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"
119
26%
An LCS-like modular ship
20
4%
A modernised Type 23
22
5%
A Type 26-lite
65
14%
Less than 5 hulls
21
5%
5 hulls
63
14%
More than 5 hulls
88
19%
 
Total votes: 462

User avatar
Repulse
Senior Member
Posts: 1802
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Repulse » 24 Mar 2019, 14:02

Caribbean wrote:And yet, so many propose that that is exactly what we do with the T26 design


Not me - full fat, or don’t have them.

Caribbean wrote:And I notice that you haven't answered the point that the companies proposing these designs don't feel that it's an issue. They went into this process knowing the cost parameters (and the actual build costs) and felt that they could not only take part, but make a profit.


I did, but perhaps I need to be clearer - two points:

1) The specs that are being spouted around are for export versions in excess of the £250mn. If the £250mn price tag is kept to, I think people will be disappointed from they currently believe is on offer.
2) Companies are hoping that the MOD/Treasury are bluffing over the price or they can argue it up during details cost v capability discussions.

Now of course I’m happy to be proved wrong on both, but that’s my view. My other view is that the RN sailing 2nd rate Frigates around the world impressing the natives is another era now.

The RN model looks to be forward based low level diplomacy backed up by big CSG / SSN sticks sailing from the UK.
"For get this quite clear, every time we have to decide between Europe and the open sea, it is always the open sea we shall choose." - Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby SW1 » 24 Mar 2019, 14:06

Caribbean wrote:Also, for those that persist with the "glorified OPV" label - please bear in mind that one of the designs is a current NATO partner's Tier 1 frigate design, that has been fully shock-tested, meets current NATO noise standards for ASW warfare, design and survivabiliy and is RN FOST-approved (for the same design standards). Also consider that the same Nato partner's related logistic derivative of the same design is currently deployed with one of the NATO standing groups (SNMG1) and their Tier 2 "frigate" is operating in MCM "command ship" mode to SNMCMG1.
Another of the designs is in service with two Five-eyes allies. three NATO partners and two other allied Navies, for most of them as their Tier 1 (or only) class of frigate.
The third is a new design, but built to ANEP warship standards (the MOD is a founder member of that standards organisation, so we had a big say in agreeing those standard). It's unproven, but BAE is a very capable ship-builder and designer, when it chooses to be. It has, however contributed to the perception that naval construction costs are much higher than they need to be.

Repulse wrote:Buying a £400-500mn design and cutting it back to a £250mn budget is a bad way to go about things,

And yet, so many propose that that is exactly what we do with the T26 design (only in that case it's a £750-850m design that we would have to cut back to £250m)
And I notice that you haven't answered the point that the companies proposing these designs don't feel that it's an issue. They went into this process knowing the cost parameters (and the actual build costs) and felt that they could not only take part, but make a profit.


I’m not disagreeing with your analysis but if you can build something as capable as arrowhead 140 for £250m someone is going to ask why is type 26 costing at least 3 times as much.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Mar 2019, 14:26

SW1 wrote:I’m not disagreeing with your analysis but if you can build something as capable as arrowhead 140 for £250m someone is going to ask why is type 26 costing at least 3 times as much.
Simply because Arrowhead 140 in T31e version (not export version) will be very less capable than T26. :D

I won't be surprised it will have a 76 mm gun (even re-used from somewhere), 12 CAMM (not even 24), or even no CAMM but one or two CIWS, 4 RHIBs, and a Wildcat. And nothing else than two 30mm guns (all compatible with T31e RFI). No ASW sonar, no mission bay, no torpedo defense system, no Mk.41 VLS, with very basic CMS. It will be pretty much "a large Floreal" class built to the frigate standard, with big future growth margins (which may not be filled forever).

Arrowhead 140 cannot do ASW, T26 is the world best at ASW.
Arrowhead 140 cannot do land attack, T26 has 24-cell VLS for TLAM or alike.
Arrowhead 140's AAW capability will be less than half of that of T26.
And, CMS level, communications systems, sensors, all will differ a lot.

