Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[andrew98]

River class renamed type 31

[R686]

http://indiandefence.com/threads/uk-typ ... ate.56379/

Post on Indian Defence claims there will be up to 9 T31s - is anyone familiar with this and where the number 9 may have come from?

You can't really call a post on a forum primary source material.

The Royal Navy will get at least two dozen Type 26 Global Combat ships

... see, told you.

Great news on the increased numbers of T26, thanks for sharing!
Seriously though, I was asking if anyone had any information of a source that might have prompted the poster to make the statement of "up to 9", since it isn't something I've seen anywhere else.

May have mixed up the RN with the RAN. as our NGF will be 9 hulls

[Jessie]

River class renamed type 31

Probably not far from the truth

[90inFIRST]

Parker demands work on T31

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/busin ... -fct2dllm9

[Spinflight]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38138874

Report due out on Tuesday now according to the article.

There's mention in there of 8 Type 26 and 8 Type 31, built modularly around the UK.

Would be a start...

[dmereifield]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38138874

Report due out on Tuesday now according to the article.

There's mention in there of 8 Type 26 and 8 Type 31, built modularly around the UK.

Would be a start...

I saw that but assumed it was a typo. Not sure whether it would be a food thing to see increased numbers - it might signify a watering down of the capability, unless there is a clear indication of an increased budget to allow for higher hull numbers...

[Spinflight]

Well if a clueless BBC type read the report which said eight, and didn't know it was previously mooted at five..

Guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[bobp]

The report appears to recommend eight T31 to make up for the loss in Hull numbers over the years. Also noticed that the government will publish a response in the spring.

[RichardIC]

Well if a clueless BBC type read the report which said eight, and didn't know it was previously mooted at five..

It's what is commonly referred to as "a mistake".

[bobp]

Naval Strategy published here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ent-report

[Pseudo]

Call me cynical, but the Type 31 should be an urgent project that produces a modern and innovative design that's affordable and exportable? If that doesn't sound like a recipe for a clusterfuck I don't know what does.

[RichardIC]

Naval Strategy published here https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ent-report

From a quick skim, quite uplifting. Call for urgency and innovation. Name-checks Venator.

[GibMariner]

The annexes to the report also has some charts on recommendations for Type 31: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 161102.PDF

Marketing:
• RN badged frigate with menu of option(s) choices will significantly increase appeal to overseas navies
• RN’s involvement and lead support in marketing effort - will be crucial from intelligence to demonstration of capability

Operational Costs:
• Critically examine speed/fuel consumption and optimise on cost
• Aim to reduce manpower
• Apply modern automation to high standards
• Machinery unmanned
• Fire Fighting: latest sensors, high fog auto release
• Laundry equipment

Design Concept:
• Options menu topside/defence system capability
• Standard hull and machinery and ship systems. Flexible choice electrical load
• Design for shorter life of 15 years - avoid costly refit - prepare to sell for export (earlier if necessary to support particular export sales)
• Launch of unmanned vehicles - GPFF as a platform for other capabilities
• All ships in series not fitted out to the same/desired specification
• Consideration might be given to first 2 ships with combat-spec fitted for but not with

Design Considerations:
• RN standards to be rigorously reviewed, costed and incorporated only when deemed essential
• Lloyds structural and commercial standards to apply generally to systems and materials
• Design to incorporate modules - engine room, cabins, Commercial Off The Shelf galley and laundry equipment
• Ease of combat and comms systems fit out to facilitate flexibility of choice
• Through life maintenance considerations including ease of maintenance and equipment withdrawal
• Key supply chain equipment to take account of strengthening supply chain export potential
• Incorporate commissioning engineers in design team to capture their experience early in the cycle
• Design for reliability

During Build:
• Inspection processes to be streamlined to ensure no in-built delays
• Aim should be to halve construction time via VSb from conventional single yard build approach

Some key points on the Type 31 from the report:

The General Purpose Frigate
13.The new Type 31e should not set out to be a complex and sophisticated warship
based on traditional design approaches. It should be a modern and innovative
design on a standard platform which should provide a menu of choice to support
exports and beat the competition. It should be termed Type 31e. The ‘e’ means
that export flexibility is inbuilt, not a variant.

