Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

What will be the result of the 'Lighter Frigate' programme?

Programme cancelled, RN down to 14 escorts
52
10%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
14
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
127
25%
An LCS-like modular ship
22
4%
A modernised Type 23
24
5%
A Type 26-lite
71
14%
Less than 5 hulls
22
4%
5 hulls
71
14%
More than 5 hulls
103
20%
 
Total votes: 506

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Caribbean wrote: 20 May 2023, 11:39...then a containerised CAPTAs system simply becomes another POD. The USN is talking about having CAPTAS systems available for adding to merchant vessels, should the need arise.
Which CAPTAS? I know CAPTAS-1 with its winch and analysis system is on one TEU (actually 2 0.5TEU containers). Will CAPTAS-4CI fits in? If the sonar does, where shall be the analysis system located?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7398
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote: 19 May 2023, 22:18
Ron5 wrote: 19 May 2023, 17:07
tomuk wrote: 19 May 2023, 16:13
Ron5 wrote: 19 May 2023, 14:15 BTW the declared aim of the type 32's is to provide a superior platform for deploying unmanned assets i.e. the thing that the type 31's are particularly useless at.
Have you got a quote for that? I read that it should have a focus on unmanned I have also read that it should support the LRGs ie act as escort.
For what it's worth ..

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -20/118499
So not a "superior platform for deploying unmanned assets" then.
Not the way I read it. Question was: what differentiates type 32 from type 31. Answer: better ability to deploy unmanned assets. But whatever.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7398
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

RichardIC wrote: 19 May 2023, 20:05
Ron5 wrote: 19 May 2023, 17:07
tomuk wrote: 19 May 2023, 16:13
Ron5 wrote: 19 May 2023, 14:15 BTW the declared aim of the type 32's is to provide a superior platform for deploying unmanned assets i.e. the thing that the type 31's are particularly useless at.
Have you got a quote for that? I read that it should have a focus on unmanned I have also read that it should support the LRGs ie act as escort.
For what it's worth ..

https://questions-statements.parliament ... -20/118499
It's worth sweet FA. Type 32 was announced on the hoof and then questions started getting asked about it which resulted in this nebulous answer. Type 32 is vapourware.
Seems to me to be a reasonable answer at the time. I had no trouble understanding it.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5666
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

in the case of a Type 31 or RB2 in another container type 31 has space for 4 TEU under the flight deck and the RB2 just line two container down the centre of the flight deck still enough room to launch and recover a Puma or the new French UAV

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 158
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by JohnM »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 11:12
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 May 2023, 10:23
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 06:54 As said above you need to clear what is being ordered this contract is more like the 250 million contact for T-31 i.e Babcocks got a 1.25 billion pound contract to build 5 T-31 = 250 million each
£2Bn is the program cost. We can see many independent contracts directly by MOD to, at least, MBDA and Thales. Not sure how many others will be there. But, NAO reports clearly says £2Bn. In other words, that is the number RN/MOD reported to NAO.
yes quite right but my statement was in context to the post up thread where the 4th Constellation class build contract was given and was 526 million dollars which was the build without GFE

Constellation program cost 12 billion
Constellation program cost per ship 1.2 billion
Constellation build cost plus GFE = 840 million

Type 31 program cost 2 billion
Type 31 program cost per ship 400 million
Type 31 build cost plus GFE 280 million
The Constellation numbers are in USD,…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5666
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

JohnM wrote: 20 May 2023, 14:43
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 11:12
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 May 2023, 10:23
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 06:54 As said above you need to clear what is being ordered this contract is more like the 250 million contact for T-31 i.e Babcocks got a 1.25 billion pound contract to build 5 T-31 = 250 million each
£2Bn is the program cost. We can see many independent contracts directly by MOD to, at least, MBDA and Thales. Not sure how many others will be there. But, NAO reports clearly says £2Bn. In other words, that is the number RN/MOD reported to NAO.
yes quite right but my statement was in context to the post up thread where the 4th Constellation class build contract was given and was 526 million dollars which was the build without GFE

Constellation program cost 12 billion
Constellation program cost per ship 1.2 billion
Constellation build cost plus GFE = 840 million

Type 31 program cost 2 billion
Type 31 program cost per ship 400 million
Type 31 build cost plus GFE 280 million
The Constellation numbers are in USD,…
As I said but for context 840 million dollars = 675 million pounds and 12 billion dollars is 9.65 billion pounds or if we were lucky 10 Type 26's so the Constellation class are costing about the same as Type 26 at full program costs

