Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[shark bait]

The size difference between Venator and the Dukes is only marginal. If you look at the deck size the venator is 99% the size of the T23, internal volume is almost identical.

(117*18)/(133*16)=0.99

In fact only by looking at the profiles, the Venator looks taller, as well as fatter, so the internal space may indeed be larger.

The La Fayette-class derivative you mention, along with the MEKO, are the benchmark for cheap and nasty frigates. Hoping we can pitch the T31 above that.

[Jake1992]

Is there any chance of extending the length of the venator 110 design to say 125m, giving that extra room for weapons or larger mission bay or larger stores also increasing the top speed slightly ???

Does anyone know if that would be possible with in the proposed budget or would it require to much redesign and cost ?

[RichardIC]

I think the truth is that Ventor isn't designed yet. It's a concept and BMT have clearly done quite a lot of scoping work, but coming up with a detailed design would cost a lot of money and require a hefty contract from MoD.

[dmereifield]

I think the truth is that Ventor isn't designed yet. It's a concept and BMT have clearly done quite a lot of scoping work, but coming up with a detailed design would cost a lot of money and require a hefty contract from MoD.

Could the BAE Cutlass class design be fitted out with appropriate sensors, armaments and storage etc to be a useful asset (in terms of warfighting and the security and constabulary tasks)? Realistically, with the funds likely to be available? And potentially getting more than 5.

Would it, for example, be a better investment to go for 5 high spec Venators, or say, 8 high spec Cutlass?

Early information seemed to put the BAE designs ahead, in terms of wanting to progress the T31 quickly and using off the shelf designs and equipment. More recent info would seem to suggest the Venator 110 is better placed given the national shipbuilding strategy and some possible indications that the T31 may be built later than anticipated (possibly even after the T26 run). Bringing the Venator to fruition would surely be more expensive and thus would mean fewer hulls.....
Interested to hear peoples thoughts, it seems most are against the Cutlass, so I wonder what people think a top end Cutlass design could be built to include in terms of armament, range and sensors etc

[Lord Jim]

I still think people are being over optimistic about the kit that will be fitted to the T-31. Anything above a Gun 3"-5"), Sea Ceptor (8-16), close defence (2x Minigun) and Helicopter (Wildcat) is unlikely to happen at least when built. However their size could allow additional systems to be fitted during their life funding permitting.

[dmereifield]

I still think people are being over optimistic about the kit that will be fitted to the T-31. Anything above a Gun 3"-5"), Sea Ceptor (8-16), close defence (2x Minigun) and Helicopter (Wildcat) is unlikely to happen at least when built. However their size could allow additional systems to be fitted during their life funding permitting.

Sorry for what are perhaps niaive questions, but, presumably there would be a hull mounted sonar, decoys etc too? I ask specifically about the sonar because the Cutlass is based on the Khareef class corvette, and the the Avenger is based on the River class batch 2, neither of which have a hull mounted sonar....surely the RN wouldn't accept frigates without at least a hull mounted sonar?

If the sea cepter are as inexpensive as we are led to believe, and they might soon have anti ship abilities (against fast attack craft/corvettes), is it not unreasonable to expect (hope) for 24 or more?

[Ron5]

Minor point but the earlier quoted draft dimensions for various designs varied quite a bit because in some cases they included the extra depth of the hull sonar and sometimes did not.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Having been initially quiet enthusiastic about a Type 31 based on the BMT Venator design I began to have some doubts not least as to how you could pack the promised capability into a 110 metre, <4000 ton hull, especially when compared in size to a Type 23;
Venator 110: Length: 117 meters Beam: 18.0 meters ... Tons: 4,000 tons
Type 23: Length: 133 meters Beam: 16.1 meters ... Tons: 4,900 tons

Good point. Note T23 was 4200t as designed. It later grew up to 4900t. So, the 2 designs have VERY similar size and weight.

In fact only by looking at the profiles, the Venator looks taller, as well as fatter, so the internal space may indeed be larger.

I agree this is the key point. As you know, wider hull means more efficient space usage. In other words, Venator 110 has (a little) larger internal volume than T23. With 2m wider hull, freeboard can be nearly as high as those of T45. May be we can add another 1 though deck.

Another issues are: 127mm gun is singificantly smaller than 114 mm gun, with ExLS, 24 (?) CAMMs will be smaller than 32 CAMMs on T23, with no GT, big air intake and exhaust is not needed, and without "super quiet hull", the main generator room space will be significantly reduced.

But, I agree "adding" a mission bay in the middile of hull will be a bit diffucult. (Below flght deck mission bay is good, considering larger freeboard and T23 having CAPTAS-4 there). But, taking into account the 21st century standard of accomodation, Venator 110 will be still relatively tight design = with limited margin, as I stated already. In other words, the mid-ship mission bay itself may be the "only" future growth margin the ship has.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

But, taking into account the 21st century standard of accomodation, Venator 110 will be still relatively tight design = with limited margin, as I stated already. In other words, the mid-ship mission bay itself may be the "only" future growth margin the ship has.

I think you are forgetting that Venator has a vastly smaller crew however - 85 to the Type 23's 185. A massive reduction by anyone's standards.

