UK Defence Forum

Repulse wrote:

abc123 wrote:Wait, I was talking about T31?

Wires crossed, I was referring to selling the B2 Rivers. In relation to your 15 yrs for a T31, not a chance “easiest cut” to make will be extending their RN lifespan.

Yes, but the same thing applies for River B2 as well.

I would take some guidance from how long the corvettes for Brunei and T&T OPVs sat in the water, before they could be shifted
- T31s could have a better change as the change of weapon systems is sort of built in (=quicker and cheaper) and unlike building OPV hulls, a frigate of that kind of complexity might be outside the competence and capacity of some countries that need them in low numbers (like 2s...)

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I would take some guidance from how long the corvettes for Brunei and T&T OPVs sat in the water, before they could be shifted

I doubt the 31s when laid up will be wet stored in Ramsdon dock in Barrow in Furness. Then the Upholders spent a long time in there. It depends on the procurement needs. If the disposal is when a replacment is due they will go that is if they don't end up like the 23 run in to the ground. or should I say run till they need more spent on them in expensive refits because of inept
procurement to comply with in year spending.

A couple of images I shared on twitter

Frigates compared;


Escorts compared;

Anyone have any inkling when we'll find out what the Type 31 GFE is?

Reading from the tender docs: CAMM?

shark bait wrote:A couple of images I shared on twitter

Frigates compared;


Escorts compared;

Thanks for that, keep seeing the numbers but didn't realise the size of the T31 ! so much space to add things....fingers crossed !!!

Looks like there will be plenty of room for A PAIR of 5” Guns.

Roders96 wrote:Anyone have any inkling when we'll find out what the Type 31 GFE is?

Your faith in UK open government is quite touching.

Ron5 wrote:

Roders96 wrote:Anyone have any inkling when we'll find out what the Type 31 GFE is?

Your faith in UK open government is quite touching.

hahaha possibly

I’ve been reading about the new Singaporean Navy Littoral Mission Vessel (Independence Class).

http://daisetsuzan.blogspot.com/2015/07 ... s.html?m=1

The twin rear boat ramp is particularly interesting given the discussion on Rhib based USVs. Shame the RN isn’t so innovative, would say 8 of these could help fill the “interim” MCM platform if combined with other Warships / RFAs, could also operate independently, with even the UK looking at VL-Mica.

A much better take on RB2s; of course these are not globally deployable.

Interesting that when Saab did not win the frigate contract with their stretch-Visby (the French did) - they have staged a comeback:
"The LMV is jointly designed by local ship builder Singapore Technologies Marine ( ST Marine ) and SAAB Kockums AB of Sweden, working closely with the Defense Science and Technology Agency ( DSTA ), taking into account the unique requirements of the RSN. Apart from submarines, Kockums is also famous for building Sweden's iconic Visby-class stealth corvettes "

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A much better take on RB2s; of course these are not globally deployable.

Not globally deployable but could be forward based in the Med and Gulf. Would be complimentary to the RB2s. Fantasy spending, but perhaps 6-8 to complement the T31s and River/Echos.

The two Water Cannon would be useful in deterring French and Spanish fishermen as well as anyone else who decided to come too close.

Repulse wrote:The twin rear boat ramp is particularly interesting given the discussion on Rhib based USVs. Shame the RN isn’t so innovative, would say 8 of these could help fill the “interim” MCM platform if combined with other Warships / RFAs, could also operate independently, with even the UK looking at VL-Mica.

Rear boat ramps aren't that innovative. The USCG has had them for years. They have some advantages, but a lot of disadvantages. They're not really compatible with a towed array and towed decoy systems which occupy that space on more capable ships. And MCM USV's that are envisaged are also looking to be larger than a ramp can handle. Makes sense on an CG or OPV. The Dutch/Belgian MCMV design (presaged long ago by BMT) seems to be the way to go.

But why would we look at VL-MICA? It's inferior to CAMM in pretty much all ways, shorter overall range, longer minimum engagement range, hot launch, loses speed rapidly, more complex VLS and more expensive overall.

Timmymagic wrote:Rear boat ramps aren't that innovative. The USCG has had them for years. They have some advantages, but a lot of disadvantages. They're not really compatible with a towed array and towed decoy systems which occupy that space on more capable ships.

We aren’t talking about Frigates, the ability to have a more effective launch and recovery has significant benefits when talking about ships launching USVs and RM Rhibs.

Timmymagic wrote:And MCM USV's that are envisaged are also looking to be larger than a ramp can handle. Makes sense on an CG or OPV. The Dutch/Belgian MCMV design (presaged long ago by BMT) seems to be the way to go.

My first choice will remains the Venator 85 with a mission bay - but if looking for something that can both operate in non benign environments and similar craft that would need to be operated from the T31s (see previous discussion on this thread).

Timmymagic wrote:But why would we look at VL-MICA? It's inferior to CAMM in pretty much all ways, shorter overall range, longer minimum engagement range, hot launch, loses speed rapidly, more complex VLS and more expensive overall.

Because CAMM is relatively expensive on systems and manpower the Independence Class (LMVs) operate on fewer crew than a River Class.

My understanding was that ship side launched boats could launch and recovery at higher sea states than rear boat ramps, the new Belgium/Dutch MCM USVs have been tested in the MARIN test tank at sea states 5/6 with significant waves height of 4m with incoming waves from all directions including leeward of the mothership. MCM uses the Naval Group design Launch and Recovery System, LARS, consists of a pivoting A-Frame davit for a USV weighing up to 18t, housed in a floating cradle design that can be constantly in the water. What a tank test cannot test for is high winds.

