Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.

What will be the result of the 'Lighter Frigate' programme?

Programme cancelled, RN down to 14 escorts
52
10%
Programme cancelled & replaced with GP T26
14
3%
A number of heavy OPVs spun as "frigates"
127
25%
An LCS-like modular ship
22
4%
A modernised Type 23
24
5%
A Type 26-lite
71
14%
Less than 5 hulls
22
4%
5 hulls
71
14%
More than 5 hulls
103
20%
 
Total votes: 506

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by Ron5 »

jimjo wrote:To be honest, I can't really see how a new design is going to be much cheaper than taking a T-26 hull, swapping the CODLAG system for a CODLOG, squeezing the MK41 VLS down to maybe 16 cells, not bothering with torpedo capability and using the T-23's 4.5 inch gun. These would effectively be the GP T-23's we have now (give or take a few capabilities), but with brand spanking new hulls.

Sounds to me like that would still be a very capable frigate platform without risking a new design that could end up just as costly as a T-26 but with a crappy LGP capability. Only benefit I can see to designing an entirely new vessel would be to maintain our national ship designing capability.

Just speculation of course, I'm not a military shipbuilder. Hopefully the supposed shipbuilding strategy coming next year will outline what direction we are going and why.
I think a bunch of us here are hung up on your question. I suspect deleting the gas turbine and installing more diesels would save money. So would leaving a big hole where the mk 41 would fit (they are kinda expensive for what they do). Reusing the old gun wouldn't necessarily save money if a bunch of ammo would have to be ordered plus its magazine requires manpower whereas the T26 is fully automatic. There's no torpedoes on the T26 to delete, they've already been ditched one of the cost cutting purges. So what else could go? beats me.

I suspect the design team will burn through a few hundred million to only find they can't design anything that's appreciably cheaper to build that meets RN specification/standards.

Maybe, and I'll throw this out as a random thought, seeing a major lifetime expense is the crew and a major thrust of any new design would be a much smaller crew (skinny manning), maybe instead of designing a new ship, they should spend their time designing systems that don't need manpower. If google can build a driverless car, the clever lads and lasses should be able to design a sailorless T26. Or one with say half the crew.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by Tony Williams »

Ron5 wrote: I think a bunch of us here are hung up on your question. I suspect deleting the gas turbine and installing more diesels would save money. So would leaving a big hole where the mk 41 would fit (they are kinda expensive for what they do). Reusing the old gun wouldn't necessarily save money if a bunch of ammo would have to be ordered plus its magazine requires manpower whereas the T26 is fully automatic.
The new 127mm gun will also have long-range guided projectiles available for it such as Excalibur and Vulcano, which will give it a precision land-attack capability at a much longer range than the dumb shells can reach. So choosing that would make the MK41 less important.
Maybe, and I'll throw this out as a random thought, seeing a major lifetime expense is the crew and a major thrust of any new design would be a much smaller crew (skinny manning), maybe instead of designing a new ship, they should spend their time designing systems that don't need manpower. If google can build a driverless car, the clever lads and lasses should be able to design a sailorless T26. Or one with say half the crew.
That is a very good point. There is of course a manning level below which it would be dangerous to go because of the demands and potential casualties of combat, including damage repair teams, but it's certainly worth looking at automating whatever can reliably be automated. And naturally, every extra capability requires a team to handle it, so stripping out non-essentials will result in lifetime cost savings.

In opposition to the idea of a simplified T26 are a couple of reasons already mentioned which might encourage the development of brand-new, smaller ships: a demand for smaller, shallower-draft vessels to operate in the confined/shallow waters of the littoral and get into small ports; or simply a Treasury diktat saying "you're not getting ships the same size as the T26" as some sort of control over the tendency to say "well, we've got all this space, it would nice if we added...."

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by seaspear »

Perhaps a problem being with a lighter less capable figate is finding customers for it .

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by Tony Williams »

seaspear wrote:Perhaps a problem being with a lighter less capable figate is finding customers for it .
The French have exported 15 La Fayette light frigates despite only buying five for themselves.

User avatar
malcrf
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:06
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by malcrf »

Ron5 wrote:I also can't help wonder if the "lighter" frigate is unspoken challenge to Bae i.e. get your build costs down on the 8 and we'll buy more than an additional 5. Or maybe that's (my) wishful thinking :-)
I do hope you're right. I'd far rather have 13 (or 19 please) T26s

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1732
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by Pseudo »

malcrf wrote:
Ron5 wrote:I also can't help wonder if the "lighter" frigate is unspoken challenge to Bae i.e. get your build costs down on the 8 and we'll buy more than an additional 5. Or maybe that's (my) wishful thinking :-)
I do hope you're right. I'd far rather have 13 (or 19 please) T26s
Am I the only one partially hoping that delays in the light frigate and a lack of export orders for T26 require the government to order a couple more before the light frigate enters production?

