Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[ArmChairCivvy]

Carrying on from the Trident thread,

""A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence declined to confirm or deny whether the new general purpose frigate had been allocated a type number."

Either the defence of the realm or the commercial interest of the MoD would be severely harmed, and after a long and careful evaluation (as part of my job to provide information to the public) I have decided to withhold that piece of information... or what?!

[Lugzy]

Maybe the unwillingness to confirm or deny any new type number at this point , could mean they are still not 100% sure on which direction the proposed light frigate program will head in ,

Considering these vessels are not going to be built until the 2030s its still very early days in my own humble opinon , maybe it's possible a type 26 lite/gp version could still be on the table ? Even after the latest SDSR seemingly pointing to a whole new class..

Surely it's to early for the Gov to disregard any option at this time , if cost is a deciding factor in this program then surely using a current and mature design by the 2030s the type 26 , and then adapting it to fill the role would cost a lot less than starting from scratch with a whole new class ,

[PAUL MARSAY]

I think the FlF is really the way to go , the type 26 is really the Global Combat Ship ie a light cruiser not a fleet ASW escort. I do think there is a role for the type 26 but not as a carrier ASW escort . For me an ASW escort needs an embarked helicopter , no chinook capable flight deck , VL asroc and a light air defense system CAMM . To avoid multiple systems I would go with the 5inch gun , sonar would be the same as the type 23. I think this could be done on a batch 2 type 23 sized hull and would be my type 31. I would also have the venator 110 in its warfighting and constabulary roles as my type 83 and disposing of ALL the rivers.

[jedibeeftrix]

"A Type 26-lite"

That at least is what it should be.

[WhiteWhale]

"A Type 26-lite"

That at least is what it should be.

There is no real way of making the already barebones T26 any lighter. I suppose you could always remove the entire superstructure and ship some freight containers to make some of the running costs back.

[jedibeeftrix]

as saw "lite" as meaning less equipment, rather than not as heavy.

i.e. no TAS, wildcat rather than merlin, 76mm OTO, smaller CAMMS magazine and no strike length. cheaper drivetrain, and a less expensive CMS.

still get a large flight deck, useful mission bay, long endurance, amd large EMF, with a reasonable modicum of self defence.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Although the real cost of 8 T26ASW is yet to be uncovered, I think there is a high possibility that it has a cost-overrun problem. Seeing "votes" in this thread, I think I am not the only one who share this assumption. Then, the resources left for "5 (or hopefully more) Type-31s" would be limited.

# I am NOT saying discussing "Type-26 light/T26 equivalent" is useless. Everything is not settled. I am just saying, discussing more smaller option ("heavy OPVs spun as "frigates" ", as listed at the votes) is ALSO needed, because of the same reason. .

I here start from Khareef.

- Flight deck: Khareef deck length is ~20m. In comparison, River B2 = ~23m, T23 = ~23m, T45 = ~30m. --> To have a "Merlin capable deck", you need 3m additional.

- Hanger: Wildcat length in store is 13.5m, Lynx Mk.8 10.9m (Merlin 15.8m). If the Khareef hanger is only for Lynx, you need 2.6m additional to make it Wildcat capable.

Thus, to have "a Merlin capable deck" and "a Wildcat capable hanger", you need 5.6m additional. This can be done by "inserting" a 5.6m hull right after the engine room. Then, "99m & 2700t FL" hull will become "104.6m & 3000t FL" one.

With increased length, the top speed will improve a little. With larger fuel tank and store space, its range/endurance will also improve, but this may not be enough. From navyrecognition.com, Khareef's range is 4500nm@7.7kt (!) and endurance is 21 days. If scaled into 15kt (by assuming the drag-force being velocity-squared), the range will be 2250nm@15kt, very short.

As well-summarized in a PDF by STX Canada (ref: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/01/t ... t-drivers/), OPV cost drivers are "over all length", "speed" and "sensor/armaments" (p.41). So, to "increase the internal space, (easy) ship outfitting, and greater flexibility in interior arrangement" (p.18), increasing the beam will be a good choice. (Its impact to speed is not large below ~25kt (p.21).)

