Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[serge750]

If very early insertion of Mk41 is assured, then further unnecessary work to create the Mushroom Farm may even be halted. It might also speed handover to the RN.

You're assuming the Mk 41's will replace the mushrooms. I'm not so sure they will. I think they will be additional to.

I think you are underestimating the penny pinchers ability sir....

[new guy]

I doubt it will take 10 to 12 years for a midlife refit to add the Mk 41's. Most reputable sources indicate an capability insertion immediately after builder handover. Won't take 12 months either.

I believe the same. I think the 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.

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

[donald_of_tokyo]

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

What making it complex is, delivery to RN means just "start of Capability Insertion Period (CIP)". It is written so in the following part.

... on 8 February, 2024, officials told Naval Technology that it was imperative the vessels were delivered on time to the Royal Navy.
The integration of the Mk 41 VLS into the Type 31 frigates could be done during “capability insertion periods” after the vessels had been delivered, officials said, adding that it was key that any decision should not “disrupt the delivery”.

Then, how long the CIP take? After the CIP, the ship will be handed "back" to RN. But, from here the (typically) two years long first-of-class-ship trial starts. As T31 design is a small modification (or strip-off version) of Iver Huitfeldt class, some part could be shortened. But, highly possible 1.5 years.



- Let's assume this table is correct and T31-hull1 can start CIP on early 2027 (probably after shipbuilder's trial).
- Let's assume CIP will take at least 1 year.
- T31-hull1 will be back in RN's hand on early 2028. And then, her first-of-class-ship trial for 1.5 years
Then the IOC of T31-hull1 will be on late 2029. T31-hull2 may follow by a half year delay.

Note that IOC of T26 is now planned on October 2028. (see ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-when-type-26-frigates-to-enter-service)

Will the 3 remaining T23GP survive until late 2029/2030? Are RN going to "enjoy" another capability gap there?

I think at least for the first 2 (or 3) T31s, the CIP and first-of-class-ship trial must be as short as possible. Must avoid "Mk.41 integrated with ExLS", which is the world's first-trial/verification/certification process. Polish Arrowhead 140 is way behind this schedule and it will be RN, to do all these time-consuming trials/certification. Rather just go with mushroom CAMM (upto 40, I guess 24 is "OK"), and (near) future addition of NSM (as Tempest414-san states continuously). No "first-trial/verification/certification process" is needed. Structural work is very very simple. Still we need to integrate the system with the CMS, and it takes time, but usually the verification process is the most time consuming.

How long RN needed after HMS Argyle and Westminster get CAMM, and see IOC of CAMM concluded by the trial fire from Argyle? "First" is always time consuming.

I'm afraid, adopting Mk.41 + ExLS options will delay the IOC of T31 by 2 years or so. And, keeping T23 GP for another 2 years will be nearly impossible. RN will be "forced" to gap them. Gapping KIPION and FRE for 2 years... I do not like it.

[tomuk]

. Rather just go with mushroom CAMM (upto 40, I guess 24 is "OK"), and (near) future addition of NSM (as Tempest414-san states continuously). No "first-trial/verification/certification process" is needed. Structural work is very very simple. Still we need to integrate the system with the CMS, and it takes time, but usually the verification process is the most time consuming.

Which RN (or even another navy's) ship is in service with the version of the mushroom farm to be fitted to T31?

[donald_of_tokyo]

Which RN (or even another navy's) ship is in service with the version of the mushroom farm to be fitted to T31?

I think it all says T31 was (or still is) planned to go with the same system as, this and this. The mushroom.

[tomuk]

More recent renders of the T31 show the 2x3 T26\Albatross NG Mushroom farm which is different to both the T23 Sea Wolf retrofit and the Anzac upgrade.

[donald_of_tokyo]

More recent renders of the T31 show the 2x3 T26\Albatross NG Mushroom farm which is different to both the T23 Sea Wolf retrofit and the Anzac upgrade.

It does not matter. The system on RNZNS is more high density fit-out than what you've shown.

Actually, the new 6-cell system, which I think is just a small modification of those on T23, "looks" higher density, but actually it is not. For example, T26's forward CAMM section uses a surface area as large as 24-cell Mk.41 VLS. RNZN Te Kaha class frigates carries 20 CAMM on an area for 16-cell Mk.41 VLS. If scaled to 24-cells, it is 30 CAMM, while T26 forward CAMM section only hosts 24 CAMM.

And, regardless, the 32-cell Mk41 VLS area can accommodate upto 40 CAMM, if we follow the RNZN approach. No need to degrade the capability, other than cost cutting.

[new guy]

What Im worried about is the two gunners who are right next to the VLS

[Tempest414]

Yes the RNZN has opened the door on this so as said at least the first 3 should be given 40 CAMM and NSM

However if RN wanted to go a little mad latter down the line they could go for a fitting of 40 CAMM and 16 Mk-41 by removing 20 of the CAMM and replacing with 16 Mk-41 and then removing the forward 40mm and fitting the 20 CAMM in its place

[donald_of_tokyo]

What Im worried about is the two gunners who are right next to the VLS

No problem, it is "soft" launched!!

[new guy]

What Im worried about is the two gunners who are right next to the VLS

No problem, it is "soft" launched!!

Imagine, being on high alert in the gulf, for some reason you are placed as a gunner next to the VLS, and without warning one fires... I don't think it being cold launch would help much in a scare factor way. Would be great PR though.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Imagine, being on high alert in the gulf, for some reason you are placed as a gunner next to the VLS, and without warning one fires... I don't think it being cold launch would help much in a scare factor way. Would be great PR though.

Re-locating the 0.5 calibre gun is easy. I think it shall do so.

[Ron5]

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

What making it complex is, delivery to RN means just "start of Capability Insertion Period (CIP)". It is written so in the following part.

... on 8 February, 2024, officials told Naval Technology that it was imperative the vessels were delivered on time to the Royal Navy.
The integration of the Mk 41 VLS into the Type 31 frigates could be done during “capability insertion periods” after the vessels had been delivered, officials said, adding that it was key that any decision should not “disrupt the delivery”.

Then, how long the CIP take? After the CIP, the ship will be handed "back" to RN. But, from here the (typically) two years long first-of-class-ship trial starts. As T31 design is a small modification (or strip-off version) of Iver Huitfeldt class, some part could be shortened. But, highly possible 1.5 years.



- Let's assume this table is correct and T31-hull1 can start CIP on early 2027 (probably after shipbuilder's trial).
- Let's assume CIP will take at least 1 year.
- T31-hull1 will be back in RN's hand on early 2028. And then, her first-of-class-ship trial for 1.5 years
Then the IOC of T31-hull1 will be on late 2029. T31-hull2 may follow by a half year delay.

Note that IOC of T26 is now planned on October 2028. (see ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-confirm-when-type-26-frigates-to-enter-service)

Will the 3 remaining T23GP survive until late 2029/2030? Are RN going to "enjoy" another capability gap there?

I think at least for the first 2 (or 3) T31s, the CIP and first-of-class-ship trial must be as short as possible. Must avoid "Mk.41 integrated with ExLS", which is the world's first-trial/verification/certification process. Polish Arrowhead 140 is way behind this schedule and it will be RN, to do all these time-consuming trials/certification. Rather just go with mushroom CAMM (upto 40, I guess 24 is "OK"), and (near) future addition of NSM (as Tempest414-san states continuously). No "first-trial/verification/certification process" is needed. Structural work is very very simple. Still we need to integrate the system with the CMS, and it takes time, but usually the verification process is the most time consuming.

How long RN needed after HMS Argyle and Westminster get CAMM, and see IOC of CAMM concluded by the trial fire from Argyle? "First" is always time consuming.

I'm afraid, adopting Mk.41 + ExLS options will delay the IOC of T31 by 2 years or so. And, keeping T23 GP for another 2 years will be nearly impossible. RN will be "forced" to gap them. Gapping KIPION and FRE for 2 years... I do not like it.

I think it's typical for a warship to have a docking period after initial builder trials have shaken out some bugs & defects. I would imagine the CIP would be done then. 12 months is way too long to add a Mk 41. Maybe a couple of months in parallel to the defect fixing.

[Ron5]

Yes the RNZN has opened the door on this so as said at least the first 3 should be given 40 CAMM and NSM

However if RN wanted to go a little mad latter down the line they could go for a fitting of 40 CAMM and 16 Mk-41 by removing 20 of the CAMM and replacing with 16 Mk-41 and then removing the forward 40mm and fitting the 20 CAMM in its place

I'm curious, why 40? Seems a strange number to pick.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I think it's typical for a warship to have a docking period after initial builder trials have shaken out some bugs & defects. I would imagine the CIP would be done then. 12 months is way too long to add a Mk 41. Maybe a couple of months in parallel to the defect fixing.

If just locating a "cold Mk41 VLS" it will be a few months. But, locating a Mk41, wiring it, adding ExLS, wiring it, integrating it with CMS, testing, verification, certification ....
it will never end in a few months, I guess.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Yes the RNZN has opened the door on this so as said at least the first 3 should be given 40 CAMM and NSM

However if RN wanted to go a little mad latter down the line they could go for a fitting of 40 CAMM and 16 Mk-41 by removing 20 of the CAMM and replacing with 16 Mk-41 and then removing the forward 40mm and fitting the 20 CAMM in its place

I'm curious, why 40? Seems a strange number to pick.

New Zealand Navy has managed to hold 20 CAMM on an area for 16-cell Mk41 VLS. If T31 has an area reserved for 32-cells, it can hold 40 CAMM. Simple.

