Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

[NickC]

Absalon class is 24 knot max in Danish standard. In Danish standard, Iver Huilfeldt class is 30 knots, while T31 shown in RN standard is 2 knots slower.

RN actually quote T31 top speed as 26 knots with the same engines and hull as the IH, MikeKiloPapa wrote that F362 Peter Willemoes was clocked at 31 Kts during its sea trials, no doubt not at its full displacement of 6,6645t, also to be noted the T31 approx 1,000 tons lighter ship due to limited sensors and weapons fit, so are the RN telling porky pies or is there another reason why RN reporting the lower speed of 26 knots

PS Rule of thumb, to increase speed of ship by 4 knots you need to double its power

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/the-equipm ... tion-class

[Tempest414]

I find it interesting that the Danish navy state there fully built and tested IH class to have a speed of 30 Knots however the RN claim the same hull and power combo that is still being built and is untested to have a speed of 26 Knots ( THE SAME AS TYPE 26 ? )

As for the Absalon class as Type 32 for me its 4 tasks would be

1) LRG escort capable of deploying a company of RM with up to 6 ORC and 2 Merlin's

2) MCM mother ship

3) Convoy escort

4) General patrol

Where it's speed of 23 to 25 knots would be good enough CSG escorting would be left to Types 45 , 26 , 31

[Poiuytrewq]

…are the RN telling porky pies or is there another reason why RN reporting the lower speed of 26 knots

The RN figure is maximum sustained speed NOT top speed.

…Where it's speed of 23 to 25 knots would be good enough…

Absalon can be made to have the same maximum sustained speed as the A140. It’s just a question of which engines are chosen and how many are installed. IMO the T32 will have hybrid propulsion and bear little relation to the T31 from a propulsion perspective.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Absalon can be made to have the same maximum sustained speed as the A140. It’s just a question of which engines are chosen and how many are installed. IMO the T32 will have hybrid propulsion and bear little relation to the T31 from a propulsion perspective.

Sorry, to insert. Absalon engine room is filled with its original engines. Iver Huitfeldt class needed to "find" many other places to locate the doubled engines (and of course, their intake-exhaust), which "killed" a half of the helicopter hangar and significant fraction of the cargo-space. Adding large radars, very heavy 32-cell Mk.41 VLSs required to sacrifice the remaining cargo-space, and forced to lower the flight deck.

So yes, we can choose the engine as we like, but it does require spaces in the hull.

[NickC]

…are the RN telling porky pies or is there another reason why RN reporting the lower speed of 26 knots

The RN figure is maximum sustained speed NOT top speed.

The RN quotes top speed NOT maximum sustained speed

MikeKiloPapa "..ship maximum speed is almost always defined at 90% MCR at vessel full load displacement. Which in IHs case is 28 Kts at 6645t"

PS The T31 approx 1,000 tons lighter than the IH so would expect it to be marginally faster, definition of MCR is the maximum power output engine can produce while running continuously at safe limits and conditions., it is specified on the engine nameplate and in the technical file of the marine diesel engine.

[Poiuytrewq]

So yes, we can choose the engine as we like, but it does require spaces in the hull.

Absolutely but the T32 is not going to be an off-the-shelf design, it will require a pretty extensive redesign of a proven hull form and there is time to conduct such a redesign in a satisfactory manner. The available budget will be key.

From the information provided so far the T32 will be a Crossover design. Perhaps not in the Damen sense but undoubtedly a hybrid Frigate design. This could require a completely new hull form as stability will be more important than maximum speed or acoustic signature. Conversely, it may be paramount to maintain escort maximum speed which will lead to major compromises elsewhere as you suggest.

My initial impression of the T32 concept is a programme trying achieve too much with one hull due to the attempt to use the MCMV replacement budget to increase the size of the escort fleet. I also suspect an element of regret that the Absalon design could not be reconfigured fast enough or within the available budget envelope to become the T31.

Having said all that, the Absalon hull can provide many solutions IMO, but not without a pretty significant redesign.

For example,

- Add a second engine room similar to the IH configuration to increase speed and endurance to a T31 level. Achieve this by shrinking the flex deck to around 60m.

- Add additional compartmentalisation and a 50t gantry crane to the remaining flex deck to achieve the desired outcomes whilst maintaining acceptable damage control standards.

- Reconfigure A and B positions to include all VLS cells and either a 57mm or 127mm gun. Also retain space for 8 canister launched Anti Ship Missiles if required.

- Maintain Chinook capable flight deck and double Merlin hanger by stretching the hull by 10m to 15m for an LOA of around 150m. This would allow plenty of space for the extra intakes and exhausts.

