Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

imperialman wrote:Could be a variant of T31 as that's being looked at to some degree. Speaking to the Defence Commitee, Babcock CEO David Lockwood said:

"As a variant of Type 31, there are Type 32 concepts to operate exactly as motherships, particularly for autonomous mine hunting."
I'm sure Babcock's would like everyone to think so.

I'm equally sure that the Treasury will insist on some kind of phony competition. Like they did the last time before awarding the contract to a company that the Treasury appointed national shipbuilding strategy author once managed and, very probably, still has a large holding of stock. Your tax dollars at work.

Maybe the Type 83 was announced to placate Bae who would rightly be pissed off with such two faced behavior.

Enigmatically
Member
Posts: 297
Joined: 04 May 2015, 19:00

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Enigmatically »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:So I was looking at type 31 again last night and still think we would be able to move kit about for a more workable lay out on type 32

127mm in A turret
replace the 40mm in B turret with 16 cell VLS
fit a phalanx on top of the hangar with 30 or 40mm each side

this will free up the whole middle weapons bay to become a mission bay which could have NSM fitted on top it also leaves the space under the fight deck for a containerized VDS system
If the T32 ends up being along these lines then it should be pretty straightforward and cost efficient.
I do love the way you guys think that ship design is as simple as as moving a few lego bricks around. And that stuff like below decks volume; loading; control systems; cabling; power; cooling; ventilation; other support systems; stability; centre of gravity; vulnerabilities; safety etc are just trivia that can easily be sorted for any arrangement you like

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2335
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Caribbean »

The Millennium guns are surprisingly light at 3.3 tonnes- Phalanx is 5.7 t and the 40mm L70 is around 5.1 t - that would be a lot of topweight on the hangar roof
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Enigmatically wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:So I was looking at type 31 again last night and still think we would be able to move kit about for a more workable lay out on type 32

127mm in A turret
replace the 40mm in B turret with 16 cell VLS
fit a phalanx on top of the hangar with 30 or 40mm each side

this will free up the whole middle weapons bay to become a mission bay which could have NSM fitted on top it also leaves the space under the fight deck for a containerized VDS system
If the T32 ends up being along these lines then it should be pretty straightforward and cost efficient.
I do love the way you guys think that ship design is as simple as as moving a few lego bricks around. And that stuff like below decks volume; loading; control systems; cabling; power; cooling; ventilation; other support systems; stability; centre of gravity; vulnerabilities; safety etc are just trivia that can easily be sorted for any arrangement you like
What part of the above is not doable we know the hull design can take 127mm in A turret we also know that B turret on the IH class is a Stanflex point and we also know that there is a 8 cell VLS Stanflex unit C turret on the hangar will be fitted with a 40mm turret in RN service which weighs 5.7 ton around the same as Phalanx.

To top it off the IH class has a f-in great radar on top at the rear which weighs a shit ton more than say 1 x phalanx and 2 x 30mm so top weight should be OK

So no I do not think it is as easy as moving lego bricks but I do think the above could be done with little redesign and planning

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Why does T31 need Phalanx? That's what the 40mm 3P Ammo in airburst mode is for. Now I would suggest that fitting a STIR radar tracker would be better then just EO Mirador however.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

tomuk wrote:Why does T31 need Phalanx? That's what the 40mm 3P Ammo in airburst mode is for. Now I would suggest that fitting a STIR radar tracker would be better then just EO Mirador however.
for me the Phalanx is in context of moving weapons around to free up what is now the weapons deck to become a mission bay as said above for a type 32 based on a type 31 hull

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Enigmatically wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:So I was looking at type 31 again last night and still think we would be able to move kit about for a more workable lay out on type 32

127mm in A turret
replace the 40mm in B turret with 16 cell VLS
fit a phalanx on top of the hangar with 30 or 40mm each side

this will free up the whole middle weapons bay to become a mission bay which could have NSM fitted on top it also leaves the space under the fight deck for a containerized VDS system
If the T32 ends up being along these lines then it should be pretty straightforward and cost efficient.
I do love the way you guys think that ship design is as simple as as moving a few lego bricks around. And that stuff like below decks volume; loading; control systems; cabling; power; cooling; ventilation; other support systems; stability; centre of gravity; vulnerabilities; safety etc are just trivia that can easily be sorted for any arrangement you like
To be fair, Babcock's promoted this view very heavily. Their trade show model has a dozens of swapable parts with different bridge structures, guns, sensors, mission bays, boat bays etc being able to swap in and out just like your lego bricks. Their sales video shows exactly the same thing and so does their sales pitch: "buy this warship and select the configuration of your choice. Piece of cake, sign here"

Damen does the same thing.

