In short, it looks very top-heavy. May be it needs to extend the width? If not, I'm almost sure that it cannot meet the RN center-of-gravity standard, which is much strict than that of other NATO nations.Poiuytrewq wrote: ↑05 May 2023, 13:30Is it bigger? I don’t think so, its displacement is larger but it measures 139m LOA with a beam around 20m if my calculations are correct.Tempest414 wrote: ↑05 May 2023, 10:20 So when I look at this it is slightly bigger Absalon with 2 x Palfigar slipway systems and what I have been saying for 6 months or more
C9AB0963-2B73-4FEF-BE60-CB7A33CDFF93.jpeg 13944819-EB62-4844-99D4-26E7D4381A3B.jpeg
It is very much a reconfigured Absalon albeit with T31 improvements.
- The Flex Deck has been raised by one deck presumably to improve damage control and the flight deck has therefore correspondingly been raised by one deck also.
- The hanger has been shortened to allow space for the UAV lift and an extra deck has been added above the hanger. The reason for this is not immediately apparent and it appears to add a lot of extra top weight to a design that already had a pretty high centre of gravity.
- The large amidships open working deck appears unchanged dimensionally other than the size and layout of the superstructure fore and aft.
- The intake and exhaust arrangement looks more like Absalon than IH so top speed may be more in the 24-25knts range rather than 28-30knts.
- The mission spaces are extremely generous but how many is too many? Are these vessels trying to do too much?
Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
-
Online
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5599
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4102
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I agree, a beam adjustment would correct it but that means a clean sheet of paper.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑05 May 2023, 13:43 [In short, it looks very top-heavy. May be it needs to extend the width? If not, I'm almost sure that it cannot meet the RN center-of-gravity standard, which is much strict than that of other NATO nations.
The simple fact is that these multipurpose designs are compromised until the beam measures 22m minimum.
The other issue is lack of accommodation for the crew and the EMF. Absalon provided temporary accommodation on the Flex Deck but with the Flex Deck compartmentalised meeting habitability standards for the core crew, EMF, flight and support personnel is going to be tough or impossible. Filling the hull with copious amounts of manned and unmanned craft plus helos and weapon systems all adds to the burden.
If RN pursue this idea in a Frigate configuration it will take years to mature a design unless it is drastically simplified.
I think the MCRV and the ASF are just trying to do too much.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Babcock's initial punt at Type 32 (for which there's still no money).
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-sho ... mpetition/
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-sho ... mpetition/
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5626
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
As said on the future Escort thread not bad effort one can see how this could follow on from type 31 and stay at a good price say 300 million per shipRichardIC wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 17:44 Babcock's initial punt at Type 32 (for which there's still no money).
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-sho ... mpetition/
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Plus you always have the Indonesian option of adding the stretched bow with extra VLS.Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 18:43As said on the future Escort thread not bad effort one can see how this could follow on from type 31 and stay at a good price say 300 million per shipRichardIC wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 17:44 Babcock's initial punt at Type 32 (for which there's still no money).
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-sho ... mpetition/
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Yes- 6 for £2.5bn seems achievable.Tempest414 wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 18:43As said on the future Escort thread not bad effort one can see how this could follow on from type 31 and stay at a good price say 300 million per shipRichardIC wrote: ↑26 Jun 2023, 17:44 Babcock's initial punt at Type 32 (for which there's still no money).
https://www.navylookout.com/babcock-sho ... mpetition/
-
- Donator
- Posts: 220
- Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:06
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
The short bow gives it a pugnacious bulldog look compared to the sleek greyhound profile of the Type 26. More fighty.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Sleek Greyhound? Type 26? The T26 is a right busier compared to T45.Bring Deeps wrote: ↑27 Jun 2023, 07:24 The short bow gives it a pugnacious bulldog look compared to the sleek greyhound profile of the Type 26. More fighty.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
My personal choice would be something like the Crossover 139 and continue the build to replace the T31s at mid life to sell them to the likes of Chillie and Brazil to replace their T22s and T23s.
To me the Crossover 139 just gives better flexiblity, it’ll allow far better use of unmanned systems going forward as well as better to deploy small RM / SF raiding parties, it’ll also be able to contribute to small scale HADR.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
If T32 does happen, one of the strongest 'if's in the Navy, We can only afford T31. A whole new design is not only just outside our budget, it is outside the reason, neglecting AH140's potential and all the investment we have in it.Jake1992 wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 12:45My personal choice would be something like the Crossover 139 and continue the build to replace the T31s at mid life to sell them to the likes of Chillie and Brazil to replace their T22s and T23s.