Then we shall increase the beam size from 14.6m to, say, 15.4m (5.6%). Then the displacement will become 3150t, 17% increased than the original 2700t of Khareef. Note it is now "heavier" than a Leander-class. In short, something like "104.6m x 15.4m, 3150t FL, 25kt top speed and ~5000nm range@15kt and 35days endurance". (though endurance increase is only a guess).

With no armament improvements, this is the expected hull size, I think.

#If you want 5in gun in place of 3in, you may need additional 2-3m of hull, possibly.

[Caribbean]

If you want 5in gun in place of 3in, you may need additional 2-3m of hull, possibly.

Donald-san - add 2 - 3 metres to your 104.6 and you get to around 107m - rather similar to the Venator 110 concept. It looks to me as if others are following the same thought process as you (and BMT seem to be recruiting!).

I initially thought that the Venator was probably close to what the Government (though possibly not what the RN) meant, when they spoke about a "lighter frigate ". After a while I started to think that the T26-lite proponents on here may be correct and that we were looking at something much larger, but with a reduced weapons load. I've now looked back at the language used at the time of the SDSR, and I think my initial thoughts may actually be closer to the truth, since I now think that the basis for comparison was not the T26, but the T23 (specifically the T23 GP), so we are looking at something "slightly lighter" (to quote the PM's SDSR statement) than the 4800t (light ) T23 as well as something slightly less capable (hence the comment about the T23 being "slightly overqualified for many of the tasks that it undertakes"). So I've now returned to my original opinion that the Venator 110 is closer to the mark than the T26-lite. I will be very happy to be proved wrong, but with so little concrete evidence one way or the other, all we really have to go on is the statements made at the time.

[marktigger]

something about the size of the Type 21?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald-san - add 2 - 3 metres to your 104.6 and you get to around 107m - rather similar to the Venator 110 concept. It looks to me as if others are following the same thought process as you (and BMT seem to be recruiting!).

Actually not. I am here talking about a minimum solution, and I think the VENATOR 110 light frigate is one level larger.

If you carefully read the VENATOR 110 "light frigate" concept, you will see it has a length of 117m, width of 18m, 4000t FL displacement. (ref: http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6102250/B ... 0Brief.pdf)

Originally, it was 117m long, 15m wide and 3200t FL. (ref: http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/1166510/B ... asheet.pdf). Yes, this is what I was discussing, starting from Khareef.

Right after SDSR15, it became 800t larger. What they did is very interesting.

They added width by 3m. From STX PDF, we know it do not cost much, make the ship easy for outfit, and enable flexibility, with not much impact on speed if around 20-25kts. And what they added with this "800t" is "mission bays". Nice to have with marginal additional cost.

But now I am talking about "bare minimum", so that's why my "enlarge Khareef" is very similar to the original VENATOR, and not VENATOR light frigate. It is so fat, so their fuel efficiency, peak requirement power of generator will need to improve = a bit more cost. Again, nice to have, but not for free.

Actually I prefer the VENATOR 110 light frigate version, but it is NOT the minimum.

I initially thought that the Venator was probably close to what the Government (though possibly not what the RN) meant, when they spoke about a "lighter frigate ". After a while I started to think that the T26-lite proponents on here may be correct and that we were looking at something much larger, but with a reduced weapons load. I've now looked back at the language used at the time of the SDSR, and I think my initial thoughts may actually be closer to the truth, since I now think that the basis for comparison was not the T26, but the T23 (specifically the T23 GP), so we are looking at something "slightly lighter" (to quote the PM's SDSR statement) than the 4800t (light ) T23 as well as something slightly less capable (hence the comment about the T23 being "slightly overqualified for many of the tasks that it undertakes"). So I've now returned to my original opinion that the Venator 110 is closer to the mark than the T26-lite. I will be very happy to be proved wrong, but with so little concrete evidence one way or the other, all we really have to go on is the statements made at the time.

I almost share your way of thinking. If we start with large vessel, it may end up in only 2 or 3 units = waste of resource. If we start from smaller vessel, with limited resource we may have 5, with a bit relaxed resource, we can increase the number.

something about the size of the Type 21?

Yes and no. I think this is the size, a (light/lighter) frigate with Helicopter assets need in minimum.