- Remove as much amidships superstructure as possible to create a large multipurpose working deck serviced by a 30t crane. This would provide an LCVP or CB90 launch/recovery capability without requiring an enormous stern garage at the waterline like the Damen Crossover. This would also dramatically lower the vessels centre of gravity.

- Create access from the amidships working deck to the flex deck via a hatch to ensure maximum versatility. Remove stern access ramp to flex deck by adding side doors to maximise ASW potential.

One thing is for sure, if construction of the T32 class is to start in 2025/2026 time is of the essence.

[SD67]

Excuse me - reality check time - who else is designing a clean sheet or quasi- clean sheet frigate sized vessel to launch UxVs?
What exactly is the advantage vs the cost and risk? Do we even know what UxVs will look like in 15 years time? And given the limited standoff range who in their right mind is ever going to send a 150metre long major warship with 15 miles of a minefield.
Every other Navy in the world is bolting drones into existing platforms, but I guess the RN is flush with cash they can afford to push the boat out excuse the pun.

[RichardIC]

So yes, we can choose the engine as we like, but it does require spaces in the hull.

From the information provided so far the T32 will be a Crossover design.

Serious question: What is the information provided so far?

[wargame_insomniac]

Excuse me - reality check time - who else is designing a clean sheet or quasi- clean sheet frigate sized vessel to launch UxVs?
What exactly is the advantage vs the cost and risk? Do we even know what UxVs will look like in 15 years time? And given the limited standoff range who in their right mind is ever going to send a 150metre long major warship with 15 miles of a minefield.
Every other Navy in the world is bolting drones into existing platforms, but I guess the RN is flush with cash they can afford to push the boat out excuse the pun.

I do agree on this point. With the decommisioning / sale of the Hunt and Sandown class MCMV, the RN will have no active ships smaller than the River B1 OPV's (ignoring the experimental XV Patrick Blackett).

The RN have been trialling Atlas Elektronik's 11mm ARCIMS boats to develop autonomous mine warfare since 2018. Any new MCMV mothership would need to be large enough to carry say two such boats and deploy for missions. I don't think we need a 140m long Frigate to do that, and I beleive a ship no larger than OPV's should be sufficient.

I beleive we need smaller ships to allow those escorts we do have to prioritise on their main missions.

[tomuk]

So yes, we can choose the engine as we like, but it does require spaces in the hull.

From the information provided so far the T32 will be a Crossover design.

Serious question: What is the information provided so far?

Well based on what Tony Radakin said at one of the select committees before becoming CDS T32 started out as basically T31 Batch 2 just another batch of possibly slightly spikier T31s to sustain build and increase frigate numbers.

Before they pitched this T31 Batch 2 plan to DefSec/MODHQ/Treasury they realised it wasn't sexy enough so renamed it T32 and sexed it up by blurring what the actual requirement is with the usual buzzword bingo, system of systems, modular, unmanned systems, littoral etc.

This spin helped by the requirements for replacements for the minehunters and the FCF/LRG concept.

To me at the end of the day the RN needs more 'bog standard' frigates does that standard in the future include support of a UAV/USV/UUV probably. But this requirement will be an evolution of hosting a helicopter or the frigate having a tail.

[SW1]

A gd place to start, for a ship with container systems and small boat/unmanned systems deployment

http://federalfleet.ca/wp-content/uploa ... mphlet.pdf

[tomuk]

A gd place to start, for a ship with container systems and small boat/unmanned systems deployment

http://federalfleet.ca/wp-content/uploa ... mphlet.pdf

That reinforces my point the unmanned mothership requirement should be covered by a replacement mine hunting\survey ship.

There is still a requirement for more frigates.

[SW1]

A gd place to start, for a ship with container systems and small boat/unmanned systems deployment

http://federalfleet.ca/wp-content/uploa ... mphlet.pdf

That reinforces my point the unmanned mothership requirement should be covered by a replacement mine hunting\survey ship.

There is still a requirement for more frigates.

I would agree I do not know why they are trying to shoe horn lots of smaller boats/systems into a “frigate”. They’re is easier ways to use these systems to do presence/survey/security/surveillance.

The “more frigate” argument relates to tasks where and when and how we’re doing future things, I’m much less convinced (not that, that matters much) on the need for more.

[Repulse]

Having the T32’s optimised for a primary role as a LRG escort, coupled with the ability to host a RM force and launch small boats and other unmanned assets, is the right approach IMO.

What it does not mean is that these should be the sole platforms, having multiple types of vessels especially smaller platforms capable of blending into the civilian maritime environment is a must.

As others have mentioned, if there is a need for more escorts / frigates, let’s define that need as this is really what the T31s currently be built should be aimed at.

