SW1 wrote:If you changed the name of your type 31 gp to type 31 asw that would be what you’ve spec’d add fixed propellers and codlad which the builder say is possible for effect.
The name is unimportant but IMO the spec of a 21st century GP Frigate needs to include a TAS/VDS or a credible off board system that provides the same capability. If it doesn't have a hull mounted sonar then it simply isn't a frigate.
Adding the hybrid propulsion setup should have been done on the baseline A140 but cost got in the way. I don't see that its a problem for the basic security variant but any follow on GP variants should look to improve the propulsion, noise reduction etc.
SW1 wrote:Then your type 31security frigate which is essentially what we’ve just ordered
Agreed, in a nutshell that's what the proposed A140 is, a cheap, security orientated long range patrol vessel. I am not convinced RN needs 8 such vessels with a crew allocation of 100/120. Much better to build the first four hulls as basic security variants, upgrade the fifth hull and test it thoroughly and if successful build another batch of three.
SW1 wrote:And heck throw in the same configuration as the Danes and you have type 31 aaw.
Yep, hulls 8 and 9 should be full Iver Huitfeldt to give RN the eight AAW destroyers that should have been built in the first place.
SW1 wrote:Or in another way what type 26 should of been but isn’t, flexible and configurable at an affordable price.
As the potential of the A140 hull is explored the T26 fully it will put a lot of pressure on the T26 programme. Of course RN will be well aware of this and I believe this is the reason why the initial T31 batch will be so lightly armed.....securing the follow-on batch(s) of T26 must remain the priority.
SW1 wrote:Assuming of course arrowhead can be built for £250m pounds.
Its a prerequisite
Tempest414 wrote:If we are to move to four common gun options then I would like to see a move to 127mm , 76mm , 40mm , 20mm Phalanx
Just as good. The 57mm and 40mm look to be an overlap induced by an inadequate T31 budget. Babcock believe they have delivered a credible Frigate for £250m, it's up to RN now whether they accept what is being proposed.
Caribbean wrote:the RB2s actually have the room for a deck-penetrating installation, so if we intend to keep them as "minor warships", then I would go for the larger magazine capacity of the deck-penetrating mount. I would only go for the NDP mount if we were going to "roll-back" the changes at some point in the future.
If the up-gunning and forward basing of the current crop of RB2's is simply a 5 to 8 year stopgap to a larger Frigate/Corvette force then non penetrating is the way to go but maybe RN can see the value of maintaining this force structure long term. In which case the penetrating magazines are surely the way to go.