Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Ron5]

Scotland was promised 13 frigates to build. George wouldn't pay for more than 8 Type 26. So to meet the promise, Dave & Co came up with 5 imaginary extra lighter (a euphamism for cheaper) ships to be built sometime in the dim distant future. Whether they are rowing boats, isle of white ferries, or thames trip boats, they will be called frigates because that was the promise.

It's all political hockum. The ships will be designed to meet whatever George or his successor deems to be the appropriate budget with zero thought toward their military effectiveness.

This is UK defense. An exercise in political ass covering driven by Treasury Oxbridge arts graduate manderins partnered with technically illiterate, morally ambivalent, ego driven, politicians.

Now back to your regular viewing ...

[shark bait]

Ron5, That's a very pessimistic outlook.

I think that it is possible to have a general purpose frigate, that is still very credible, whilst being cheaper than the T26.

It is very inefficient to build a complex warship, designed with 1000's of optimisations to make it the best ASW platform in the world, and then never use it in that role. That is what the GP version of the T23 and T26 is. There is always the option of adding the sonar to make it a full blown ASW asset, but the many years of operating the T23 has proven we perhaps don't need that option.

[WhitestElephant]

Ron5, so you believe the need to keep design skills sharp and thus the upcoming national shipbuilding strategy had nothing to do with it?

[seaspear]

The asw version of the T26 could easily hold its own in that role against the Fremm version, what was originally envisioned of the gp version of the T26 may have similarly been able to do so in comparison to the Fremm gp, French version at least .A question might also be are these future frigates going to be as capable as the ships they replace because if these ships are only believed to have a policing role in anti smuggling ,piracy ,people smuggling and other low threat environs why would treasury allow a credible equiping of these vessels as a warship ,it seems to come across that the T26 program was only to receive so much money ,and when unit costs went up the capabilities of the gp were sacrificed so that extra funding wasnt required and unit numbers could be met

[Ron5]

Ron5, That's a very pessimistic outlook.

I think that it is possible to have a general purpose frigate, that is still very credible, whilst being cheaper than the T26.

It is very inefficient to build a complex warship, designed with 1000's of optimisations to make it the best ASW platform in the world, and then never use it in that role. That is what the GP version of the T23 and T26 is. There is always the option of adding the sonar to make it a full blown ASW asset, but the many years of operating the T23 has proven we perhaps don't need that option.

Without knowing George's budget for the 5 ships, nobody has any idea what can be built that is cheap enough.

This goverment is friggin clueless when it comes to the cost of warships. Or maybe the're relying on the friggin' cluelessness of the Daily Mail educated Brit public. Penny Moduant goes to the US and claims the T-45's are the most expensive warshp in the world when they're cheaper than any current US warship including LCS. US folk label her stupid and stop paying attention.

Contributors to this board (and others) firmly state no frigate shoud cost more than 200 mill or 300 mill or whatever they read over their eggs that morning. Of course the fact that RAF Typhoons (weight 10 tons, carries 8 missiles & one person for 500 miles) cost about 100 mill is neither here nor there. Frigates (weight 8 thousand tons, carries 200+ people &70+ missiles for 8 thousand miles) should only cost 3 times as much. SMH.

[Ron5]

Ron5, so you believe the need to keep design skills sharp and thus the upcoming national shipbuilding strategy had nothing to do with it?

Correct.

UK Governments never cared before. Don't care now. Treasury types that control the money say its not their job to maintain skills. MoD types who spend the money say it's not their job to preserve industry. Next round of warships when the current lot reach block obsolesence will be bought from abroad. Just like RAF fast jets, tankers & MPA. Just like Army's tanks, lorries & guns. Just like RFA.

[Enigmatically]

You are (Da Do) wrong Ron

MoD have an agreement with BAE Systems to provide shipbuilding precisely to keep those yards and skills. It does run out in 2025 or thereabouts IIRC, but the reasons they signed such an agreement haven't gone away.

But you are all to a large extent looking in the wrong place. Through life costs usually outweigh procurement costs by some margin. Admittedly politicians don't always look further than the costs up the next election, but someone must be or the commitment would have been for 5 more after the next election

[WhitestElephant]

No British government is about to kill the complex warship industry... BAE would simply pack up and leave... and that means our nuclear submarine industry too.