Three times difference in cost means so.

But, yet I agree Arrowhead 140 will look attractive to those who do not understand the capability difference of warship.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 24 Mar 2019, 14:37

Repulse wrote:If the £250mn price tag is kept to, I think people will be disappointed from they currently believe is on offer

I think that most of us, that have read the RFI, understand what is on offer. The platform is one thing and the equipment attached to it is another. After the recent re-jig of the RFI, it's become a little clearer that it's accepted that the majority of the £250m will be needed for the platform. You aren't factoring in the refurbishment and transfer of assets from the current T23GPs (basically everything that can be unbolted from the hull is available for transfer, but MOD was reluctant to take responsibility for ownership of the refurbished and transferred equipment). It appears that that particular wrinkle has been smoothed out, presumably by transfer of ownership to the contractor as part of the deal etc. etc. This may have involved considerable negotiation to reconcile the Treasury's view of those asset's worth with their real world value.
Repulse wrote:My other view is that the RN sailing 2nd rate Frigates around the world impressing the natives is another era now.

Only, to the vast majority of rest of the world, they are first rate frigates, something that they aspire to. They are also not going to be there "to impress the natives" as you so inelegantly put it, they will be there to guarantee the safety of British assets and represent British interests.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

SW1
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby SW1 » 24 Mar 2019, 14:43

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:I’m not disagreeing with your analysis but if you can build something as capable as arrowhead 140 for £250m someone is going to ask why is type 26 costing at least 3 times as much.
Simply because Arrowhead 140 in T31e version (not export version) will be very less capable than T26. :D

I won't be surprised it will have a 76 mm gun (even re-used from somewhere), 12 CAMM (not even 24), or even no CAMM but one or two CIWS, 4 RHIBs, and a Wildcat. And nothing else than two 30mm guns (all compatible with T31e RFI). No ASW sonar, no mission bay, no torpedo defense system, no Mk.41 VLS, with very basic CMS. It will be pretty much "a large Floral" class built to the frigate standard, with big future growth margins (which may not be filled forever).

Arrowhead 140 cannot do ASW, T26 is the world best at ASW.
Arrowhead 140 cannot do land attack, T26 has 24-cell VLS for TLAM or alike.
Arrowhead 140's AAW capability will be less than half of that of T26.
And, CMS level, communications systems, sensors, all will differ a lot.

Three times difference in cost means so.

But, yet I agree Arrowhead 140 will look attractive to those who do not understand the capability difference of warship.


The fitted for not with option much how type 23 started out with HMS Norfolk. But we don’t yet know what type 26 will be fitted with or what it will be like once built we hope it will be good. In the end your looking to replace the asw capability of type 23 and it didn’t have missions bays, mk41 or tlam.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 24 Mar 2019, 14:45

SW1 wrote:I’m not disagreeing with your analysis but if you can build something as capable as arrowhead 140 for £250m someone is going to ask why is type 26 costing at least 3 times as much.

And they would be right to ask that question. A detailed analysis of the relevant capabilities of the two platforms would answer that. Not the the tabloid-reading masses probably, but to the people who actually make the decisions (who are a lot brighter than you give them credit for - if you don't understand why particular decisions have been made, it's far more likely that you don't have the information that they have and the priorities to juggle that they have, than that they haven't understood the problem).

Edit: and I include myself in the "you" bolded above - not meaning you specifically :)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Mar 2019, 14:54

SW1 wrote:The fitted for not with option much how type 23 started out with HMS Norfolk. But we don’t yet know what type 26 will be fitted with or what it will be like once built we hope it will be good. In the end your looking to replace the asw capability of type 23 and it didn’t have missions bays, mk41 or tlam.
I do not understand your point.
- HMS Norfolk's CMS was delayed, but it must have been included in its purchase cost? Similarly, all systems related to T31e will be within its 1.25G GBP price cap.
- 8 T23 ASW and 5 T23GP is to be replaced with 8 T26 and 5 T31e. In total, its capability is very much improved, even if T31e is as less armed as I showed.
- Also, if T31e is to be added with limited ASW capability in future, it must be budgeted = eating money prepared for other assets, like "cutting a few F35B to up-arm T31e" (which itself is not a bad idea). It is another story = "T31e up-arming program", unrelated to the "1.25B GBP T31e purchase program". I agree it is worth discussing, but in that case, the T31e will not be a "250M GBP average ship", but a "250M + 100(?)M GBP average ship".