JohnM
Donator
Posts: 158
Joined: 15 Apr 2020, 19:39
United States of America

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by JohnM »

Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 14:47
JohnM wrote: 20 May 2023, 14:43
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 11:12
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 May 2023, 10:23
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 06:54 As said above you need to clear what is being ordered this contract is more like the 250 million contact for T-31 i.e Babcocks got a 1.25 billion pound contract to build 5 T-31 = 250 million each
£2Bn is the program cost. We can see many independent contracts directly by MOD to, at least, MBDA and Thales. Not sure how many others will be there. But, NAO reports clearly says £2Bn. In other words, that is the number RN/MOD reported to NAO.
yes quite right but my statement was in context to the post up thread where the 4th Constellation class build contract was given and was 526 million dollars which was the build without GFE

Constellation program cost 12 billion
Constellation program cost per ship 1.2 billion
Constellation build cost plus GFE = 840 million

Type 31 program cost 2 billion
Type 31 program cost per ship 400 million
Type 31 build cost plus GFE 280 million
The Constellation numbers are in USD,…
As I said
I’m talking about the numbers for the program cost. The way your wrote the comparison between the two classes, it seems they’re in the same currency, which they’re not…

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5666
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

JohnM wrote: 20 May 2023, 14:52
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 14:47
JohnM wrote: 20 May 2023, 14:43
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 11:12
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 May 2023, 10:23
Tempest414 wrote: 20 May 2023, 06:54 As said above you need to clear what is being ordered this contract is more like the 250 million contact for T-31 i.e Babcocks got a 1.25 billion pound contract to build 5 T-31 = 250 million each
£2Bn is the program cost. We can see many independent contracts directly by MOD to, at least, MBDA and Thales. Not sure how many others will be there. But, NAO reports clearly says £2Bn. In other words, that is the number RN/MOD reported to NAO.
yes quite right but my statement was in context to the post up thread where the 4th Constellation class build contract was given and was 526 million dollars which was the build without GFE

Constellation program cost 12 billion
Constellation program cost per ship 1.2 billion
Constellation build cost plus GFE = 840 million

Type 31 program cost 2 billion
Type 31 program cost per ship 400 million
Type 31 build cost plus GFE 280 million
The Constellation numbers are in USD,…
As I said
I’m talking about the numbers for the program cost. The way your wrote the comparison between the two classes, it seems they’re in the same currency, which they’re not…
just added more context hope this is OK

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 20 May 2023, 10:28
tomuk wrote: 19 May 2023, 16:16No PODS are a complete waste of time, it is just the Navy trying to look exciting by being 'innovative' as a cover to having no money. If a ship needs a sonar fit it. If a ship needs missiles fit a VLS, if the ship needs to host a UAV put it in a hangar.
I think a bit different. PODS are NOT mainly for VLS nor ASW. If is more HADR, special smallish UAS kits (much smaller than the ones to be operated from the flight deck), additional electricity generator, additional accommodation, stores, more boats and so on.

I totally agree if you need AAW capability, add more VLS not PODS. If more ASW, just add CAPTAS4-CI, no CAPTAS PODS. CAPTAS-1 class light ASW equipment may be with PODS. But it means it is not for frigates, but more for OPVs or OSVs or LSVs.

So, PODS is very useful, but not in such a way to compensate the high-end war fighting capabilities. This is my impression.
But what is innovative about putting a UAV or its control system in a shipping container? Look at the hangar at Creech or Waddington.
https://www.alamy.com/pilots-view-in-th ... 22784.html

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 20 May 2023, 18:40...
But what is innovative about putting a UAV or its control system in a shipping container? Look at the hangar at Creech or Waddington.
...
I think it is more easy to understand PODS after looking at Royal Navy's PODS official page.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ifferently

- UAV's in the movie are much more smaller ones.
- "strike" in the movie is much more SPEAR3 like, or even Coyote UAS, or even smaller. Not talking about TLAM or any such things.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

I found very nice photo of Iver Huitfeldt class in a dock. The 1st photo of the following site.
You can see where the Bilge keel and (the hole for) fin stabilizer is.
https://www.orskov.dk/the-danish-frigat ... rettyPhoto

Then take a look at the HMS Ventuerer's photo. So, the area with 2-story wall is exactly the space we are talking about, to contain CAMM and/or Mk.41. In other words, its build is pretty much advanced there.

There is another photo, taken a bit before the first one. The end of the superstructure seen in this photo is exactly the end of the "32 Mk.41 VLS area". I could not see any evidence of "big hole for 32-cell Mk.41" nor any evidence for lack of such hole.

