UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [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
51
11%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
13
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
116
26%
An LCS-like modular ship
20
4%
A modernised Type 23
20
4%
A Type 26-lite
65
14%
Less than 5 hulls
20
4%
5 hulls
60
13%
More than 5 hulls
88
19%
 
Total votes: 453

Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 789
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 02 Nov 2018, 10:59

donald_of_tokyo wrote:And if we look at T23GP, (almost) 100% of its deployment carries 1 Wildcat. At least in RN use, there is no need for such a hangar.
You are 100% correct but the fact remains that the proposal is to remove the Merlin capability in the replacement vessel.

Any degradation in capability due to a simple lack of money should be resisted in my view.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 02 Nov 2018, 11:09

donald_of_tokyo wrote:And if we look at T23GP, (almost) 100% of its deployment carries 1 Wildcat. At least in RN use, there is no need for such a hangar.

So a ship that will have to operate in 2040 will have less capability than a ship designed in 1980. You think that's ok?

Imagine if the F35 was slower and could carry less payload than the Harrier, that would never be allowed to happen. This is what the RN are doing, the successor is worse than its predecessor.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Nov 2018, 11:35

shark bait wrote:So a ship that will have to operate in 2040 will have less capability than a ship designed in 1980. You think that's ok?

+
Poiuytrewq wrote:100% correct but the fact remains that the proposal is to remove the Merlin capability in the replacement vessel.

Any degradation in capability due to a simple lack of money should be resisted in my view.


The key extensions (using that famed 'flexibility' that has been prescribed for the design, which ever wins) going forward are ASW (littoral or otherwise) and MCM(+M?)
- Merlin essential for the former
- one in Crowsnest guile desirable for the latter (as the MCMops themselves will happen over a 30 km radius... see what working with the French does; we go metric :) ) from the mothership; that one (potentially) having CAMM-ER in the shooter role - with the Crowsnest a/c being the sensor - will only provide the last third of the missile's range as the defensive edge zone

Keithdwat579
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 14 May 2018, 22:06
Location: Niue

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Keithdwat579 » 02 Nov 2018, 12:02

You know, the BAE Leander has a very Leander-esque look about it, particularly around the low down bridge! If Leander has 8 Mk41 cells + tubes for 36 Sea Captors it could be a very credible platform, but thats not happening for £250m.
As for the hangar, I suspect the replacement for Merlin and Wildcat will be same, which means it will be bigger than wildcat, so in my opinion a large hangar is required if we want to future proof this design, I believe they had to modify the old Leanders to be able to take the lynx, which of course was much bigger than the lawnmower wasp it replaced!
As for Arrowhead 140, there is nothing stopping BAE being contracted to do the sensors and weapons fit for it if it wins, however BAE have the T31 project in the bag, I hope to be proved wrong but they do!

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2536
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 02 Nov 2018, 13:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:And if we look at T23GP, (almost) 100% of its deployment carries 1 Wildcat. At least in RN use, there is no need for such a hangar.
You are 100% correct but the fact remains that the proposal is to remove the Merlin capability in the replacement vessel.
Any degradation in capability due to a simple lack of money should be resisted in my view.
Degradation in capability is caused by cost. Resisting to it is reasonable, I agree. But, it is also associated with "big leap in capability": 8 T26 is much more than 8 T23ASW, QECV is a quantum leap compared to Invincible. For me, the degradation in T23GP to Leander is negligible to those capability increase.
shark bait wrote:So a ship that will have to operate in 2040 will have less capability than a ship designed in 1980. You think that's ok?
Yes OK, because other ship are big leap.
Keithdwat579 wrote:You know, the BAE Leander has a very Leander-esque look about it, particularly around the low down bridge! If Leander has 8 Mk41 cells + tubes for 36 Sea Captors it could be a very credible platform, but thats not happening for £250m.
As for the hangar, I suspect the replacement for Merlin and Wildcat will be same, which means it will be bigger than wildcat, so in my opinion a large hangar is required if we want to future proof this design, I believe they had to modify the old Leanders to be able to take the lynx, which of course was much bigger than the lawnmower wasp it replaced!
Changing NH90 capable hangar to Merlin capable is hopefully not a big change, worth considering. But, making a full-width hangar is different.

However, my point is unchanged.

Making Leander "big" (or better) in hope for "good future" is an idea I don't like.

