Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

[donald_of_tokyo]

Some new details here:

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-ba ... e-concept/

If the T32 can be built by BAE for £250m-£300m plus GFE what is the point of the T31?

Some of us are old enough to remember when bae claimed type 26 would be in the same cost brkt…..

I am SO OLD that I remember T45's original cost claim was £350m each for 12 hulls.

Actually, from cost point of view, Treasury has committed more than 100% as RN ORIGINALLY said they need for 12 planned T45 by funding the 6 real T45. There was no cut (from money point of view).

[donald_of_tokyo]

THE Absalon is slow, because it has only 2 diesels.

IMO an Absalon variant with a second engine room could still have a ASF style layout without an issue. Lots of adaptions required but it is possible.

Looks impossible for me... Doubling the diesel generator (including its intake and exhaust), enlarging the gear box to handle twice power, needs huge space and weight internally. Not surprised it costed ALL the vehicle deck. But, we want the astern-half of the deck to be used for the mission deck, then the "2 Merlin capable hangar" shall be sacrificed. This is my assessment. Weight and size limit is a real limit, and diesel gensets are large if you require the top speed of ~30 knots.

BAE can use Cammel Laird, Babcock (Rosyth), and even other small shipyards to build the blocks, I think.

Perhaps but the T32 is likely to span 2028 to 2036.

If CL and Babcock are building the T32 blocks where are the 9 FSS and MRSS hulls going to be built?

The natural succession surely is Babcock for the T31 followed directly by the T32 regardless of which design is ultimately chosen.

The FSS needs to go to other yard(s). Building 18 escorts and over 200,000t of Auxiliaries and Amphibs by 2040 is a massive ask for UK PLC.

I think there is no problem in three points of view.

1: We know most of the ship building cost is not on its equipment, but in its integration work (adding up the equipment cost never gives the total ship cost). The ASF (T32-candidate) is a £250-300M per hull ship. In other words, the workload needed is ~1/3 of T26. With the new build hall in Clyde, build efficiency shall improve, which means more workload margin comes out.

Also we know Cammel Laird has not big order list in near future, even though they are the best experienced shipbuilder for large vessel, thanks to RV SD Attenborough. They made large deficit there, but it meas they learned a lot. Engineering is pretty much based on experience. Utilizing Cammel Laird is one of the most important and efficient way to improve the UK shipbuilding industry, for sure.

2: For me, the T32 time frame is simply wrong. What is the next to be build after T32? "Continuing 1-1.5 year drumbeat of T3X series" is simply impossible, RN cannot man it. In other words, Rosyth MUST join FSSS and/or MRSS build. I think Rosyth shall get SSS sharework. If not, Rosyth will lack anything before T31 replacement comes. 15 years? No, never happen. It will be 30 years later, i.e. to start building around 2050. Rosyth needs good list of order between 2030 (after T31) till 2050 (replacing T31).

3: Delaying the T32 by 4-5 years has no problem. At least in a decade or so, RN will NOT see shortage of escort hulls, but rather see continuous shortage of man-power.
- RN cannot even man the current escort fleet. They are just manning 12 escorts out of the 18 listed.
- Modernized fleet of T31 and T26 can provide much more longer sea going days than the good-but-old T23s they replace. If you double crew some of them (like RN did for KIPION T23), it will be even longer. T26 crew size is 160 without aircrew. T31 will surely require 110+ without aircrew (it generally increases, as we see also in IH-class). Taking into account the lower maintenance need (new), I'm not surprised to see the total sea-going days easily reaching 1.5 times longer, or even doubled. This is very good in view of RN ship availability, but it will also be a big big burden for the crews. So, I think the crew will be over assigned. This is also very important to keep them not quit the job = to increase the (skilled) manpower retained.

[Repulse]

I like what I see from the BAE design and highlights so many of the shortcomings of the T31.

I do think HMG / UK Industry does need to come together and separate the idea that a BAE design has to be built by BAE. Babcock should be building this as a follow on from the T31, whilst BAE builds the T45 and then T83.

