Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[shark bait]

Having a mission deck, raise the flight deck 1 layer, locate a Wildcat hangar will be doable

What the vale added over the BMT design? also the mission deck on the BMT design is 2 decks tall.

#

There has been a lot of work done on the venator 90 design, and it look like a very reasonable solution, I don't see why we would undo all that hard work.

That being said I believe the Royal Navy would be in a better position if they replicated those features on a commercial hull and invest the savings in a bigger escort fleet.

[Gabriele]

River is 90m long, the same as Venator 90 concept. Also it can be added with 5-10m hull extension, as BAES are proposing with Avenger (22m extension!, I don't like it). Having a mission deck, raise the flight deck 1 layer, locate a Wildcat hangar will be doable

You are designing the Venator 90 again. I guess it could be doable, but why should you want to do it? Just take the Venator 90 design, no? These are no low-profile changes. The River's stern right now is full of stuff, can't change it that easily, not to mention rising a deck.
It is easier to put a hangar on Venator than completely redesign the River. It wouldn't be a River anymore by the time you are done.

I am not sure MHC do need CAMM. Such a case = send MHC in singleton within ASM threats, will be rare. (yes, non-zero, but rare possibility). In such a rare case, embark MCM kit on T26 and send her, or send MHC with "properly equipped GPFF" or T26. SeaCepter is not a point air defense missile. It's local-area air defense. Having CAMM on MHC is "nice", I agree, but not "must", this is what I am saying. Maybe 12 CAMM FFBNW will be good, I guess.

Even if it does not need CAMM when it is removing mines (and i think it might well need it, as a competent enemy will pair missiles with the hindrance of a minefield), it needs it to be a useful patrol ship. Venator 90 as offered comes with 4 quadpacks of CAMM, for 16 missiles. That's not at all a bad thing.
So you let the actual frigates do their job in the meanwhile, instead of requiring them to stick within CAMM distance of the MCM mothership.

I guess the 8 Venator 90 is MHC, you mean?

Yes, exactyly. And in the same time, a Type 31 alternative in low intensity roles. While the 2 additional ASW frigates help fill the high intensity gap.

[marktigger]

River B.2 as MHC:
It'll take more than that, as a hangar is also required. And there are good reasons to integrate some more weapons than a River has, since doing it would increase the usefulness of the class and enable the ships to go about their job of cleaning waters from mines even in presence of some enemy action.

Two comments here.
- River is 90m long, the same as Venator 90 concept. Also it can be added with 5-10m hull extension, as BAES are proposing with Avenger (22m extension!, I don't like it). Having a mission deck, raise the flight deck 1 layer, locate a Wildcat hangar will be doable. It is very similar to your "Venator 90 with CAMM and a bit more of a hangar about them", I guess. (while I am not convinced with equipping it with CAMM).
- I am not sure MHC do need CAMM. Such a case = send MHC in singleton within ASM threats, will be rare. (yes, non-zero, but rare possibility). In such a rare case, embark MCM kit on T26 and send her, or send MHC with "properly equipped GPFF" or T26. SeaCepter is not a point air defense missile. It's local-area air defense. Having CAMM on MHC is "nice", I agree, but not "must", this is what I am saying. Maybe 12 CAMM FFBNW will be good, I guess.

And i remain completely and utterly unconvinced about the presumed super-standards on british ships, by the way. They'll be good, but i have yet to see the exceptional that justifies certain expenses.

Reasonable comment I admit. On which, I cannot answer. If you can make it "Floreal-level", the Venator 110 frigate even with CAPTAS-4 will be available within 300M GBP cost. It can work as a "close escort" to the "vast mission bay for any future modular system" = CVF. Quite reasonable approach I think.

Give me 10 Type 26 ASW, ditch Type 31 and focus on 8 Venator 90 with CAMM and a bit more of a hangar about them, and the end result will be far more convincing than the likely alternative.

I guess the 8 Venator 90 is MHC, you mean?

so you scrap Mine warfare and hydrography vessels to get more frigates!!!!!!

like you scrapped Frigates and Destroyers to get Unuseable aircraft carriers

so the robbing peter to pay paul continues what next you scrap Amphibious ships to get mine hunters and Hydrography vessels?

[Gabriele]

so you scrap Mine warfare and hydrography vessels to get more frigates!!!!!!