I guess
1: The space for "32-cell Mk41" will be there reserved, so adding it will be doable, but not in short notice. Wiring, CMS cables, much more power (than 12-24 CAMM), fire-fighting, etc needs time.
2: The space of the abandoned 4th boat alcove (to the port) might be usable to move CAMM there (because it was at the last moment the idea of putting the 4th boat alcove there was ditched), but the structure is already welded and all the re-design work is inevitable, so will surely needs time.
3: No information on the space "beneath" the possible SSM canisters. It might be usable to move CAMM there, but with less probability (because we never saw anything installed there in T31 program and it is a very-good location, near CIC and accommodation and sensor masts = good place to locate some equipment there). Anyway the structure is already welded and all the re-design work is inevitable, so will surely needs time, a bit longer.

Note I'm not saying impossible. But, items-2 and 3 will surely take time. We remember how the PoW's "adding EMALS" worked. I think it is still "doable", but surely needs large amount of rearrangement in the internal structure, because those area (which must have been reserved to accommodate it) has been already used for something else.

Thoughts?


Image
Image
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
Poiuytrewq

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 02:01 I found very nice photo of Iver Huitfeldt class in a dock. The 1st photo of the following site.
You can see where the Bilge keel and (the hole for) fin stabilizer is.
https://www.orskov.dk/the-danish-frigat ... rettyPhoto
In the same photo, the 1st photo of the above site, we can see the opening/removed-roof of the mission space below the flight deck. Attached figure, we can see the hatch, as well.

So, it is 1 TEU equivalent hatch for the 4 TEU equivalent size mission space. It is located afar from the stern, so may not be good to accommodate ASW kits. Top hatch is slightly forward of the main landing area but still within the area the nose gear of the Merlin may touch. So, the hatch must be closed at any time = no access to out side. So, any PODs be there, it will be UAV/UUV/USV operation center, accommodation, generators, additional analysis kits, HADR stocks, and so on, I guess.

Image
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqNickC

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4170
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 02:01 Thoughts?
Excellent analysis.

A few thoughts:

1: With 24 or 32 CAMM added to the 32x Mk41s does the 57mm/2x40mm setup still make sense? Would 57mm in A position and port/starboard 40mm plus 32CAMM in the B position make optimal use of space? This would maintain the ability to embark 16x NSM if required. It’s worth remembering the Constellation class is designed to accept 32x Mk41 plus 16x NSM containers. The forward 57mm/40mm setup on the T31 just isn’t required with 32 CAMM embarked. IMO CAMM in the B position is the easiest and preferred long term solution.

2. I suspect the addition of the Mk41 was an aspiration all along for RN so hopefully the practicalities were fully considered when the IH became the A140. Due to the parent design any alterations for the Mk41s should be straightforward even if a delay is incurred. Effectively RN is turning the T31 into a half price global combat ship without the 1st Tier ASW, I expect more exports will follow if the total cost remains reasonable.

3. It remains a mystery as to what practical benefit the aft mission space is on the T31. If containers or PODs cannot be moved around whist at sea and brought up to the flight deck into and through the hanger to be utilised in the amidships mission areas then much of the potential is lost. A lift as included on the MRCV would solve it.

4. A containerised TAS is only useful if it can be operated from the area retained for a fixed TAS. Operating a containerised TAS from the flight deck would be ridiculous and one cost cutting exercise too far. It may just be cheaper to install a fixed Captas2 or Captas4 Compact and forget any hull mounted sonar or containerised solution.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1356
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 21 May 2023, 10:44
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 02:01 Thoughts?
Excellent analysis.



1: With 24 or 32 CAMM added to the 32x Mk41s does the 57mm/2x40mm setup still make sense? Would 57mm in A position and port/starboard 40mm plus 32CAMM in the B position make optimal use of space? This would maintain the ability to embark 16x NSM if required. It’s worth remembering the Constellation class is designed to accept 32x Mk41 plus 16x NSM containers. The forward 57mm/40mm setup on the T31 just isn’t required with 32 CAMM embarked. IMO CAMM in the B position is the easiest and preferred long term solution.

I don't exactly see what you are saying here. Both 40mm are in the most optimal possitions for firing arks, creating a 360 CIWS. These placements have no impact on the midship area dedicated to VLS / boat bays.