IIRC, the idea is that a minimum of 8 SSNs and 4 SSBNs is need to be built every 25 years to sustain the nuclear submarine industry (at least on paper). Accounting for the real world (delays and cost cutting), that will now translate into 7 Astute SSNs and 4 Successor SSBNs over 25-30 years. Nonetheless, between those margins is where the nuclear submarine industry is envisioned to stay.

I think it is likely we will see something similar for the complex warship industry too.

[shark bait]

I think it is likely we will see something similar for the complex warship industry too.

I hope we do see that. So far the ship building strategy has been scarce on the strategy. Complex warship building is a nationally important industry, if we want a strong navy we need a strong industry and a robust strategy.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Some blue sky thinking on the next generation light frigate: http://engagingstrategy.blogspot.co.uk/ ... -next.html

Also, just to inject a bit of perspective into this debate, the Royal Navy do not operate "light" or "second rate" ships for a very good reason: they saw first hand what happens when you try and actually fight a war with them.

Very nice blog and comment, thanks a lot. Which do you think was the main issue: "light" or "second-rate"?

For example, Type42 was a typical "(full-sized) Frigate" of the day, very similar to OHPerry FFG, but more oriented to AAW. They were lighter than Bristol and Counties, but not "light", to my understanding. (While Bristols is equally armed as T42 in AAW point-of-view)

Type12 series (Plymouth) was also a "(full-sized) Frigate", but of a 1960's early-70's standard. They were not "light", but the armament, especially AAW (SeaCat) was obsolete.

Type21 was "light frigate", built in 1970's. It also had the same obsolete AAW kits.

For me, it look like the issue was "obsolete AAW kits" (which was "learnt" from FI war, so not easy to blame MOD and Government then) and not going for something "light". For example, a Phalanx will be very powerful asset, not only against Exocet, but also normal air-rades. It would have killed tens is Argetina fighters if mounted in place of SeaCat. Its weight is similar to SeaCat, so even a light frigate can carry it (e.g. now Pakistan T21 frigates, and some exported Leanders did). However, its cost then was very expensive to afford, I suppose.

Thus, the primary lesson here is about "importance of state of the art AAW assets". Thus, we all agree here that the light frigate shall have CAMM. If not, i.e. Floreal-type frigate, do not treat it as a major escort and send them to only supportive operation (such as SouthGeorgia in FI war).

[Engaging Strategy]

Very nice blog and comment, thanks a lot. Which do you think was the main issue: "light" or "second-rate"?

Both pose problems. In my opinion "second rate" escorts are simply not worth having, they never work out to be as cheap as their proponents suggest and they're much more vulnerable and less useful than their first rate counterparts. I think a good test of any design is to ask "would I want to be on this when the shit hits the fan?"

For example, Type42 was a typical "(full-sized) Frigate" of the day, very similar to OHPerry FFG, but more oriented to AAW. They were lighter than Bristol and Counties, but not "light", to my understanding. (While Bristols is equally armed as T42 in AAW point-of-view)

Type 42 was not a "full size" AAW combatant when it was produced. For a contemporary "first rate" design look at the US Spraunce class destroyers for comparison. More than twice the size and better equipped for AAW than a Type 42, despite being an ASW platform. Ultimately, while iconic, T42 was a severely compromised design. The first two batches were shortened to save money, sacrificing good sea keeping in the process. The Sea Dart missile system may have been modern but the Type 965 radar certainly wasn't. Such small hulls lacked the internal space for major modernisation beyond replacing the radar with the more modern Type 1022 set. While Bristol ended up being fitted with the equipment for Type 42 the ship's intended equipment fit was certainly different. The big Anglo Dutch Type 988 "broomstick" radar it was supposed to carry would have been a significant improvement on the Type 965 set it was actually fitted with.

Type12 series (Plymouth) was also a "(full-sized) Frigate", but of a 1960's early-70's standard. They were not "light", but the armament, especially AAW (SeaCat) was obsolete. Type 21 was "light frigate", built in 1970's. It also had the same obsolete AAW kits.

Type 21 lacked the space for the extensive modernisation that would have kept it relevant and somewhat survivable in wartime conditions. Frankly the Type 12s were increasingly obsolete by the early 80s and shouldn't have been positioned up-threat. Fine for carrier group ASW and point defence with sea wolf, but in San Carlos Water? No.