[Tempest414]

THE Absalon is slow, because it has only 2 diesels.

IMO an Absalon variant with a second engine room could still have a ASF style layout without an issue. Lots of adaptions required but it is possible.

Looks impossible for me... Doubling the diesel generator (including its intake and exhaust), enlarging the gear box to handle twice power, needs huge space and weight internally. Not surprised it costed ALL the vehicle deck. But, we want the astern-half of the deck to be used for the mission deck, then the "2 Merlin capable hangar" shall be sacrificed. This is my assessment. Weight and size limit is a real limit, and diesel gensets are large if you require the top speed of ~30 knots.

BAE can use Cammel Laird, Babcock (Rosyth), and even other small shipyards to build the blocks, I think.

Perhaps but the T32 is likely to span 2028 to 2036.

If CL and Babcock are building the T32 blocks where are the 9 FSS and MRSS hulls going to be built?

The natural succession surely is Babcock for the T31 followed directly by the T32 regardless of which design is ultimately chosen.

The FSS needs to go to other yard(s). Building 18 escorts and over 200,000t of Auxiliaries and Amphibs by 2040 is a massive ask for UK PLC.

I think there is no problem in three points of view.

1: We know most of the ship building cost is not on its equipment, but in its integration work (adding up the equipment cost never gives the total ship cost). The ASF (T32-candidate) is a £250-300M per hull ship. In other words, the workload needed is ~1/3 of T26. With the new build hall in Clyde, build efficiency shall improve, which means more workload margin comes out.

Also we know Cammel Laird has not big order list in near future, even though they are the best experienced shipbuilder for large vessel, thanks to RV SD Attenborough. They made large deficit there, but it meas they learned a lot. Engineering is pretty much based on experience. Utilizing Cammel Laird is one of the most important and efficient way to improve the UK shipbuilding industry, for sure.

2: For me, the T32 time frame is simply wrong. What is the next to be build after T32? "Continuing 1-1.5 year drumbeat of T3X series" is simply impossible, RN cannot man it. In other words, Rosyth MUST join FSSS and/or MRSS build. I think Rosyth shall get SSS sharework. If not, Rosyth will lack anything before T31 replacement comes. 15 years? No, never happen. It will be 30 years later, i.e. to start building around 2050. Rosyth needs good list of order between 2030 (after T31) till 2050 (replacing T31).

3: Delaying the T32 by 4-5 years has no problem. At least in a decade or so, RN will NOT see shortage of escort hulls, but rather see continuous shortage of man-power.
- RN cannot even man the current escort fleet. They are just manning 12 escorts out of the 18 listed.
- Modernized fleet of T31 and T26 can provide much more longer sea going days than the good-but-old T23s they replace. If you double crew some of them (like RN did for KIPION T23), it will be even longer. T26 crew size is 160 without aircrew. T31 will surely require 110+ without aircrew (it generally increases, as we see also in IH-class). Taking into account the lower maintenance need (new), I'm not surprised to see the total sea-going days easily reaching 1.5 times longer, or even doubled. This is very good in view of RN ship availability, but it will also be a big big burden for the crews. So, I think the crew will be over assigned. This is also very important to keep them not quit the job = to increase the (skilled) manpower retained.

we all know that a Absalon class has 2 engine rooms the same a IH class size and all but only fit one engine in both so fitting 2 more engines is not that hard

Edit : in fact when you watch the video of a Absalon engine room you can see the space for the second engine

[SD67]

THE Absalon is slow, because it has only 2 diesels.

IMO an Absalon variant with a second engine room could still have a ASF style layout without an issue. Lots of adaptions required but it is possible.

Looks impossible for me... Doubling the diesel generator (including its intake and exhaust), enlarging the gear box to handle twice power, needs huge space and weight internally. Not surprised it costed ALL the vehicle deck. But, we want the astern-half of the deck to be used for the mission deck, then the "2 Merlin capable hangar" shall be sacrificed. This is my assessment. Weight and size limit is a real limit, and diesel gensets are large if you require the top speed of ~30 knots.