14.The Type 31e should be prioritised, and act as a pathfinder project to pilot this
new governance and Virtual Shipbuilding (VSb) industry approach (see
recommendation 19 and Figure 4). It should be rapidly procured and placed into
service as early as possible in the 2020s. If necessary, wider Government
financial support should be provided to allow early build of the vessel. This will
enable the new governance approach to be embedded in order to deliver medium
to long-term savings in ship procurement.

15.Type 31e should be designed so that the price/capability point is an attractive
export proposition and then it should be delivered to a hard target cost
16.The MOD should determine the optimum economic service life for a naval ship
and then replace ships with new vessels at that point, rather than operate longer
and thus avoid expensive major refits. As a pathfinder, Type 31e should also be
procured as a RN asset that stimulates exports including via sales from the
Fleet.

The report also singles out BMT's "design approach" on the Venator and its "flexible/modular approach".

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

The whole built to Lloyds standards, incorporating RN standards only where absolutely essential, has already set off alarm bells for me. How long does it take for an important lesson to be forgotten? 34 years apparently.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Reviewing the naval standard itself is good, I think. But, it shall be carefully "trade-off'ed" I agree. For example, it will be very nice to compare RN standards with USN's one, since USN has a good reputation on damage control.

Say, do you really need "hand powered phone" (sorry I do not know the right name) if USN is not using it anymore? Note old assets are being obsolete = expensive.

But, also USN is paying much more manpower on damage control than RN. So, there is a risk, I agree. Hmm, not easy...

[shark bait]

Name-checks Venator.

I missed that.

I think the anti BAE theme is quite clear, which I think inadvertently hands the T31 design to BMT.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Reviewing the naval standard itself is good, I think. But, it shall be carefully "trade-off'ed" I agree. For example, it will be very nice to compare RN standards with USN's one, since USN has a good reputation on damage control.

Say, do you really need "hand powered phone" (sorry I do not know the right name) if USN is not using it anymore? Note old assets are being obsolete = expensive.

But, also USN is paying much more manpower on damage control than RN. So, there is a risk, I agree. Hmm, not easy...

The problem for me is that they look to be shaping their questions around a predetermined conclusion where build standards are concerned. I would agree that an objective review of what is, and is not, necessary would be a good thing and could help to generate some efficiency savings if it was found that RN theories on damage control were either outdated and or needlessly excessive in some instances. In this case, however, it appears as if the whole process is being driven as a means to cut costs - they are looking for things to dispose of.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Launch of unmanned vehicles - GPFF as a platform for other capabilities

- a nifty way to add 10% to the frigate budget
- instead of building 1:1 replacements

I think inadvertently hands the T31 design to BMT.

- that could be one thing (others building; Baes finishing the military fit-out)
- BMT could be in a challenger (architect/ engineering) role for other prgrms, too

[Enigmatically]

The whole built to Lloyds standards, incorporating RN standards only where absolutely essential, has already set off alarm bells for me. How long does it take for an important lesson to be forgotten? 34 years apparently.

Common misconception but it is not repeating those mistakes. Quite the opposite. LLoyd's rules for warships are very different from LLoyd's commercial rules. The former were not in existence 34 years ago (the first ship's built to them were T45s).

With Lloyd's we get an independent set of rules, and independent inspectors and auditors who are not under political, cost or project pressure to approve something they should not.

[S M H]

With Lloyd's we get an independent set of rules, and independent inspectors and auditors who are not under political, cost or project pressure to approve something they should not.

Lloyds naval standards are in fact higher than the naval construction standards that the M.O.D. used previously. The independent inspection stops the treasury driven cutting back on construction that bedevilled ship construction prior to the type23. Changing standards so that the ship completed for the price especially prevalent when costs increased. Prime example change of wiring codes for cheaper none flame retardant. Removal of packing on bulk head penetrations on the early type 42s. If anything we should support the policy rather than complaining. Wrongly thinking its use of merchant standards that Ocean was built transferred to warships.