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Mar 2019, 15:17

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
SW1 wrote:The fitted for not with option much how type 23 started out with HMS Norfolk. But we don’t yet know what type 26 will be fitted with or what it will be like once built we hope it will be good. In the end your looking to replace the asw capability of type 23 and it didn’t have missions bays, mk41 or tlam.
I do not understand your point.
- HMS Norfolk's CMS was delayed, but it must have been included in its purchase cost? Similarly, all systems related to T31e will be within its 1.25G GBP price cap.
- 8 T23 ASW and 5 T23GP is to be replaced with 8 T26 and 5 T31e. In total, its capability is very much improved, even if T31e is as less armed as I showed.
- Also, if T31e is to be added with limited ASW capability in future, it must be budgeted = eating money prepared for other assets, like "cutting a few F35B to up-arm T31e" (which itself is not a bad idea). It is another story = "T31e up-arming program", unrelated to the "1.25B GBP T31e purchase program". I agree it is worth discussing, but in that case, the T31e will not be a "250M GBP average ship", but a "250M + 100(?)M GBP average ship".


With the MOD now happy to transfer kit from the T23s to the T31’s and buy the looks of it this will not be counted in the £1.25bn budget and all the talk of what CMS would be used if Leander doesn’t win would the CMS from the upgraded T23s be transferred killing 2 birds with one stone in the sence that this cost would not be taken out the budget but also mean the BAE CMS-1 is kept as the sole CMS for the fleet

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 24 Mar 2019, 15:43

Jake1992 wrote:With the MOD now happy to transfer kit from the T23s to the T31’s and buy the looks of it this will not be counted in the £1.25bn budget
I see no such argument to date. It clearly states, the 1.25B GBP will include such costs.
... and all the talk of what CMS would be used if Leander doesn’t win would the CMS from the upgraded T23s be transferred killing 2 birds with one stone in the sence that this cost would not be taken out the budget but also mean the BAE CMS-1 is kept as the sole CMS for the fleet
Good point. Can we re-use the CMS of T23GP for T31e? Of course, significant down-grade will be needed, but the CPU, consoles, and many of the software (license) should be able to be "re-used". Interestingly, Arrowhead 140 is still aiming at TACTICOS. It is so cheap? Or, re-use from T23GP is very much limited (for export sales) ?

Online
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1262
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Jake1992 » 24 Mar 2019, 16:08

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:With the MOD now happy to transfer kit from the T23s to the T31’s and buy the looks of it this will not be counted in the £1.25bn budget
I see no such argument to date. It clearly states, the 1.25B GBP will include such costs.
... and all the talk of what CMS would be used if Leander doesn’t win would the CMS from the upgraded T23s be transferred killing 2 birds with one stone in the sence that this cost would not be taken out the budget but also mean the BAE CMS-1 is kept as the sole CMS for the fleet
Good point. Can we re-use the CMS of T23GP for T31e? Of course, significant down-grade will be needed, but the CPU, consoles, and many of the software (license) should be able to be "re-used". Interestingly, Arrowhead 140 is still aiming at TACTICOS. It is so cheap? Or, re-use from T23GP is very much limited (for export sales) ?


I saw it mentioned on UKDJ post earlier in the year wheather it’s trur or not I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

I have a feeling there sticking with TACTICOS for now as it wouldn’t look great for them to be pushing a competitors CMS st this stage but I’d be very shocked if the MOD didn’t make it a condition to the winning bid to use both BEA CMS-1 abd artisan as it would just make no sence to have to sets of CMS and mid range radars.

