Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

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

MikeKiloPapa wrote:also be quite interested to know exactly which areas you think needs redesign .
If the flex decks floods uncontrollably then the vessel sinks. RN will not accept a Frigate that sinks if one single compartment floods.

Additional compartmentalisation of the flex deck would solve the problem but that would require a major redesign.
MikeKiloPapa wrote: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,?
If a T26 is so low in the water that the amidships mission space and hanger is flooding then the vessel is already lost. The flex deck is much closer to the waterline.

How many compartments would need to flood to ensure that a T26 was so low in the water? Many more than one.

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

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
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
I don't want to argue as you are far better informed than I, but Absalon having a deck which is two decks high is surely the equivalent of an extra deck? Are the decks above the flexdeck not higher up?

So IH actually has four engine rooms two more than Absalon?

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1219
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by RichardIC »

tomuk wrote:So IH actually has four engine rooms two more than Absalon?
How hard can the 2x table be? IH has two engine rooms with two engines in each.

Image

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

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

RichardIC wrote:
tomuk wrote:So IH actually has four engine rooms two more than Absalon?
How hard can the 2x table be? IH has two engine rooms with two engines in each.

Image
Yes but the DGs are located in two additional rooms when compared to Absalon.

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 Absolon design has 16 watertight compartments - I suspect that the designers will have looked at the problem of the flex deck flooding and taken steps to counter it. After all, Bulwark and Albion have a far larger "flex deck" and dock area and they are rated as a combat ship (and expected to go into situations where it might take serious damage, with consequent danger of flooding). The design is DNV naval standard ratified, with heavy utilisation of STANAG standards.

The flex deck, is formed by increasing the height of the deck below the flight deck for about 60% of the length of the vessel, resulting in the flight deck, hangar and the rest of the superstructure, to a point just forward of the forward funnel, being raised when compared to the IH design.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

Interesting discussion.

Absalon's engine room is filled with one main diesel gen (per room) and other generators/systems. IH has two of the main diesel each on her engine room (2 rooms), which means "the other generators/systems" found their place in somewhere else, which means, the system filling "somewhere else" was moved elsewhere.
Image

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 »

Comparing photos in the three links here
https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Danish ... bsalon.htm

vs

https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Danish ... -class.htm
and
http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/ ... t-frigate/
stimulate our idea.

It shows how intensive the re-design work will be, if we want the "29 knot top speed (of T31)" and "another deck of Absalon". If you ALSO want the "two Merlin capable hangar", the situation gets more complicated. Majority of the 2nd-Merlin hangar space was used for increased diesel-gen intake and exhaust in IH-class.

I also notice the deck height is really raised in IH-class, compared to Absalon. Looks like significant re-design was taken in the hull. Re-using of design can be seen in many compartments. But also, significant re-design effort is clearly seen. So, both are clear.

Many comments come up to my mind, but not now... Just share these three websites for a moment.

For example, I can see the engine room of IH-class LOOKS LILE a bit taller than that of Absalon class. It will be just difference in arrangement, but as the deck height is taller in IH-class, it is natural.
Image

NickC
Member
Posts: 971
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by NickC »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: For example, I can see the engine room of IH-class LOOKS LILE a bit taller than that of Absalon class. It will be just difference in arrangement, but as the deck height is taller in IH-class, it is natural.
Image

Watch from 7:00 for design thinking which includes both a built in crane and monorail in the engine room.


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 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Comparing photos in the three links here
What I got from the photos was that the Stanflex units hold 12 Rim 162 plus the hot gas outlets meaning one could get 18 CAMM in the same space which could mean type 32 cold have 18 CAMM in place of B turret which in the IH is a Stanflex unit and as said before freeing up the whole weapons deck space for said mission bay no need to worry about engines or a Flex deck

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 »

Caribbean wrote:I suspect that the designers will have looked at the problem of the flex deck flooding and taken steps to counter it.
Im sure you are correct but if RN accept such a Frigate design much of the time and effort put into the reconfigurable T26 mission space will have been wasted. A simple Ro-Ro deck with side hatches would have been much easier allowing the stern mounted tail to operate unimpeded and allow for extra Mk41 VLS cells amidships. RN chose not to go down this route probably due to damage control concerns, why volte-face now?
donald_of_tokyo wrote:Comparing photos in the three links
Excellent links Donald :thumbup:
donald_of_tokyo wrote:...It shows how intensive the re-design work will be
IMO a redesign to procure a Absalon/A140 Hybrid would effectively cost a Frigate in monetary terms.

Building the T31's as fully kitted out Frigates and procuring additional multipurpose vessels for MCM, HADR, anti narcotics/piracy (to be built at Rosyth) is still a preferable option IMO.

Something along these lines.
https://vardmarine.com/gallery/vard-7-313/
Tempest414 wrote:freeing up the whole weapons deck space for said mission bay no need to worry about engines or a Flex deck
I am not sure this would provide enough space for the rapidly developing MCM and potentially ASW off board systems now or in 20 years time.

Also is a 20m beam enough to ensure reliable operation in all sea states if the kit continues to get larger and heavier?

A 24m+ beam or a well dock would seem preferable IMO.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Too much speculation going on for a news only topic. Please take those sorts of discussions to the escorts general discussion topic.

wargame_insomniac
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by wargame_insomniac »

NickC wrote: 16 Aug 2021, 09:40
donald_of_tokyo wrote: For example, I can see the engine room of IH-class LOOKS LILE a bit taller than that of Absalon class. It will be just difference in arrangement, but as the deck height is taller in IH-class, it is natural.
Image

Watch from 7:00 for design thinking which includes both a built in crane and monorail in the engine room.

That was a really interesting interview. It looks like they very carefully thought out their requirements beforhand, in some detail. I hope that someone at Babcock is capable of doing such a similar detailed prep work on T31 and T32.

Post Reply