[shark bait]

Smaller surface combatants does not equal cheaper surface combatants, just ask the Danes.

[Pymes75]

They added width by 3m. From STX PDF, we know it do not cost much, make the ship easy for outfit, and enable flexibility, with not much impact on speed if around 20-25kts. And what they added with this "800t" is "mission bays". Nice to have with marginal additional cost.

I notice that the 18m Venator 110 concept also offers the provision of a 127mm Gun replacing the 76mm of the 15m version...

BMT clearly didn't have the FLF in mind at all!!

[donald_of_tokyo]

Smaller surface combatants does not equal cheaper surface combatants, just ask the Danes.

Why not? Ask Danes, and they will surely answer smaller is cheaper. You do not need to weld your steel, no need to equip all rooms with (navy standard) fire alarm and sprinklers, (navy standard) communication suites, (navy standard) flame free cables, (navy standard) explosion proof lights and water tight walls.

Of course, if the design density reaches some limit, the cost will start to rise, I agree. And I do think VENATOR 110 light frigate, or my proposed enlarge-Khareef based "light frigate" do not reach that density. You also need some margin. What size of mission bay? This question deserved discussion, and not always clear.

[jedibeeftrix]

do you have any more detail on this 18m beam venator 110 with a mission bay, SB?

[marktigger]

is it 110m at waterline or overall?

15m & 18m are wider than the type 21 so a bonus there

[Pymes75]

do you have any more detail on this 18m beam venator 110 with a mission bay, SB?

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/6102250/B ... 0Brief.pdf

[shark bait]

Why not? Ask Danes, and they will surely answer smaller is cheaper. You do not need to weld your steel, no need to equip all rooms with (navy standard) fire alarm and sprinklers, (navy standard) communication suites, (navy standard) flame free cables, (navy standard) explosion proof lights and water tight walls.

The Danes have built beautiful big frigate's and done a great job, delivering a series of affordable platform's.

I'm just suggesting being cautious when specifying a 110m frigate's. I will suggest that a proper seized surface combatant would cost the same as a light frigate, but be vastly more capable.

The real cost savings don't come from shaving off 20m of steel, they come from intelligence choices about the ships systems.

A venator is small, less flexible, and will be full of poor systems, with low scope for improvement.

A real frigate is big, flexible, and a mixture of systems, and the margin to improve them over time.

That is what I mean by, Smaller surface combatants does not equal cheaper surface combatants, over time your bigger platform will cost the same, but be vastly more capable.

This isn't just me babbling either, the efficiency's bigger platform's with a low design density is well documented by the U.S Navy, I am sure thay principal extends very similarly to the Royal Navy

[donald_of_tokyo]

The Danes have built beautiful big frigate's and done a great job, delivering a series of affordable platform's.

I'm just suggesting being cautious when specifying a 110m frigate's. I will suggest that a proper seized surface combatant would cost the same as a light frigate, but be vastly more capable.

The real cost savings don't come from shaving off 20m of steel, they come from intelligence choices about the ships systems.

A venator is small, less flexible, and will be full of poor systems, with low scope for improvement.

A real frigate is big, flexible, and a mixture of systems, and the margin to improve them over time.

That is what I mean by, Smaller surface combatants does not equal cheaper surface combatants, over time your bigger platform will cost the same, but be vastly more capable.

This isn't just me babbling either, the efficiency's bigger platform's with a low design density is well documented by the U.S Navy, I am sure thay principal extends very similarly to the Royal Navy

I cannot agree to you because all those you say just matches what WAS said for T26.

Retrofitting SeaCepter, S2087, 997 from T23. "Just" adding, huge mission bay, large flight deck, and a couple of Mk.41 VLS. I agree your bigger platform will be more capable, but I think it will be more costy. Because it WAS exactly the concept of T26.

I am just proposing another way of thinking. Build a VENATOR 110 (like) frigate, with "intelligent choices about the ship system", with "just enough" margin (not with "poor systems"). The design density issue of USN was, to my understanding, claiming AB DDG flight III is over density compared to flight-II vessels. I suppose VENATOR's design density is LOWER than AB Flight-IIs.