Would it really make it harder for export surely the customer would be the one to decide CMS and surely any conpetent ship builder would be able to accomadate this.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 24 Mar 2019, 16:21

SW1 wrote:someone is going to ask why is type 26 costing at least 3 times as much.
Hence the reason why ASW is a low priority to the T31 programme. The T26 numbers could be in jeopardy if the T31's turn out to be better than expected at ASW. Bonkers but understandable given past experience.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead 140 cannot do ASW, T26 is the world best at ASW.
It has the potential, there is just no willingness to equip it to that level. Could an Arrowhead 140 be as capable as an FTI if equipped with 2150 and 2087? Maybe.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead 140 cannot do land attack, T26 has 24-cell VLS for TLAM or alike.
Arrowhead is TLAM capable. With 32 Mk41 cells, 16x Harpoon, a Mk45 and embarked Wildcat(s) it could be argued that Arrowhead has the potential to be as capable if not more capable than a T26. That potential capability could be important down the line.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead 140's AAW capability will be less than half of that of T26.
Given the full Iver Huitfeldt treatment would that still apply?
Jake1992 wrote:if Leander doesn’t win would the CMS from the upgraded T23s be transferred killing 2 birds with one stone in the sence that this cost would not be taken out the budget but also mean the BAE CMS-1 is kept as the sole CMS for the fleet
I agree with Donald here Jake, this a great point, anyone got a definitive answer?

SW1
Member
Posts: 762
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby SW1 » 24 Mar 2019, 18:12

Caribbean wrote:
SW1 wrote:I’m not disagreeing with your analysis but if you can build something as capable as arrowhead 140 for £250m someone is going to ask why is type 26 costing at least 3 times as much.

And they would be right to ask that question. A detailed analysis of the relevant capabilities of the two platforms would answer that. Not the the tabloid-reading masses probably, but to the people who actually make the decisions (who are a lot brighter than you give them credit for - if you don't understand why particular decisions have been made, it's far more likely that you don't have the information that they have and the priorities to juggle that they have, than that they haven't understood the problem).

Edit: and I include myself in the "you" bolded above - not meaning you specifically :)


You absolutely right I know nothing on either program except what I read from various places. But what’s been written about it does highlight a few interesting things, when the cost of type 26 went way up from what was first invisaged some of the reasons offered included it was so much bigger than what went before, that it was built to full warship standards and it had space for mk41 and mission bay, also the noise reduction was particularly important. Then when type 31 appeared it was said the only way it could make the cost was that it would have to be smaller and not build to naval standards.

Yet if you compare arrowhead 140 to type 26 there both similar in size and as you’ve mentioned arrowhead is based on a hull that anyone in nato would consider a full on proper warship, arrowhead has equivalent space for vertical launch systems, same main gun space, will have the same radar and has similar mission bay spaces so if we believe arrowheads costs then these things can’t explain such a cost difference.

So does the acoustic reductions make a difference? Did we spec the equivalent to a seawolf when a Virginia would do, ive no ideal but then you mention that arrowhead meets the nato requirement in this regard so maybe we did. Does that explain the cost difference? Maybe.

I wasn’t really questioning the people who make the decisions in relation to this just asking the question, defence procurement is complicated the people who make the decisions are no more or less bright than others, they make good decisions, they make bad decisions and sometimes they take the worst route of all and make no decision. But I had heard it mentioned that those making the decisions felt part of the reason type26 budget got so big was the charge rate and build man hours BAE were quoting was way beyond what could be considered reasonable and one has to wonder is that’s whats being tested with arrowhead 140, hence the reasoning for my original question.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby tomuk » 24 Mar 2019, 20:53

Leaving aside issues of BAE costs the Type 26 and Iver Huitfeldt (Arrowhead 140) designs are focused at different roles.

The Type 26 is for ASW and therefore has a quiet hullform and a quiet propulsion system. CODLOG - combined diesel electric and Gas. It has four isolated/soundproofed MTU diesel electric generators and electric motors for use when carrying out ASW and a MT30 gas turbine for maximum speed when transiting.

The Iver Huitfeldt was designed as an AAW frigate like the Type 45. Is hullform is based on the Absalon assault ship and is powered by four large MTU diesels in two open engine rooms.