To me the Crossover 139 just gives better flexiblity, it’ll allow far better use of unmanned systems going forward as well as better to deploy small RM / SF raiding parties, it’ll also be able to contribute to small scale HADR.
Crossover doesn't exist, well actually it does, in concept.
- These users liked the author new guy for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
- mrclark303
- Donator
- Posts: 855
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:47
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
If T32 does happen, then it needs to a simple batch 2 T31, uparmed as needed.new guy wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 13:56If T32 does happen, one of the strongest 'if's in the Navy, We can only afford T31. A whole new design is not only just outside our budget, it is outside the reason, neglecting AH140's potential and all the investment we have in it.Jake1992 wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 12:45My personal choice would be something like the Crossover 139 and continue the build to replace the T31s at mid life to sell them to the likes of Chillie and Brazil to replace their T22s and T23s.
To me the Crossover 139 just gives better flexiblity, it’ll allow far better use of unmanned systems going forward as well as better to deploy small RM / SF raiding parties, it’ll also be able to contribute to small scale HADR.
Crossover doesn't exist, well actually it does, in concept.
Development costs need to be kept as low as possible.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Exactly, just what I said.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 14:19If T32 does happen, then it needs to a simple batch 2 T31, up-armed as needed.new guy wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 13:56If T32 does happen, one of the strongest 'if's in the Navy, We can only afford T31. A whole new design is not only just outside our budget, it is outside the reason, neglecting AH140's potential and all the investment we have in it.Jake1992 wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 12:45My personal choice would be something like the Crossover 139 and continue the build to replace the T31s at mid life to sell them to the likes of Chillie and Brazil to replace their T22s and T23s.
To me the Crossover 139 just gives better flexiblity, it’ll allow far better use of unmanned systems going forward as well as better to deploy small RM / SF raiding parties, it’ll also be able to contribute to small scale HADR.
Crossover doesn't exist, well actually it does, in concept.
Development costs need to be kept as low as possible.
Same as T31, but with:
. Sound mitigations.
. Maybe better radar.(Should this wait for a joint artisan replacement as artisan is already midlife and we could do/be better off waiting?)
. Some all-round improvements.
. space for 16 NSM
. 32 MK41 ( or the space for them, same as on T31)
. Forward and rear 40mm
. LMM launchers. ( maybe)
. Forward and rear starboard boat bays conjoined into one ( Still separate doors, just no useless wall blocking to adjacent boat bays)
. Hangar that is widened to the right + side ramp ( as seen in AH140 MNP)
. extended hanger that overlaps with rear starboard boat bay ( as seen it AH140 MNP)
. Rear port boat bay joined with the hanger for a larger multi-role space.
. Under flight-deck work deck does not have ramp as shown in AH140, just a space for PODS side deployment and containerised / non-containerised CAPTAS-4
- These users liked the author new guy for the post:
- mrclark303
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Was it ever going to be anything other than T31 Batch 2? As the then 1SL said they were going to propose T31 B2 but didn't think that was sexy enough pitch so sexed up the dossier with a few buzzwords adaptability autonomous etc and went with T32.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Well as T32 is T31 B2 no need to worry.mrclark303 wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 14:19If T32 does happen, then it needs to a simple batch 2 T31, uparmed as needed.new guy wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 13:56If T32 does happen, one of the strongest 'if's in the Navy, We can only afford T31. A whole new design is not only just outside our budget, it is outside the reason, neglecting AH140's potential and all the investment we have in it.Jake1992 wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 12:45My personal choice would be something like the Crossover 139 and continue the build to replace the T31s at mid life to sell them to the likes of Chillie and Brazil to replace their T22s and T23s.
To me the Crossover 139 just gives better flexiblity, it’ll allow far better use of unmanned systems going forward as well as better to deploy small RM / SF raiding parties, it’ll also be able to contribute to small scale HADR.
Crossover doesn't exist, well actually it does, in concept.
Development costs need to be kept as low as possible.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I would hold off on that idea until the Anglo-Dutch MRSS Amphibs designs are finalised.Jake1992 wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 12:45My personal choice would be something like the Crossover 139 and continue the build to replace the T31s at mid life to sell them to the likes of Chillie and Brazil to replace their T22s and T23s.
To me the Crossover 139 just gives better flexiblity, it’ll allow far better use of unmanned systems going forward as well as better to deploy small RM / SF raiding parties, it’ll also be able to contribute to small scale HADR.
https://www.navylookout.com/multi-role- ... apability/
Although both nations want to replace 6 of their ships, whilst the RN is looking at replacing Argus, both Albions and 3 Bays, the Dutch are looking to replace their two different Damen Enforcer designed ships and their 4 Holland class global patrol vessels (which were based on a Damen patrol vessel).