Speculatively, perhaps the use of COTS accommodation facilities might also help to reduce the use of space on the ship? That's an honest question as i really don't know if it would make any positive difference at all?

[donald_of_tokyo]

sorry a bit many guess

Could the BAE Cutlass class design be fitted out with appropriate sensors, armaments and storage etc to be a useful asset (in terms of warfighting and the security and constabulary tasks)? Realistically, with the funds likely to be available? And potentially getting more than 5.

To my understanding, Cutlass as shown has a dimension of
Length: 117 meters (= 99+15+3) Beam: 14.6 meters.
Since it is the same to MEKO200P or ANZ, I guess it displaces 3300-3600 tons. Anyway it will be significantly smaller than T23=Venator 110.

But, depending on the money left, it could be the only affordable design. Having Khareef-class built for Oman, means the design has lessons learned. So provided we do not change the design significantly, it will be much cheaper, because in general ship designing cost amounts to 2 or 3 hull costs. In other words, (if the design change is limited), Cutlass will by nature be cheaper by at least 10-20% than Venator 110.

But, equipping systems in small hull will make the system cost expensive. Fatter and larger hull is much easier to fit-out (ref. STX Marine-Canada's PDF). Thus, I propose Cutlass to be armed less.

For example,
- + 4 meter astern, for Merlin capable flight deck. Also for "2x 20ft ISO container space" for CAPTAS-2 FFBNW.
- + 4 meter around the hangar. Locate a 18x7 meter Merlin-capable hanger a bit starboard, and leave 18x5 meter open deck for 2 RHIBs or 2 ORCs (and call it, "mission deck").
- + 4 meter before the funnel. With +8 meter hull, obtain 5500nm range and 35 days endurance
- propulsion unchanged. 12 meter longer hull (111 x 14.6 meters) will keep the 28 knots top speed even though the ship will displace ~3000t.
- replace 12 SeaMICA with 24 CAMM (on 6x ExLS), keep the 76 mm gun or change it to 57 mm, to minimize the need for bow re-design and less crews to operate them.
- a small hull sonar (e.g. BlueWatcher = hull mounted FLASH). In other words, leave money (and crew) for CAPTAS-2 to be carried in at least 2 out of the 5 hulls. Optional Prairie-Masker. With CODOE, Khareef can provide "so-so quiet" operation below 7 knots, already.

Since there is not enough Merlin anyhow, in 99% case the hangar will be used to carry 1 Wildcat and 2 ORCs. Thus, the ship will have "a Melin capable hangar and a mission deck for 2 RHIBs", to be "flexibly used" for 1 Wildcat, 2 ORC and 2 RHIBs (or 4 ORCs). ORCs can be replaced with equivalent-sized off-board systems).

Ommiting mission bay, but with "flexilbe hangar + RHIB davit space", will also be good for export, because it will be cheaper and they do not want large mission bay, in many cases. The ship is small, so do not hope for anything "great". No good NGFS, only 2nd-rate ASW (with CAPTAS-2) or very limited ASW (only with hull-mounted FLASH), no co-existence of Merlin and other off-board systems. We shall call it not Frigate, but rather "long-range corvette". (Name it, Flower-class (or Castle-class)).

But, still I think this is not bad.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think you are forgetting that Venator has a vastly smaller crew however - 85 to the Type 23's 185. A massive reduction by anyone's standards.

Thanks. But, (at least in Japan), it is said that automation needs space/weight. Thus, I do not think the lean crew will save space (I admit I may be wrong).

Speculatively, perhaps the use of COTS accommodation facilities might also help to reduce the use of space on the ship? That's an honest question as i really don't know if it would make any positive difference at all?

No idea. In general, modular system (such as COTS accommodation) will be good for easy build, but not to save space. "Modularity" vs "specifically packed", of course the latter is compact.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Thanks. But, (at least in Japan), it is said that automation needs space/weight. Thus, I do not think the lean crew will save space (I admit I may be wrong).

I guess that much is true too. The question now is, "does one person operating two screens take up less space than two people operating one screen each?"

I'm no naval designer, nor engineer, so i really don't know the answer to that one either. Gut instinct would probably say that, even with the additional systems required within a highly-automated environment, space savings should still be very significant - assuming that a human footprint on a warship is as large as i suspect - but, again, i have nothing to back that up with.

[Aethulwulf]

One person operating two screens compared to two people operating one screen each, needs half the food and half the water. They should generate about half the waste and need about half the amount of personal kit and storage space. Laundry washing and drying will reduced. The number of life rafts can be smaller, etc. etc.

[Spinflight]

The actual compliment would depend upon weapons and sensor fit. I'd take 85 as the minimum though the more systems you add the more people you need to operate and maintain them.

Mere continuity certainly argues for the Avenger or Cutlass, it probably does make more sense to continue with existing designs than switch to another.

As to how effective they'd be the only answer I could give is very. It's fun dreaming of hundreds of VLS and sensored up to the teeth but the simple fact is that merely having hulls in the water and available would be a huge boost.

