UK Defence Forum

Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3

Repulse wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3

Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some upgrades. C3 are the B1 Rivers, Echos and Commercial design ships which need Escorts.

Ideally something like 16 C1s (T45s and T26s), 10 C2s (inc upgraded B2 Rivers) and 12 C3s.

Jake1992 wrote:The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26

Repulse wrote:Would agree with this and your classification of C1. Where I disagree, is that the C2 are not “fighting” ships, they are able to defend themselves either as Singletons or as part of a task force - e.g. B3 Rivers (lower end Leanders) and what the B2s could be with some

Tempest414 wrote:C2 = Type 31 ( global Patrol mid range fighting ships )

Lord Jim wrote:We should have stuck to the C1/C2/C3 programme

Jake1992 wrote:

Repulse wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:We will have C1 , C2 and C3

The original c2 was meant to be a stripped down T26 or in today’s terms a decently armed Arrowhead would fit.
Your c2 sound very much what the original c3 which was meant to be based on the black swan design.

For me the C3 should be something like the black swan or Venari 95 discussed on here.

I’d be ok with ( not happy ) 16 C1s ( T45/T26 ) and around 20 C3s as above with 5+ OPVs for EEZ work.

Jensy wrote:

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Contrary to 'folklore' about T31 being a rushed idea, the decision to to split the class in two (8+5) was taken in 2010, but seeing T-26 through the main gate took longer than anyone had expected

[...]

Officially, of course,T-31 only came out of the 2015 SDSR ( by then it was apparent to all that T-26 was going to be too expensive. Despite the fact (!?) that the concept and assessment phases of Type 26 development emphasised cost efficiency).
- what happened in 2010? Britain had just cut its defence budget of 36.9 billion pounds by eight percent in real terms up to 2015.
- but Osborne had promised 'jam' thereafter. 'Better' defence and security reviews were due in 2015 and 2020, which could alter future plans.
- Reuters reported on Nov 29 (, 2010) :

Back in the old days, the escort part of the old FSC (Future Surface Combatant) program was supposed to be made up of:

10 x C1 (Top tier ASW "Combatant")

+

8 x C2 (Medium sized Vessel Derivative - for "stabilisation")

These 18 ships were not of the same baseline, displacement or indeed hull-form. The below 2006 BMT concept, gives a good indication of the scope of the C2. It interestingly looks a lot like Venator 110 from the rear.



This second image is a for a "Thales concept about 135 metres long, which would indicate a full load displacement between 4,000 and 5,000 tonnes", defined as a "basic General Purpose frigate".



Medium gun, basic AAW system, lots of room for unmanned systems and potential for specialised upgrades. This does not seem a million miles away from the T31 RFI of last year. The main focus seems to be on excess space and modular options for off-board systems.

If there was only discussion of 13/13+ Type 26s for a limited time around 2010, whilst before and since it has been intended to have 10 ASW + 8 GP, now reduced to 8 + 5, has it truly been such a massive downgrade? Especially considering the reductions to other sectors of the Royal Navy? e.g. subs, AAW destroyers, fixed and rotary wing aviation.

Jensy wrote: The main focus seems to be on excess space and modular options for off-board systems.

Tempest414 wrote:8 x Harpoon

Repulse wrote:

Tempest414 wrote:8 x Harpoon

This as far as I know is an optional extra not included in the base T31 cost - and is unlikely to be within the £250mn price bracket, or have I missed something?

Tempest414 wrote:For me this is the key. The UK has a 13 Billion pound budget for missiles so the CAMM and Harpoon for T-31 should come from this budget. All T-23's and 45's going East of Suez are fitted with Harpoon so why would RN not fit them to T-31 when deploying to the same region. For me I see T-31 coming FFBNW Harpoon which will be fitted to ships as needed

Jake1992 wrote:Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?

The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.

Tempest414 wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:Won’t there be enough canister ( 13 sets ) from the T23s to alllow each T31 and the remaining 2 T45s to have there own ?

The phalanx pool I surely going need to be increased though as were going from only 3 on ocean to 3 for each QE but the big increase in from none needed for the T23s to all of a sudden 2 needed per T26 and 1 per T31. Yes we’re not arming them all at once but that’s still a good increase to numbers required day to day.

If we were to order more I would go for 10 SeaRam to allow both carriers to have 2 each and HMS Albion to have 1 leaving a pool of 5 for RFA ships or the FLSS. This would free up Phalanx units for the Escort fleet

donald_of_tokyo wrote:SeaRAM is completely a different class of weapons compared to Phalanx CIWS. It is somewhere in-between CAMM and CIWS. I'm afraid buying SeaRAM will mean completely omitting CAMM from T31e. So, "5 T31 with only SeaRAM and no CAMM", or "5 T31 with CAMM and CIWS FTR", will be the answer, I guess.

This is surely a valid option, but I prefer to keep CAMM, because it is one of the few "British weapon" good a export these days.

By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.

Pongoglo wrote:

donald_of_tokyo wrote:
By the way, canisters from T23 will NOT be used in T31e. Second Sea Load clearly states (in the answer to Engaging Strategy-san's question on twitter) that equipments transferred from T23 to T31 will be very limited. I also thin even Mk.8 4.5inch gun cannot be transferred. The two 30 mm canons, "may be", because the 2ndary export user may be happy with 25 mm guns, in place.

Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?

Jake1992 wrote:

Pongoglo wrote:Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?

Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capability

donald_of_tokyo wrote:

Jake1992 wrote:

Pongoglo wrote:Donald your use of the upper case suggests you seem very certain on this , you have some insider knowledge perhaps ? If next gen Harpoon is selected as the interim SSM why would we not - we transferred the mountings from the Batch 3 T22's across to T45 , so why not T23 to T31 ?

Or at the very least 2 sets to allow allT45s to be fitted with an ASM capability

Sorry for not being clear. I meant "canister" the CAMM tube here.