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by arfah »

I expect the light frigate to be constructed by BAE Systems once T26 is completed.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

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

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by shark bait »

Tony Williams wrote:
In opposition to the idea of a simplified T26 are a couple of reasons already mentioned which might encourage the development of brand-new, smaller ships: a demand for smaller, shallower-draft vessels to operate in the confined/shallow waters of the littoral and get into small ports; or simply a Treasury diktat saying "you're not getting ships the same size as the T26" as some sort of control over the tendency to say "well, we've got all this space, it would nice if we added...."
You mean like one of these marvelous ships?

Image

No thank you.

I think the demand for smaller, shallower-draft vessels is something of a fad, that already seems to be passing. I seriously hope the royal navy wouldn't waste money on such a project. We don't need anything light, we need something useful, I don't think those two adjectives can go together when describing frigates.
@LandSharkUK

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by Tony Williams »

shark bait wrote: You mean like one of these marvelous ships?
No, I did not mean a massively overpriced and under-equipped speedboat.
I think the demand for smaller, shallower-draft vessels is something of a fad, that already seems to be passing. I seriously hope the royal navy wouldn't waste money on such a project. We don't need anything light, we need something useful, I don't think those two adjectives can go together when describing frigates.
Depends on how you define "light". The T23 is considered a generally useful frigate, as far as I'm aware, and it has half the displacement of the T26. Something of that size is obviously able to carry a useful helo, the 127mm gun, and Sea Ceptor (the three essentials in terms of armament, IMO) plus ASMs if required.

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

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by shark bait »

Tony Williams wrote: No, I did not mean a massively overpriced and under-equipped speedboat.
:lol: good, that is my worry when people start talking about light frigates, they do tend to suffer from being massively overpriced and under-equipped speedboats.

I think defining light as a small light frigate is very bad bad. Insead define it as lighter, such as the T23, it is then acceptable. However, as others have commented, what more can you take of the T26 before it starts to become that massively overpriced and under-equipped speedboat?

My suspistion is that they dont really mean light at all, they mean cheaper becasue they have failed to control the costs of the T26 program.

That being said, if we end up with 8 T26's and 10 T28's that are still well equipt that will be a winner.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Dear Shark Bait

How about a light frigate similar to ANZAC-NZ-mod?

~4000t FL, 24 CAMM, 5 inch canon, 1 CIWS, Merlin capable flight deck with SH60 capable hanger (while NZ uses SH2G), SMART-S rader (similar to 997?), hull-sonar with ship-torpedo-defense-system (STDS), 27 knots speed with 6000nm long range, a hull sonar and AS torpedo, link16 and 22.

Not bad, I think.

They can perfectly do "show the flag" deployments peace-time.
In real war, they can do 2ndary escort works (such as logistic fleet escort), naval gun support.

I suppose you do not agree to this idea and I welcome your criticisms, pointing out things I am not aware of.

WhiteWhale
Member
Posts: 273
Joined: 19 Oct 2015, 18:29
Somalia

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by WhiteWhale »

There's a lot of optimism in here, but in reality it's going to be River 2's with long range tanks and CAMM.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Donald,

Thank you for bringing up some relevant benchmarks. It should be noted that before the advent of soft launch missiles (for now Seaceptor) the placing of such high performance weapons on smaller vessels was problematic as
- you needed an area not too sensitive to the blast, and
- you needed quite a bit of depth for deck penetration, making the compromise between main gun and the VLS in front of the bridge location the harder, the smaller the overall ship length. Below is an innovative way around this problem. just take care that you don't land the helo at the wrong time (and remember to close the hangar door!).

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE ... age022.jpg

Not trying to make a marketing speech for Seaceptor, but as they only fill half of the height of the "proper" VLS silos, you could push out the first quad-packing holder after firing, and have the next four available (joke!)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by arfah »

A keel to mast tip refurb of the T23 might also work?

Although it is a very, very long shot.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

WhiteWhale wrote:in reality it's going to be River 2's with long range tanks and CAMM.
A year after the Black Swan concept, this [Fig. 9 in it; loadsa text as an intro] was presented... perhaps we would let some one to cost it?

http://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/media/4622463/B ... AJun13.pdf

Or perhaps not (because of TOBA)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

arfah wrote:A keel to mast tip refurb of the T23 might also work?
Ques why they finally gave up on the Leanders?
- because the refit was costed at more than building brand new
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by arfah »

Well, they'll still be good enough for Chile on the second hand market. ;-)
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by serge750 »

Hi guys

Interesting debate guys, im actually in favour of a slighty less capable ship if we can maintain numbers or better still revert to pre 2010 numbers, Sorry to sound dumb-but....Could they just reduce the hull size/shape by say 20%, smaller draft,width,length etc, then just have diesels, gun "smart" shell capable, CAMM, no strike length cells, smaller hanger for wild cat, smaller diesel tanks, food stores etc for shorter endurance, probably cost the same but maybe a slightly smaller crew, would it better for export?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by seaspear »

There could be alot of countries in South America in the market to rebuild their navy but wont buy new [Gilbert and Sullivan types] or the U.K would not not want to supply with any thing remotely high end because of the trouble they cause certainly South East Asia where the politics are warmer is seeing more increase in the sizes of the navies in response to China ,but would the U.K say like the French Lafayette class export to Taiwan , not in a fit , Pakistan gets frigates very very cheap from China India is building its own very capable destroyers , perhaps some of the Gulf region countries that have lighter frigates might be in the market for something bigger .unlikely to be Canada or Australia .