[Ron5]

Yes the RNZN has opened the door on this so as said at least the first 3 should be given 40 CAMM and NSM

However if RN wanted to go a little mad latter down the line they could go for a fitting of 40 CAMM and 16 Mk-41 by removing 20 of the CAMM and replacing with 16 Mk-41 and then removing the forward 40mm and fitting the 20 CAMM in its place

I'm curious, why 40? Seems a strange number to pick.

New Zealand Nave managed to hold 20 CAMM on an area for 16-cell Mk41 VLS. If T31 has an area reserved for 32-cells, it can hold 40 CAMM. Simple.

Thanks, couldn't for the life of me figure where 40 came from

[Ron5]

I think it's typical for a warship to have a docking period after initial builder trials have shaken out some bugs & defects. I would imagine the CIP would be done then. 12 months is way too long to add a Mk 41. Maybe a couple of months in parallel to the defect fixing.

If just locating a "cold Mk41 VLS" it will be a few months. But, locating a Mk41, wiring it, adding ExLS, wiring it, integrating it with CMS, testing, verification, certification ....
it will never end in a few months, I guess.

"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.

[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.

[tomuk]

More recent renders of the T31 show the 2x3 T26\Albatross NG Mushroom farm which is different to both the T23 Sea Wolf retrofit and the Anzac upgrade.

It does not matter. The system on RNZNS is more high density fit-out than what you've shown.

Actually, the new 6-cell system, which I think is just a small modification of those on T23, "looks" higher density, but actually it is not. For example, T26's forward CAMM section uses a surface area as large as 24-cell Mk.41 VLS. RNZN Te Kaha class frigates carries 20 CAMM on an area for 16-cell Mk.41 VLS. If scaled to 24-cells, it is 30 CAMM, while T26 forward CAMM section only hosts 24 CAMM.

And, regardless, the 32-cell Mk41 VLS area can accommodate upto 40 CAMM, if we follow the RNZN approach. No need to degrade the capability, other than cost cutting.

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.

[Ron5]

"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.

My understanding is that CIP is already in the schedule so why do that and then later schedule another docking period for the Mk 41? By that time the ships will be scattered across the globe. Far easier to do it when they're close to home.

If FC/ASW is ready, they could do its testing/certification during the already scheduled first of class trials. Once again avoiding another trials period having to be scheduled later.

Looking at the missile dates, the initial land attack variant should be available when the first Type 31 is being trialed.

[tomuk]

"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.

T31 inherits Mk41 capability from the Danish IH. Babcock designers have confirmed this saying saying T31 is fitted with Mk41 foundations and appropriate supplies of water\power. The Polish variant is confirmed as having Mk41 with CAMM quad packed.

[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.

[donald_of_tokyo]

My understanding is that CIP is already in the schedule so why do that and then later schedule another docking period for the Mk 41? By that time the ships will be scattered across the globe. Far easier to do it when they're close to home.

Because Mk41 VLS is not there yet. Who has ordered it?

If FC/ASW is ready, they could do its testing/certification during the already schedule first of class trials. Once again avoiding another trials period having to be scheduled later.

Disagree. Testing FC/ASW on Mk.41 will just expand the first of class ship trial period. It is a summation of individual trials, and writing down the documents/manuals. Cannot be done at once, to my understanding.

Anyway, I see no need to mount Mk.41 VLS on T31 hull1. It will just delay to IOC, FC/ASW will not be ready by 2028 (=surely delay), and FC/ASW will not be there in number (=cannot fight). Even if the land-atack variant of FC/ASW there, it will surely be first integrated into Sylver VLS, not Mk.41. I see no merit doing it, sorry.

Take time, do it later (on hull 4 and 5). There are many reasons to hurry now to replace the 3 T23GP ASAP.

T31 inherits Mk41 capability from the Danish IH. Babcock designers have confirmed this saying saying T31 is fitted with Mk41 foundations and appropriate supplies of water\power.

No objection. But Mk41 VLS for T31 has not been ordered yet, and missile to be integrated within has not been purchased yet, AND, there is little need for such missile now to replace the 3 T23GPs, but there is a clear need to hurry as much as possible.

The Polish variant is confirmed as having Mk41 with CAMM quad packed.

This is again putting good reason not to hurry. If RN wait for 3-4 years, Poland navy will do all the initial works. RN can later enjoy the outcome, to be adopted on T31 hull 4 and 5.

"Mk41 + ExLS with CAMM" is a system yet to see a full set of integration/verification/certification program. Normally, it takes 2-3 years. Also, no ExLS has been ordered for UK yet, as no Mk41 VLS does, neither. They are not just there, while the T31 hull1 is nearly there.

The design and idea is good, but simply the schedule does not match.

[new guy]

"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