Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Scimitar54]

Well there are always the “Batch 2” vessels and those for export.

[serge750]

More chance of getting a batch 2 of T31 Long range patrol frigates ( that's what I am calling the first batch ! ) than more than 8 x T26, still hoping for a better load on the B2....

[Ron5]

Well there are always the “Batch 2” vessels and those for export.

Checks calendar, nope not April Fools.

[Jensy]

Saw these on Twitter. Supposedly available on the Fife Councils website but darned if I could find them:

Courtesy of TomUK:

Babcock have received planing permission (24th Jan) for the construction of a new build hall at Rosyth Dockyard.

https://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/sea ... ion=simple[/url]

Direct link here: https://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/app ... Q10HFM6P00

Some interesting documents that deprived me of a good night's sleep a couple of weeks ago, plus everything you ever wanted to know about drainage at Rosyth Dockyard but were too scared to ask (docs 9, 11, 12)...

Doc 14 ''Design and Access Statement' has a nice bit of history on the dockyards with some old maps showings its growth over the centuries.

The new facility looks like a budget version of the one the Aussies are building for the Hunter/City class build. When combined with Babcock's existing metal bashing sheds it's almost a frigate factory. The old Syncrolift and the tracks leading to it are either being replaced with a larger one to handle the T31s or else they're going to have to use semi-submersible barges for launching. Not sure what purpose the Goliath crane will serve beyond maybe lifting sensitive superstructure modules or masts into place for fitting out? It doesn't look like any other yard is going to be involved in building the main hull sections and shipping them north anymore.

One particular detail I noticed was that the new hall will have 'demountable columns' separating the doors on each end. That gives up to 50m of width, so it could handle some sizeable chunks of any future large naval shipping (or even fantasy Albion Class replacements). If this was always intended, it explains why they willingly gave up the facility at Appledore. The new hall might not be a covered drydock but it helps concentrate all of Babcock's UK shipbuilding capability in one rather spacious and secure location.

With the capability to build two 150m+ hulls simultaneously, they might just get all five T31s in the water by 2028.

There is some irony that Scotland is finally to get a frigate factory (of sorts), just not where or for what it was originally intended/needed. A potentially Independent Scotland is going to be one the best equipped naval shipbuilding nations in the world, per capita, shame they only want a couple of OPVs...

[Ron5]

Thanks Jensy!

[ArmChairCivvy]

masts into place for fitting out?

+

The new hall might not be a covered drydock

I have understood (that does not mean that it is correct ) that integrated masts are put together in not quite a 'white room' and the electronics are enclosed and thus protected when the 'thing' is put in place

the capability to build two 150m+ hulls simultaneously,

side-by-side does not mean strictly simultaneous, but rather that the trades flow as waves though both of them in the same facility. 'The' Rand study for the carrier build established that a 37% concurrency would be 'cost optimal'
- the, rather than 'an' as the study was commissioned (whether by the Gvmnt directly or by the Carrier Alliance... memory does not serve )

[Jensy]

I have understood (that does not mean that it is correct ) that integrated masts are put together in not quite a 'white room' and the electronics are enclosed and thus protected when the 'thing' is put in place

Makes sense. Don't suppose it could come direct from a Thales site?

Weren't the French selling exports ships where the locals would build the hull and all the sophisticated bits would come nearly packaged and ready to 'plug n' play' from France. Can't remember which country (possibly South American) but it seemed like a good idea.

[ArmChairCivvy]

locals would build the hull and all the sophisticated bits would come nearly packaged and ready to 'plug n' play'

Also works like that between NL and Indonesia

[NickC]

There is a wide perception on the web that as the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt/T31 class (IH based on Absalon, ~80%) only built to 'commercial' standards so not 'real' navy warships and that's why so cheap.