See pictures of open engine room.
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/iver-huitfeldt-class-frigates-demark/

silabario
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 06 Dec 2016, 22:02
Location: Chile

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby silabario » 24 Mar 2019, 21:27

hi.

CODOE, CODAG or CODLG are good choices? i mean for not increase the cost beyond de limit or is just imposible to made the vessel soundproof.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1518
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Caribbean » 24 Mar 2019, 22:11

SW1 wrote: I had heard it mentioned that those making the decisions felt part of the reason type26 budget got so big was the charge rate and build man hours BAE were quoting was way beyond what could be considered reasonable and one has to wonder is that’s whats being tested with arrowhead 140

We are of the same opinion in that regard :D. The differential may be justified, or it may be due to exploitation of BAE's monopoly position. Personally, I believe that, as with most things, the real answer is somewhere in the middle.
tomuk wrote:the Type 26 and Iver Huitfeldt (Arrowhead 140) designs are focused at different roles.

Agreed. But the IH design still meets he NATO standards for active ASW (I apoligise - I've just realised that I, unintentionally, didn't include the "active" bit in my last post, which does change the nature of the debate. ASW capability is not a single capability, it's a range of capabilities for different environments)
tomuk wrote:The Type 26 is for ASW and therefore has a quiet hullform and a quiet propulsion system. CODLOG - combined diesel electric and Gas.

Yes - and these factors do make a difference, I agree. Do they genuinely triple the price? That is a big question.
tomuk wrote:The Iver Huitfeldt was designed as an AAW frigate like the Type 45

Indeed - a good point, but that does not mean that it is incapable of ASW, just that it is LESS capable than a T26. The T45 is capable of "self defence" ASW operations - it's just not the "go to" vessel for that.
tomuk wrote:he Absalon assault ship and is powered by four large MTU diesels in two open engine rooms.

They are, indeed. But have you looked at the images of the A140 from above? The funnels are offset forward and aft, which indicates that you have two engine rooms that are linearly separated. This is an indication of basic naval standards, in that a "single incident" is unlikely to disable both engine rooms (allowing manoeuvre and escape after damage). The next stage would be to ensure that there is a barrier between the two engines in the same room (and then that the barrier is waterproof, armoured etc. etc.). After that would be things like: is each propshaft coupled only to a single engine set or is there a gearbox that allows either engine set to be coupled to either propshaft? Each step improves survivability, and , of course, increases cost. At the price they are asking for T26, I would hope that every design solution known to man is implemented.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10178
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 25 Mar 2019, 04:12

Caribbean wrote:The differential may be justified, or it may be due to exploitation of BAE's monopoly position. Personally, I believe that, as with most things, the real answer is somewhere in the middle.

Let's not forget the dairy farmer, who does morning milking... and evening, again
- half of the value lies in the military fitting out
- TACTICOS and all things Thales might be there (for now) just to avoid that evening milking round (assuming that the morning round: building the thing, will not be Leander), but
- T31s might still end up fitted out in the only yard (Appledore now closed) that has been doing such things to new builds. How that is going to be negotiated, avoiding a monopoly rent extraction? Well, hints above

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 25 Mar 2019, 11:14

Repulse wrote:My other view is that the RN sailing 2nd rate Frigates around the world impressing the natives is another era now.

Absolutely!

Rather than responding to the challenges in the modern naval domain the RN is retreating to its post colonial gun boat comfort zone.
@LandSharkUK

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1260
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Timmymagic » 25 Mar 2019, 12:21

donald_of_tokyo wrote:I won't be surprised it will have a 76 mm gun (even re-used from somewhere),


I think the 4.5 is now nailed on for T31. It's free, training pipeline and spares available and there has been some re-certification work underway recently, including the first land based trials for a long time.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 222
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Pongoglo » 25 Mar 2019, 12:36

shark bait wrote:
Repulse wrote:My other view is that the RN sailing 2nd rate Frigates around the world impressing the natives is another era now.

Absolutely!