[Tempest414]

What I would like to see is a Absalon class T-32 with a 127mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 VLS and 8 x NSM I would like to see 2 x LCVP davits amidships and the flex deck fitted with a 40 ton beam crane plus a steel beech or the Palfinger Babock slipway system. This would be a very good ship as a LRG escort or a singleton for FCF ops it would also be very good for general Patrol duties , MCM mother ship and HRDA . I would like to see six of these ships built after one more T-31 added to the five to make six T-31's

As far as other patrol ships built I would like to see one more RB2 and then 10 x 50m fast boats able to be fitted with 4 x NSM or 2 x pod systems

[donald_of_tokyo]

Enlarged:


Two hangars, an open quarterdeck and dazzle paint!

Janes says 130m.

Serious question: What is the information provided so far?

I think we need to see how BAES "thinks" T32 will be. No doubt they are talking with RN, so the proposed design must be reflecting (at least) some of the requirement sets.

We can see
in front
- a 57 mm gun and 12-cell CAMM, at the center line = this will be the default weapon fits.
- there are two containers' top observable, one for 8-cell VLS and one for dragonfly laser kit? = this suggest up-arming by Pods is also considered

in the middle
- open-top mission space with 5 containers, with 15-t crane (similar to those on River B2) = commonly seen
- two 7.5-m RHIB alcoves and two 12-m boat alcoves = boat/USV handling requirement is not so high.
- and a small RoRo ramp in both sides = can carry some vehicles, but no stern steal-beach means it is mainly for port access.
- a Chinook capalbe (?) hangar and flight deck, and another hangar for UAVs.

at the stern
- open mission deck with 3 containers = another place for Pods, may be capable of some ASW, or torpedo-defense kits.

over all
Apparently not for MCM USVs, looks like. Also, lack of steal beach means not intended for using LCVP or alike to land vehicles. It is also clear that NGFS is not intended.

Wondering if a modified T31 can handle this requirement, and I think largely yes. Difficult will be the RoRo ramp, but amidship beam-wide open mission deck, 12-m + 7.5-m boat alcoves, the weapons, will all be OK. T31 has a "below flight deck" mission space for several containers, as well as a space open at stern. So, this area also can be comparable.

Actually, I wanna see BMTs proposal.

[Jake1992]

I’d go for something like the Damen Crossover 139 FC.
https://www.damen.com/catalogue/defence ... #xo-139-fc

Chinook flight deck plus at least merlin hanger and 2 rhibs at the side of the hanger.
The large flex deck seems spot on, large enough to carry 3 LCVPs and more, a rear ramp to deploy along with LCVP divits each side.

Low crew numbers just as needed and weapons fit would always be of RN choosing in any design.

6 vessels like this for T32 to escort any amphibious set up but also to operate on their own in so many roles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Interesting suggestion. But, he states 1 year drumbeat? Until when the production will continue? Can RN even man them?

[jonas]

https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/eu ... 2-frigate/

[RichardIC]

Just skip to the final paragraph - that's the only one that matters.

[Timmymagic]

The RN quotes top speed NOT maximum sustained speed

MikeKiloPapa "..ship maximum speed is almost always defined at 90% MCR at vessel full load displacement. Which in IHs case is 28 Kts at 6645t"

Could this be the same as when everyone thought the QE had a top speed of 25 knots? When in fact it was the contractual minimum top speed at end of life (50 years), with worn machinery, dirty hull and all growth margin used up on the ship. QE was then tracked at 31.5 knots on her second day of sea trials before the AIS was turned off...

[Bongodog]

The RN quotes top speed NOT maximum sustained speed

MikeKiloPapa "..ship maximum speed is almost always defined at 90% MCR at vessel full load displacement. Which in IHs case is 28 Kts at 6645t"

Could this be the same as when everyone thought the QE had a top speed of 25 knots? When in fact it was the contractual minimum top speed at end of life (50 years), with worn machinery, dirty hull and all growth margin used up on the ship. QE was then tracked at 31.5 knots on her second day of sea trials before the AIS was turned off...

It wouldn't be the 1st time a RN ship had a far higher top speed than officially stated. I recall the T21's were said to be about 7 knots faster than their quoted speed.

[Bongodog]

I recall the T21's were said to be about 7 knots faster than their quoted speed.
Top

Think they were always mentioned as 31 knots +, but one actually hit 37.5 knots in service.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think this is NEWS.

[Jensy]

Adaptable Strike Frigate model at Euronaval:



This one has:
- DragonFire (or something similar) fitted fore and aft
- 24x CAMMM
- 8-MK.41 tubes
- No Artisan.

Looks like the rear has been redesigned and a boat ramp fitted, where there was previously more container storage.



Have to say, it really reminds me of the earlier BAE FSC design, that eventually grew in size and capability to become Type 26:



Right down to a 'dog/drone kennel' shown with a Malloy Aeronautics T400.