Students of history will also remember Meko frigates that effectively captured the international frigate market on the back of a Lego brick capability.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Tempest414 wrote:
tomuk wrote:Why does T31 need Phalanx? That's what the 40mm 3P Ammo in airburst mode is for. Now I would suggest that fitting a STIR radar tracker would be better then just EO Mirador however.
for me the Phalanx is in context of moving weapons around to free up what is now the weapons deck to become a mission bay as said above for a type 32 based on a type 31 hull
But the 'weapons bay' has already been freed up for use a as mission bay on T31.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

no it has been slimmed down to allow the boat bays to fit but middle still holds the CAMM cells. For me if they could push the CAMM forward to B point it would allow the whole of that space to be opened up

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote: ....if they could push the CAMM forward to B point it would allow the whole of that space to be opened up
And that would still allow for up to 16 AShM canisters amidships.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote:So I was looking at type 31 again last night and still think we would be able to move kit about for a more workable lay out on type 32
127mm in A turret
replace the 40mm in B turret with 16 cell VLS
fit a phalanx on top of the hangar with 30 or 40mm each side
this will free up the whole middle weapons bay to become a mission bay which could have NSM fitted on top it also leaves the space under the fight deck for a containerized VDS system
Enigmatically wrote:I do love the way you guys think that ship design is as simple as as moving a few lego bricks around. And that stuff like below decks volume; loading; control systems; cabling; power; cooling; ventilation; other support systems; stability; centre of gravity; vulnerabilities; safety etc are just trivia that can easily be sorted for any arrangement you like
Ron5 wrote:To be fair, Babcock's promoted this view very heavily. Their trade show model has a dozens of swapable parts with different bridge structures, guns, sensors, mission bays, boat bays etc being able to swap in and out just like your lego bricks. Their sales video shows exactly the same thing and so does their sales pitch: "buy this warship and select the configuration of your choice. Piece of cake, sign here"
Damen does the same thing.
Students of history will also remember Meko frigates that effectively captured the international frigate market on the back of a Lego brick capability.
For sure, all these arguments are true. Anything can be done if it is engineering issue, provided money is there. I agree re-arranging the internal space costs a lot, because you need not only to design the new parts, but also keep all the balance (weight, CoG, power etc) and mutual-reliance (collidor, pipes, wires, firewalls and water-tight areas) consistent. Absalon design will help "a little", but it is only after understanding what space and weight has been consumed by doubling the diesel engine to make it 29knots capable.

It is surely not a LEGO like approach. Note that Damen's approach is also never saying it is cheap. See how Sigma-class corvette/light-frigates are carefully designed with lot's of commonality in their family. But still Sigma 10514 light frigate looks too expensive in some cases (like Romania) or too limited (like Indonesia case).

Detailed design is not only the blue prints, but all the parts lists, time-lines, building procedure and verification system manuals etc. This cost a lot and requires good experience.

Babcock has "not many" experience in this field. To my understanding, only two : Irish OPVs (it is merchant hull design) and USCG cutter detailed design support (might be a little more "naval", but basically still Vard7 design = merchant hull based). Most of the detailed design of T31 is a carbon-copy of that of T31. Number of boat alcoves in T31 was surprisingly reduce from original 4 in their power-point image, to only 3 in reality. I understand it is technically surely doable, but "guess" it was not cheap to do it.

Extensive modification of T31 to make a drone-oriented version (=T32) will cost a lot. This is not only bad, because it will "train" the Babcock ship designing team to some extent. But surely it is NOT LEGO like.
imperialman wrote:Could be a variant of T31 as that's being looked at to some degree. Speaking to the Defence Commitee, Babcock CEO David Lockwood said:

"As a variant of Type 31, there are Type 32 concepts to operate exactly as motherships, particularly for autonomous mine hunting."
Doable for sure, but not sure how cheap it will be. This is what I understand.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok I reluctantly admit giving the T-32 a "Mothership" capability form unmanned platforms may have merit, but it should be one of many capabilities. There should also be a purpose built "mothership", design, aimed at replacing the Hunts and Sandowns, as a direct replacement, with the T-32 being used for operations in a contested area such as A2/AD bubbles.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

As said before we need each type to have a duty like

6 x type 45 AAW carrier escort
8 x type 26 ASW carrier escort
5 x type 31 GP
5 x type 32 LRG escort
10 x MHPC

J. Tattersall

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by J. Tattersall »

Type 32 Frigates: What Do We Know So Far?
They will be a new class of surface warship, designed to protect territorial waters and provide a persistent presence for the UK overseas.
https://www.forces.net/news/sea-vessels ... now-so-far

oscar the grouch
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 09 Aug 2021, 17:23
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by oscar the grouch »