The IH design incorporates stealth characteristics for low acoustic, radar, visual and infrared signatures, designed and built in compliance to DNV classification for naval ships with full NBCD and shock standards applied, the RDN made maximum use of commercial off-the-shelf kit, made possible by designing in shock mounted 'island' decks to fit equipment on, ship meets the following NATO standards
STANAG 4142 Shock Resistance Analysis of Equipment for Surface Ships
STANAG 4137 Standard Underwater Explosion Test for Operational Surface Ships and Crafts
STANAG 4549 Testing of Surface Ship Equipment on Shock Testing Machines
STANAG 4569 Protection Levels for Occupants of Logistics and Light. Armoured Vehicles.
STANAG 4447 Performance specification for ship's NBC air filter

IH has seven decks, subdivided into 15 water and gas tight compartments, six damage control and fire zones, three separate NBC citadels equipped with independent air conditioning, electrical power, power distribution panels and fire fighting pumps. Splinter protection shielding vital and hazardous areas plus steel armour (T26 using Israeli Plasan armour) around combat areas and technical galleries, wiring, pipes and ducts are multi-redundant and appropriately spaced to reduce consequent of hit.

Damage Control is part of the Integrated Platform Management Systems, IPMS, Rockwell Automation/ Logimatic (T26 fitting the L3 MAPPS Canadian IPMS) fire fighting system is Novenco's Xflow, the pump units in XFlow are shock-certified according to MIL-S-901D. Ship incorporates survivability and damage limitation features including dual redundancy, automated damage control zones, damage detectors and smoke zones. The ship’s on-board battle damage and control system continuously monitors the status of the ship and incorporates a closed circuit television observation system with more than 50 cameras, fire fighting installations, sensors and alarms, a load and stability computer.

In compliance with STANAG-1008, Characteristics of Shipboard Electrical Power Systems in NATO Warships (STANAG-1008 is based on MIL-STD-1399-300 defining the characteristics of the AC power interface between the power system and individual loads for USN ships) uses Swedish Roxtec sealing modules for cable and pipe transits onboard widely used in the marine industry, navies, commercial, offshore rigs etc meets USN NAVSEA qualification in accordance with MIL-P-24705A and MIL-P-24705/1.

As Tide class built to DNV classification so would not expect RN would require change to Lloyds Registry classification?, that would save the need for new and expensive and time consuming set of structural design calculations and drawings for class approval.

F362 Peter Willemoes 'aced' the RN 6 week flooding and fire FOST trials where ship is 'wrecked'.

Successfully underwent underwater explosive trials alongside ship, no details of weight of explosive or how close, pic below, would note when USN carried out the reduced strength shock trials on their two LCS ship variants, they offloaded kit before the trials, video shows that included the Bofors 57mm gun (don't know reason but doesn't give confidence in its operational survivability), post trial ships went back to shipyard for remedial repairs and re-installation of kit.

The big unknown question is what additional RN standards imposes on the ship design, can soon become very, very expensive, it depends what's written in the small print of Babcock contract, if wording open to question Babcock could be on the hook for tens of millions additional costs and programme slippages.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Some on this board seem to think that there is also (?) a NATO std for ASW

[donald_of_tokyo]

NickC-san.

Thanks for detailed info on Iver Huitfeldt classes hull shock testings. The details are not known, but having a test is alway better than not having (I do not think shock test is there to check if the system breaks or not (very low reproducibility/reliability), but rather to actually measure the shock in each location of the equipment to be compared to the shock tolerance level required to each boxes).

One thing to add is, how to accomplish the shock resistance is a bit special in IH-class = mounting many subsystems on rafts (officially stated). This means, taking space and weight = the ship has a little less space/weight margin than a similar sized other escorts. As the hull is large, this is not a big problem.

By the way, on FOST, I always has a question.

We all know River B2 and Bay class get though FOST. Not only escorts. Apparently, all FOST is tailored to each ship's design. Requiring the same ASW training to T45 and T26 is pointless. AAW as well.

"Passed FOST", to my understanding, means the ship (with its crew) can do what they state they can do. And never will be required to do anything they state they cannot. So, "IH-class getting though FOST" means the ship is fully operational, but does not mean any of its capability. Am I right here?