BAE can use Cammel Laird, Babcock (Rosyth), and even other small shipyards to build the blocks, I think.

Perhaps but the T32 is likely to span 2028 to 2036.

If CL and Babcock are building the T32 blocks where are the 9 FSS and MRSS hulls going to be built?

The natural succession surely is Babcock for the T31 followed directly by the T32 regardless of which design is ultimately chosen.

The FSS needs to go to other yard(s). Building 18 escorts and over 200,000t of Auxiliaries and Amphibs by 2040 is a massive ask for UK PLC.

I think there is no problem in three points of view.

1: We know most of the ship building cost is not on its equipment, but in its integration work (adding up the equipment cost never gives the total ship cost). The ASF (T32-candidate) is a £250-300M per hull ship. In other words, the workload needed is ~1/3 of T26. With the new build hall in Clyde, build efficiency shall improve, which means more workload margin comes out.

Also we know Cammel Laird has not big order list in near future, even though they are the best experienced shipbuilder for large vessel, thanks to RV SD Attenborough. They made large deficit there, but it meas they learned a lot. Engineering is pretty much based on experience. Utilizing Cammel Laird is one of the most important and efficient way to improve the UK shipbuilding industry, for sure.

2: For me, the T32 time frame is simply wrong. What is the next to be build after T32? "Continuing 1-1.5 year drumbeat of T3X series" is simply impossible, RN cannot man it. In other words, Rosyth MUST join FSSS and/or MRSS build. I think Rosyth shall get SSS sharework. If not, Rosyth will lack anything before T31 replacement comes. 15 years? No, never happen. It will be 30 years later, i.e. to start building around 2050. Rosyth needs good list of order between 2030 (after T31) till 2050 (replacing T31).

3: Delaying the T32 by 4-5 years has no problem. At least in a decade or so, RN will NOT see shortage of escort hulls, but rather see continuous shortage of man-power.
- RN cannot even man the current escort fleet. They are just manning 12 escorts out of the 18 listed.
- Modernized fleet of T31 and T26 can provide much more longer sea going days than the good-but-old T23s they replace. If you double crew some of them (like RN did for KIPION T23), it will be even longer. T26 crew size is 160 without aircrew. T31 will surely require 110+ without aircrew (it generally increases, as we see also in IH-class). Taking into account the lower maintenance need (new), I'm not surprised to see the total sea-going days easily reaching 1.5 times longer, or even doubled. This is very good in view of RN ship availability, but it will also be a big big burden for the crews. So, I think the crew will be over assigned. This is also very important to keep them not quit the job = to increase the (skilled) manpower retained.

Donald, I think you're being simplistic on manpower. It was not long ago there were complaints about lack of sea time leading to low morale / skill fade. All the new ships will have a lower crewing requirement. I also assume that this is part of the reason the RN is sending the Rivers around the world - they're training the next generation.
My anecdotal experience in industry is that it's never difficult to rustle up crew for shiny new kit, everyone wants to learn on the latest. But crewing an old breakdown prone maintenance hog - that's when people start finding other things to do.

[donald_of_tokyo]

we all know that a Absalon class has 2 engine rooms the same a IH class size and all but only fit one engine in both so fitting 2 more engines is not that hard

Edit : in fact when you watch the video of a Absalon engine room you can see the space for the second engine

Nowhere I can find an open space for the 2nd engine. It is filled with other misc-machines... To locate 2nd engine there, you need to find a place to move those machines. Also you need to find place for air intake and exhaust. This is what I meant.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Donald, I think you're being simplistic on manpower. It was not long ago there were complaints about lack of sea time leading to low morale / skill fade. All the new ships will have a lower crewing requirement. I also assume that this is part of the reason the RN is sending the Rivers around the world - they're training the next generation.
My anecdotal experience in industry is that it's never difficult to rustle up crew for shiny new kit, everyone wants to learn on the latest. But crewing an old breakdown prone maintenance hog - that's when people start finding other things to do.