1: Executing the "hope" will make the cheap ship just more hollow. Think, "a hull sonar and torpedo-defense" vs "Merlin capable hangar", which is better? Even in this case I prefer the former. We all know RN do not have enough Merlin, just because the 2 CVF's hangar is so large. Full-width hangar is, thus, for me very much out of scope.

2: For example, almost no navy other than RN needs Merlin-sized hangar. SH60/NH90 sized hangar is the world standard, and surely their replacement will meet that size. Even marinized version of V-280 fits within A Burk's hangar. So, NH90 capable hangar is good enough for most senario.

3: If a money for full-width hangar is left, I will rather add the followings:
- hull sonar
- torpedo-defense
- CAPTAS-4CI, 2 or even 1
- increase CAMM by adopting ExLS

This assumes, any future "more money" is not coming to T31e. Rather, I will add P-8A, F35B, ExLS with T26, LRASM on T26, CAMM and SM-3 BMD on T45.... My point is, if we do not arm T31e at the beginning "properly", it will never be up-armed.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2037
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RetroSicotte » 02 Nov 2018, 14:23

donald_of_tokyo wrote:For me, the degradation in T23GP to Leander is negligible to those capability increase.

As has been said many times, I'm afraid, this logic is not sound. 8x ASW frigates being replaced by 8x ASW frigates is a equal replacement, not an increase.

The only way it is an "increase" is if the entire world didn't also improve their capabilities on a ship by ship basis. But they did. Thus, the angle that "The RN can absorb losing five fighting frigates because T26 is better" is simply not true.

Having 8 T26 in the 2030's is no more effective than having 8 T23s in the 90s were in context to their environment...and thats before we remember that the 8 T26 are not just replacing 8 T23. They're replacing 8 T23 and 4 T22. So it is a drop in 4 ASW frigates that has never been addressed.

It is falling into the trap of what the Gov/MoD wants you to think to keep ignoring the T22's presence in this. It is not 8 for 8.

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2536
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 02 Nov 2018, 14:46

I might be wrong but, 4 T22, wasn’t them GP frigate? with no tail?

But, overall I agree to your argument, feel simpsthy.

But, I keep myself more realist.

MOD already lost the game, even 8 years ago. As military is reality, we have to face it. Ignoring reality, RN made many mistake, River B2 is the most recent such example.

If RN was realistic enough on 2013-2015, we should have seen 3 Leander-like Floreal frigate (I mean, Leander without CAMM), not 5 River B2s.

MOD have to learn.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1432
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby The Armchair Soldier » 04 Nov 2018, 12:36

Deleted the last few off-topic posts. Type 31e news only please.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5289
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 05 Nov 2018, 14:54

The new equipment plan is out ;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... NAL-v1.pdf

The Department is planning for a cost of £250
million per platform and a further allocation of £250
million for non-platform specific acquisition
programme costs.


Does that mean £250m for design, and then £250m for each unit? If so its a little better than previously thought.

Also noting £1.9bn being allocated to the FSS. That sounds like a lot for three ship, I'd be making the argument to swap some of that budget across to the T31! Would only getting 2 FSS be an acceptable trade off for getting an ASW capable T31 for example?
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2037
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby RetroSicotte » 05 Nov 2018, 15:26

shark bait wrote:Does that mean £250m for design, and then £250m for each unit? If so its a little better than previously thought.


"The other significant component is the £1.5bn funding received from Head Office to cover the purchase cost of the Type 31e Frigates"

Sounds like it's just a flat 250m on top of the 1.25b, rather than per ship. That equates to the 1.5b.

The 1.9b mentioned is not "for" the FSS. It's "primarily" based in the FSS, which going by law of majority to the term means it could be 1b and still be an accurate statement.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby dmereifield » 05 Nov 2018, 15:46

Any chance those funds are allocated to T31 to acquire common kit which can be shared around platforms when they are active, I.e. taking advantage of some of the FTR aspects of the T31 (e.g. phalanx, rhibs, mission bay kit, etc)?

Online
donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 2536
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 05 Nov 2018, 15:49

shark bait wrote:The new equipment plan is out ;
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... NAL-v1.pdf

The Department is planning for a cost of £250
million per platform and a further allocation of £250
million for non-platform specific acquisition
programme costs.
RetroSicotte wrote:"The other significant component is the £1.5bn funding received from Head Office to cover the purchase cost of the Type 31e Frigates"

Sounds like it's just a flat 250m on top of the 1.25b, rather than per ship. That equates to the 1.5b.
Very interesting. If design+initial cost is independently prepared in addition to the 1.25B GBP build cost, it is a significantly leap.