"The recovery of a drone in very adverse sea conditions considerably increases the operational time in which they can accomplish their missions. In a so-called “stand-off” operating mode, where the mother ship operates outside the minefield, this LARS system will therefore prove to be essential in the conduct of mine warfare operations."

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... tank-test/
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... n-belgium/

Repulse wrote:My first choice will remains the Venator 85 with a mission bay - but if looking for something that can both operate in non benign environments and similar craft that would need to be operated from the T31s (see previous discussion on this thread).

Do you mean the Venari 85?

Or the Venator 90?

Venator 90 which dates back to 2005ish had a stern ramp, but also had deployment via davits from side bays. Venari 85 (which is the more recent BMT concept) ditched the ramp and went for davits and cranes.

Venator 90 and Venari 85 together would have been the perfect replacement for the UK's MCMV fleet and River Class. We missed the boat, to a degree, on Venator 90 when we bought RB.2.

Repulse wrote:Because CAMM is relatively expensive on systems and manpower the Independence Class (LMVs) operate on fewer crew than a River Class.

I'm not sure where you get that from. Both VL MICA and Sea Ceptor need a CMS. But thats where a lot of the similarity stops. Sea Ceptor uses soft launch, which is a lot cheaper and easier to integrate than VL MICA's hot launch VLS. It's also sensor agnostic, which means it can be integrated with pretty much any radar, VL-MICA appears to require more integration effort. As to personnel it won't require any more to operate a weapons console for a VL-MICA or Sea Ceptor. MICA also has a reputation as the most eyewateringly expensive missile out there....India's last buy was $2.7m per missile...

Repulse wrote:Because CAMM is relatively expensive on systems and manpower the Independence Class (LMVs) operate on fewer crew than a River Class.

there is no differences in systems and manpower needs between Mica and CAMM for me if you wanted to add a new missile system then SeaRam is the way forward much more easy use as a pooled weapon system as long as the ships are FFBNW there is no need to carry the system all the time but a ship can pull in to port and leave 24 hours later with point defence missile system added if needed

Tempest414 wrote:there is no differences in systems and manpower needs between Mica and CAMM for me if you wanted to add a new missile system then SeaRam is the way forward much more easy use as a pooled weapon system as long as the ships are FFBNW there is no need to carry the system all the time but a ship can pull in to port and leave 24 hours later with point defence missile system added if needed

If you've got a radar and a CMS (which all RN ships have) then Sea Ceptor is exactly the same, but quicker. You just need a very basic frame with power, data connections and an operators console (just like SeaRAM) and you drop some encapsulated missiles in....and you get a missile with far superior range and speed that can operate in all weather conditions.

If you don't have radar and a CMS you shouldn't be anywhere near the fighting, and there are better things that the $25m cost of a loaded SeaRAM could be spent on.

As I keep saying for me we are now looking at a 100 meter Vanari leave the front end as is fitted with a 57mm and adding a 25 meter covered working deck leading to a 25 meter open working deck with a flight deck on top of the covered work deck. it should be fitted with a Scanter 4100 radar and M Cube CMS and be able to operate off board MCM , Survey , ASW , UAV's , helicopter and SeaRAM

That MICA price quote was hard to believe
- Singapore have them as they bought French for their frigates and MICA is...?

Timmymagic wrote: If you don't have radar and a CMS you shouldn't be anywhere near the fighting, and there are better things that the $25m cost of a loaded SeaRAM could be spent on.

Howabout the interchangability with the gun on a Phalanx mount?
- Phalanx only needs electricity and water from the 'ship systems'
- for the missile 'option' ... delete water

Tempest414 wrote:As I keep saying for me we are now looking at a 100 meter Vanari leave the front end as is fitted with a 57mm and adding a 25 meter covered working deck leading to a 25 meter open working deck with a flight deck on top of the covered work deck. it should be fitted with a Scanter 4100 radar and M Cube CMS and be able to operate off board MCM , Survey , ASW , UAV's , helicopter and SeaRAM

You've pretty much just described the Venator 90. Only it would have a better radar, CMS and weapon fit, the ability to contribute to task force operations and to operate as a single vessel in a low to medium threat environment.

But why pay $25m+ for a SeaRAM and an inferior radar when the same money will stretch to a decent radar and a VLS for CAMM? The radar would be useful all the time, not just at war, and you can put a 12 CAMM in a VLS quicker than you can install SeaRAM, and have far greater capability.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:That MICA price quote was hard to believe
- Singapore have them as they bought French for their frigates and MICA is...?

It was Indian procurement I guess.
But Singapore has Israeli Barak 1's, Aster 15's and 30's and Mistral. No MICA's elsewhere to be seen, but they do seem to have a decent relationship with the French side of MBDA so that may explain it.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Howabout the interchangability with the gun on a Phalanx mount?
- Phalanx only needs electricity and water from the 'ship systems'
- for the missile 'option' ... delete water

Still going to need a console, and integrating it with the combat system is still a good idea. SeaRAM being around for 15+ years and getting near the square root of bugger all orders should be instructive...the USN has installed it on 4 older AB's as a cheap fix and the Saudi's may get 4. Not really a glowing endorsement.

Timmymagic wrote:.the USN has installed it on 4 older AB's as a cheap fix and the Saudi's may get 4. Not really a glowing endorsement.

True, As you say, to make full use of the missile, CMS integration.

The gun was an idea for any old hulking hull... including what we call "RFAs". So that they could be sent to "odd" places