May be. But, T26 crew size is 160+ aircrew, 90% of a T23. T31's is 110+aircrew, 60% of a T23.

There are 4 T23 GP listed, and only 3 of them is manned. (Argyl in long-maintenance (not manned), Lancaster on KIPION (manned with double crew), Iron Duke coming back from LIFEX (manned), Montrose to be decommissioned soon (her crew will go to another T23). ) In other words, RN can man 5 new T31, and no surplus man-power will come out. If you look at the T23 ASW, crew needed for 8 T26 is much larger than those currently assigned to T23 ASWs. In short, there is no man-power left to fill the T32 frigate.

And, this is associated with very low average sea going days, which I think RN must improve, back to the level achieved before 2010 (it suddenly dropped from ~150 days average to ~100 days after 2010). In other words, on average, modern RN escort crew "enjoys" low sea-going days, only two-thirds of the days used to be before 2010. I think we need at least 20% increase in crew size (~2400 x 0.2 = ~500) to achieve this. Say, double crew some of them, or (like River B2) x1.5 crew some of them. Here, "500 more crew" means 1000-1500 more man-power in RN.

This approach will need a decade. This is my thought. After that, if yet another 1000-1500 more man-power be found, RN will be able to man 5 T32s.

RN was struggling hard to maintain its man-power. So, RN must much more struggle for the coming decade, including rise of salary. It needs huge money.

Fingers crossed.

I find no need to "hurry" T32 build. Brand new T31 and T26 will more than save the day. When T31 and T26 gets older and maintenance load increases, then T32 will be needed, I think. Perfect match.

[edit] Of course, another idea will be to first increase the hull number and then regain the sea-going days. But, to keep Rosyth active on escort building, I think delaying T32 has a very good rationale...

[Tempest414]

we all know that a Absalon class has 2 engine rooms the same a IH class size and all but only fit one engine in both so fitting 2 more engines is not that hard

Edit : in fact when you watch the video of a Absalon engine room you can see the space for the second engine

Nowhere I can find an open space for the 2nd engine. It is filled with other misc-machines... To locate 2nd engine there, you need to find a place to move those machines. Also you need to find place for air intake and exhaust. This is what I meant.

when you put the two engine rooms side by side you can see fitting the second engine in each room is not that hard and has clearly been done for the IH class you are making it out to be the impossible task it clearly isn't

[donald_of_tokyo]

when you put the two engine rooms side by side you can see fitting the second engine in each room is not that hard and has clearly been done for the IH class you are making it out to be the impossible task it clearly isn't

And that is why Iver Huitfeldt class lacks vehicle deck and 2nd Merlin hangar. We are talking about this from the beginning, I understand?

[Tempest414]

when you put the two engine rooms side by side you can see fitting the second engine in each room is not that hard and has clearly been done for the IH class you are making it out to be the impossible task it clearly isn't

And that is why Iver Huitfeldt class lacks vehicle deck and 2nd Merlin hangar. We are talking about this from the beginning, I understand?

No it dose not mean that at all you are making it up

[Poiuytrewq]

Looks impossible for me... Doubling the diesel generator (including its intake and exhaust), enlarging the gear box to handle twice power, needs huge space and weight internally. Not surprised it costed ALL the vehicle deck. But, we want the astern-half of the deck to be used for the mission deck, then the "2 Merlin capable hangar" shall be sacrificed. This is my assessment. Weight and size limit is a real limit, and diesel gensets are large if you require the top speed of ~30 knots.

I agree that these are the issues that require a solution with the IH/A140 design but BAE have clearly found a credible solution with the ASF. The layout is similar between both hulls. Why not apply the same solution? The amidships VLS cells are not required on the A140 so if they are deleted the layout can be radically altered.