Anyway RN is going to have T26. Anyway T26 turned out to be costy. Thus, T31 shall go another trail. This is my comment.

[Caribbean]

As far as I can see, the language used in the SDSR indicated that they wanted to investigate building the 5 GP ships to a different "slightly lighter" design (presumably to keep the design teams in practice) and , IF they think they will be cheaper (and that includes, I think,running costs, as well as build costs), build more than 5.

A venator is small, less flexible, and will be full of poor systems

You may be right, but you can't really say that until you see a genuine design, rather than a powerpoint proposal. To be fair, I don't think that the Venator 110 as it stands is the final solution, but it's closer than a T26-lite, on current evidence. At c. 20% lighter than the T23, it falls outside the "slightly lighter" category to my mind. Around 10% seems closer.

They also suggested that the T23s were "overqualified" for the majority of the tasks that they undertake. The only thing that a T23 GP has that isn't needed in a GP frigate, is the capacity to be a good ASW vessel.

If you were to remove all the ASW features from a ship that is intended to be as capable as as T23, then I suspect that you could lose a small amount of volume (and thus displacement) and probably a moderate, but still reasonably significant amount of cost. However, as the new ship is probably intended to be "less capable" in other ways as well, there are probably some small additional changes as well. Changing the helicopter requirement to Wildcat-only hanger and Merlin flightdeck will also reduce volume and displacement slightly (a smaller flight deck would save a bit more as well) - maybe also reduce length by a few metres. Bringing down mast height slightly will allow a small reduction in beam and, again, some displacement. Consolidating all missile systems into a standard 16 cell VLS array will probably reduce costs slightly in build terms, as building to a standard is usually easier and cheaper than not doing so. Maybe use diesels instead of GTs to save on installation and running costs and then use all the standard stuff that the T23s and T26s are getting. Cross-deck Artisan, hull sonar, CAMM, decoys (missile and torpedo), secondary guns and 127mm gun from the GP T23s (obviously new purchases will be needed if more than 5 are built) and ffbnw Phalanx. If you really, really need to save a bit more money, drop the 127mm for a 76mm (though that might affect long-term running costs)

A T23 cost £135m in 2001 pounds, according to Wiki. According to the BoE, that is approximately £201.5m in 2015 pounds (average 2.8% inflation), If you double that to 5.6% to allow for defence inflation, its £289m (though the UK govt reckons defence inflation averaged 2.1% for the period 2004-2013), so, if you accept the rough approximation that the savings from cross-decking existing equipment might be offset by the costs of implementing greater automation (so smaller crew), it's not inconceivable that you could be looking at a 4300-4500t ship costing around £250-290m, with markedly reduced running costs compared to the T23.

[ArmChairCivvy]

it's not inconceivable that you could be looking at a 4300-4500t ship costing around £250-290m, with markedly reduced running costs compared to the T23.

Not far off from how the current project was launched (after the C1,2,3 had been dropped).

Though that was a Gordon Brown inspired, "Treasury in the lead" design, which round shaved off 1450 t from the baseline design (but added 7m of length!).

"As part of the ongoing cost/capability trade-offs, it was repeatedly reported that this cost was undesirable to the MoD and capabilities (and size) pared down to achieve a target cost of £250 million to £350 million each.

The displacement was reduced to 5,400 tonnes and the ship dimensions, 148m length with a beam of 19m."

OK, that is (was) still a thousand t more than now speculated by Caribbean. But how can you lose that much displacement while increasing length?
- takes us to what "slightly less capable" could have as its meaning
- I presume the ship's radar capabilities (mast height, allowable top weight) had much more to do with the size increase of T26 as compared to what ASW gubbings dictate
- so what was the "treasury" designed frigate then for, compared to what emerged in the form of T26
... lesser radar => less AAW capability; a less "tubby" platform required
... longer => a premium was set on speed

I.e. a fast patrol frigate that would have friendly air cover in high-threat areas?
- not quite our very own LCS, but probably quite close to what will emerge when its design flaws are corrected and it will grow to be a frigate

[marktigger]

having a merlin sized platform and hanger has allot more going for it. Wildcat is fairly limited and coupling T31 with merlin could give it some ASW capability. the larger hanger space also adds flexibility. how much could be saved by going back to more conventional propulsion like CODAG? or straight Diesels?

[ArmChairCivvy]

TD dug up this image 4 months ago
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-conten ... arison.jpg

So it is good to be explicit about the design benchmark:
-T23 redone vs. T26 light (vs. something else)

[donald_of_tokyo]

having a merlin sized platform and hanger has allot more going for it. Wildcat is fairly limited and coupling T31 with merlin could give it some ASW capability. the larger hanger space also adds flexibility. how much could be saved by going back to more conventional propulsion like CODAG? or straight Diesels?

I can hear a claim "Why not put your Merlin to T45, before going for T31?" And this claim is, I'm afraid, correct. It already has a large hanger, which only hosts a Wildcat now. T45 will be with CVF. So their Merlin will make them "true multi-purpose escorts".

However, having a Merlin capable hanger in T31 will be "very very nice", I agree. For example, you may be able to carry a Wildcat AND ScanEagles (both). If as wide as a hanger you have in T45, you can even embark 2 Wildcats (RN actually did it. So it is real, not power-point dream.)

So, I shall say (not to embark a Merlin) but to add significant flexibility for (current and future) air-based off-board assets, it shall have a hanger with a size similar to what T45 has.

[shark bait]

Donald, I am continuing to go off on this tangent so I am moving it to this thread.

continues from the OPV thread

Thanks Shark-bait-san. I confess I almost agree to your perspective, but came to different conclusion.

I think getting 5 (or 6) VENATOR 110-like, 4000+t FL lighter frigate is a GOOD answer, in the future world with "off-board systems".

All surface combatants will need to become platforms for other off-board systems, manned and unmanned, that are needed to overcome the range and speed limitations of a ship. Data superiority and stand off weapons will be crucial in conflicts. The problem is the weaponry on board a platform massively exceeds the range of its sensors, therefor off board systems are needed to increase data collection and sphere of influence of the platform. These off board systems require lots of space for launch, recovery, maintenance and storage. So as unmanned systems become more prolific, the platforms will have to grow to accommodate these.

Here, I think we are thinking about a bit different off-board systems.

ASW: I guess future ASW drones will be too large and too expensive to be mounted on T31. I have no idea it can be cheaper than a Merlin (= current ASW off-board system). It will be "a replacement" for Merlin, NOT "addition" to. Currently, RN cannot embark a Merlin on T23GPs nor T45s. Hanger is OK but the lack of Merlin number is killing. ASW drones will never be cheap, and RN will not get many of them. Even if purchased, I think it shall be embarked on T26. With 2 ASW-heavy-drones pinging (singing) and listening 10-20 km away from the ship in formation, the T26 (listening with BIG ear, in multi-static form) can provide very wide-area ASW coverage.

For me, there is no way for T31 to embark ASW drones, similar to the fact that T23GP nor T45 do NOT embark Merlin. I am not saying T31 will not do ASW. I am just saying they won't receive the silver bullet.

MCM: I think MCM drones shall be divided into 2 classes. What is really needed in a frigate is "detection". (HMS Alacrity's drama in Falkland war; Admiral asked her to go in-and-out of Falkland strait JUST to see if there is a mine, i.e. she will sink or not). Drones with side-scan sonar can do it. Full set of MCM system will be large and expensive, and will come with MHC vessels. No problem. The side-scan drones will be small, relatively cheap. Google "craft of opportunity" program. Tiny boats (such as HMNZS Moa) can carry a side-scan sonar to do it, so surely the drones equipped with it will also be cheap and small. VENATOR 110 can handle these drones for sure.

HADR: A VENATOR will be able to carry good amount of assets, it is as large as T23 = large enough.

Thus, a relatively small mission bays, as VENATOR 110 light frigates has, will be just the good size.

That does all make perfect sense, and if that is a far as off board systems go then something similar to the VENATOR design may work. I would worry you are constraining your self by the way things are done now, when we need a platform that can be just as brilliant in 2050, when things may be very different, and will need the flexibility and space to grow into new roles. It is there where I think a VENATOR type platforms falls flat.

I would also be slightly more ambitious about the amount of systems the platform could operate.

It seems like we are going back to the C1,C2,C3 concept. The scenario you have described sounds perfect for the C3 or MHC platform. I would like to see a C3 ship preform roles just as you described.

For the C2, or FLF platform I would like to see us being a little more ambitions, with the capabilities to operate multiple off board assets simultaneously without compromise. I would specify capabilities to operate 2 x CB90 type fast assault craft and UAV's simultaneously, or 2 x ARCIMS and a manned helicopter simultaneously. I think that would require significantly more capable and bigger facilities than your description, as well as having a much greater flexibility to adapt to future roles. I would pretty much want a British standard Absalom Class which huge facilities for operating off board sensors, which would slot into the C2 role rather nicely.

ASW drones is an interesting concept, it sounds like your are talking about the Americans ACTUV ASW drone, I will be too big and expensive to operate from another ship. However that drone is designed to be a global and independent system and therefor doesn't need a mother ship, but it is unarmed and needs another platform to bring the weapons.

Another concept is a swarm of smaller boats, that are essentially Multistatic active sonobuoys (which are cheap) with a motor attached, to provide a wide area local ASW capabilities. These smaller boats would need to be deployed and operated from a host mother ship, like the T26 or FLF, and would require extensive boat handling, storage and maintenance facilities.

I think if you add all of those up, alongside a radar, gun and VLS you are at the absolute limit of what the larger VENATOR design is capable of. It would worry me there such a small margin for growth left at the end.

Yes, this aspect is also important. RN already have 8 T26s, an it showed that the concept of "an escort with large mission bays for off-board systems" is expensive (if built in UK). I think we should avoid walking the same trail.

I don't think we can say it has shown that. It may have shown the worlds best tool for finding submarines is expensive. A mission bay, hangar and flight desk is not the expensive bit.

[Lugzy]

I've been reading the above posts with great interest but the question I ask myself is why do we need a totally new design ? , what is achieved by this new direction ? What benefits will this bring ? this in my opinon as not been answered tbh . It makes no sense except to serve as an excuse/reason to give out another blank cheque to probably BAE , ,

in my mind the gov had no real need to announce the cutting of type 26 numbers , none at all , the last 5 were not to be built for over 15 years from now , that type of decision is for a future government not this one in all honesty . I just hope this decision is reversed in a future SDSR and this new light frigate program is seen for what it is a waste and scraped .

To cut a proposed build from 13 to 8 vessels after a rumoured (£11.5b) as been poured into the type 26 program is at the very least crazy some might say criminal if confirmed , I just hope this figure is not correct tbh , to then pour money into a new design for what could be a limited build of up to 5 new vessels maybe more ( I wouldn't hold my breath on that tbh ) which are to be as there name suggests ,
smaller which equals less room to grow/adapt with future needs/operational requirements,

less well armed = reduced warfighting capabilities and no room to add more or new weapons ,

cheaper = that makes me laugh tbh , we will end up as always paying for gold and in reality getting bronze ,
why on earth pay ££££££££ to design/develop a less capable vessel , that type of money alone could probably pay for at least a few of the 5 type 26s which have been cancelled .

we have seen budgets cut and told that money as always is the deciding factor and this is also the reason the RN as seen cuts to ship/personnel numbers and received ships built for but not with ,
Adapting the type 26 hull to produce a vessel which would fill a light frigate role/requirement must be the cheapest way to proceed , by using the type 26 hull which by 2030s will be a mature design and already in full production , all tooling , machinery , work force etc will be already on site and fully operational , against paying for a all new concept/design work /tooling/machinery/ etc etc the cheapest/logical direction is clear but is being ignored.

By cutting down on weapon installations maybe by reducing camm numbers , reducing mk41 strike length cells or maybe not adding any and instead using mk41 tactical cells , keep the 5inch , invest in buying MS-SGP , the overhaul costs should decrease , (I'm sure everyone as there own ideas about this part , these are just examples )

but the most important positive of using the type 26 hull would be its room to grow at a later date if operational requirements , future weapon advancements called for it to do so , it would be of a size to be adapted , steal is cheap compared to the cost of weapon/operational systems inside a modern warship,
A type 26 lite , built for but not with in this case would be acceptable in my opinion ,

Feel free to disagree