That did not take much " As anti submarine ships they were easily heard and classified by the ARA San Luis.[...] They proved completely unsuitable for the Royal Navy's 1980s role as a second line nuclear deterrent, anti submarine force in the North Atlantic and Arctic and what sealed the fate of the class was their lack of margin to accept the 2031 towed array."donald_of_tokyo wrote:they were good, much better than T21
the type21 should never have been classed as an asw vessel they were a gp light frigate that suffered from lack of space to upgradeArmChairCivvy wrote:That did not take much " As anti submarine ships they were easily heard and classified by the ARA San Luis.[...] They proved completely unsuitable for the Royal Navy's 1980s role as a second line nuclear deterrent, anti submarine force in the North Atlantic and Arctic and what sealed the fate of the class was their lack of margin to accept the 2031 towed array."donald_of_tokyo wrote:they were good, much better than T21
- says wiki; I think that was enough to sink the benchmark by first salvo
Please excuse my ignorance, but how fast and quiet does a TAS tug need to be for home waters/TAPs/ protection of CASD? If it doesn't need to be racing off ahead of a task group, can a slower less quiet boat do the job?Spinflight wrote:Well quite.
If you want an ASW vessel then you buy a t26. Just sticking a tas on any old hull isn't any more use than the previous generation where sticking a few hedgehog mortars on a fast hull was job done.
On ngfs I doubt the T31, which don't forget is currently unfunded at least until the recently announced review, is going to have a big role.
More generally though most modern asuw weapons also include a robust precision strike capability, and one which is far more cost effective and persistent than the RAFs.
Hence a choice between a £300m airframe and a £300m hull becomes an easy one. The former might spend 1% of its useful life in the air, the latter 33% at sea on deployment.
Also modern ASW doesn't assume that merely passive sonar is enough.
Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
Thanks for info. So do you not rate FREMM, AB's and the upcoming FTI's? I gather they are not nearly as quiet as the T26s are expected to beSpinflight wrote:As that is the primary job of the type 26, I'd say as quiet as a type 26.
The problem with a pure tas tug is that it assumes the target subs are loud enough to be detected by passive sonar.
As nuke subs get quieter and electric ones are as "loud as your torch" passive acoustics play less of a part.
Or rather an ASW themed vessel built today has to take into account the likely signatures of subs which haven't even been built yet.
Same with mpas. The older drop loads of passive sonobuoys and listen are becoming quite rare.
For instance the USN was expected to put out a rfp for a frigate, which was to be a little crappy ship with a tas.
Instead their rfp sounds more like a type 26.
Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
Hard to see the similarity as they introduced the "tub" shape that became familiar in the Moskvas as well. Refinements with large, waterplane area hull form that significantly improves seakeeping ability and is designed to permit high speed in high sea states.Spinflight wrote:The ABs in particular are based upon the Spruance hull if memory serve
Interesting. I agree this is the baseline of T31 idea, as we read from HMG's comments. TLAM is expensive, so omit it. With CAMM and 30 mm, no CIWS is needed (aka T23). Then, I think a 3000t light frigate can do, as:marktigger wrote:from the t31 I'd eliminate any pretention of it being an ASW escort so now acoustically silent machinery yes cut flow noise over hull but bow mounted sonar no TAS. 127mm gun, 30mm guns and phalanx, Yes have the hanger Wildcat capable and the deck merlin/chinook capable. CAAM, Anti ship missile system possible TLAM launcher. Surface and Air radars a more enhanced ESM/ECM suite, enhanced communications and OPtronics. RHIB. Capability to support enhanced crew for long periods and bunkerage and stores capability for longer endurance.
I remember you said it is rather for fast boat. With 2x 30mm RWS (has longer range than CIWS) and 2x 7.62mm gatling guns (good fire power close in), why you need more? CIWS is expensive (in maintenance = crew number). For AAW, CAMM can do much better.marktigger wrote:Actually donald if you read what I posted I do feel they need Phalanx
3000t is exactly the T21 size (it is the ballast which made them heavier later). I understand your point. But, then it will cost as much as FTI minus CAPTAS4CI, which will be 400-420M GBP, which means you need at least ~3B GBP for 5 hulls. (there is no magic there)3,000 tons is smaller than a type 21 which i have already said as a 70's/80's GP frigate was to small ANZAC class start at 3,500 and Type 23 at around 4000 I'd look at a minimum of 4500 -5000 tons
Hi Donald, nice to have "all" considerations together. The first two in the quote are important, and even though both contribute to upgradeability (buoyancy margin) the second is pretty much a given.donald_of_tokyo wrote: - No GT, which eliminates large intake/exhaust (modern diesel is enough for 25+ knots) and make CoG better.
- no long-range AAW radar. (Artisan is enough).
- limit the range to 5500nm@15kt (5000nm@18kt for M-class (~6000nm@15kt) and 6000nm@18kt for ANZAC (~7200nm@15kt)) for smaller fuel tank.
- make the hull fatter to improve internal volume efficiency. M-class 14.4m, ANZAC 14.8m. I think Cutlass can be 1m wider than Khareef (14.6-->15.6m). In place, accept moderate top speed, say 25knots.
The hull in warships is just over 10% of cost, but it comes back to bite you through the need for more installed power... which has a knock-thru effect in all of life costs, as once you go away from the diesel-only speeds it becomes more difficult to do the patrolling speeds optimally for fuel (which together with crewing are the biggest determinants of thru-life costs)... but on this one, and the stds being a major cost driver, we do agree.donald_of_tokyo wrote:I here think that "steel is SO cheap so it is not the cost driver. It is the standard which is costing", thus, cost could be sensitive to ship size.
Nice post, but I would rather say that cost of additional Type 26 is about 1 billion pounds, not 800 millions.donald_of_tokyo wrote:My personal cost "guesstimates" for T31.
As the numbers are based on existing reference designs, I do not think the cost estimation is so far away. Of course, 10-20% ambiguity will be there. My point here is,
- Stop being optimistic in cost estimation. That attitude has ruined RN fleet significantly in the past.
- But, it is still not pessimistic, since it is based on french DCNS cost estimation, which is doing better than BAES in this world.
- "steel is cheap and air is free" is considered more strictly. Since the final cost do reflect the ship size in many real examples, I here think that "steel is SO cheap so it is not the cost driver. It is the standard which is costing", thus, cost could be sensitive to ship size.
NATO means operations (potentially) against Russia. You are going to send a non ASW, Wildcat-only, crappy ship...? A real statement there. Of uselessness.Five or six such light frigates for 2 deployed on APT-S (or NATO fleet) and Kipion will be good. Or, 1 for standing task and 1 to provide "goal keeper defence to CV-TF" (from Spartan brochure).