BAE can use Cammel Laird, Babcock (Rosyth), and even other small shipyards to build the blocks, I think.

Absolutely but supporting Babcock as the UKs Tier 2 escort builder must be the best outcome. The possibility that if Babcock offers an unsuitable design at a undesirable cost it will be a BAE design built at Rosyth should be enough to concentrate minds.

The ASF (T32-candidate) is a £250-300M per hull ship. In other words, the workload needed is ~1/3 of T26. With the new build hall in Clyde, build efficiency shall improve, which means more workload margin comes out.

I agree, if BAE can built it for such a price then Babcock will be sweating.

2: For me, the T32 time frame is simply wrong. What is the next to be build after T32? "Continuing 1-1.5 year drumbeat of T3X series" is simply impossible, RN cannot man it. In other words, Rosyth MUST join FSSS and/or MRSS build. I think Rosyth shall get SSS sharework. If not, Rosyth will lack anything before T31 replacement comes. 15 years? No, never happen. It will be 30 years later, i.e. to start building around 2050. Rosyth needs good list of order between 2030 (after T31) till 2050 (replacing T31).

What about T31 exports?

What about the Wave replacements?

What the Point replacements?

Lots of options to slot in and fill the gaps.

Personally I would try as hard as possible to sell as many T31s as possible so RN can maximise T32 numbers.

- RN cannot even man the current escort fleet. They are just manning 12 escorts out of the 18 listed.

RN cannot credibly grow the fleet without also growing the manpower. To suggest the escort fleet is going to increase by 5 Frigates and the crew numbers are going to be found by efficiencies due to the decommissioning of the MCMV fleet is bonkers.

More Frigates More Crew! Simple!

[Ron5]

Some new details here:

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-ba ... e-concept/

If the T32 can be built by BAE for £250m-£300m plus GFE what is the point of the T31?

Some of us are old enough to remember when bae claimed type 26 would be in the same cost brkt…..

And some of us may have defective memories. I don't remember Bae ever making such a claim. I do, however, remember the Treasury making an unrealistic target budget that Bae was unable to meet given the spec. That lead to years and years of wrangling to nobody's benefit.

[Ron5]

Some new details here:

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-ba ... e-concept/

If the T32 can be built by BAE for £250m-£300m plus GFE what is the point of the T31?

Some of us are old enough to remember when bae claimed type 26 would be in the same cost brkt…..

I am SO OLD that I remember T45's original cost claim was £350m each for 12 hulls.

Actually, from cost point of view, Treasury has committed more than 100% as RN ORIGINALLY said they need for 12 planned T45 by funding the 6 real T45. There was no cut (from money point of view).

It was PAAMS that overrun its budget and Gordo refused to bail them out. So fewer ships and less protection for the UK. Yay.

The ships minus PAAMS were built for about 450 million each (going from memory ).

[Ron5]

The ASF (T32-candidate) is a £250-300M per hull ship. In other words, the workload needed is ~1/3 of T26. With the new build hall in Clyde, build efficiency shall improve, which means more workload margin comes out.

Bae quote that price for an ASF with no sensors or armament. Where do you get the 750-900m price for a bare T26? Bae's CEO indicated a much lower price for the T26 Batch 2.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I agree that these are the issues that require a solution with the IH/A140 design but BAE have clearly found a credible solution with the ASF. The layout is similar between both hulls. Why not apply the same solution? The amidships VLS cells are not required on the A140 so if they are deleted the layout can be radically altered.

Agree. So, BAE ASF omitted the vehicle deck and accommodation for a company of soldiers and focused on Cube and stern ramps.

Absolutely but supporting Babcock as the UKs Tier 2 escort builder must be the best outcome. The possibility that if Babcock offers an unsuitable design at a undesirable cost it will be a BAE design built at Rosyth should be enough to concentrate minds.

I agree. To support Babcock as escort builder, T32 must be built a bit later. If not, Babcock will "forget" how to do it before T31 replacement comes in. This is my point.