Assuming that Damen are going to revise one of their existing portfolio of designs (which should keep design costs down as not starting from scratch) to come up with an updated Holland Class, and as a joint project that should mean design costs are shared and thusshould be lower cost to RN, we might get a better, cheaper alternative to the Damen Crossover, and also one that is based on a revision to an establishd stable design rather than the still untested Crossover, which from memory has nt yet been used as a basis for an actual in-service ship design.
But we do not yet know what the T32 and/or MRSS Budgets are going to be. But personally if the T32 could stretch to 3 such Damen Son-of-Holland class patrol vessels (which should be similar to the so-called high-capacity OPVs such as Vard 7 313 that have been discussed here previously), plus one additional T26 plus one additional T31, then I would be happy. Assuming the T32 Budget can stretch that far.
That would still leave the entirety of any MRSS budget available to replace our 6 amphibs, which I will leave to that thread.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I would be happy also, but we are still far from the T32 becoming a budgeted reality - even then people still have their heads in the sand of the train crash that’s coming by pretending we can afford to feed two yards.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 19:38 … if the T32 could stretch to 3 such Damen Son-of-Holland class patrol vessels (which should be similar to the so-called high-capacity OPVs such as Vard 7 313 that have been discussed here previously), plus one additional T26 plus one additional T31, then I would be happy. Assuming the T32 Budget can stretch that far.
Also, I seriously do not understand those arguing for more T31s, it’s a design that is not needed and even if a T26 mission bay was added it’s still going to be a dated and compromised design.
Given a choice I would be be looking at 3 OPV replacement and another T26 - but if the government is going to continue the farce that the budget extends to two “frigate” yards then following the Dutch on a Holland replacement and calling it a “frigate” is probably the next best option.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
1) yes, unlikely T32 will ever happenRepulse wrote: ↑10 Sep 2023, 08:51I would be happy also, but we are still far from the T32 becoming a budgeted reality - even then people still have their heads in the sand of the train crash that’s coming by pretending we can afford to feed two yards.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 19:38 … if the T32 could stretch to 3 such Damen Son-of-Holland class patrol vessels (which should be similar to the so-called high-capacity OPVs such as Vard 7 313 that have been discussed here previously), plus one additional T26 plus one additional T31, then I would be happy. Assuming the T32 Budget can stretch that far.
Also, I seriously do not understand those arguing for more T31s, it’s a design that is not needed and even if a T26 mission bay was added it’s still going to be a dated and compromised design.
Given a choice I would be be looking at 3 OPV replacement and another T26 - but if the government is going to continue the farce that the budget extends to two “frigate” yards then following the Dutch on a Holland replacement and calling it a “frigate” is probably the next best option.
2) We should be able to afford 2 yards. (Competent management dependant)
3) We do need more ships, it is a modernised design, built in the UK, in production, T26 is hardly new compared to T31 with all it's stalling, the T31 mission bay is already a compromised design, and we can only afford T31 for T32 if a budget does arise.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Putting aside the export fallacy that countries will pay for expensive builds in the UK when they can get it done cheaper at home or elsewhere, the only way this can happen is if the RN increases its spend. This would need to be coupled with short operational lives and selling on every 15 years unless you need to spend significant money to increase manpower and supporting functions.
To get to two efficient frigate yards the RN would probably need to find in the order of £1/2bn per year - not going to happen.
The T26 design is atleast a decade later than the core of the T31.
- These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
- donald_of_tokyo • Jensy
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
OPV's, auxiliaries, and other smaller ships don't get made out of thin air. assuming both BAE and bacock do smaller vessels and combatants, H&W for larger ships ( Rep ships, ro-ro's, carriers, amphibs, so ~25 hulls) , and barrow for subs, I see no problem.Repulse wrote: ↑10 Sep 2023, 09:33Putting aside the export fallacy that countries will pay for expensive builds in the UK when they can get it done cheaper at home or elsewhere, the only way this can happen is if the RN increases its spend. This would need to be coupled with short operational lives and selling on every 15 years unless you need to spend significant money to increase manpower and supporting functions.
To get to two efficient frigate yards the RN would probably need to find in the order of £1/2bn per year - not going to happen.