The crap are you saying, man...? Look up the Venator 90. It is exactly the kind of flexible mothership that C3 and MHC are meant to be. The rest is the task of the unmanned vehicles and boats loaded upon the ship. This is what MCM & Hydrographic Capability (MHC) is all about, if you have missed the previous episodes. It is the Royal Navy's plan, and it has been for a decade, to eventually replace MCM and H ships with a more widely usable 3000 ton mothership.
You think that keeping it a separate programme will magically allow you to build as many 3000 tons ships as there are 150 tons minesweepers...?

Under no circumstances are you going to avoid a reduction in hull numbers from the current 15, soon enough 12, MCM vessels plus hydrography ships. You can accept it and plan to still make the most out of it, or waste money on pointless fake frigates and then end up with even fewer, and less useable MHC ships. Like it or not, it is how it is.

[marktigger]

so you scrap Mine warfare and hydrography vessels to get more frigates!!!!!!

The crap are you saying, man...? Look up the Venator 90. It is exactly the kind of flexible mothership that C3 and MHC are meant to be. The rest is the task of the unmanned vehicles and boats loaded upon the ship. This is what MCM & Hydrographic Capability (MHC) is all about, if you have missed the previous episodes.

the Jack of all trades master of none type vessels that will be misrepresented and misused. Miss represented by treasury and ministers as being capable of replacing vessels 3:1
missused by ambitious naval officers who feel they are running a frigate not a mine hunter or hydrography vessel in order to further their own careers.

this concept will be the end of hydrography & Mine warfare specialisms as the guys and girls vote with their feet!

[Gabriele]

this concept will be the end of hydrography & Mine warfare specialisms as the guys and girls vote with their feet!

Tell it to the Royal Navy, and to the US Navy too, which is replacing all minesweepers with LCS. When you are done, come back to me.

[donald_of_tokyo]

What the vale added over the BMT design? also the mission deck on the BMT design is 2 decks tall.
#
There has been a lot of work done on the venator 90 design, and it look like a very reasonable solution, I don't see why we would undo all that hard work.

Thanks for the info. I shall make it clear.
- Venator 90 is a concept, never really built. So there is no "detailed design" there. River B2 is there, and you can re-used many of them. I think this is actually a big difference.
- Repulse-san says about "build in number", and also some others. You already have 5 Rivers, why not use the design?

By the way, I do like the Venator 90 concept itself, except for its CAMM launcher taking off the location of helicopter hangar.

That being said I believe the Royal Navy would be in a better position if they replicated those features on a commercial hull and invest the savings in a bigger escort fleet.

"Relatively" better. Those MHC will be never be cheaper than the Hunts. It is large, armed well, which already offsets the "non FRP/non special hull", I think. It also has exactly the same MCM kits. If added with CAMM, it needs 3D radar and dedicated CMS, so-so high level, surely it will largely exceed the cost of Hunts.

[Gabriele]

Repulse-san says about "build in number", and also some others. You already have 5 Rivers, why not use the design?

Because i don't think it cost effective to try and "modify" the design so much. They didn't even dare to add a small hangar in the latest orders, can you imagine a complete redesign? Equipment fit commonality and use of same construction methods etcetera where applicable, sure. But don't think you can go beyond that.

Relatively" better. Those MHC will be never be cheaper than the Hunts. It is large, armed well, which already offsets the "non FRP/non special hull", I think. It also has exactly the same MCM kits. If added with CAMM, it needs 3D radar and dedicated CMS, so-so high level, surely it will largely exceed the cost of Hunts.

It will be, on a per ton basis. Hunt was most expensive ship on earth, per ton. And it is virtually useless for anything other than its main role.
The new ship will of course cost more (that was always implicit in MHC) and they will be fewer, but it will be more deployable (steel hull, stores, endurance) and useful across more roles.

[Repulse]

The hysteria is astounding.

The real cost at the moment is caused by indecision. Stopping the build of Rivers at 3 and getting on with the T26 should be the imperative, this actually saves money.

The T31 is political in two ways, both linked to the failure of the T26. The first is that the T26 was supposed to prove the new way of procurement would save serious cash, it hasn't, not was it likely to given the need for a capable platform. Second, the T26 was supposed to be an export winner, it is not and again given that the countries that can afford it want to build their own, it again was never going to be.

So the T31 has to be different, it has to be useful and standout amongst its peers, it also has to be affordable and a platform that can be adapted to individual customer needs. For me this is the MHPC and an extended Venator 90.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Because i don't think it cost effective to try and "modify" the design so much. They didn't even dare to add a small hangar in the latest orders, can you imagine a complete redesign? Equipment fit commonality and use of same construction methods etcetera where applicable, sure. But don't think you can go beyond that.