Thus, the primary lesson here is about "importance of state of the art AAW assets". Thus, we all agree here that the light frigate shall have CAMM. If not, i.e. Floreal-type frigate, do not treat it as a major escort and send them to only supportive operation (such as SouthGeorgia in FI war).

It's not just about a good AAW missile system, but creating an integrated fighting machine that can grow over time to keep up with developing threats and the military capabilities of potential enemies. "Light" designs rarely offer the growth room necessary to keep a platform "first rate" throughout its life. You don't need an 8,000 ton cruiser to achieve this either, Type 23 is probably the best example of a platform that's kept it's edge over many years of hard service. Precisely because it's big enough to accommodate new systems and grow over time.

[Ron5]

You are (Da Do) wrong Ron

MoD have an agreement with BAE Systems to provide shipbuilding precisely to keep those yards and skills. It does run out in 2025 or thereabouts IIRC, but the reasons they signed such an agreement haven't gone away.

But you are all to a large extent looking in the wrong place. Through life costs usually outweigh procurement costs by some margin. Admittedly politicians don't always look further than the costs up the next election, but someone must be or the commitment would have been for 5 more after the next election

You mean the agreement that was terminated last year?

Don't understand your comment on life costs. The Treasury has repeatedly shown it does not prioritize life costs over procurment despite that being the foundation of smart procurement.. Prime example being the upgrades to the Scottish yards. Bae wanted to concentrate all frigate production at one site. Would save shedloads during the T26 program (let alone future programs) but nixed by Treasury because the upfront cost was an extra 100 mill. Treasury can't think beyond the current fiscal year.

P.S. Love the da do ron wrong!

[Ron5]

No British government is about to kill the complex warship industry... BAE would simply pack up and leave... and that means our nuclear submarine industry too.

IIRC, the idea is that a minimum of 8 SSNs and 4 SSBNs is need to be built every 25 years to sustain the nuclear submarine industry (at least on paper). Accounting for the real world (delays and cost cutting), that will now translate into 7 Astute SSNs and 4 Successor SSBNs over 25-30 years. Nonetheless, between those margins is where the nuclear submarine industry is envisioned to stay.

I think it is likely we will see something similar for the complex warship industry too.

Bae have tried more than once to exit UK surface shipbuilding. Low margin, feast or famine, agressively unionized, excuse of a business with the world's worst customer. Said customer, the UK goverment twisted their arm to buy up the remnants of Vospers to build the carriers. The Bae board would weep tears of job and dance several jigs if you just hinted they might be let go. But of course they won't because no other company would be so stupid as to buy the business. Endless abuse from public, goverment and civil service all in order to return a couple percent on a large investment. An investors nightmare.

[malcrf]

Type 23 is probably the best example of a platform that's kept it's edge over many years of hard service. Precisely because it's big enough to accommodate new systems and grow over time.

But the Type 23 is not that big, and neither was the Type 22 (another decent ship I think), so why can't an FLF be based on an updated one of these?

[Engaging Strategy]

But the Type 23 is not that big, and neither was the Type 22 (another decent ship I think), so why can't an FLF be based on an updated one of these?

For frigates Type 22 B3 & 23 are bigger than almost everything else out there. Both are ~5,000 ton platforms with nice growth margins. Yes, I think the best all round solution to FLF is a ship in the ~5,000 ton range, possibly a Type 26 with less CAMM (36?), a lot fewer strike length cells (8 would suffice to carry the next gen AShM) and with a reduced mission bay.

[Tony Williams]

For frigates Type 22 B3 & 23 are bigger than almost everything else out there. Both are ~5,000 ton platforms with nice growth margins.

Like should be compared with like.
T22 B3 had a normal displacement of 4,200 tons, deep load 4,900 tons.
T23 was designed for a normal displacement of 3,500 tons, 4,200 tons deep load, but due to various additions is now quoted as 4,900 tons (presumably deep load) and has absolutely no growth margins whatsoever.

I do wish that those who quote displacements would say what kind of measure these refer to, as this obviously makes a huge difference.

Yes, I think the best all round solution to FLF is a ship in the ~5,000 ton range, possibly a Type 26 with less CAMM (36?), a lot fewer strike length cells (8 would suffice to carry the next gen AShM) and with a reduced mission bay.

