Yes but not great either.
Your reasoning is solid but RN has been messing around with these half fixes with suboptimal outcomes for years.
It’s difficult to reach any other conclusion apart from the thinking isn’t entirely joined up.
Yes but not great either.
But being able to load ARCIMS isn't the justification for T32 or any other class of five frigates.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑26 Feb 2024, 16:50That is the simplest solution but RN have chosen not to do it and therefore all kinds of logistical contortions will be enviable downstream.
Justifying an entire class of five Frigates to accommodate a system is crazy if shrinking the LOA by 15% solves it.
If this is the justification for the T32 it’s going to be a hard sell to HMT.
It will be interesting to see the Starboard side of the first T-31 now its built so little coming out about T-31Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑26 Feb 2024, 16:53Yes but not great either.
Your reasoning is solid but RN has been messing around with these half fixes with suboptimal outcomes for years.
It’s difficult to reach any other conclusion apart from the thinking isn’t entirely joined up.
Maybe not, but having the ability to operate boats larger than a pacific 24 is pretty fundamental for modern warship designs.
Is it? What frigates and destroyers can handle a bigger than 9.5m boat?
Type 26 for one, Freedom class for another
First Freedom class isn't a frigate or Destroyer some might call it a corvette and a not very successful one at that.
So the Freedom class isn’t a Frigate but the T31 is - I’m really trying to avoid circular discussions (especially on costs), but this is getting surreal.tomuk wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 03:28First Freedom class isn't a frigate or Destroyer some might call it a corvette and a not very successful one at that.
It’s not wasted, it’s just that we’ve not bought enough (again not wanting to get into circular arguments).On T26 there are some who say its mission bay is wasted on a ASW frigate that will be dedicated to CSG\TAPs and not carrying out any singleton deployments.
As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one
To expand the escort force to 24 to cover the standing patrols we have neglected for too long I would off guessed.
Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capabilityScimitar54 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 04:51 May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.
The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.
T31 in
Reasonable argument. However, I am not so much "against" current T26. ASW frigate is NOT always doing ASW. Actually, ASW tasks happens in very limited theater. When CSG deploys, using multi-purpose T26 is very good.Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 10:11Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capabilityScimitar54 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 04:51 May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.
The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.
T31 in
Absolutely not. Single role ships are a luxury for the very largest navies. Falklands proved this beyond any doubt.Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 10:11Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capabilityScimitar54 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 04:51 May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.
The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.
T31 in
That's a somewhat scurrilous statement...Repulse wrote:As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one
Depends on your PoV - without going down another rabbit hole, my view is that the UK needs to focus on quality over mass. Outside of UK / BOT defence it needs to have capabilities that are tier one, not just replicas of most of our allies, especially given the over reliance within NATO on the US - this is why CSGs, SSNs, AAW, ASW, MCM and BMD for example is more important than light GP frigates. In this case IMO there is no basis for a batch 2 T31.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 14:36That's a somewhat scurrilous statement...Repulse wrote:As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one
The Treasury under the dear departed Geo Osborne set the budget, the number of ships, the builder and the build location. He didn't give two hoots about defense other than a source of money to fund his other ridiculous schemes.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 14:36 So it appears that the folly of such an underspecced hull (some here might say oversized OPV+) in a more malign world than when the spec was conceived has been realised. Luckily then, or through good judgement, they specified a hull that could be upspecced without complications.
I am a bit neutral.Repulse wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 15:00 Depends on your PoV - without going down another rabbit hole, my view is that the UK needs to focus on quality over mass. Outside of UK / BOT defence it needs to have capabilities that are tier one, not just replicas of most of our allies, especially given the over reliance within NATO on the US - this is why CSGs, SSNs, AAW, ASW, MCM and BMD for example is more important than light GP frigates. In this case IMO there is no basis for a batch 2 T31.
Everyone else disagrees, I get that, but it’s a valid viewpoint and the obsession with mass over quality / capability is dangerous IMO.
Did it how?Ron5 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 14:02Absolutely not. Single role ships are a luxury for the very largest navies. Falklands proved this beyond any doubt.Tempest414 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 10:11Type 26 has in many ways got out of hand it took to long to design and kept getting bigger and bigger as the RN tried to make it into the all singing and dancing GCS. Type 26 is a good ship in fact it was the perfect frigate for the USN but the RN should have got there heads down to building a world class ASW frigate and not a GCS with world class ASW capabilityScimitar54 wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 04:51 May be so, but then it was not designed as a dedicated CSG/TAPS escort! It was designed as a GLOBAL COMBAT SHIP, capable of (if not mainly) singleton deployments. One of unintended consequences the cut in T26 numbers “to save money” has left expensively outfitted ships, that in practice may be restricted to performing just one of their intended roles whilst having the “Weapons Fit” for their original purpose.
The T26 design had far too long a gestation period and should have been (and still should be) built in greater numbers.
T31 in
I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.Repulse wrote:Depends on your PoV - without going down another rabbit hole, my view is that the UK needs to focus on quality over mass. Outside of UK / BOT defence it needs to have capabilities that are tier one, not just replicas of most of our allies, especially given the over reliance within NATO on the US - this is why CSGs, SSNs, AAW, ASW, MCM and BMD for example is more important than light GP frigates. In this case IMO there is no basis for a batch 2 T31.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 14:36That's a somewhat scurrilous statement...Repulse wrote:As a second batch of T31s there isn’t one
Everyone else disagrees, I get that, but it’s a valid viewpoint and the obsession with mass over quality / capability is dangerous IMO.
Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 15:54]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.
I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.
A silk purse from a sow's ear.
I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.
Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....
MCMV's usually move in task groups. Look at how NATOMCMMG1&2, Kipion, or just general, Especially in wartime. They are there to make way for the main group after all.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 14:36
Any UxV mothership needs to be substantially self escorting, imo, and that means more than a 40mm/57mm gun as proposed by Aitken of BMT, in his RINA paper of 2018 that someone referenced.
Otherwise the 'Channel stand-off' UxV mothership (as defined) needs an escort and you're then into 'Area Standoff' task groups.
The threats have got more complex and denser since Mr. Aitken wrote his justification for a 'City Class' esque 85m MCMV mothership.
Imo.
Rather what wouldn't it have.Repulse wrote:Don’t really want to discuss upgrading the T31, we’ve done that to death and it’s all speculation without funding.Pte. James Frazer wrote: ↑27 Feb 2024, 15:54]I actually don't disagree with your high end argument.
I'm arguing that you can turn T31 into a pretty strong local area AAW/ASuW frigate/escort (a damn site better than a T23 GP) and task group goalkeeper/potentially networked missile silo.
A silk purse from a sow's ear.
I also believe that high end MCM will require more than an 85m UxV mothership, whether commercial PSV derivative or bespoke 'City Class' style design because we don't have the 'mass' to escort those into harms way.
Hence why I think an A140 MNP style T32 self escorting UxV mothership meets your high end argument for MCM and able to be re-rolled to littoral multistatic ASW, RM raiding.....
Agree on MCM that the answer is not a single platform, rather than multiple platforms that have hybrid roles dependent on the specific requirement being fulfilled (and reflecting the threat level of that requirement). Whatever the answer however, the RN should not give up its position in the top tier of MCM.
What in your view would a T32 have that a T26 does not?