I do not have strong opinion here, but I just still do not understand your point, sorry. So, for clarity...

MOD's (not BAE's) un-willingness to add a hangar has nothing to do with BAE's (in-)capability to extend the hull and add a mission deck, as well as a hangar. "Equipment fit commonality and use of same construction methods", I am saying more. The bow to the mid-hull and most of the main hull can be just "re-run", with even most of the cabling (fit out) to be the same. Just add 10m of section after the bridge, modify all the super structure/flight deck after the bridge, then you may be able to have a 100m long, River B2-based "extended Venator 90 like" ship.

By the way (which ever the MHC is based on Venator 90 or River B.2), my proposal is to build some of them WITHOUT CAMM and CMS. Just simply omit it. By not doing many of the fit out of these "complex" systems, RN may be able to build 4 (with CAMM) and 6-7 (without) MHCs with the cost of 8 MHC all with CAMM, I guess. The former 4 can be called GPFF(or Patrol frigate), if needed. (with 2 additional T26, it will make up 6 "T31 remnants"). The latter 6 can be happily used in most of the MCM tasks currently done by the Hunts/Sandowns. As you know, most of their tasks DO NOT require CAMM.

[Gabriele]

By the way (which ever the MHC is based on Venator 90 or River B.2), my proposal is to build some of them WITHOUT CAMM and CMS. Just simply omit it. By not doing many of the fit out of these "complex" systems, RN may be able to build 4 (with CAMM) and 6-7 (without) MHCs with the cost of 8 MHC all with CAMM, I guess. The former 4 can be called GPFF(or Patrol frigate), if needed. (with 2 additional T26, it will make up 6 "T31 remnants"). The latter 6 can be happily used in most of the MCM tasks currently done by the Hunts/Sandowns. As you know, most of their tasks DO NOT require CAMM.

Most of their tasks have never happened during an actual war against an enemy with the ability to shoot anything at them, that's different.

Building some without complex weapons is an option but rather more for replacing the River Batch 2s at the end of their life. The other ships must have usefulness, that is the WHOLE point of the entire exercise, through C3 to MHC.

[marktigger]

this concept will be the end of hydrography & Mine warfare specialisms as the guys and girls vote with their feet!

Tell it to the Royal Navy, and to the US Navy too, which is replacing all minesweepers with LCS. When you are done, come back to me.

I wondered when LCS would rear its head...that appears to have gne so well the Americans are looking at something else more akin to a Frigate

[shark bait]

They're not, they're sticking with the LCS.

It has some issues, and they decided to learn and work through them. ( They should also buy CAMM for them )
Like the F35, it's suppose to be different way of doing things, and people start crying that is performs differently to the previous generation.

[Gabriele]

I wondered when LCS would rear its head...that appears to have gne so well the Americans are looking at something else more akin to a Frigate

Not quite. They are making the towed sonar permanent (oh, look!) and adding anti-ship missiles to a slightly improved LCS. And the MCM bit is unchanged, too.

[Engaging Strategy]

I wondered when LCS would rear its head...that appears to have gne so well the Americans are looking at something else more akin to a Frigate

Not quite. They are making the towed sonar permanent (oh, look!) and adding anti-ship missiles to a slightly improved LCS. And the MCM bit is unchanged, too.

IMO the LCS is a solid idea, once it's been up-armed a bit. Its problem is the unfathomably stupid speed requirement that detracted from other aspects of the ship.

[Gabriele]

IMO the LCS is a solid idea, once it's been up-armed a bit. Its problem is the unfathomably stupid speed requirement that detracted from other aspects of the ship.

That's what i think, too. And yet, it could still be "saved" with a CAMM purchase instead of going with vertical launch Hellfire. CAMM has an anti-FIAC ability too, according to MBDA, and it would fill the SAM hole. That would suddenly improve the ship a whole lot, with limited expense involved.

"Not invented here" syndrome.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The hysteria is astounding.

The real cost at the moment is caused by indecision. Stopping the build of Rivers at 3 and getting on with the T26 should be the imperative, this actually saves money.

Quite right.

LCS is a solid idea, once it's been up-armed a bit. Its problem is the unfathomably stupid speed requirement that detracted from other aspects of the ship.