As far as I know, these T32's are a new departure from all that has gone before. Don't think that BJ's new found focus has followed what his rather blinkered predecessors saw. Wake up and smell the Coffee springs to mind.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 286
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Digger22 »

The classification suggests a completely new ship. Up arming or re arranging the T31 would be more in line with the Whitby to Leander evolution. As such the Whitby T12 gave rise to the Leander T12I (improved). Same hull and machinery with internal layout and Superstructure rearranged to include a Flight deck for example. T32 suggests something new, or the RN has forgotten its own history.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 598
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Dahedd »

I know it's been said plenty of times before but how's about given the T31 is based on the Iver Huitfeldt class then use the bigger Absalon as the base of the T32.

Lots in common but far more space for mother ship stuff on the Absalon. No need to reinvent the wheel when a perfectly good option is right there.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4181
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Dahedd wrote:I know it's been said plenty of times before but how's about given the T31 is based on the Iver Huitfeldt class then use the bigger Absalon as the base of the T32.

Lots in common but far more space for mother ship stuff on the Absalon. No need to reinvent the wheel when a perfectly good option is right there.
If only sacrifice the speed. Absalon is not a lot larger than Iver Huitfeldt. Absalon just enjoys larger available volume thanks to having only 2 diesel gen, not 4 of IH.

I agree it is one option. But, anyway it is Danish design, of early 2000s. "No need to re-inventing the wheel" is good, but it also means UK will lose big chance to grow engineer to invent anything new. Surely it is an option, but not for free.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

At this time the UK has its cutting edge design at BAE in type 26 the Type 31 will allow Babcocks to get up to speed building frigate type ships and type 32 should allow them play about and carry out some redesign of that hull with a view to improvement of unmanned system deployment

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:At this time the UK has its cutting edge design at BAE in type 26 the Type 31 will allow Babcocks to get up to speed building frigate type ships and type 32 should allow them play about and carry out some redesign of that hull with a view to improvement of unmanned system deployment
And then after Babcock's builds the type 32's and has created experience in building small warships? A big fat nothing.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3031
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Or a all out fight for T-82 LOL

more likely the Amphib replacement program

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: Absalon is not a lot larger than Iver Huitfeldt. Absalon just enjoys larger available volume thanks to having only 2 diesel gen, not 4 of IH.
Abasalon class is bigger than IH it has an extra deck. You can see the extra deck in photos. The most obvious is the higher flight deck compared to Iver Huitfeldt. You could build a hybrid of the two taking the extra deck form Absalon but retaining the extra engine room of IH.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

tomuk wrote:Abasalon class is bigger than IH it has an extra deck. You can see the extra deck in photos. The most obvious is the higher flight deck compared to Iver Huitfeldt. You could build a hybrid of the two taking the extra deck form Absalon but retaining the extra engine room of IH.
Absalon has much more than just an extra deck.

The open architecture of the flex deck design means that an Absalon clone will never meet RN Frigate standards of damage control without major redesigns in multiple areas.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

tomuk wrote:Abasalon class is bigger than IH

Well as Absalon has a LOA of 137,6M and a beam of 19,5m , and Iver Huitfeldt is 138,7m long and 19,8m wide, I'd say that you are mistaken ;) ......Both ships have a FL displacement just shy of 6650 metric tonnes.
it has an extra deck.

No that is a quite common misconception, but both ships are in fact 7 deck designs. The flexdeck on Absalon is just 2 decks high.
You can see the extra deck in photos.
I agree thats what it looks like but its an illusion, caused by the lower "hip line" on the Absalon, the raised flight deck( as you yourself notes) and the fact that the decks on IH are a little bit taller.
but retaining the extra engine room of IH.
IH doesnt have an extra engine room.....both have a forward and an aft engine room in pretty much the same place and size.....On Absalon each contains just one MTU 20V8000 M71 main engine, a gearbox and 2 CAT DGs, while IHs engine rooms have 2 MTU ME and a gearbox each. There the DGs are placed 2 and 2 in their own rooms on the side of the (longitudinally off-set) main engine rooms

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Poiuytrewq wrote:Absalon has much more than just an extra deck.
Or much less , depending on your point of view ;) ...forgetting for a moment that it doesnt actually HAVE an extra deck.
The open architecture of the flex deck design means that an Absalon clone will never meet RN Frigate standards of damage control without major redesigns in multiple areas.
Im sorry, but how do you know?.....I'd also be quite interested to know exactly which areas you think needs redesign :eh: .
But lets say you are right that Absalon doesnt live up to the high RN standard....then where does that put the T26 with its large combined helo hangar/ mission space,?

Post Reply