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

I am somewhat bemused by people's reactions to the light frigate proposal however. I have my own thoughts on all this but i could have sworn that the prospect of having a larger fleet of 'flag flying patrol vessels' was something much desired by many prior to this SDSR decision even, in the opinion of some, if it came at the cost of a number of the T26s??? In fact i am sure that it was an idea touted and generally well received back on the days of MP.net. I even seem to recall some of our resident bloggers and site owners running articles on the various merits of such an idea unless i am much mistaken.

Theoretically, and i stress theoretically, i think the decision could be quite sound. With 14 high end escorts i think we could still comfortably cover the needs of our CBGs and Amphibious groups plus the various higher end patrols and port visits if they are no longer needed for menial maritime security roles and policing missions; which will hopefully be taken over by the new light frigate. In fact, i could even see it leading to a more efficient use of the fleet mass than we presently enjoy even we never make it past 19 escorts in total. If the surface fleet expands with the addition of the light frigate then the possible net gain in effective operational mass could be even greater still.

Much of this however depends on the capability of the new design itself. The must haves for me are that it must also carry the 5 inch gun, must have CAMM installed (possibly in a reduced loadout but with provision for expansion), it must have a capable radar/sensor suite (preferably ARTISAN), it must have a capable AShM and must have provision for long range land attack - preferably through a Mk41 VLS (even if it is FFBNW). Get that, and we are laughing to my mind.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by arfah »

I don't mind a light frigate, either.

It's the exportability which troubles me.

It rules out importing a foreign design and self build.
It means starting from scratch and will probably take a long time before the keel is laid. For example, how long since T26 inception
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

arfah wrote:I don't mind a light frigate, either.

It's the exportability which troubles me.

It rules out importing a foreign design and self build.
It means starting from scratch and will probably take a long time before the keel is laid. For example, how long since T26 inception
Yep, my thoughts exactly. Lighter design or no, it took ages for us to get to the T26 (which still hasn't been finalised!!) so i can't see this new ship being a whirlwind process and making it in time for 2030 - not unless they are literally working on it as we speak already.

Like you say - we heard all this exportability, bleary eyed ambition stuff before when the GCS itself came in to being and look how that went. Why should we be any more optimistic in this case?? Are they trying to tell us that there is something about light frigates that are inherently more exportable? If so, for how long??

S M H
Member
Posts: 433
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
United Kingdom

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by S M H »

The type 26 took so long because everything had to be subservient to the whack a mole sand pit wars that were not properly funded (delays to the carriers). The contracts were drip fed due to the sorry state of the defence budget. If the mod can produce the specification early and do not change the design. They have the production run of the type 26 to nail the design and hopefully the price per ship right. That is if our political masters can think beyond the short term. Or maybe if hell freezes over a common bi partisan commitment to defence.

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

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by shark bait »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: How about a light frigate similar to ANZAC-NZ-mod?
.......
I suppose you do not agree to this idea and I welcome your criticisms, pointing out things I am not aware of.
Haha :lol: . Your quite right I don't agree.

I think such a ship is too small. What the royal navy lacks is escorts, so what ever we have needs to be able to keep up with the rest of the fleet. Remember you are only as good as your weakest link.

Now I admit I don't know too much about the Anzacs, but I know they are small. When a vessel is small it ether has the endurance to keep up with the rest of the fleet, but no space for systems. Or it has amazing systems, but no space for stores, meaning it cant keep up with the rest of the fleet, which then slows the pace of your whole fleets operations. That is quite clearly over simplified, but I think the concept is true.

Now if like New Zealand we didn't have a fleet to work with, and didn't have a global reach, such a ship would be perfect. However the Royal Navy needs ships that can deploy for a long time, anywhere in the world and protect our carrier operations. The carriers are going to shape the navy for the next 50 years, so any lighter frigate needs to be designed with carrier operations in mind. I don't think the Anzacs are that ship.

I feel like I've shot down a lot of types so instead I'll present and idea this time. The Iver Huitfeldt class has been discussed alot on the T26 thread, and if we could magically summon 10 of those into the fleet, I think they would be a good addition.
Really what we need is more T26, but that isnt going to happen due to money issues. Perhaps a discount T26 could look a lot like the Iver Huitfeldt class. A little bit shorter, simpler hull with less systems.
@LandSharkUK

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

Re: Future Light Frigate

Post by seaspear »

If you were to include the Iver huitfeldt class you would want its apar systems , possible upgrades of this system to abm ,if the ship is built under licence who would project manage

Post Reply