Reducing manning per ship would be a big win, having more ships would mean shorter deployments and more time with families, which is the most pressing concern. At the level of capability a 5" + 30mms and CAMM would be an 80-90% solution compared to our 8 ASW T23s and almost an identical one to the more knackered GPs.

There's always going to be designs which offer more, but a frigate is fundamentally useful and has some friends with greater capability should it be needed.

[rec]

But with the Type 26 firgate being shortlisted by both Canada and Australia, it looks like the T26 and not the T31 has export potential, if so will this have an impact on RN numbers?

On the T31 , I think both BAE designs are out of the running, and it will be the Venator 110

[Spinflight]

There aren't many upcoming competitions which are looking for high value frigates, or not without having their own designs anyway.

Germany and India would be distant possibilities but realistically Canada and Australia are the only two likely. Not many navies can afford to spend over a billion quid per hull. Oddly the USA might be looking for a foreign design to satisfy the 350 ship target, though that would be AAW.

Type 31 on the other hand could cover everything from OPV to light frigate, for which there's probably 500 possible openings over the next decade or so.

As Donald points out detailed design work has likely not be done for the Venator whereas stretching a River in whichever way is merely an extension of existing designs.

The impression I got from SJP was that the Venator was both flexible and modular in construction, however this doesn't intrinsically mean that the Cutlass or Avenger are not. Frigates and OPVs are built in sections anyway, the size of the sections depending upon the tonnage of your cranes. I'm sure the designs themselves could accommodate whichever weapons were required, as seen by the foreign vessels which bristle with unlikely armaments.

It would of course come down to a competition and the relative merits looked at, though with 12 sister ships already either being built or in the water I would expect the BAEs designs to be in pole position even if BAEs were not to be building or fitting them out.

Personally I prefer the idea of the Venator, I think it would be a better fit for the MHC and overall would add more value. If the development costs meant a single hull less than the slightly godawful looking BAEs ones though then I'd rather have the extra hull.

[Ron5]

Crew space requirements have grown over the years. Today's ships have to be more habitable. A T23 built to today's standards would be 50% bigger - 6k ton+.

And small crews have been less than successful in recent times. Both the french FREMM'S and the US LCS, were unworkable at designed crew levels. Both had to be increased substantially.

T31 bottom line: T23 capability on a Venator displacement is fantasy. A noisy, slow, OPV with hangar and bigger pop gun is the best we can hope for.

Actually cancellation of t31 to be replaced with more lower spec t26's i.e. the original plan, is the best but given the dimwits making the decisions, rather unlikely.

[marktigger]

the more worrying part of the Type 31 relying on savings from the Type 26 is the underlying economic picture. If inflation starts to rise and puts pressure on wage inflation and costs of materials same with Brexit then we could see any potential savings wiped out and the Navy ending up with 14 escorts. till the economic picture improves in the longer term.

[imperialman]

BMD option touted for UK frigate

Raytheon has called on the Royal Navy to consider adopting its SM-3 short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile defence (BMD) system, on its future Type 31 frigate.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defe ... k-frigate/

This seems incredibly unlikely IMHO, the costs alone would be prohibitive.

[cky7]

T31 bottom line: T23 capability on a Venator displacement is fantasy. A noisy, slow, OPV with hangar and bigger pop gun is the best we can hope for.

Actually cancellation of t31 to be replaced with more lower spec t26's i.e. the original plan, is the best but given the dimwits making the decisions, rather unlikely.

Unfortunately you're probably totally right. If it's gonna be that bad I'd rather they just bought as many t26s as they can with the money. If nothing else a reduction in escort numbers will give something to hit the idiots in govt with when they start on about their 'rising defence budget' bullshit.

When type 26 was supposed to be cheap, low risk at first it really takes the piss we have to do sOmething so useless (assuming as above) to save money. How few we have got if it was high tech, all new ASW beast?!

[Ron5]

Agree 1000%

[bobp]

With the withdrawal of the Harpoon from service, and the likelihood of no direct replacement for many years what is the point of building a warship that cannot match a ship from any other Navy. You cant rely on gunfire if the enemy can lob a missile at you from over 100km away, nor can you rely on a Helicopter to sink the enemy.

[RetroSicotte]

With the withdrawal of the Harpoon from service, and the likelihood of no direct replacement for many years what is the point of building a warship that cannot match a ship from any other Navy. You cant rely on gunfire if the enemy can lob a missile at you from over 100km away, nor can you rely on a Helicopter to sink the enemy.

Doesn't matter, so long as PMQs can say "We have 13 frigates", they don't give a damn about what the ships are or what they can do.

[Spinflight]

Doesn't matter, so long as PMQs can say "We have 13 frigates", they don't give a damn about what the ships are or what they can do.

Quite the opposite.

It isn't the antiship capability they are looking for per se, the modern designs feature impressive precision land strike capabilities which up till now only our SSNs have wielded.

Being able to put such beasties on a cheap frigate as a coercive diplomatic tool lends otherwise purely functional hulls a strategic and political value.

[Old RN]

In terms of weapons effectively used the "missile gap" is the Sea Skua vs. Sea Venom, and the need to get Sea Venom fitted to Merlins! A much more usefull weapon than Harpoon.