Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[SW1]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... nt-crisis/

According to Babcock the type 31 will have a crew of 105 and type 32 possibly as low as 50

[tomuk]

What has the density of the mushroom farm got to do with it? The issue is that a new different variation on the farm is being installed on a new class of ship. his will requiire various integration, trials and testing.

Sorry but why we need the new system? The legacy mushroom tube works perfectly fine, and has higher efficiency. And, what is more RN need T31 as soon as possible. Adopting a low density, time-consuming system has zero rationale. T23 GP cannot extend their life anymore...

By the way, the 6-cell system (2 units of) has once shown in the T31 rendering, frequently seen in 2021 or so. But it is not shown so frequently these days?

Anyway just a guess.

There is no 'legacy mushroom farm' there is a bespoke retrofit in Sea Wolf VLS and a bespoke refit on the NZ Anzacs into the reserved Mk41 space.

Quoting European Defence Review

The CAMM ER maritime launching system (MLS) is based on the compact design developments by MBDA UK for the Royal Navy’s Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.

The solution selected for the new UK Type 26 and Type 31 frigates’ MLS is based on a multiple of new six-cell (2×3) modules characterized by a reduced footprint allowing for more missiles to be accommodated in the same space of the Type 23 solution.

[new guy]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... nt-crisis/

According to Babcock the type 31 will have a crew of 105 and type 32 possibly as low as 50

They said something similarly ambitious when MROSS was happening, something like a crew of 12. Obviously not true.

Interesting quote though:
“People talk about a Type 32 frigate – we like to refer to it as Type 31 batch two. We’re doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two.”

Babcock acknowledges it will be a T31B2, but expects it to also have half the crew? I don't believe it it one bit.

Link without paywall here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240212161 ... nt-crisis/

[donald_of_tokyo]

"Locating", integrating with CMS, & testing/certification does not require the ship to be in a dockyard.

I do not think ExLs will be acquired. I think the existing mushrooms (number to be determined) will remain and the Mk 41 added alongside for use by anti-ship & land attack missiles.

Adding the VLS to the ship will be relatively easy. I do not think anything significant will need to be displaced to make room, and the wiring is not especially difficult. Water supply might be a problem but if the T31 design is really ready for them, that won't be too hard either.

I'm assuming the Mk 41 will be filled with FC/ASW. I haven't checked if the availability of that missile lines up with T31 dates tho. I'm also assuming they will be hot launched.

The reason I am pushing for initial CIP with only CAMM is delivery speed. If RN want to carry Mk41 onboard T31 "without a missile", and just later start integrating FC/ASW on it (surely it will take looooon time for its verification and certification), why not do it later. Mounting Mk41 only needs a few months, as you said? Just do it later, no problem.

The original Naval news' author also suggested so, as follows:
Potentially, earlier vessels could be completed as originally designed, with future ships in class incorporating the Mk 41 VLS during the construction phase. The earlier designed vessels would then have the Mk 41 fitted at a later date during a capability upgrade phase undertaken around halfway through the initial service life, usually around 10-12 years.

I agree to him/her.

I think the (Naval technology btw) Author of the article mistook the Capability insertion phase, which the navy has already paid for, and is after launching of HMS venturer but before the service in the navy, with a mid-life ovehaul. I doubt it will take 10 to 12 years for a midlife refit to add the Mk 41's. Many reputable sources indicate an capability insertion immediately after builder handover.

Oh and people say that the £55m contract to babcock isn't enough to hold 20 8 packs of MK41 in it. Which is definitely true, but then those people ignore the fact that the £4.2bn contract for 5 T26 Batch 2 didn't include a £30m contract for 5 Hull mounted sonars,
or how it didn't include the £181m contract for the MK45 gun and handling system, or numerous other instances. I don't even think MK41 has been ordered for T36 B2, or even B1, which means it would be even easier to get them on T31.

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/u ... s/?cf-view
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/b ... s/?cf-view

But I notice no FMS report on “Ml41 for T31 ordered by UK”. It’s not the cost, but the lack of order yet, which I am pointing out.

[new guy]

But I notice no FMS report on “Ml41 for T31 ordered by UK”. It’s not the cost, but the lack of order yet, which I am pointing out.

Again did we see FMS report for T26B1 ( I genuinely don't remember) or T26B2 (I don't think we have).

[donald_of_tokyo]

What has the density of the mushroom farm got to do with it? The issue is that a new different variation on the farm is being installed on a new class of ship. his will requiire various integration, trials and testing.

Sorry but why we need the new system? The legacy mushroom tube works perfectly fine, and has higher efficiency. And, what is more RN need T31 as soon as possible. Adopting a low density, time-consuming system has zero rationale. T23 GP cannot extend their life anymore...

By the way, the 6-cell system (2 units of) has once shown in the T31 rendering, frequently seen in 2021 or so. But it is not shown so frequently these days?

Anyway just a guess.

There is no 'legacy mushroom farm' there is a bespoke retrofit in Sea Wolf VLS and a bespoke refit on the NZ Anzacs into the reserved Mk41 space.

Quoting European Defence Review

The CAMM ER maritime launching system (MLS) is based on the compact design developments by MBDA UK for the Royal Navy’s Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.

The solution selected for the new UK Type 26 and Type 31 frigates’ MLS is based on a multiple of new six-cell (2×3) modules characterized by a reduced footprint allowing for more missiles to be accommodated in the same space of the Type 23 solution.

Thanks, I knew it. But, I remember it was even before the NZ frigate getting CAMM? Sorry if I’m wrong/misunderstanding your quote.

RNZN once said their frigate will carry 12 CAMM. Later they changed it to 20, and the two frigates were equipped as such. I think they thought of using MLS, but found a better way. Again, RNZN CAMM load is HiGHER density than that of T26. MLS will be denser than that if T23, but not as much as that of HMNZS Te Kaha and Te Mana. This is just a fact…

[donald_of_tokyo]

https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/n ... igate.html

The old news on 2018, 4 years ago.

[new guy]

https://navyrecognition.com/index.php/n ... igate.html

The old news on 2018, 4 years ago.

only T26B1

[tomuk]

What has the density of the mushroom farm got to do with it? The issue is that a new different variation on the farm is being installed on a new class of ship. his will requiire various integration, trials and testing.

Sorry but why we need the new system? The legacy mushroom tube works perfectly fine, and has higher efficiency. And, what is more RN need T31 as soon as possible. Adopting a low density, time-consuming system has zero rationale. T23 GP cannot extend their life anymore...

By the way, the 6-cell system (2 units of) has once shown in the T31 rendering, frequently seen in 2021 or so. But it is not shown so frequently these days?

Anyway just a guess.

There is no 'legacy mushroom farm' there is a bespoke retrofit in Sea Wolf VLS and a bespoke refit on the NZ Anzacs into the reserved Mk41 space.

Quoting European Defence Review

The CAMM ER maritime launching system (MLS) is based on the compact design developments by MBDA UK for the Royal Navy’s Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.

The solution selected for the new UK Type 26 and Type 31 frigates’ MLS is based on a multiple of new six-cell (2×3) modules characterized by a reduced footprint allowing for more missiles to be accommodated in the same space of the Type 23 solution.

Thanks, I knew it. But, I remember it was even before the NZ frigate getting CAMM? Sorry if I’m wrong/misunderstanding your quote.

RNZN once said their frigate will carry 12 CAMM. Later they changed it to 20, and the two frigates were equipped as such. I think they thought of using MLS, but found a better way. Again, RNZN CAMM load is HiGHER density than that of T26. MLS will be denser than that if T23, but not as much as that of HMNZS Te Kaha and Te Mana. This is just a fact…

As far as I'm aware the ANZSC upgrade predates the 2x6 mushrooms. Also the Anzac mushrooms fit in the overall compartment for VLS not just the space for 2x Mk41.

Either way I sttill don't see the relevance of density we are talking about the need to fit T31 with CAMM all options haven't been fitted before so will all need a certain amount of integration, testing etc

[donald_of_tokyo]

"Mk.41 order"
The old news on 2018, 4 years ago.

only T26B1

Sorry 2018 was 6 years ago of now 2024 (time flies by!!)

T26 hull-1 IOC is on Oct 2028, and thus will be delivered to RN on 2026. I do not think T31-hull1 can be 6 years behind this schedule. Note that T26-hull4 (1st T26B2) is planned to see IOC on 2031.

[donald_of_tokyo]

As far as I'm aware the ANZSC upgrade predates the 2x6 mushrooms. Also the Anzac mushrooms fit in the overall compartment for VLS not just the space for 2x Mk41.

The same "larger area" applies to Iver Huiltfeldt class

Either way I sttill don't see the relevance of density we are talking about the need to fit T31 with CAMM all options haven't been fitted before so will all need a certain amount of integration, testing etc

So, 40 mushroom tube is OK. This is my stance. But, as Mk41 with ExLS is new, I am 100% sure it will take more time than the mushroom. How much more, is not clear for me, I admit.

By the way, my stance here is to avoid as much as risk to delay T31-hull1 to hull3. Replacing 3 T23GP is an urgent requirement. Anything can be done, but let's do it in hull4-5 (its very near, actually).

[Ron5]

.. as Mk41 with ExLS is new ...

Also to this point, imaginary. No reliable source has indicated this will be the configuration.

[new guy]

.. as Mk41 with ExLS is new ...

Also to this point, imaginary. No reliable source has indicated this will be the configuration.

It will be for the polish.

[Ron5]

.. as Mk41 with ExLS is new ...

Also to this point, imaginary. No reliable source has indicated this will be the configuration.

It will be for the polish.

Ah but they be getting Swordfish, the RN is getting Type 31

[tomuk]

.. as Mk41 with ExLS is new ...

Also to this point, imaginary. No reliable source has indicated this will be the configuration.

It will be for the polish.

And the Saudis on the LCS like purchase.

[Ron5]

.. as Mk41 with ExLS is new ...

Also to this point, imaginary. No reliable source has indicated this will be the configuration.

It will be for the polish.

And the Saudis on the LCS like purchase.

Also irrelevant.

[tomuk]

.. as Mk41 with ExLS is new ...

Also to this point, imaginary. No reliable source has indicated this will be the configuration.

It will be for the polish.

And the Saudis on the LCS like purchase.

Also irrelevant.

Why?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Mk41 VLS + ExLS is ordered by some navies, but if we want to mount it on T31-hull1, RN will be the first to do all the verification and certification. This will take time. Without certification, RN cannot fire any CAMM from the VLS. And, before it is enabled, no T31 will be sent to front-line and hence RN needs to keep the old T23GPs for KIPION.

If RN is happy to do it only on T31 hull 4 and 5, the KIPION and even Red Sea frigate can be replaced with T31, say 2 of the hull 1, 2 and 3, and save a few precious years. There will even be a good chance that Saudi or Poland do all the certification, and RN can enjoy its result in cheap. Only merit is there, and no drawback.

[tomuk]

Mk41 VLS + ExLS is ordered by some navies, but if we want to mount it on T31-hull1, RN will be the first to do all the verification and certification. This will take time. Without certification, RN cannot fire any CAMM from the VLS. And, before it is enabled, no T31 will be sent to front-line and hence RN needs to keep the old T23GPs for KIPION.

If RN is happy to do it only on T31 hull 4 and 5, the KIPION and even Red Sea frigate can be replaced with T31, say 2 of the hull 1, 2 and 3, and save a few precious years. There will even be a good chance that Saudi or Poland do all the certification, and RN can enjoy its result in cheap. Only merit is there, and no drawback.

Donald I know that verification will be required. Just as it will with Mushrooms.

Here is a picture of the Saudi MMCS in October at Fincantieri Marinette.

Looks quite advanced to me. Maybe LM and MBDA will be delivering CAMM in EXLS+Mk41 before the RN need it on T31.

[tomuk]

So, 40 mushroom tube is OK. This is my stance. But, as Mk41 with ExLS is new, I am 100% sure it will take more time than the mushroom. How much more, is not clear for me, I admit.

By the way, my stance here is to avoid as much as risk to delay T31-hull1 to hull3. Replacing 3 T23GP is an urgent requirement. Anything can be done, but let's do it in hull4-5 (its very near, actually).

The number of mushrooms or their density is irrelevant. Mushrooms whether closer to the Anzac\Seawolf or T26 will be a new potentially custom install if not 2x3 mushrooms on a new class of ship it will still need test and verification, trials etc.

[Ron5]

Sigh.

No reputable source has said the Type 31's will be getting Mk41's with ExLs. Hence it is a figment of imagination.

How the Poles and Saudi's configure their ships has fuck all to do with it.

[tomuk]

Sigh.

No reputable source has said the Type 31's will be getting Mk41's with ExLs. Hence it is a figment of imagination.

How the Poles and Saudi's configure their ships has fuck all to do with it.

Why do you have to be so obnoxious?

How the Saudis and Poles configure their ships is very relevant. The Saudis in terms of LM and MBDA working together to deliver CAMM in EXLS and the Poles even more so as T31 and the Polish ship are the same ship are from the same supplier with same CMS and larger but common basis weapons fit and UK\Poland are in partnership to develop CAMM together.

[Ron5]

Sigh.

No reputable source has said the Type 31's will be getting Mk41's with ExLs. Hence it is a figment of imagination.

How the Poles and Saudi's configure their ships has fuck all to do with it.

Why do you have to be so obnoxious?

How the Saudis and Poles configure their ships is very relevant. The Saudis in terms of LM and MBDA working together to deliver CAMM in EXLS and the Poles even more so as T31 and the Polish ship are the same ship are from the same supplier with same CMS and larger but common basis weapons fit and UK\Poland are in partnership to develop CAMM together.

Relevant to the fact that no reputable source has said the RN's Type 31's will get Mk41's equipped with ExLs? No.

[tomuk]

Sigh.

No reputable source has said the Type 31's will be getting Mk41's with ExLs. Hence it is a figment of imagination.

How the Poles and Saudi's configure their ships has fuck all to do with it.

Why do you have to be so obnoxious?

How the Saudis and Poles configure their ships is very relevant. The Saudis in terms of LM and MBDA working together to deliver CAMM in EXLS and the Poles even more so as T31 and the Polish ship are the same ship are from the same supplier with same CMS and larger but common basis weapons fit and UK\Poland are in partnership to develop CAMM together.

Relevant to the fact that no reputable source has said the RN's Type 31's will get Mk41's equipped with ExLs? No.

Not really.
If RN want Mk41 on T31, which serving officer have indicated haven't they? T31 will still need CAMM. This could be done with a small Mk41 install combined with a couple of 2x6 mushroom launchers.

But developments elsewhere with Babcock, MBDA, LM on fitting CAMM in EXLS\Mk41 on Polish Swordfish, Saudi LSC, Canadian CSC have been progressing. So maybe a different solution has revealed itself.

Plus there was the odd update of the RN website suggesting T26 will have EXLS.

[mrclark303]

Sigh.

No reputable source has said the Type 31's will be getting Mk41's with ExLs. Hence it is a figment of imagination.

How the Poles and Saudi's configure their ships has fuck all to do with it.

Why do you have to be so obnoxious?

How the Saudis and Poles configure their ships is very relevant. The Saudis in terms of LM and MBDA working together to deliver CAMM in EXLS and the Poles even more so as T31 and the Polish ship are the same ship are from the same supplier with same CMS and larger but common basis weapons fit and UK\Poland are in partnership to develop CAMM together.

Relevant to the fact that no reputable source has said the RN's Type 31's will get Mk41's equipped with ExLs? No.

Not really.
If RN want Mk41 on T31, which serving officer have indicated haven't they? T31 will still need CAMM. This could be done with a small Mk41 install combined with a couple of 2x6 mushroom launchers.

But developments elsewhere with Babcock, MBDA, LM on fitting CAMM in EXLS\Mk41 on Polish Swordfish, Saudi LSC, Canadian CSC have been progressing. So maybe a different solution has revealed itself.

Plus there was the odd update of the RN website suggesting T26 will have EXLS.

Hopefully Mk41 will go ahead on T31, it makes them far more flexible ships with different potential load outs.