Rather than responding to the challenges in the modern naval domain the RN is retreating to its post colonial gun boat comfort zone.


The RN is responding to what HMG directs it to do. The facts are that however capable a T26 it can only be in one place at one time and quantity has a quality of its own. Even if we were to bin the T31 programme altogether, probably politically unacceptable in any event, we could probably only afford one or two additional T26 , insufficient to meet our current commitments let alone the numbers that future taskings would seem to require.

Reality is that most tasks don't require the full fat capability of the T26 and can be adequately undertaken by a much cheaper and yes less capable ship and without undue risk to life and limb ; it is here that the balance must be achieved. That is why we currently have the T23 GP. Is anyone suggesting that the first class global deployment just completed by Argyle has been in any way compromised because she doesn't have a TAS?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 25 Mar 2019, 12:46

I recognise there are simpler tasks that don't require a combat frigate, and the RN have just bought 5 new patrol boats, plus planning 2 multi-mission ships, and already posses 3 Bays.

The RN already plan to have 10 ships at its disposal for the simple tasks, why does it need another 5?

It's important to remember the T23 GP still has a sonar and it is still capable of providing protection across all domains, it is an escort, not a patrol ship.
@LandSharkUK

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 Mar 2019, 13:13

Jake1992 wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:With the MOD now happy to transfer kit from the T23s to the T31’s and buy the looks of it this will not be counted in the £1.25bn budget
I see no such argument to date. It clearly states, the 1.25B GBP will include such costs.
I saw it mentioned on UKDJ post earlier in the year wheather it’s trur or not I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
In the SavetheRoyalNavy post, (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/type-3 ... restarted/) they say the MOD documents says,

“Type 31e is to cost not to exceed £1.25 billion, inclusive of Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)”.

As I read it, it says the GFE cost is included in £1.25 billion.

However, the writer read it differently, as

This may indicate there is a recognition that the £250M per ship limit is not enough to cover the installation of credible combat systems. Just how much GFE will be provided may be the critical factor in the success of the design. It has always been the intention that some equipment would be transferred from the Type 23s to the next generation of frigates, both Type 26 and Type 31, including the Sea Ceptor missile system and the Artisan Radar. Weapons, sensors and combat management systems are a large cost component of warships and if paid for separately, would add significantly to the Type 31e ‘sail away’ price.

So, it is STRN's original comment, not related to MOD official statement.

Therefore, I see no such argument to date. It clearly states, the 1.25B GBP will include such costs.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 3143
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Location: Japan

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby donald_of_tokyo » 25 Mar 2019, 13:30

Poiuytrewq wrote:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead 140 cannot do ASW, T26 is the world best at ASW.
It has the potential, there is just no willingness to equip it to that level. Could an Arrowhead 140 be as capable as an FTI if equipped with 2150 and 2087? Maybe.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead 140 cannot do land attack, T26 has 24-cell VLS for TLAM or alike.
Arrowhead is TLAM capable. With 32 Mk41 cells, 16x Harpoon, a Mk45 and embarked Wildcat(s) it could be argued that Arrowhead has the potential to be as capable if not more capable than a T26. That potential capability could be important down the line.
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Arrowhead 140's AAW capability will be less than half of that of T26.
Given the full Iver Huitfeldt treatment would that still apply?
Sorry, Arrowhead 140 is T31e, which is 1.25B GBP for 5 hull program built in UK. It is different from Iver Huitfeldt class. For me, it is not much different from saying, "US Spruance DD can be a Ticonderoga AEGIS CCG". Yes they can, only if we pay a lot. So no Arrowhead 140 do not have good ASW, AAW nor land-attack capability.
shark bait wrote:I recognise there are simpler tasks that don't require a combat frigate, and the RN have just bought 5 new patrol boats, plus planning 2 multi-mission ships, and already posses 3 Bays.

The RN already plan to have 10 ships at its disposal for the simple tasks, why does it need another 5?
I understand your point. So the big difference is, you are ignoring T31e is much much fighty than River OPVs or Bay LSDs. Yes, T26/T45 is also much much fighty than T31e, but it does not mean T31e is the same to OPVs and LSDs. No.

