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.