Yes, a corvette, with the installed power of a cruiser
... and after the first 32 they will have -wait for it! - frigates

[Repulse]

The government are saying they will spend £8bn on new surface ships over the next 10 years. I assume @£1bn is to finish off PoW, and you buy 10 T26s at £6bn, this leaves £1bn, which I'd say start the MHPC Venator build starting with 4-5 hulls

[marktigger]

It will be, on a per ton basis. Hunt was most expensive ship on earth, per ton. And it is virtually useless for anything other than its main role.
The new ship will of course cost more (that was always implicit in MHC) and they will be fewer, but it will be more deployable (steel hull, stores, endurance) and useful across more roles.

What else do you want a coastal mine sweeper/hunter to do? they have also used as patrol boats!
Yes per ton they were hugely expensive but also proved GRP could be used to build larger vessels something the Italians copied on the lerechi class.

[marktigger]

The government are saying they will spend £8bn on new surface ships over the next 10 years. I assume @£1bn is to finish off PoW, and you buy 10 T26s at £6bn, this leaves £1bn, which I'd say start the MHPC Venator build starting with 4-5 hulls

I would suggest that the hunts have life in them left and there is one in training role that could be returned to service cheaper than building a new vessel. As a stop gap for the next 10 years. phasing out the sandowns if they are looking at a mine hunter fleet around 8 I'd say a higher priority could be replacing or sorting out the E class

[marktigger]

IMO the LCS is a solid idea, once it's been up-armed a bit. Its problem is the unfathomably stupid speed requirement that detracted from other aspects of the ship.

That's what i think, too. And yet, it could still be "saved" with a CAMM purchase instead of going with vertical launch Hellfire. CAMM has an anti-FIAC ability too, according to MBDA, and it would fill the SAM hole. That would suddenly improve the ship a whole lot, with limited expense involved.

"Not invented here" syndrome.

isn't one of its other major criticisms lack of range and endurance I think something was said about them being fine in the pershian gulf but not so useful in the south china sea. Which is why the next design will be bigger and better armed more like a frigate

[Repulse]

I would suggest that the hunts have life in them left and there is one in training role that could be returned to service cheaper than building a new vessel. As a stop gap for the next 10 years. phasing out the sandowns if they are looking at a mine hunter fleet around 8 I'd say a higher priority could be replacing or sorting out the E class

I have no problem with this as I was thinking the first 4 would be in "heavy" config and 1 in "lite" to replace HMS Clyde.

[shark bait]

They're going to be the, same size, just better armament and additional protection for sensitive areas.

[Gabriele]

isn't one of its other major criticisms lack of range and endurance I think something was said about them being fine in the pershian gulf but not so useful in the south china sea. Which is why the next design will be bigger and better armed more like a frigate

They are going to be LCS hulls still, as you've already been told. But it comes back to the speed requirement: an extreme that could and should have been avoided, in favor of other characteristics. Then again, forward basing is part of the LCS's game.

What else do you want a coastal mine sweeper/hunter to do? they have also used as patrol boats!
Yes per ton they were hugely expensive but also proved GRP could be used to build larger vessels something the Italians copied on the lerechi class.

Lerici class, please.

And i'm not asking anything more out of the Hunt, it was the best that could be purchased, in its time. The point is that now things have changed, and its replacement thankfully can come with far greater usefulness.

I would suggest that the hunts have life in them left

No one doubts it. The first MHC is due in 2028, in fact, and the Hunt is the current candidate mothership thanks to its relatively open stern area, which is due to be converted with a UUV / USV hangar and A frame for their launch and recovery. But given the time these things take, it is high time to plan ahead.

[marktigger]

What else do you want a coastal mine sweeper/hunter to do? they have also used as patrol boats!
Yes per ton they were hugely expensive but also proved GRP could be used to build larger vessels something the Italians copied on the lerechi class.

Lerici class, please.

And i'm not asking anything more out of the Hunt, it was the best that could be purchased, in its time. The point is that now things have changed, and its replacement thankfully can come with far greater usefulness.


No one doubts it. The first MHC is due in 2028, in fact, and the Hunt is the current candidate mothership thanks to its relatively open stern area, which is due to be converted with a UUV / USV hangar and A frame for their launch and recovery. But given the time these things take, it is high time to plan ahead.

they are still doing the job they were designed to do and doing it well yeap they are a very adaptable design and that isn't by mistake the people who designed them knew what they were doing and based it on experience with the Ton class and experience of its many different roles. And designed to be Coastal Mine sweepers/hunters not pimped patrol boats or emasculated frigates.