[Tempest414]

For me the big deal about a IH class passing FOST is that the RN would have put it though its paces and tested battle damage controls war fighting helicopter ops and so on and then would have made a full report on it which I am sure has been read when picking A140 for type 31 with this in mind the RN know what they are getting before it is built

[abc123]

By the way, on FOST, I always has a question.

We all know River B2 and Bay class get though FOST. Not only escorts. Apparently, all FOST is tailored to each ship's design. Requiring the same ASW training to T45 and T26 is pointless. AAW as well.

"Passed FOST", to my understanding, means the ship (with its crew) can do what they state they can do. And never will be required to do anything they state they cannot. So, "IH-class getting though FOST" means the ship is fully operational, but does not mean any of its capability. Am I right here?

Yeeeep. I also think that. Passing FOST means that ship's crew it sufficiently trained to do their jobs, nothing else.

[Ron5]

@Nigel

Copying and pasting large sections of brochures is nice but not conclusive.

The IH design was thrown out of both the Canadian & US frigate competitions for various reasons. It didn't last long in Australia either. One comment for the US was that the ship would require so much redesign to meet US warship standards, it would amount to a new ship and would lose any advantage of being a pre-existing design. One common factor was a feeling that the Danes had done themselves no favors by greatly overstating their costs savings which don't hold up to much examination.

By the way, the widespread use of commercial standards in IH to contain costs, is something the Danes themselves have been assiduously spreading. To them it's a point of excellence not criticism. SJP in his NSS recommended the same thing.

So no, nobody is saying the IH's aren't "real" warships except you.

What many, professional and amateurs alike, are saying is that:

1. The IH costs quoted by the Danes are not repeatable and were for an incomplete warship
2. IH used commercial standards to an extent that's not acceptable to all navies
3. IH hasn't "proven" anything apart from its ability to float and to partake in NATO exercises
4. Despite aggressive decade long marketing, no one has bought IH, it has failed in every international competition
5. In the UK, the base IH design won in a two horse politically decided, race. Way too soon to say its a failure or a success but when it enters RN service it will be significantly different from the original IH's
6. The Danish Navy is a very fine & professional lot

[NickC]

Copying and pasting large sections of brochures is nice but not conclusive.

Would be most interested if you could give list and source of the brochures you are referring to?, my info taken from snippets on web

The IH design was thrown out of both the Canadian & US frigate competitions for various reasons. It didn't last long in Australia either.

Really interested if you can back up this statement.

The USN point blank has refused to disclose which contenders had not made the cut for the FFG(X) competition, the only one for certain I know of was the Atlas Elektronic/Blohm&Voss bid with the MEKO 200 as they announced their bid, the RDN certainly did take IH to US on sales mission, but as far as know Danes never came to any agreement with US shipyard to make bid for FFG(X) eligible, unless source of Ingalls bid for which they have never ever released any details, though think it unlikely. (It does not say much for the USN selection process that one of the bids they did accept was from Lockheed based on their LCS Freedom, it went from a 3,500t to 6,000t+ before Lockheed eventually pulled it as proved totally impracticable to meet the requirements with its semi-planning hull).

Re Canadian competition only know of the Alion-Damen De Zeven Provinciën; Italian FREMM; LMC-BAE Type 26; Navantia F100, have never seen any mention of Danish bid with IH, source?

One comment for the US was that the ship would require so much redesign to meet US warship standards, it would amount to a new ship and would lose any advantage of being a pre-existing desig

Would agree, but then then to meet USN standards the Italian FREMM has been re-designed. Fincantieri added 300t of steel, increased displacement from 6,900t to 7,400t and length by 22 feet, new and more powerful DGs and electric motors etc

One common factor was a feeling that the Danes had done themselves no favors by greatly overstating their costs savings which don't hold up to much examination.

No knowledge, again interested in source for this comment.

So no, nobody is saying the IH's aren't "real" warships except you.