[cky7]

I need to read the report properly and in detail again but am actually a little concerned after a quick first read. Whilst there were some sensible suggestions there was noting that wasn't really common sense or not been suggested here/elsewhere before. My main concern though was the report seemed to have been written with perhaps the biggest priorities being to make shipbuilding commercially/export successful and frighten BAES. Export in itself not a bad thing, but I got the impression this was all trying to find a way to do more with the same amount of money (was this the main point of the exercise from govt PoV?). There was no real interest in also getting the best for the RN, whilst export is important, giving our forces the best we can is more important IMO. There's little point building something we can sell to loads of small/third world navies if it doesn't in anyway match our needs. At one point I thought he was even suggesting the RN has to sell/loan ships if it would win an export order (no corresponding mention of giving them enough ships to always have the spare to be able to do this).

I'm all for trying our best to make uk shipbuildnig successful on the world stage but our problem from a warship perspective is that the RN has some unique needs that are in a lot of instances only matched by other nations that tend to have their build capabilities. We don't have to build our navy around exportable designs to be successful, sure include them where it doesn't degrade capability but never 'trade off' what the RN needs to safely fulfill the goals set it for a couple of sales. Look to the French for the right balance in some instances IMO. They didn't have to drop their SSNs to sell SSKs well did they?

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Common misconception but it is not repeating those mistakes. Quite the opposite. LLoyd's rules for warships are very different from LLoyd's commercial rules. The former were not in existence 34 years ago (the first ship's built to them were T45s).

With Lloyd's we get an independent set of rules, and independent inspectors and auditors who are not under political, cost or project pressure to approve something they should not.

You misunderstand me. My problem is not with the Lloyds rules/standards themselves, but with the suggestion that RN standards will not be adhered to when and where appropriate, only when it is absolutely necessary.

I'm positive the RN imposes its own standards on designs for very good reasons and i fear a situation where it will be told it will have to lower the bar and accept a product that might be, by some metrics, inferior to what they normally would have settled for with respects to things like survivability, damage control, maintenance etc.

[marktigger]

reading the report one thing lept out early on the lack of ring fencing for infrastructure in the defence estimates

[Spinflight]

Well my impressions on first read through are that he isn't talking about building 5 or even 8 of these, series and parallel production he's thinking at the very least double digits. And hoping for an awful lot more.

For instance in the annex there is a table listing 1500 OPVs, Corvettes and Frigates in service, with a further 500 planned across the world, over 200 of them frigates or corvettes.

Effectively he's talking about the Royal Navy holding and operating a pool of configurable ships ( Stanflex anyone?) which could be sold in short order. Most worldwide frigate buys are at least 2 or 3 units. Also he's effectively proposing it as a replacement for the mine countermeasures vessels. Which could also add weight to the project, and arguably budget.

He's also saying that an additional £200m per year spent on naval vessels has resultant beneficial economic effects almost regardless of their military utility. This is the language of the Treasury. £60k a head is a very large effect. Also that the current spend of £1.4 billion accrues an additional £1.5 Billion value added which is a Keynesian's wet dream. Economic stimulus via defence spending, all in needy parts of the UK. So we reckoned there might be a budget of £2.5B for the Type 31, assuming his argument holds for an extra £200m per year that would be £5.1B out to 2030, which should buy you more than 10.

I think what I liked most was his repeated use of the word urgent, specifically that the T31e should be considered an urgent project.

So build before you sell with the RN benefiting from economies of scale. He even proposes the first couple of vessels should basically be fitted for but not with, which basically means they would be shop windows ready to be configured to the end customer's wishes.

I seem to recall that the cutoff point for new hulls being cheaper than refitting older ones was between 15 and 17 years, though technology has advanced since then. He's basically saying sell the older hulls to get the newest kit on newer ones without the cost of a refit.

Modularity of course isn't that new. The Type 23s for instance were built in blocks, with the size of the blocks dictated by the maximum tonnage of the yards cranes. I think it was Swann which built 300t blocks and most of the rest 500t. With 5 yards building 2 blocks each you could probably roll three frigates out per year, though fitting out would take longer.

I'm rather optimistic for the first time in decades!

[marktigger]

or a GP ship depending on how sensors and weapons are fitted. In terms for the royal navy built as a frigate but for another country built as a Large OPV or large Corvette