If it is the intention to save money and weight where possible, then it would be better to forget about the MK41 altogether and follow the T23 layout of having eight AShM in box launchers bolted to the deck - much simpler, lighter and cheaper.

[Engaging Strategy]

Like should be compared with like. T22 B3 had a normal displacement of 4,200 tons, deep load 4,900 tons. T23 was designed for a normal displacement of 3,500 tons, 4,200 tons deep load, but due to various additions is now quoted as 4,900 tons (presumably deep load) and has absolutely no growth margins whatsoever.

I do wish that those who quote displacements would say what kind of measure these refer to, as this obviously makes a huge difference.

Quoting final deep draught displacements for both classes. That Type 23 has gained ~700 tons over a 20 year lifespan clearly shows the class has grown substantially. As did the Type 22s in their day. Who knows, the 23s may actually lose some weight post CAMM/Artisan refit, what's the weight of the CAMM VLS like compared with Sea Wolf?

If it is the intention to save money and weight where possible, then it would be better to forget about the MK41 altogether and follow the T23 layout of having eight AShM in box launchers bolted to the deck - much simpler, lighter and cheaper.

IMO the UK will buy the AShM that the US Navy does, be it NSM, LRASM, the evolved Harpoon, Naval TLAM or anything else. Some of these won't work with a box launcher. Fitting a handful of Mk.41 strike length cells is more expensive, but in my view it's a justifiable cost. It buys you into a range of munitions guaranteed to be mass produced because of US Navy orders. It also allows the ships to tap into a common pool of munitions we buy for Type 26 and any we may buy in the future (ASROC?).

[Tony Williams]

That Type 23 has gained ~700 tons over a 20 year lifespan clearly shows the class has grown substantially.

As far as I know it's still the same size, it's just closer to sinking!

Fitting a handful of Mk.41 strike length cells is more expensive, but in my view it's a justifiable cost. It buys you into a range of munitions guaranteed to be mass produced because of US Navy orders. It also allows the ships to tap into a common pool of munitions we buy for Type 26 and any we may buy in the future (ASROC?).

I'm not so sure that the UK will automatically source all of its future weapons from the USA, and I can't see that it would ever need to fire ASROC even if we bought it for the T26 (I am not aware that any British interest has been expressed).

The key issue is the expected role of a future lighter (and by implication cheaper) frigate. One scenario is that once the carriers are operational, the T45 and T23 ASW/T26 will focus on escorting them, so a lighter frigate will replace the T23 GP (maybe with equipment transferred over) in covering all of the other missions for a which an OPV isn't good enough. In such a case, a weapon fit similar to the T23 GP would seem adequate.

[donald_of_tokyo]

@Engaging Strategy-san, thanks for response. Personally, the idea of "2nd-rated" is not easy to understand for me. For example, T23 is 1st-rated on ASW, but never on AAW. As a self defence, its AAW is "not-so-bad" and could be called "1st-rated". So, as Tony Williams-san says, it is relative. In other words, there could be "a 1st-rated ligth frigate". The task definds it, isn't it?

1. Type-42

Type 42 was not a "full size" AAW combatant when it was produced.

I agree that Type42 is not a "full size" AAW combatant. That is why I rated them as "full-size frigtes, comparable to OHPerry FFGs, slightly more AAW oriented", and not as AAW destroyer.

OHPerry FFG as built was "1st-rated escort" to my understanding. Nothing less than T22/T23. It is 2nd-rated in USN, but only within USN.

As built, T42 had a SeaDart, which "was" almost-world-level SAM (other than its slow fire-rate), as well as moderate ASW asset and a 4.5' (not 3') gun. Because of its small margine, it became obsolete quickly, BUT it was 1st-rated "FFG" in 1982, when the FI war happened, to my understanding. The reason 2 of them lost was, to my understanding, caused by lack of AEW assets.

About its obsolecence. Apparently, B.1 and 2s were too small. But for B.3s, obsolecense comes mainly from the launcher of SeaDart, I think. The missile itself was not bad, shooting down SSMs at Gulf. Incorporating SeaDart in Mk.41 VLS would have been ideal. T42B3 could have had 32 cells of Mk41 VLS (like RCN destroyers).


2. Type-23

Type 23 is probably the best example of a platform that's kept it's edge over many years of hard service. Precisely because it's big enough to accommodate new systems and grow over time.

I think Type-23 is not famous for its margine, as NAB-san said on TD site. I also remember the hull-extension plan for the last 6? ships. Of course, T23 HAS a margine. I suppose it was just at the minimum level to be "good" (and far than minimun on T21, maybe).

The reason why T23 is still valid should be carefully analyzed, I think.

Personally, the main reason was that
2A- Fully taking into accout the lessons from FI war, T23 become the "template" of a modern frigate in 1990's. In other words, a new generation of frigate just started from T23.
2B- Cold-war ended, and apparently the pace of new armament introduced into navy escorts become slow.
2C- Many of the upgrades was on network. And thanks to its new CMS, "was" state-of-the-art, T23 was good at adopting them (although was troublesome at the beggining).
2D- Introduced state-of-the-art VL SeaWolf and Merlin, for its main armament. And history showed that "VL" was game-changing (no need for reload and fast reaction time).

In short, I think T23 was "state of the art" in many sense as an "ASW frigate of the day", with "minimum" margine (even a CIWS could not be added).

3. light frigate

You don't need an 8,000 ton cruiser to achieve this either,

I agree. 3600-5000t FL will be "good" as a "1st-rate light frigate", or "1st-rate lighter frigate". In this case, as shown in your blog, we need to omit something out of T26. In other words, narrow the requirement, as already discussed intensively here.

[donald_of_tokyo]

IMO the UK will buy the AShM that the US Navy does, be it NSM, LRASM, the evolved Harpoon, Naval TLAM or anything else. Some of these won't work with a box launcher...

I agree to your point. BUT as already noted, we need something interim on T23, which will be operated till 2035 (or even longer). We may have 2 types of SSMs, one in Mk41 VLS (TLAM B.4?), and another in canister (NSM? or evolved Harpoon?). I think mounting NSM or JSM or Harpoon NG in Mk.41 is "a waste of Mk.41". Better mount more heavy missiles in it (TLAM, LRASM or ?).

[Engaging Strategy]

@Engaging Strategy-san, thanks for response. Personally, the idea of "2nd-rated" is not easy to understand for me. For example, T23 is 1st-rated on ASW, but never on AAW. As a self defence, its AAW is "not-so-bad" and could be called "1st-rated". So, as Tony Williams-san says, it is relative. In other words, there could be "a 1st-rated ligth frigate". The task defines it, isn't it?

Ok, I suppose it's important that I specify what I mean when I talk about "first rate" and "second rate" escorts. In my view the dividing line between the two lies in comprehensive individual ship self-defence capability against threats you could reasonably expect to face in a high intensity warfighting situation. This means your minimum standard has to include equipment to deal with surface, subsurface and air threats sufficiently so that the platform can reasonably be expected to defeat an attack by any one of them. Your offensive capabilities sit on top of this baseline of credible self-defence. In the case of an ASW specialist like Type 23 the offensive kit allows them to hunt and destroy enemy submarines. In the case of Type 45 it allows you to project a SAM umbrella, that affords you degree of control over that space.

I agree that Type42 is not a "full size" AAW combatant. That is why I rated them as "full-size frigtes, comparable to OHPerry FFGs, slightly more AAW oriented", and not as AAW destroyer.

Remember that the OH Perrys, even as part of carrier groups, were never really considered to be able to defend themselves against a massed Soviet AShM attack. Some complained that they were there to soak up a few missiles so the higher value units stood a better chance of survival. I'm not sure about the accuracy of that view, but the single arm launcher was a big limitation.

OHPerry FFG as built was "1st-rated escort" to my understanding. Nothing less than T22/T23. It is 2nd-rated in USN, but only within USN.

The Perry's AAW fit was what let it down in my opinion. In comparison Type 22 with the two Sea Wolf box launchers and Type 23 with the VLS have a much more credible self defence armament against air threats.

As built, T42 had a SeaDart, which "was" almost-world-level SAM (other than its slow fire-rate), as well as moderate ASW asset and a 4.5' (not 3') gun. Because of its small margins, it became obsolete quickly, BUT it was 1st-rated "FFG" in 1982, when the FI war happened, to my understanding. The reason 2 of them lost was, to my understanding, caused by lack of AEW assets.

As I said T-42 in 1982 was limited mainly by it's old 965 radar that struggled with sea skimming missiles and aircraft operating over land. It was a "second rate" design when compared with the much more credible Type 82 (Bristol wasn't fitted to that standard, she was used as a tech demonstrator for T42's equipment) Thank god those ships were never put up against the Soviet threat they were "designed" to deal with.

bout its obsolecence. Apparently, B.1 and 2s were too small. But for B.3s, obsolecense comes mainly from the launcher of SeaDart, I think. The missile itself was not bad, shooting down SSMs at Gulf. Incorporating SeaDart in Mk.41 VLS would have been ideal. T42B3 could have had 32 cells of Mk41 VLS (like RCN destroyers).

I agree, for it's time Sea Dart was very competitive, it was let down by old radars and the small missile magazines on the 42s. In 1991 it shot down a very old Silkworm missile, still impressive but don't make too much of it.

I think Type-23 is not famous for its margins, as NAB-san said on TD site. I also remember the hull-extension plan for the last 6? ships. Of course, T23 HAS a margin. I suppose it was just at the minimum level to be "good" (and far than minimun on T21, maybe).

The reason why T23 is still valid should be carefully analyzed, I think.

Personally, the main reason was that
2A- Fully taking into accout the lessons from FI war, T23 become the "template" of a modern frigate in 1990's. In other words, a new generation of frigate just started from T23.
2B- Cold-war ended, and apparently the pace of new armament introduced into navy escorts become slow.
2C- Many of the upgrades was on network. And thanks to its new CMS, "was" state-of-the-art, T23 was good at adopting them (although was troublesome at the beggining).
2D- Introduced state-of-the-art VL SeaWolf and Merlin, for its main armament. And history showed that "VL" was game-changing (no need for reload and fast reaction time).

In short, I think T23 was "state of the art" in many sense as an "ASW frigate of the day", with "minimum" margin (even a CIWS could not be added).

I think you're onto something here, Type 23 certainly did have a margin for growth (an improvement on T42 and T21) but it may be overstated. You're right that the design included some pioneering kit for the RN, like the Sea Wolf VLS, and that's kept it relevant and competitive for the last 20 years. The reduced pace of change in warships after the end of the Cold War certainly helped as well. I think we may be beginning to see that post-1990 "quiet period" come to an end, which means we'll either have to reduce the expected useful lives of our surface escorts back to ~25 years or include enough growth space in the design for a major mid-life overhaul of the weapons systems, sensors etc...

agree. 3600-5000t FL will be "good" as a "1st-rate light frigate", or "1st-rate lighter frigate". In this case, as shown in your blog, we need to omit something out of T26. In other words, narrow the requirement, as already discussed intensively here.

There's no such thing as a "first rate light frigate". To get an affordable light design you need to make major compromises to either the range and accommodation standards or the armament and sensors. If you want a light design that compromises on neither of these things then you're just trying to cram the same amount of "stuff" into a smaller hull: which is a near-certain recipe for seriously driving up costs. This is why I would like to see a lighter and not a light frigate. You can get a credible first rate surface combatant in a 5,000 ton hull, I don't think you can do that with a 3,500 ton design.

[donald_of_tokyo]

First of all, all this "light frigate" stuff for me is NOT to save money, but to save NUMBERS of escorts. If RN was building T82 not T42, there wouldn't be 14 of them, I guess. If RN now wants to stick to "more than 19" escorts, it needs something cheaper. This was my startpoint of discussion.

In my view the dividing line between the two lies in comprehensive individual ship self-defence capability against threats you could reasonably expect to face in a high intensity warfighting situation.

I understand it, but one point is unclear: what do you mean by "independently".

If along with T45, the only requirment for the light frigate AAW-wise will be to kill a few ASMs by herself. In other words, only 12 CAMM with SeaGiraffe will be OK (while I personally favor 24). The situation is the same as OHPerries in 1990s. Under the umbrella of CV-air-wing and AEGIS cruisers, the FFG may well survive the USSR ASM attack. If isolated, there is no hope.

This is the same for ASW. SSK in umbush has high-advantage over ordinal escorts. T45 do have non-negligible probability to be sunk, almost totally relying on it ship torpedo defence system's soft kill. Together with carrier-based Merlins, T26/23 and P-8s, T45 can be relatively safer.