Bryan Clark Senior Fellow of the influential Washington CSBA think tank, former USN Captain and Special Assistant to the Chief of Naval Operations

What many, professional and amateurs alike, are saying is that:

1. The IH costs quoted by the Danes are not repeatable and were for an incomplete warship

Agreed as said RDN had the technical nouse to install and integrate the systems to keep within their tight budget

2. IH used commercial standards to an extent that's not acceptable to all navies

Would just quote Caribbean "Well - yes and no. The philosophy was to build those bits that needed it to naval standards and the rest to commercial standards. The end result was a design that survived standard shock testing (perhaps proving that they got the mix right?)"

3. IH hasn't "proven" anything apart from its ability to float and to partake in NATO exercises

Well that's a much better record than the T45 which cost approx three times as much per ship, long history of breaking down and now having a very expensive and time consuming shipyard propulsion re-build.

4. Despite aggressive decade long marketing, no one has bought IH, it has failed in every international competition

Again that applies to many navy ships, a prime example being the T45

5. In the UK, the base IH design won in a two horse politically decided, race. Way too soon to say its a failure or a success but when it enters RN service it will be significantly different from the original IH's

Agree

6. The Danish Navy is a very fine & professional lot

In spades

PS Not really a T31 news post

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ron5 wrote:
5. In the UK, the base IH design won in a two horse politically decided, race. Way too soon to say its a failure or a success but when it enters RN service it will be significantly different from the original IH's


Agree

What They dropped the ABM capability?

Never fear! - Let's add that back when we get as far as the Batch2

[Ron5]

Ron5 wrote:
5. In the UK, the base IH design won in a two horse politically decided, race. Way too soon to say its a failure or a success but when it enters RN service it will be significantly different from the original IH's


Agree

What They dropped the ABM capability?

Never fear! - Let's add that back when we get as far as the Batch2

The original IH didn't have it either. I don't think it had any AA capability at all when it entered service.

Gotcha!

[tomuk]

Ron5 wrote:
5. In the UK, the base IH design won in a two horse politically decided, race. Way too soon to say its a failure or a success but when it enters RN service it will be significantly different from the original IH's


Agree

What They dropped the ABM capability?

Never fear! - Let's add that back when we get as far as the Batch2

The original IH didn't have it either. I don't think it had any AA capability at all when it entered service.

Gotcha!

The IHs were built as AAW ships with appropriate medium and long range radar.

[Ron5]

Ah but did they have any missiles?

[ArmChairCivvy]

"Ah but did they have any missiles?"

Well, they had to pay for the F-35s first (minus 1... to show LM that not everyone is a milking cow... I think the Danes specialise in bacon)

The missiles, thus, rolled into the next 5-yr EP the Danish way: it is actually an agreement between political parties and also between defence branches, though the Biggest Chief can do some fine tuning between items.

Did you not notice when the Russian ambassador to Denmark said that they would extend the targeting list if Denmark was going to proceed with the ABM installation - missiles and all

[Ron5]

I just remember reading that when they went on their first NATO exercise, they had no AAW capability because it hadn't been installed yet. No problem with that, it happens, but it does put a dent in their costings.

[Aethulwulf]

I think the first of class Iver Huitfeldt frigate entered service in 2012, before its main mast and APAR radar were installed a year or so later.

Also, I believe the Danish navy didn't buy any SM-2 missiles until around 2018/19. Until then the frigates just had ESSM, plus empty Mk41 VLS.

Incremental procurement; do you think it's an idea that will catch on in the UK?

[ArmChairCivvy]

do you think it's an idea that will catch on in the UK?

I am in two minds... whether I hope (so) or wish (only)

[Repulse]

Incremental procurement; do you think it's an idea that will catch on in the UK?

I can see how it suits countries with smaller budgets or smaller procurement programmes around the edges of larger ones for larger countries to even out the overall budget - it all comes down whether increment 2, 3 etc actually happen.

[jonas]

More on the so called "Frigate Factory" :-

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/britai ... e-factory/