As for is there enough space mid ship for 32 MK41 and ~24 CAMM, the answer is YES. What it means however is that the deck space previously believed to be for NSM can't be used for NSM. Thing is though, poland will have 16 RB16 and has show that they can fit all of them on midship deck (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... tyPhoto/0/ ). I don't exactly understand the concern for If they can fit, because the answer is yes. No boat bays impacted, all as designed

. Also, MK41 Is already FFBNW on T31. While yes this is bs, it doesn't mean nothing. It means that there has been space allocated, that metal structural foundations are already in place, that exaust (MK41 is hot laucher) has outlet already existing, e.c.t e.c.t.
https://library.imarest.org/record/10665 written by James Johnson (Type 31 Frigate Transversals Engineering Manager) and Matt Howard (Chief Engineer, Arrowhead-140)

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

new guy wrote: 21 May 2023, 13:02..
As for is there enough space mid ship for 32 MK41 and ~24 CAMM, the answer is YES.
Agree. But, CAMM location is far from clear nor easy.
What it means however is that the deck space previously believed to be for NSM can't be used for NSM. Thing is though, poland will have 16 RB16 and has show that they can fit all of them on midship deck (https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... tyPhoto/0/ ). I don't exactly understand the concern for If they can fit, because the answer is yes. No boat bays impacted, all as designed
Disagree. You see where the RBS15s are located? Nothing is under the Arrowhead 140's "roof" other than the 32-cell Mk41VLS.

We are struggling to find a good space to locate CAMM. And, your information does not help. Note that we can locate CAMM anywhere as we like, but it needs time. From when we hear "T45 to get CAMM" and it actually happening, there are 4-5 years needed. The same applies to T31. And, we cannot put T31 build in hold to wait for solution, because T23GP are already start decommissioning.
Also, MK41 Is already FFBNW on T31. While yes this is bs, it doesn't mean nothing. It means that there has been space allocated, that metal structural foundations are already in place, that exaust (MK41 is hot laucher) has outlet already existing, e.c.t e.c.t.
Yes, yes, and no. Exaust is "in-built" to Mk.41, not on the hull.
library.imarest.org/record/10665 written by James Johnson (Type 31 Frigate Transversals Engineering Manager) and Matt Howard (Chief Engineer, Arrowhead-140)
We all read it. No problem, both mine and Poiuytrewq-san's analyses are based on all these info.

[not enough time] We can find no good way to install Mk.41 VLS from hull-1. Not because it is impossible, but because hull-1 production is well in progress. May be hull-2, too. For hull4 and 5, I agree it is doable. And thus the question is "CAMM at where?"

[CAMM location where?] For the CAMM location option, there are only 3 suggestions known to date, "replacing the Mk.41 area (as the original T31 plan)", "filling ExLS (which is not yet fielded) in Mk41", and "using the B-position" (a few times suggested by Babcock guys. I think this is why Poiuytrewq-san is talking about it.)

The 1st choice lack Mk.41. 2nd needs time to field/certificate and integrate ExLS into Mk.41. It is also very expensive option (although the most flexible one). 3rd is just a "power-point proposal" so needs some detailed design to actually happen. Again, not saying impossible. Just saying will take time.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7398
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

I was under the impression that the space under the flight deck was for transporting containers that would be loaded and unloaded at dockside. No ability for the containers to be manned or operational. Terming the space as mission bay, I think, originated from internet speculation. Could be wrong as always.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7398
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Wouldn't surprise me that the investigation phase determined that the Mk 41's were not the greatest addition. The T31's have a very minimal sensor set which doesn't really help.
These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

Ron5 wrote: 21 May 2023, 14:41 Wouldn't surprise me that the investigation phase determined that the Mk 41's were not the greatest addition. The T31's have a very minimal sensor set which doesn't really help.
Let us enjoy the possibility whilst we can, Ron
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post:
Ron5

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4170
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

new guy wrote: 21 May 2023, 13:02 I don't exactly see what you are saying here. Both 40mm are in the most optimal possitions for firing arks, creating a 360 CIWS. These placements have no impact on the midship area dedicated to VLS / boat bays.
What I am suggesting is far from radical.

Go back to the beginning and start with a clean sheet of paper. Too much emphasis is placed on where we find ourselves today. These Frigates will likely be in service for decades so RN have to get this right.

Firstly , RN wanted 13x T26 including 5x T26 GP. Now RN is trying to adapt the T31 to provide as many T26 GP capabilities as possible. Great.

RN didn’t want a 57mm and 2x 40mm plus 12 CAMM. The bean counters wanted them. RN wanted Mk45, 2x30mm, 2x Phalanx, 24x Mk41 and 48 CAMM. Start from this baseline.

RN chose a vessel with lots of space and potential and is now trying to get the armament required to fight and win and crucially not lose if attacked. Again, great.

