAE Systems Mk 110 57mm or Oto Melara Super Rapid 76mm at San Carlos would we have lost so many ships? Within the litterol there is a lot to be said for the gun.

The effect was there we were using fairly large numbers of 40mm Bofors L60 guns and Oerlikon 20mm as well as Pistols, SLR,LMG and GPMG. I have seen no reports of 4.5 used in the AA role. I've often wondered If the navy had had Phalanx on the Type 42's and other vessels would it have made any difference. If we'd been able to send Bulwark as an LPH and Tiger in NGS role. Or had they properly sited Blowpipe on the ships to face head on targets instead of on shore to engage crossing targets.

If we had had large numbers of escorts with 76mm or 57mm guns as main armament how effective would the NGS have been? how many ships would have suffered the fate of HMS Glamorgan ? Or been damaged by 106mm Pack howitizer air burst or 35mm oerlikons because they had to go closer inshore to provide NGS? How much colateral damage would have been caused by having to use more rounds for the same effect how many of those extra rounds would have found their targets or missed and hit civilians?

[Caribbean]

I have seen no reports of 4.5 used in the AA role

I once found a photo of Ardent (I think) where the caption noted that the ship was hit along the waterline by a volley of unguided rockets (not bombs as usually stated). It also noted that the 4.5 was still pointing down the threat axis, indicating that there was at least the intention to use the 4.5 in an AA role. I also remember reading a newspaper claim at the time that the RN may have shot down a shore-launched Exocet (they were firing at it with the 4.5 at some range and it disappeared off the radar - they didn't know whether they had hit it, or if it had malfunctioned/crashed). I think there was certainly an intention to use it in the AA role, even if it proved relatively ineffective

[Gabriele]

Pretty sure they repeatedly used the 114 in AA role, on multiple ships. Just didn't work out great...

[S M H]

Pretty sure they repeatedly used the 114 in AA role, on multiple ships. Just didn't work out great...

I remember target towing for type 21 Alacrity in the autumn of 1982 on Sunderland east of Gibraltar. They were calibrating the Gun . The gun had black aircraft and one missile shadows painted on the gun. The gun had some AA capability I had seen a drone shot down by a Type 21 of the western isles prior to 1982. Though this was a secondary requirement tor the 4.5 gun. The frigate sent over a bottle of as Sunderland had towed for then at short notice prior to sailing south from EX spring train. If a gun is fitted on the type 31for N.G.S. if fitted with a predictor or keyed into 3d radar It could usefully have a secondary AA role as did the type 21s

[R686]

Type 31 Frigate order reportedly increased, vessels to be assembled in Scotland


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31 ... -scotland/

[RichardIC]

UK Defence Journal is getting better but it still lets itself down with journalistic standards like these sometimes.

One of the first rules: Check facts. Don't use another publication as a primary source of information.

Just because The Times says it's six doesn't make it six. If the MoD says it's six, it's six (although I accept MoD's grasp of numbers is often flimsy).

The Times as likely made a typo or it's a genuine error by a reporter in a hurry. C'mon, how many of us really believe that T31 production will ever actually happen?

[shark bait]

Babcock are engineering the Vard 7 110 reference design for the US coast guards new cutter. It's essentially a bigger version of the Irish OPV, except another party is building the ships.

Likely this is their T31 contender.

Screenshot_20170606-232058.png

Screenshot_2017-06-06-23-12-01-150.jpeg

Screenshot_2017-06-06-23-14-48-791.jpeg

sketch1496787413663.png

[Clive F]

Vard 7. Pros and cons?

[RetroSicotte]

That is an OPV, not even vaguely a frigate.

[dmereifield]

That is an OPV, not even vaguely a frigate.

More or less so than the Cutlass and Avenger?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Babcock are engineering the Vard 7 110 reference design for the US coast guards new cutter. It's essentially a bigger version of the Irish OPV, except another party is building the ships.
Likely this is their T31 contender.

Vard7 110 (USCG Offshore Patrol Cutter, detailed design on going and 1st hull is to be built soon) and Vard7 100 (just concept). Vard7 110 is 16.5m wide (a new design), while Irish navies 2+4 OPVs, RNZN 2 Protector OPVs, Maulitisous OPV are all 14m wide = same design, just extended (named Vard 7 80, 90, 85 and 80). If Babcock is to offer Vard7 110, they need to buy the detailed design from Eastern Shipbuilding, while it is based on 14m wide versions, they have their own.

[Caribbean]

That is an OPV, not even vaguely a frigate.

As a USCG Cutter, maybe (though they are designed to back-up the USN in wartime roles), but who knows what standards this hypothetical ship might be built to? As I understand it, the main differences between an OPV and a frigate are not necessarily visible on a CGI.

[RetroSicotte]

That is an OPV, not even vaguely a frigate.

More or less so than the Cutlass and Avenger?

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.

[Gabriele]

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.

[inch]

you might be right in what you say Gabriele but never underestimate our people with the purse strings ,cheap as you like is there number one priority .the right tool for the job is totally secondary to there concern .cheap cheap cheap and above all cheap .and on builders side cheapest design possible and charge the utmost to the gov ,why have a battleship when you can get away offering a rowing boat for the same money .

[dmereifield]

That is an OPV, not even vaguely a frigate.

More or less so than the Cutlass and Avenger?

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.

Thanks for the info. How much of the above would fit into Cutlass or Avenger?

[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.

[shark bait]

can put any system on there, but on a small cheap platform that has to come at the expense of something else.