Thus, for me, light-frigate is an escort who cannot be safe independently in high-threats, but can live as a member of escort flotilla. They contribute nothing significantly, but can be the final goal-keeper for CVF AAW-wise (handling ~2 ASMs left), or providing a flight asset for single Merlin ASW-wise. <--- This is my "Fantasy Light Frigate #1"

Operated independently, and only with a Wildcat, they will just fit a low-threat enviromnent, such as ATP-S (low threat, as you said) or even Kipion (USN umbrella).

The Perry's AAW .... In comparison Type 22 with the two Sea Wolf box launchers ... have a much more credible self defence armament against air threats.

I am not sure US guys will agree here. I think SM1 could shoot-down USSR's large long-range ASMs in 1990s. If it is true, with a range of 45 km and 2 channels of FCS, OHPerry may win. Against western sea-skimmers (Exocet/Harpoon), surely T22 will be more reliable.

There's no such thing as a "first rate light frigate".

I think it comes from your definition of "light frigate". My "Fantasy Light Frigate #1" presented up there is a "light frigate" to me. But anyway, I agree it will weigh ~4000t FL as built, and ~4500t in her late days, i.e. Venator 117 like. I think light frigte of 2000s was 3000~3500t FL. In 2020s, it will be 4000-4500t FL

By the way, can we mitigate the range?. Considering export, the long-ranged-bulky hull is not popular. Many customers will not need a range of 7000nm@16kts (e.g. T23). I propose ~5500 nm@16 kts or so.

[Engaging Strategy]

First of all, all this "light frigate" stuff for me is NOT to save money, but to save NUMBERS of escorts. If RN was building T82 not T42, there wouldn't be 14 of them, I guess. If RN now wants to stick to "more than 19" escorts, it needs something cheaper. This was my startpoint of discussion.

Sacrificing quality to maintain the same inadequate number of platforms (around 19) isn't a solution to the RN's problems, it's repeating a costly mistake. You might get a few more platforms, but the RN needs ships that can (within reason) go anywhere and rapidly re-role from low to high intensity operations. We've seen it time and again when a crisis breaks the closest RN warship is moved to the area to provide a first response. If your "light frigate" happens to be that ship, and it can't re-role to deal with certain threats, then it's either put in a position where it's vulnerable to attack or severely limited in what it can do and where it can go. For years the RN has been effectively using its escorts as cruisers, operating alone or in small numbers on distant patrols. You can't do that with your light frigate.

I understand it, but one point is unclear: what do you mean by "independently".

Alone, or possibly as one of a very small number of RN and RFA surface ships in a particular area. Seeing as this has been the way the RN has worked its surface fleet for years.

If along with T45, the only requirement for the light frigate AAW-wise will be to kill a few ASMs by herself. In other words, only 12 CAMM with SeaGiraffe will be OK (while I personally favor 24). The situation is the same as OHPerries in 1990s. Under the umbrella of CV-air-wing and AEGIS cruisers, the FFG may well survive the USSR ASM attack. If isolated, there is no hope.

If the light frigate is supposed to be a task group asset what does it actually contribute to the task group? In my opinion a few extra CAMM missiles and some AShM aren't adding very much at all to a group that includes T-45 and T-26. Essentially you're admitting that other, more capable, ships will be needed to babysit the "light frigate" if it actually goes into a high-threat environment.

This is the same for ASW. SSK in ambush has high-advantage over ordinary escorts. T45 do have non-negligible probability to be sunk, almost totally relying on it ship torpedo defence system's soft kill. Together with carrier-based Merlins, T26/23 and P-8s, T45 can be relatively safer.

Type 45's protection against underwater threats is, in my opinion, adequate if it's carrying a Merlin. With passive defences and an ASW helicopter in the air T-45 stands s fighting chance of surviving an encounter with an SSK. This is what I mean when I talk about credible self-defence, the T-45 doesn't need to be able to take the fight to the SSK (the UK has other assets for that as you laid out) but it needs the ability to survive an attack from one.

Thus, for me, light-frigate is an escort who cannot be safe independently in high-threats, but can live as a member of escort flotilla. They contribute nothing significantly, but can be the final goal-keeper for CVF AAW-wise (handling ~2 ASMs left), or providing a flight asset for single Merlin ASW-wise. <--- This is my "Fantasy Light Frigate #1"

Operated independently, and only with a Wildcat, they will just fit a low-threat environment, such as ATP-S (low threat, as you said) or even Kipion (USN umbrella).