The T26 design is atleast a decade later than the core of the T31.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5626
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Type 31 is fast becoming a good frigate if it gets the Mk-41 and NSM there is nothing wrong with its design and yes type 26's hull design is a decade latter but everything else is old newsRepulse wrote: ↑10 Sep 2023, 08:51I would be happy also, but we are still far from the T32 becoming a budgeted reality - even then people still have their heads in the sand of the train crash that’s coming by pretending we can afford to feed two yards.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 19:38 … if the T32 could stretch to 3 such Damen Son-of-Holland class patrol vessels (which should be similar to the so-called high-capacity OPVs such as Vard 7 313 that have been discussed here previously), plus one additional T26 plus one additional T31, then I would be happy. Assuming the T32 Budget can stretch that far.
Also, I seriously do not understand those arguing for more T31s, it’s a design that is not needed and even if a T26 mission bay was added it’s still going to be a dated and compromised design.
Given a choice I would be be looking at 3 OPV replacement and another T26 - but if the government is going to continue the farce that the budget extends to two “frigate” yards then following the Dutch on a Holland replacement and calling it a “frigate” is probably the next best option.
What type 31 offers if fitted with the Mk-41 and NSM is a real war fighting frigate for about 0.4 the price of type 26 no it can't do ASW duties anywhere near as well type 26 but it could add to the ASW picture if fitted with a TAS and it can do all the other duties of a frigate
I maybe wrong but I think type 31 with Mk-41 and NSM fitted will cost around 380 million type 26 batch 2 is now nudging 860 million with costs to come
- These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
- new guy
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Absolutely.Tempest414 wrote: ↑10 Sep 2023, 12:05Type 31 is fast becoming a good frigate if it gets the Mk-41 and NSM there is nothing wrong with its design and yes type 26's hull design is a decade latter but everything else is old newsRepulse wrote: ↑10 Sep 2023, 08:51I would be happy also, but we are still far from the T32 becoming a budgeted reality - even then people still have their heads in the sand of the train crash that’s coming by pretending we can afford to feed two yards.wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑09 Sep 2023, 19:38 … if the T32 could stretch to 3 such Damen Son-of-Holland class patrol vessels (which should be similar to the so-called high-capacity OPVs such as Vard 7 313 that have been discussed here previously), plus one additional T26 plus one additional T31, then I would be happy. Assuming the T32 Budget can stretch that far.
Also, I seriously do not understand those arguing for more T31s, it’s a design that is not needed and even if a T26 mission bay was added it’s still going to be a dated and compromised design.
Given a choice I would be be looking at 3 OPV replacement and another T26 - but if the government is going to continue the farce that the budget extends to two “frigate” yards then following the Dutch on a Holland replacement and calling it a “frigate” is probably the next best option.
What type 31 offers if fitted with the Mk-41 and NSM is a real war fighting frigate for about 0.4 the price of type 26 no it can't do ASW duties anywhere near as well type 26 but it could add to the ASW picture if fitted with a TAS and it can do all the other duties of a frigate
I maybe wrong but I think type 31 with Mk-41 and NSM fitted will cost around 380 million type 26 batch 2 is now nudging 860 million with costs to come
programme cost for a T26 B3 will still be £1bn,
programme cost for a improved T31 will be £400-500m
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
You shouldn’t be surprised if I said I was in favour of a yard focused on building frigates (+ destroyers) and a yard building minor warships (OPVs, MHPCs, OSVs, Sloops or whatever). But what you are proposing is that the skills for building complex frigates (+ destroyers) is like a tap that can be turned on and off for long periods and be expected to work and work efficiently - that is pure fiction and has been proved as such.
I don’t think we need to have another long debate around costs, but as always we are comparing apples with pears.Tempest414 wrote: ↑10 Sep 2023, 12:05 Type 31 is fast becoming a good frigate if it gets the Mk-41 and NSM there is nothing wrong with its design and yes type 26's hull design is a decade latter but everything else is old news
What type 31 offers if fitted with the Mk-41 and NSM is a real war fighting frigate for about 0.4 the price of type 26 no it can't do ASW duties anywhere near as well type 26 but it could add to the ASW picture if fitted with a TAS and it can do all the other duties of a frigate
I maybe wrong but I think type 31 with Mk-41 and NSM fitted will cost around 380 million type 26 batch 2 is now nudging 860 million with costs to come
The RN can afford a fleet of purely mediocre T31 frigates that could possibly support two yards - it would be a political folly and leave the RN as a looks good on paper navy. The RN can also afford a fleet of quality tier one frigates and destroyers that supports one yard. The difference is probably as much as 30 T31s vs 15 T26/T45s, but the RN can never be a navy that can match the scale of other navies, it can only compete and defend UK interests on quality.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
What facts are you basing this on?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston