Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:Jake 1992

Given type 26s size I don’t really see the need to extend or shorten the length of the hull. It would more be about what sensors are incorporated and integrating them with the combat management system. The benefit of having the missile launchers type 26 will have is we can incorporate almost anything we would like there’s plenty of room. As these will be our high end escorts and probably no more than 12 in number it seems pointless to have multiple hull types.

It’s what provides the other capabilities a navy needs is what type 31 should become and I would look very different. Perhaps a class of 12 here also only covering everything else utilising the unmanned systems as discussed in the previous pages.
The T26 as it stands doesn't have to space to host 96 mk41s to allow the T45 replacement to be more flexible.
One of the big problems with the T45 is its lack of VLS to handle and constant attack let alone allowing it to conduct anything other than AAW.

Stripping away just sensor doesn't make the T26 significantly cheap enough ( as this is what the cancelled GPs were ment to be )

The high end escorts won't drop to 12 as 14 is bare bones, 6 AAW vessels are needed for the carriers while 8 ASW vessels are needed for the carriers and CASD no less at all can be taken

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

Jake 1992

Why does it need to have 96 is that because that’s whats on a n American ship? Personally I don’t see having 48 silos on type 45 as a problem at all. Type 26 will have 48 caam missile and 24 mk41 launchers and I believe the aus one has 8 traditional anti ship missile box launchers also. That is far above anything we’ve ever deployed before. It must also be remembered any environment it’s going to enter which may have such a threat it won’t be alone there will be multiple ships with it.


I may not have made this point clear I’m not taking sensors away to make a type 31 it’s something completely different to what type 26 looks like. The sensor comment was more the integration of a more advanced radar system like the Australian CEAFAR2 Radar to take over the aaw mission and integration of it with the standard RN cms.

Bare bones is bare bones do you need more than 4 escorts per carrier if they were all as capable as type 26? If your escorts are no longer doing single ship deployments and the RN deployment is now centred on carrier group operations do the numbers change.

Ultimately we come up to the realities of a finite budget, we would all like more money but it simpley won’t be happening so cloth has to be cut accordingly.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:Jake 1992

Why does it need to have 96 is that because that’s whats on a n American ship? Personally I don’t see having 48 silos on type 45 as a problem at all. Type 26 will have 48 caam missile and 24 mk41 launchers and I believe the aus one has 8 traditional anti ship missile box launchers also. That is far above anything we’ve ever deployed before. It must also be remembered any environment it’s going to enter which may have such a threat it won’t be alone there will be multiple ships with it.


I may not have made this point clear I’m not taking sensors away to make a type 31 it’s something completely different to what type 26 looks like. The sensor comment was more the integration of a more advanced radar system like the Australian CEAFAR2 Radar to take over the aaw mission and integration of it with the standard RN cms.

Bare bones is bare bones do you need more than 4 escorts per carrier if they were all as capable as type 26? If your escorts are no longer doing single ship deployments and the RN deployment is now centred on carrier group operations do the numbers change.

Ultimately we come up to the realities of a finite budget, we would all like more money but it simpley won’t be happening so cloth has to be cut accordingly.
I'm surgesting 96 mk41s to allow it to carry enough AAW missiles to deal with a constant barrage for a sistained time, which I believe the 48 on the T45 current would struggle to manage. The 96 also allows it to carry other missiles ( aint sub, ain't ship, land strike ) something the T45 currently can't do.
Yes the T26 has far more fire power than any RN ship we've had before but that is because RN have traditionally been very sparsely equipped in that way, instead relying on air power and the subs but that can no longer be the case.
Just look at what other nations are putting in there's look at China Russia India and yes the USA

The hunter class while being better at AAW the our city class is not in the same legue as the T45 let alone what we'd want to replace it.
Yes the city class will have 48 CAMM and 24 mk41 which for an ASW vessel is pretty good load out but not for a AAW vessel.
The hunter class will have 32 mk41 and 8 canister laurcher me but no CAMM.

Yes 14 is the bare bones for the carriers and CASD.
From what I gather you are saying if all the vessels are the same we can drop down to 12 because any can do the job.
In which case you either get less capable ships ( hunter to T45 in AAW ) or each Veseel is vastly more expensive as its the same as combine the T26 and T45 in to one.

Yes we have to live with in a budget but that budget is controlled by politiains so it is not fixed, the politiains need to do one of 2 things either pay to meat there ambitions ( which they should ) or vastly lower there ambitions to meat the budget

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

Jake 1992

Type 45 carries anti ship missiles already and only had the torpedos deleted to save money. I believe the Australian vessel will carry both torpedo launch tubes and anti ship missiles neither of which will be silo launched.

The potiential loadout on a type 26 is higher than on a type 45 so I think it’s fine. The complex weapons program would suggest the next generation missile will preform the role of both land attack and anti ship missile.

Im less worried about what other nations are doing particularly superpowers more about what’s right for us. As for less capable who knows some believe the Australian radar system to be an extremely impressive one and waiting to see how it’s integrated with the combat management system to see its full potential.

On the last I agree budget and ambition need to be aligned but it will the ambition that is lowered more than the budget rising. We will do less with the same.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Jake1992 »

SW1 wrote:Jake 1992

Type 45 carries anti ship missiles already and only had the torpedos deleted to save money. I believe the Australian vessel will carry both torpedo launch tubes and anti ship missiles neither of which will be silo launched.

The potiential loadout on a type 26 is higher than on a type 45 so I think it’s fine. The complex weapons program would suggest the next generation missile will preform the role of both land attack and anti ship missile.

Im less worried about what other nations are doing particularly superpowers more about what’s right for us. As for less capable who knows some believe the Australian radar system to be an extremely impressive one and waiting to see how it’s integrated with the combat management system to see its full potential.

On the last I agree budget and ambition need to be aligned but it will the ambition that is lowered more than the budget rising. We will do less with the same.
Only 4 of the 6 T45s carry ASM that are canister laurched which we are looking at getting rid of to replace with vertical laurched so in turn will need more VLS.
The hunter class has canister laurched ASM and torpedoed tubes, us on the other hand will be going for vertical laurch alternatives showing well need more VLS espesaily if it's an AAW vessel.

The T45 is still seen as the best AAW platform in the world with its radar set up, down grading from that would be a backwards step end of.
Also having CFRA on all our vessels as you surgest would be a death nail in UK radar industry an area that we've lead the world in for decades. This is the big reason I'm against putting it on our T26s even though part of me would like to see it


With Brexit HMG is stepping up it ambitions on the world stage so I can not see that being scaled back and rightly so we are a world power still and should stop being so defeatist thinking we're just a little island.
The only problem I see is that getting more money to match that ambition will be like pulling teeth

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Jake1992 wrote:The T45 is still seen as the best AAW platform in the world with its radar set up, down grading from that would be a backwards step end of.
Exactly, so there must be an ongoing focus on retaining the top level capability but in more cost effective platforms. Using a universal hull form such as the T26 should provide economies of scale in time.

It worth remembering that the T26 hull is actually smaller than the T45 in every way. Will the T26 hull actually be big enough to allow the T45 replacement to be built upon it? Given the way technology is developing and due to vastly increased energy demands, the T26 hull form may be simply too small when the time comes.

It appears the USN is pondering the same issues,

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... o-buy-one/

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Jake1992 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:The T45 is still seen as the best AAW platform in the world with its radar set up, down grading from that would be a backwards step end of.
Exactly, so there must be an ongoing focus on retaining the top level capability but in more cost effective platforms. Using a universal hull form such as the T26 should provide economies of scale in time.

It worth remembering that the T26 hull is actually smaller than the T45 in every way. Will the T26 hull actually be big enough to allow the T45 replacement to be built upon it? Given the way technology is developing and due to vastly increased energy demands, the T26 hull form may be simply too small when the time comes.

It appears the USN is pondering the same issues,

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/ ... o-buy-one/
This is why I surgested the 165m T48 based on a stretched T26 hull, I firmly believe the T26 would need to be stretched to give the addiquate space to act as a T45 Replacemt

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

For me we talk a lot about lack of money and yes more is always good but between 2016 & 2026 there is a 19 billion pound pot for surface ships and I am not seeing a lot of ships for the money when we take into account all the type 26s will come into service post 2027 and a lot of the carrier works were done and paid for before 2016. We should also take into account that there is a separate budget of 13.5 billion for Air and Sea launched missiles. So when talking about ships and load out we need to take these two amounts into consideration and I would feel a good place to start would for the ships and sea launched missiles the budget should be set at 22 billion.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:For me we talk a lot about lack of money and yes more is always good but between 2016 & 2026 there is a 19 billion pound pot for surface ships and I am not seeing a lot of ships for the money when we take into account all the type 26s will come into service post 2027 and a lot of the carrier works were done and paid for before 2016. We should also take into account that there is a separate budget of 13.5 billion for Air and Sea launched missiles. So when talking about ships and load out we need to take these two amounts into consideration and I would feel a good place to start would for the ships and sea launched missiles the budget should be set at 22 billion.
This is one reason why I think we need to start building from a common base hull ( T26 ) as this would start to allow economies of scale and in turn give us more for the same money. HMG also need to stop artificially slowing down the builds so much as this is cost us a lot in waste ( ie the Astutes, carriers and now T26 )

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

agreed in the most part it is not the money but how it is spent there is a good mount of money for a 10 year program and for me we should have had 3 new tire 1 frigates in the water in the 2016-2026 time frame and not 5 OPV's

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Tempest414 wrote:For me we talk a lot about lack of money and yes more is always good but between 2016 & 2026 there is a 19 billion pound pot for surface ships and I am not seeing a lot of ships for the money when we take into account all the type 26s will come into service post 2027 and a lot of the carrier works were done and paid for before 2016. We should also take into account that there is a separate budget of 13.5 billion for Air and Sea launched missiles. So when talking about ships and load out we need to take these two amounts into consideration and I would feel a good place to start would for the ships and sea launched missiles the budget should be set at 22 billion.
Is that 19Bn for surface ship construction or construction, maintenance and running costs? If it's for construction only then £2bn per annum is a very healthy sum.

First and foremost RN needs to ascertain how many hulls can be realistically afforded going forward. I believe the only way to stop the decline is to firmly establish the number of hulls required even before setting the budget. If 10 Destroyers are required we should build the best 10 Destroyers the budget will allow. Simple.

The other approach is to set out to build the best Destroyers the world has ever known, and we end up with 4 or 5. But not to worry as it will be claimed that the new class are at least 3 or 4 times better than the old class. And the sad decline continues.....

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:For me we talk a lot about lack of money and yes more is always good but between 2016 & 2026 there is a 19 billion pound pot for surface ships and I am not seeing a lot of ships for the money when we take into account all the type 26s will come into service post 2027 and a lot of the carrier works were done and paid for before 2016. We should also take into account that there is a separate budget of 13.5 billion for Air and Sea launched missiles. So when talking about ships and load out we need to take these two amounts into consideration and I would feel a good place to start would for the ships and sea launched missiles the budget should be set at 22 billion.
Is that 19Bn for surface ship construction or construction, maintenance and running costs? If it's for construction only then £2bn per annum is a very healthy sum.

First and foremost RN needs to ascertain how many hulls can be realistically afforded going forward. I believe the only way to stop the decline is to firmly establish the number of hulls required even before setting the budget. If 10 Destroyers are required we should build the best 10 Destroyers the budget will allow. Simple.

The other approach is to set out to build the best Destroyers the world has ever known, and we end up with 4 or 5. But not to worry as it will be claimed that the new class are at least 3 or 4 times better than the old class. And the sad decline continues.....
It is always difficult to say however I would say build and support however a build budget of 1 billion per year should see good returns . If we were to split this down to year on year budgets

450 million for escorts
150 million for MHPC
150 million for RFA
250 million other projects ( Maybe a LPH over 2 or 3 years)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by shark bait »

20 billion for design, build, maintenance and equipment for all surface ships. Its split about 50:50 between new and existing ships.

That's about a billion a year for new equipment, meaning the RN could afford 13 T26 by neglecting everything thing else for a decade. That's why the T31 exists.

Not sure if its at 2018 value or 2027 value, so it could end up being much less than a billion.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Topic moved out of the Royal Navy section since it's not dedicated to any factual Royal Navy equipment of the past, present or future.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

I think this is mad and it should be put back at once

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Topic moved out of the Royal Navy section since it's not dedicated to any factual Royal Navy equipment of the past, present or future.
This seems bonkers to me.

How is discussing the future direction of RN Escorts and the T31 programme 'not dedicated to an factual Royal Navy equipment of the past, present or future'.

Is nobody allowed to post a comment in the Royal Navy section about a Type 45 replacement for example as the programme hasn't started yet?

I would be grateful if you could clarify exactly what the rules are now on the T31 topic as the whole T31 programme at present is fantasy along will all of the concepts including Leander, Arrowhead 120, Arrowhead 140. None of them exist.

Please clarify.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

It appears Ron cherps jump and the mods say how high!

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

A few questions.

1: T31e program exists. It is official, regardless of we like it or not. It is as "real" as T26 issue before July 2017. It is not a fantasy. So I understand discussion on Leander and Arrowhead 140 (if still alive) shall be discussed on "escort thread". Of course, it will include proposal to ban T31e program as a whole.

2: The current discussion on "shortened T26" = T27 is all fantasy, I agree. Shortening an existing design never happened in history. I understand it is practically technically impossible. So, I agree it is fantasy. (sorry)

# But, I regard it is actually a completely new design, yet another Type-31, with much more resource...

3: On the other hand, extended T26 hull as a replacement for T45 has nothing wrong. I see no fantasy there, very realistic topic. So, I think "T26/T45 Hybrid 165" or alike can be happily discussed in escort thread.

4: At where we can discuss about ASW drones? It may be still fantasy (although working model already exists in Israel and RN has already tested it once) so shall be stayed here?

Am I right, Admin?

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

The topic title says it all really; everything in this topic is fantasy. Feel free to discuss the future of equipment in the equipment sections as long as it's more factual than fantasy.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SKB »

This thread was originally created for shark bait's Fantasy Fleet Builder app/game. When that stopped working, the thread became a makeshift "fantasy T31 chat" place, because the dedicated T31 news thread was being swamped with members T31 speculation and imaginary concepts - fantasy-related stuff. Thats why this thread still exists. Actual real T31 news goes in the T31 thread, and nothing else. Fantasy stuff and imaginary ship concepts can still go here. But they are your concepts, not the Royal Navy's.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

SKB wrote:This thread was originally created for shark bait's Fantasy Fleet Builder app/game. When that stopped working, the thread became a makeshift "fantasy T31 chat" place, because the dedicated T31 news thread was being swamped with members T31 speculation and imaginary concepts - fantasy-related stuff. Thats why this thread still exists. Actual real T31 news goes in the T31 thread, and nothing else. Fantasy stuff and imaginary ship concepts can still go here. But they are your concepts, not the Royal Navy's.
Is this in reply to my question to the moderator?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

This is complete bollocks I just see the other threads being clogged up but then they already are by endless retweets about bob blocking the bog on the new carrier .

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Tempest414 »

SKB wrote:But they are your concepts, not the Royal Navy's.
I think you will find that the royal navy has NO concepts as they are own by BAE or Babcocks so they can not be retweeted in the RN sectoin can they

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by SW1 »

Poor decision that’s just stopped and shut down an interesting discussion on options

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Fantasy T31 and Fantasy Fleet Builder [New]

Post by Lord Jim »

Lets just continue ot discuss the T-31 and possible platforms in the Fantasy thread as we have done. Only the name has changed and if something more substantive appears then it can be cross reference with the T-31 thread.

Post Reply