What about T31 exports?

There are several export sales, but none of them was to be built at Rosyth. This is the world trend.

What about the Wave replacements?
What the Point replacements?

No objection. But it means none of them are escort. So, why not build FSSS before T32?

For example,
- 2020-2030 5 T31 escort (delivery 2027-2030)
- 2025-2032 3 FSS (delivery 2029-2033)
- 2030-2041 5 T32 escort (delivery 2035-2041)
- 2038-2042 Point class replacements (delivery 2040-2042) <-- may go to other yards? (CL?)
- 2040-2050 MRSS (delivery 2044-2050)
- 2045-2055 5 T31-replacement
- Tides...

Of course, there is no guarantee Babcock can win all of them. And, there is a possibility (narrow) for build-export. Which is more likely?

RN cannot credibly grow the fleet without also growing the manpower. To suggest the escort fleet is going to increase by 5 Frigates and the crew numbers are going to be found by efficiencies due to the decommissioning of the MCMV fleet is bonkers.

Anyway 12 MCMVs crew cannot provide the crew needed for 5 T32 and 12 sets of USV-MCM-systems and 3 Support ships.

More Frigates More Crew! Simple!

No objection. I am proposing the same aim with different perspective. Just saying 1-1.5 year drumbeat of T30-series is simply not sustainable, in both RN man-power and industry experience point of view. Scrap and build of 2nd-escort builder is very inefficient. It will future eat out many hulls of frigate. I agree this is just my idea, but I am NOT AGAINST increasing RN power.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Bae quote that price for an ASF with no sensors or armament. Where do you get the 750-900m price for a bare T26?

Nowhere, you are right. I am just proposing an example. But, I do think, if T32 gets as expensive as T26, T32 will be simply canceled.

Bae's CEO indicated a much lower price for the T26 Batch 2.

Interesting. How much was it? Maybe I missed the info?

[donald_of_tokyo]

It was PAAMS that overrun its budget and Gordo refused to bail them out. So fewer ships and less protection for the UK. Yay.

The ships minus PAAMS were built for about 450 million each (going from memory ).

As you know, for Treasury, it doesn't matter. They prepared the money they initially promised = fitted within the long term budgetary foresight. It is MOD, who insisted on increasing it without cutting anything else. And, actually Treasurey agreed to increase it by 10% (if my memory works), and thus 6 hulls were secured. Then, Lehman shock came...

[SD67]

Donald - san
Youre assuming Babcock are the same as BAE.
I’ve not worked for Babcock but I know people who have, a few things to bear in mind. They move people around - both between sites and between lines of business within a site. Not every discipline is Frigate-specific. A quality inspector is a quality inspector. Fabrication is fabrication. Much of the workforce are subcontractors and they can easily move back and forth between Rosyth and the Clyde.
They actively look for non MOD work. Oil and Gas is a big segment for them and Rosyth is on the right side of Scotland to support it.
In terms of “forgetting how to build a frigate” Its the platform integration skills that are key not the metal bashing and those skills will be kept busy supporting Poland / Indonesia / future customers.

Keeping Babcock busy is the least of our problems I’m more worried about T26 being built too slowly than T31 being built too fast.

[Tempest414]

Looks impossible for me... Doubling the diesel generator (including its intake and exhaust), enlarging the gear box to handle twice power, needs huge space and weight internally. Not surprised it costed ALL the vehicle deck. But, we want the astern-half of the deck to be used for the mission deck, then the "2 Merlin capable hangar" shall be sacrificed. This is my assessment. Weight and size limit is a real limit, and diesel gensets are large if you require the top speed of ~30 knots.

I agree that these are the issues that require a solution with the IH/A140 design but BAE have clearly found a credible solution with the ASF. The layout is similar between both hulls. Why not apply the same solution? The amidships VLS cells are not required on the A140 so if they are deleted the layout can be radically altered.