So a few simple questions about the T31.

- Why four RHIBs?

- Why three RHIBs?

- How many other navies are introducing a class of Frigates or Destroyers with more than two RHIBs? Is it really necessary or just nice to have?

- Is the 57mm/40mm configuration still relevant if more CAMM are added? If so, where does that leave the T26 and T23? It’s either relevant on all escorts or not relevant on any, it can’t be both.

- Now that the Mk41s are going to be fitted, the T31s are going to become reasonably high value targets as well as credible escorts. Is it really sufficient to to commission the class with only a torpedo defense system?

The answers to the above questions dictates what weapon systems could and should be fitted after which the space to fit them can be allocated.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Online
jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by jedibeeftrix »

never been much of a fan of the T31, but by far the most interesting part of it for me was the 40mm bofors.

"where does that leave the T26 and T23? It’s either relevant on all escorts or not relevant on any, it can’t be both."

agreed, that was precisely my point. would this indicate that forward deployed Rivers might in future get a 40mm bofors as a baseline, with 3P and a FCS sufficient for self-defence from RPG's, UAV's, and boghammers.

allowing even OPV's to act as convoy escorts in the gulf - alongside a frigate! the benefit being that you don't have to station two frigates in the gulf permanently when convoy escort is necessary.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 01:23
tomuk wrote: 20 May 2023, 18:40...
But what is innovative about putting a UAV or its control system in a shipping container? Look at the hangar at Creech or Waddington.
...
I think it is more easy to understand PODS after looking at Royal Navy's PODS official page.
https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-l ... ifferently

- UAV's in the movie are much more smaller ones.
- "strike" in the movie is much more SPEAR3 like, or even Coyote UAS, or even smaller. Not talking about TLAM or any such things.
I'm sorry Donald-San I've read the link and it still a load of buzzword bingo bolleaux. If you need to temporarily embark a small UAV then a shipping container may be convenient but if it is a long term thing then why not store it in the hangar? In these days of open systems and multi role consoles why is the control station not hosted in ops?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Ron5 wrote: 21 May 2023, 14:41 Wouldn't surprise me that the investigation phase determined that the Mk 41's were not the greatest addition. The T31's have a very minimal sensor set which doesn't really help.
Are you talking about a lack of sonar or something else?

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5626
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

tomuk wrote: 21 May 2023, 17:30I'm sorry Donald-San I've read the link and it still a load of buzzword bingo bolleaux. If you need to temporarily embark a small UAV then a shipping container may be convenient but if it is a long term thing then why not store it in the hangar? In these days of open systems and multi role consoles why is the control station not hosted in ops?
So I guess it means RN thinks
- this capability is not always needed for all of the T32 or others
- rather these capabilities shall be rotated among assets assigned to some specific theater (like the Gulf)
- and rotation can include RFA vessels and OPVs

As you stated, permanent installation is much more efficient for capabilities permanently needed. So the answer is clear, looks like?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1670
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 21 May 2023, 21:43
tomuk wrote: 21 May 2023, 17:30I'm sorry Donald-San I've read the link and it still a load of buzzword bingo bolleaux. If you need to temporarily embark a small UAV then a shipping container may be convenient but if it is a long term thing then why not store it in the hangar? In these days of open systems and multi role consoles why is the control station not hosted in ops?
So I guess it means RN thinks
- this capability is not always needed for all of the T32 or others
- rather these capabilities shall be rotated among assets assigned to some specific theater (like the Gulf)
- and rotation can include RFA vessels and OPVs

As you stated, permanent installation is much more efficient for capabilities permanently needed. So the answer is clear, looks like?
Yes the answer is clear if the funds were available upfront the most efficient way to provide the capabilities would be through permanent fits.
However there isn't sufficient budget so the RN is trying to sex up shipping containers as being innovative an exciting to attract some more funding from the bean counters.

XAVs video on the Italian PPA is enlightening on this illogicalness, it is patrol ship equipped with a highly complex CMS and highly complex 30+ knot propulsion system but doesn't have a boat bay or permanent davits for a RHIB these are provided by modular removable boat cradles in a TEU format twist locked to the modular deck.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7398
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote: 21 May 2023, 15:18
Ron5 wrote: 21 May 2023, 14:41 Wouldn't surprise me that the investigation phase determined that the Mk 41's were not the greatest addition. The T31's have a very minimal sensor set which doesn't really help.
Let us enjoy the possibility whilst we can, Ron
I enjoy the speculation. Donald, Tom and Poiuytrewq are always fun, thought provoking reads.

Post Reply