You said it yourself: "they contribute nothing significantly". My contention is that if you want a big long range OPV, to do the West Indies patrol task and the odd bit of counter piracy work, then build that. It'll be cheaper (not needing to conform to the rigorous military standards that proper RN warships require) and you can lean man it: a very important consideration for a navy short of manpower. If you want a warship, that fits the RN's way of doing things, then it needs to be a relatively large and credible platform. It needs to be able to go into high-threat areas and fight at an intensity that very few ships in very few navies can.

I think it comes from your definition of "light frigate". My "Fantasy Light Frigate #1" presented up there is a "light frigate" to me. But anyway, I agree it will weigh ~4000t FL as built, and ~4500t in her late days, i.e. Venator 117 like. I think light frigte of 2000s was 3000~3500t FL. In 2020s, it will be 4000-4500t FL

By the way, can we mitigate the range?. Considering export, the long-ranged-bulky hull is not popular. Many customers will not need a range of 7000nm@16kts (e.g. T23). I propose ~5500 nm@16 kts or so.

With the range issue you've cut to the core problem the UK faces with exporting its warship designs. These are ships designed, first and foremost, for the Royal Navy. A force that, by its nature, operates at very long range from its bases. The Royal Navy is, quite like the US Navy, rather more demanding than most buyers of warships. As the navy with some of the most recent experience of actually fighting a war at sea, I'm inclined to think that the changes the RN made to its surface fleet after 1982 (and the lessons they learned from that war) should not be easily dismissed.

[marktigger]

Bae have tried more than once to exit UK surface shipbuilding. Low margin, feast or famine, agressively unionized, excuse of a business with the world's worst customer. Said customer, the UK goverment twisted their arm to buy up the remnants of Vospers to build the carriers. The Bae board would weep tears of job and dance several jigs if you just hinted they might be let go. But of course they won't because no other company would be so stupid as to buy the business. Endless abuse from public, goverment and civil service all in order to return a couple percent on a large investment. An investors nightmare.

That might all make sense if it was only provision of warships BaE were so bad at but its the same picture in Small arms, AFV's, Military Aircraft, artillery, missiles, communications!
BaE has goten away with bad service because there hasn't been any proper competition in the UK defence industry since the 1970's. And this was exacerbated by the Defence industry policy of the Blair government post cold war.

[shark bait]

One scenario is that once the carriers are operational, the T45 and T23 ASW/T26 will focus on escorting them, so a lighter frigate will replace the T23 GP (maybe with equipment transferred over) in covering all of the other missions for a which an OPV isn't good enough. In such a case, a weapon fit similar to the T23 GP would seem adequate.

I think that quite accurately reflects what we will need them for. In which case it will need to protect itself from all domain's, as well as other assets such as a MCM fleet, merchant or auxiliary vessels.

The T23 does have a good all round capabilities and would be a good template to follow for the our new lighter frigate. I hope when you say similar weapons fit, you mean similar capabilities but the modern equivalent.

Personally, the idea of "2nd-rated" is not easy to understand for me. For example, T23 is 1st-rated on ASW, but never on AAW. As a self defence, its AAW is "not-so-bad" and could be called "1st-rated". So, as Tony Williams-san says, it is relative. In other words, there could be "a 1st-rated ligth frigate". The task definds it, isn't it?

All of the royal navy's surface combatants are 1st rated. Those ships can be expected to deploy any where in the world, unsupported, whilst maintaining a credible force. Thats means being able to defend its self from all domain's, and also being able to pack a punch. In the royal navy's case they have high endurance ships, that can defend themselves and then pack a massive punch to a specific domain.

A second rate ship is one where one of those elements is compromised, either poor endurance, no credible offensive capability or poor survivability. These are assets the royal navy does not need. There is no point having a larger number of ships if they are less credible.

Therefore I don't think there is such thing as a 1st class light frigate. It will just be a light surface combatant that has something missing, which places it firmly into the second rate camp.

I do think a 1st rated GP combatant is possible. A ship with long endurance, high survivability and then deliver some kind of offensive payload. With our GP combatant we will expect that payload to be reconfigured depending on the deployment, based on modular weapons and then various manned and unmanned vehicles.