Modern escort has grown so high that, the distance between OPV and a frigate is large enough to hold distinct class of warships, Corvettes and Light Frigates. Modern Corvette and light frigates (such as Damen 10514, Gowind-2500, Khareef, Ada-class) is an order of magnitude capable than Corvettes in 1980s (MEKO140, A69 Aviso, or even Minerva-class), and therefore we see many Corvettes and Light Frigates worldwide.

Confusing light frigate with OPV is very similar to confusing full-fat escorts and light frigates.

RN having a class of light frigate has its own rationale. The issue is, at where? I think RN/MOD is thinking NATO fleet and Persian Gulf can be happily covered with light frigates. May be true.
It's important to remember the T23 GP still has a sonar and it is still capable of providing protection across all domains, it is an escort, not a patrol ship.
As 8 T23ASW is to be replaced with 8 T26, which is much much capable than T23ASW, T23GP replace by T31e, which is less capable than T23GP is tolerable, I think. RN made T26 too much high-level, and now paying for it.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1510
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Poiuytrewq » 25 Mar 2019, 13:50

Pongoglo wrote:Reality is that most tasks don't require the full fat capability of the T26 and can be adequately undertaken by a much cheaper and yes less capable ship and without undue risk to life and limb ; it is here that the balance must be achieved. That is why we currently have the T23 GP. Is anyone suggesting that the first class global deployment just completed by Argyle has been in any way compromised because she doesn't have a TAS?
I agree and that's why I believe the T31 should be firmly capped at £250m. Keep it simple with a Mk8, 12/24 CAMM, 2x 30mm's, an embarked Wildcat and Artisan. A VLS launched Spear3 capability and a decent Hull Mounted Sonar would be ideal but might break the budget. Stretching to £275m to make the overall package work would be OK with me :thumbup:

Either Arrowhead or Leander would be ideal for a T31 in this guise. Personally I think the most important consideration is what any second batch of more capable T31's would look like to get RN back up to 24 escorts. What would the budget for the second batch likely be? Around £2bn with construction starting in 2025/2026 would seem plausible.

The big question is, if the first batch are simple 'patrol frigates' what would the second batch specialise in? ASW? ASuW? AAW? All three? Personally I would like to see a follow on batch of T26 lite's but I realise that probably won't happen mainly due to political reasons.

So ideally any second batch of Improved T31's would be credible Tier2 escort frigates. Able to go toe to toe with a peer on the surface, act as a goalkeeper for the CSG and perform TAPS to free up the T26's. Possible for £400m each? Maybe.

Arrowhead is faster, got a better range and endurance, potentially formidable in both AAW and ASuW but possibly weaker in ASW performance. This could give Leander a BIG advantage if ASW is to be a priority in round two. If BAE isn't working on a broad beamed second batch of Leanders (sound familiar) already with a modern Hybrid electric propulsion setup capable of 15 or 16 knots on electric drive, they really should be in my opinion.

If Leander had of been upscaled to 130m with a 16m beam from the start I don't think there would even have been a contest but if Babcock really can build Arrowhead within budget with a profit margin it will be hard to beat. If the second batch can improve the ASW capability up to a standard suitable for TAPS it Could be unbeatable. But that's a big IF.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5747
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby shark bait » 25 Mar 2019, 13:57

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Modern escort has grown so high that, the distance between OPV and a frigate is large enough to hold distinct class of warships

I think we have created this middle range solely because it is convenient for the budget.

Either the region is benign, or it is hostile. The RAF operate Reaper and Typhoon, they do not have a combat Hawk in the middle because there is no environment suitable for this middle tier. Why is the naval domain different?
@LandSharkUK

Clive F
Member
Posts: 132
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 12:48
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Postby Clive F » 25 Mar 2019, 14:10

Spot on Shark Bait. good analogy. As have been said many times before, a better option is to specialise in one activity only (for me ASW, local to UK). This way you save money for kit and crew and maintenance but still have a "tier one" capability.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jake1992 and 77 guests