BAE can use Cammel Laird, Babcock (Rosyth), and even other small shipyards to build the blocks, I think.

Absolutely but supporting Babcock as the UKs Tier 2 escort builder must be the best outcome. The possibility that if Babcock offers an unsuitable design at a undesirable cost it will be a BAE design built at Rosyth should be enough to concentrate minds.

The ASF (T32-candidate) is a £250-300M per hull ship. In other words, the workload needed is ~1/3 of T26. With the new build hall in Clyde, build efficiency shall improve, which means more workload margin comes out.

I agree, if BAE can built it for such a price then Babcock will be sweating.

2: For me, the T32 time frame is simply wrong. What is the next to be build after T32? "Continuing 1-1.5 year drumbeat of T3X series" is simply impossible, RN cannot man it. In other words, Rosyth MUST join FSSS and/or MRSS build. I think Rosyth shall get SSS sharework. If not, Rosyth will lack anything before T31 replacement comes. 15 years? No, never happen. It will be 30 years later, i.e. to start building around 2050. Rosyth needs good list of order between 2030 (after T31) till 2050 (replacing T31).

What about T31 exports?

What about the Wave replacements?

What the Point replacements?

Lots of options to slot in and fill the gaps.

Personally I would try as hard as possible to sell as many T31s as possible so RN can maximise T32 numbers.

- RN cannot even man the current escort fleet. They are just manning 12 escorts out of the 18 listed.

RN cannot credibly grow the fleet without also growing the manpower. To suggest the escort fleet is going to increase by 5 Frigates and the crew numbers are going to be found by efficiencies due to the decommissioning of the MCMV fleet is bonkers.

More Frigates More Crew! Simple!

I really don't know where you both think engines and gearing go in a Absalon class but both go below the flex deck yes the funnels would need to be made larger but this will not take up the flex deck or twin hangar space

[tomuk]

[Caribbean]

I was under the impression that the Absolon inserted an extra deck ABOVE the machine spaces of the IH, for about two thirds of the length of the hull. Not sure how additional engines would impinge on that.

I see that Tomuk has beaten me to it - with the schematics as well

[Poiuytrewq]

I really don't know where you both think engines and gearing go in a Absalon class but both go below the flex deck yes the funnels would need to be made larger but this will not take up the flex deck or twin hangar space

It really depends what you are trying to achieve but trade offs will have to be made if the A140 propulsion setup is slotted into an Absalon.

BAE have a better solution with the ASF however we don’t know what propulsion system is proposed.

If we take the BAE ASF concept as a baseline, could such a design work with an A140 propulsion setup? The answer is a very definite no, and the twin Merlin capable hanger is only one of the issues.

The open architecture of the ASF concept only works when the spaces are not being narrowed by large exhausts and intakes regardless of where the engines/gearboxes are located.

A few examples:

Here is the A140 and the amount is space taken up by the intakes and exhausts is huge. Compromises everywhere with such a layout but if a single Merlin hanger and a few individual boat houses is all that is required then it’s perfectly adequate.

DBBEC29C-A059-40FD-9700-7D5E5FAF3443.jpeg

Here is the Arrowhead 120 with a layout similar to the T26. A large Merlin capable hanger connected to an amidships mission space. By connecting the hanger and mission space two helos could be embarked if required. A stern garage is included but space is limited due to the placement of the engine rooms and intakes/exhausts.

F4081980-3153-494E-AFAD-D4665D700830.jpeg

Here is BAEs solution on the Adaptable Strike Frigate. The stern garage is large and connected to an amidships mission space. The hanger is Merlin capable and there appears to be ample space to include a twin Merlin capable hanger if required. The uncovered working deck could be covered and connected to the hanger(s) giving an an enormous amount of space for helos and USVs.