Even if it is Leander, some major redesign is needed. Also, the hull standard will significantly improved from the original Khareef. I guess this means, the (re)-design+initial cost may amount as much as 1 unit-cost equivalent. With original 1.25B GBP, this means the unit cost is 208M GBP. If it is 1.5B GBP now, it is 20% increase = unit cost of 250M GBP per hull. If true, it is very significant rise.

Not sure if it is really an addition, but anyway very interesting point.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby dmereifield » 05 Nov 2018, 16:05

If it's for such shared kit, or even of its partly that and partly design costs, we are then effectively looking at £300 million per hull in practice. Add to this the fact that RN furnished equipment could possibly be competitively valued (I.e. less than new build/purchase costs) are we possibly looking at effectively a £300-325 million value per hull?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 05 Nov 2018, 16:33

I think someone simply dug up this learning and tooling cost curve from the days of the T-23s being built ( a dose of realism):
"According to the British 1992 Statement
on the Defence Estimates, the unit cost of the first
Type 23 frigate was US$721.5 million. Subsequent
ships were at that time priced
at US$283.5 million each.
The January 1996 contract for the last three ships put
the unit price at roughly US$227 million. "

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Ron5 » 05 Nov 2018, 17:33

Non-platform expense is usually things like upgrades to infrastructure like docks. Not design & development which is platform specific.

In other words, the cost of the design, develop, build & support contract will be 1.25billion. Someone else will get the 250m.

By the way, it's very clearly spelled out that the 1.25billion is fixed, if the ships cannot be delivered at that cost, their capability will be reduced until they can. So no blue birds.

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 1596
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby dmereifield » 05 Nov 2018, 17:48

Ron5 wrote:Non-platform expense is usually things like upgrades to infrastructure like docks. Not design & development which is platform specific.

In other words, the cost of the design, develop, build & support contract will be 1.25billion. Someone else will get the 250m.

By the way, it's very clearly spelled out that the 1.25billion is fixed, if the ships cannot be delivered at that cost, their capability will be reduced until they can. So no blue birds.


Thanks for spoiling the party Ron.... :cry:

chinook88
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: 15 Jan 2017, 06:31
Location: Chile

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby chinook88 » 06 Nov 2018, 23:47

>> https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... o-2027.pdf

Costs not included in the Plan

2.2 As a consequence of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, the Department introduced a number of new equipment commitments into the Plan. The Department was unable to demonstrate that all equipment requirements are now included within the Plan. We have established that the Plan does not include the costs of buying five Type 31e frigates. The Department aims to introduce the first of these ships into service in 2023. To control costs, the Department has set a £250 million cap on each frigate. Based on this cost, at least £1.3 billion of forecast costs are not included in the Plan.6

> 6 The Plan is likely to be understated by a larger amount because the £1.3 billion estimate does not include support costs
or provision for project risks
, which the Department routinely includes within forecast costs.

--

I guess these are the additional 250 million pounds

clinch
Member
Posts: 75
Joined: 28 Jul 2016, 16:47
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby clinch » 07 Nov 2018, 08:10

chinook88 wrote:>> https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploa ... o-2027.pdf

Costs not included in the Plan

2.2 As a consequence of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, the Department introduced a number of new equipment commitments into the Plan. The Department was unable to demonstrate that all equipment requirements are now included within the Plan. We have established that the Plan does not include the costs of buying five Type 31e frigates. The Department aims to introduce the first of these ships into service in 2023. To control costs, the Department has set a £250 million cap on each frigate. Based on this cost, at least £1.3 billion of forecast costs are not included in the Plan.6

> 6 The Plan is likely to be understated by a larger amount because the £1.3 billion estimate does not include support costs
or provision for project risks
, which the Department routinely includes within forecast costs.

--

I guess these are the additional 250 million pounds



What gets cut?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46103293

Aethulwulf
Member
Posts: 742
Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Aethulwulf » 08 Nov 2018, 20:42

https://www.janes.com/article/84416/egypt-reportedly-orders-meko-a-200-frigates

€1b for 4 frigates, that might be one of the T31 contenders...

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 7973
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 08 Nov 2018, 20:57

Aethulwulf wrote:€1b for 4 frigates, that might be one of the T31 contenders...


More like " (USD2.3 billion) and covers four A-200s, one of which will be built in Egypt."


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: donald_of_tokyo and 18 guests