Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[donald_of_tokyo]

...Add say 8*NSM Canisters, as they get transferred across from the retiring T23's, then T31 COULD be very capable ASuW escorts.

As now T31 has larger number of VLS cells than T26, why not locate these NSMs on T26, not T31?

[new guy]

...Add say 8*NSM Canisters, as they get transferred across from the retiring T23's, then T31 COULD be very capable ASuW escorts.

As now T31 has larger number of VLS cells than T26, why not locate these NSMs on T26, not T31?

T31 has about the same amount of cells if you include a minimum of 48 camm each.

[Tempest414]

with 32 cells we could push VL Spear 3 in attack and EW this could allow type 31 to have a load out of

32 x CAMM , 32 x Spear-3 , 16 x FCASW and 8 to 16 x NSM add to this its Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 x Sea Venom

We could also add in a containerised TAS if working with the CSG which could now look like

1 x Carrier , 1 x SSN , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x T-31

[Poiuytrewq]

with 32 cells we could push VL Spear 3 in attack and EW this could allow type 31 to have a load out of

32 x CAMM , 32 x Spear-3 , 16 x FCASW and 8 to 16 x NSM add to this its Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 x Sea Venom

We could also add in a containerised TAS if working with the CSG which could now look like

1 x Carrier , 1 x SSN , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x T-31

The implications of the T31/Mk41 decisions are huge. Quite literally it changes virtually everything. RN would do well to protect this decision even if a follow-on batch of T31/T32 is smaller as a result.

A few observations,

- The rationale for the T32 in the next 10 to 15 years is dead.

- The LRGs can now be adequately escorted by T31s in non peer conflicts.

- RN needs a new class of HiCap OPVs to provide presence in low threat areas plus support the off-board technology and act as Littoral enablers for the FCF.

- The current Amphibious and Auxiliary fleets needs to be maximised with the T31s slotting in as escorts. The money needs to be spent on operating the Amphibs rather than embarking on costly programs to replace them.

- RN will now be able to operate not one but two CSGs concurrently without any involvement from allies as a maximum effort in an extreme scenario. A huge gain from a relatively small investment and another reason why the 3x FSS, 4x Tide, 2x Wave auxiliary fleet must be maintained.

- Apart from working out where all the money is coming from to fill the VLS cells RN needs to prioritise a follow on batch of T31 and get Captas4 into PODs asap. Now that the T26s are ordered there is no reason not to push forward with this as an essential.

- Should the follow-on T31B2 be a IH derivative? Full AAW spec and replace the 57mm with a Mk45, add 32 CAMM to the B position, move the 2x 40mm to above the hanger and allow the 32x Mk41 cells to remain free for other options. Could this be another AUKUS export possibility? It would be a much cost effective option for the Australians rather than messing around with Hunter too much.

The T31 has come a long way!

[Tempest414]

For me now if we could say build another 3 T-31's and upgrade the RB2's to have a 3D radar 40mm gun capable of operating POD's the navy would be in a good place

Babcock's could go on to build 8 x MHCP ships to cover the 3 x RB1 replacement's and 5 x LSV something like

110 by 16.5 meters , crew 45 + 80 extra bunks , 3D radar , good CMS , 2 x 40mm , hangar flight deck , covered and open working deck with a 30 ton crane

[tomuk]

The T31 has come a long way!

No it hasn't it is still the same ship it was before. It may just have in the future a set of Mk41s fitted. A capability it has always retained from the mother IH design.

[Poiuytrewq]

The T31 has come a long way!

No it hasn't it is still the same ship it was before. It may just have in the future a set of Mk41s fitted. A capability it has always retained from the mother IH design.

The concept has come a long way not the design that was ultimately chosen.

The plan was always to build the CVFs and argue for the escorts later and that appears to be coming to fruition. Baby steps but RN is now undeniably getting there.

[new guy]

with 32 cells we could push VL Spear 3 in attack and EW this could allow type 31 to have a load out of

32 x CAMM , 32 x Spear-3 , 16 x FCASW and 8 to 16 x NSM add to this its Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 x Sea Venom

We could also add in a containerised TAS if working with the CSG which could now look like

1 x Carrier , 1 x SSN , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x T-31

The implications of the T31/Mk41 decisions are huge. Quite literally it changes virtually everything. RN would do well to protect this decision even if a follow-on batch of T31/T32 is smaller as a result.

A few observations,

- The rationale for the T32 in the next 10 to 15 years is dead.

- The LRGs can now be adequately escorted by T31s in non peer conflicts.

- RN needs a new class of HiCap OPVs to provide presence in low threat areas plus support the off-board technology and act as Littoral enablers for the FCF.

- The current Amphibious and Auxiliary fleets needs to be maximised with the T31s slotting in as escorts. The money needs to be spent on operating the Amphibs rather than embarking on costly programs to replace them.

- RN will now be able to operate not one but two CSGs concurrently without any involvement from allies as a maximum effort in an extreme scenario. A huge gain from a relatively small investment and another reason why the 3x FSS, 4x Tide, 2x Wave auxiliary fleet must be maintained.

- Apart from working out where all the money is coming from to fill the VLS cells RN needs to prioritise a follow on batch of T31 and get Captas4 into PODs asap. Now that the T26s are ordered there is no reason not to push forward with this as an essential.

- Should the follow-on T31B2 be a IH derivative? Full AAW spec and replace the 57mm with a Mk45, add 32 CAMM to the B position, move the 2x 40mm to above the hanger and allow the 32x Mk41 cells to remain free for other options. Could this be another AUKUS export possibility? It would be a much cost effective option for the Australians rather than messing around with Hunter too much.