C6D3A86A-5DB6-442D-912D-EAF2D7E2EFC1.jpeg

The ASF is very capable and actually quite a clever design albeit needing to mature as RNs requirements become clearer. BAE have an opportunity to go further with the ASF IMO and stretch the hull from 130m up to 145m/150m to include two landing spots on the flight deck similar to the Damen Crossover. By amalgamating the amidships working deck into the hanger 2 Merlin plus 2 Wildcat could be embarked if required thereby making full use of the extended flightdeck. This could be a game changer for RN at a very agreeable cost. Two such Frigates working together and embarking a mixture of Merlins and Wildcats plus a company of Marines would be a LSG in itself without any RFAs or LPDs. Massively capable.

An Arrowhead/Absalon hybrid could achieve much the same as the ASF but BAE have set the bar quite high here and it will be really interesting to see if Babcock can pull another Rabbit out of the hat as they did with the A140.

[SKB]

Not seen this pic before

[SKB]

^ As above, but enlarged.

[Tempest414]

I really don't know where you both think engines and gearing go in a Absalon class but both go below the flex deck yes the funnels would need to be made larger but this will not take up the flex deck or twin hangar space

It really depends what you are trying to achieve but trade offs will have to be made if the A140 propulsion setup is slotted into an Absalon.

BAE have a better solution with the ASF however we don’t know what propulsion system is proposed.

If we take the BAE ASF concept as a baseline, could such a design work with an A140 propulsion setup? The answer is a very definite no, and the twin Merlin capable hanger is only one of the issues.

The open architecture of the ASF concept only works when the spaces are not being narrowed by large exhausts and intakes regardless of where the engines/gearboxes are located.

A few examples:

Here is the A140 and the amount is space taken up by the intakes and exhausts is huge. Compromises everywhere with such a layout but if a single Merlin hanger and a few individual boat houses is all that is required then it’s perfectly adequate.
DBBEC29C-A059-40FD-9700-7D5E5FAF3443.jpeg



Here is the Arrowhead 120 with a layout similar to the T26. A large Merlin capable hanger connected to an amidships mission space. By connecting the hanger and mission space two helos could be embarked if required. A stern garage is included but space is limited due to the placement of the engine rooms and intakes/exhausts.
F4081980-3153-494E-AFAD-D4665D700830.jpeg



Here is BAEs solution on the Adaptable Strike Frigate. The stern garage is large and connected to an amidships mission space. The hanger is Merlin capable and there appears to be ample space to include a twin Merlin capable hanger if required. The uncovered working deck could be covered and connected to the hanger(s) giving an an enormous amount of space for helos and USVs.
C6D3A86A-5DB6-442D-912D-EAF2D7E2EFC1.jpeg The ASF is very capable and actually quite a clever design albeit needing to mature as RNs requirements become clearer. BAE have an opportunity to go further with the ASF IMO and stretch the hull from 130m up to 145m/150m to include two landing spots on the flight deck similar to the Damen Crossover. By amalgamating the amidships working deck into the hanger 2 Merlin plus 2 Wildcat could be embarked if required thereby making full use of the extended flightdeck. This could be a game changer for RN at a very agreeable cost. Two such Frigates working together and embarking a mixture of Merlins and Wildcats plus a company of Marines would be a LSG in itself without any RFAs or LPDs. Massively capable.

An Arrowhead/Absalon hybrid could achieve much the same as the ASF but BAE have set the bar quite high here and it will be really interesting to see if Babcock can pull another Rabbit out of the hat as they did with the A140.

I don't want to bust your bubble but what BAE have is some pictures and a model they have claimed they can build for 300 million given that they couldn't build Leander for that money this clean sheet design that will need fully designed is a 500 million pound plus ship all day long unless BAE intend to build it for a loss to edge Babcocks out of the escort market

Second you talk as if the Absalon class dose not exist news flash it does and nowhere does the inlet/ exhaust go through the hangar / Flex deck you will note on looking that the IH funnels are longer NOT wider there for these two have no need to go through the hangar or flex deck. It is worth noting that all the design work has been done and it is more likely that a 4 engine Absalon could be built for 300 million