The T31 has come a long way!

Why would T31B2 be IH derivative? T31 is a derivative of IH derived arrowhead 140. It wouldn't be T31"B2" if we went back to the drawing board to recreate another IH derived design for no utter reason.
Agree on TAS and TMS need.
Why would T31B2 need Mk45 at all? why?
Why move the 2 40mm to rear for no other reason than 'why not'?? 40mm are placed at the most optimal positions for coverage. Now leaving the whole front, with the fact that you also took the capable 57mm main gun away, what's going to provide fore coverage?
Agree on a new class of OPV / MPHC / LSV.

[new guy]

further developments on the story

[tomuk]

The T31 has come a long way!

No it hasn't it is still the same ship it was before. It may just have in the future a set of Mk41s fitted. A capability it has always retained from the mother IH design.

The concept has come a long way not the design that was ultimately chosen.

The plan was always to build the CVFs and argue for the escorts later and that appears to be coming to fruition. Baby steps but RN is now undeniably getting there.

Why do you think the RN chose Arrowhead rather than an overgrown OPV from BAE. It was always the plan to build up the escort fleet. You seem to be the one late to the party.

[Tempest414]

with 32 cells we could push VL Spear 3 in attack and EW this could allow type 31 to have a load out of

32 x CAMM , 32 x Spear-3 , 16 x FCASW and 8 to 16 x NSM add to this its Wildcat with 20 LMM or 4 x Sea Venom

We could also add in a containerised TAS if working with the CSG which could now look like

1 x Carrier , 1 x SSN , 2 x T-45 , 2 x T-26 , 1 x T-31

The implications of the T31/Mk41 decisions are huge. Quite literally it changes virtually everything. RN would do well to protect this decision even if a follow-on batch of T31/T32 is smaller as a result.

A few observations,

- The rationale for the T32 in the next 10 to 15 years is dead.

- The LRGs can now be adequately escorted by T31s in non peer conflicts.

- RN needs a new class of HiCap OPVs to provide presence in low threat areas plus support the off-board technology and act as Littoral enablers for the FCF.

- The current Amphibious and Auxiliary fleets needs to be maximised with the T31s slotting in as escorts. The money needs to be spent on operating the Amphibs rather than embarking on costly programs to replace them.

- RN will now be able to operate not one but two CSGs concurrently without any involvement from allies as a maximum effort in an extreme scenario. A huge gain from a relatively small investment and another reason why the 3x FSS, 4x Tide, 2x Wave auxiliary fleet must be maintained.

- Apart from working out where all the money is coming from to fill the VLS cells RN needs to prioritise a follow on batch of T31 and get Captas4 into PODs asap. Now that the T26s are ordered there is no reason not to push forward with this as an essential.

- Should the follow-on T31B2 be a IH derivative? Full AAW spec and replace the 57mm with a Mk45, add 32 CAMM to the B position, move the 2x 40mm to above the hanger and allow the 32x Mk41 cells to remain free for other options. Could this be another AUKUS export possibility? It would be a much cost effective option for the Australians rather than messing around with Hunter too much.

The T31 has come a long way!

Why would T31B2 be IH derivative? T31 is a derivative of IH derived arrowhead 140. It wouldn't be T31"B2" if we went back to the drawing board to recreate another IH derived design for no utter reason.
Agree on TAS and TMS need.
Why would T31B2 need Mk45 at all? why?
Why move the 2 40mm to rear for no other reason than 'why not'?? 40mm are placed at the most optimal positions for coverage. Now leaving the whole front, with the fact that you also took the capable 57mm main gun away, what's going to provide fore coverage?
Agree on a new class of OPV / MPHC / LSV.

If we wanted the Batch 2 T-31's to have more VLS then we could build the longer type that Indonesia is building and have 32 cells between the 2 front guns and 32 amidships giving you 64 cells

[Poiuytrewq]

Why would T31B2 be IH derivative?

To make the most of those Mk41 cells and augment the numbers of T45s of which the UK doesn’t have enough.

T31 is a derivative of IH derived arrowhead 140. It wouldn't be T31"B2" if we went back to the drawing board to recreate another IH derived design for no utter reason.

See above ^^^

Agree on TAS and TMS need.

Great!

Why would T31B2 need Mk45 at all? why?

Same reason the T26 has one.

Why move the 2 40mm to rear for no other reason than 'why not'?? 40mm are placed at the most optimal positions for coverage. Now leaving the whole front, with the fact that you also took the capable 57mm main gun away, what's going to provide fore coverage?

The Mk45. What provides “fore coverage” on the T26 and T45?

Agree on a new class of OPV / MPHC / LSV.

Excellent!

[SW1]

Im not really sure what this opv people keep talking about is adding. The type 31 as a design is perfectly capable of presence tasks in areas we are interested in.

The vessels we have converted from the oil industry can use offboard systems in all other situations.

[Poiuytrewq]

Why do you think the RN chose Arrowhead rather than an overgrown OPV from BAE. It was always the plan to build up the escort fleet. You seem to be the one late to the party.

Not at all.

Before the Mk41 announcement the T31 was a flag waving, frigate sized liability in a peer on peer conflict. Only 12 CAMM was a bad joke and it wasn’t confirmed that NSM would be fitted. The large hanger added ASuW utility which was a redeeming characteristic. The propulsion setup was simple but fast with good range and endurance but overall it was very clearly below average when compared with other nation’s vessels. The total lack of any ASW capability was and still is a very serious omission.

The Mk41 addition changes everything. Quite literally everything. Leaving aside the ASW aspect (which could be facilitated through PODs) RN has in an instant produced a class of Frigate that will exceed the performance of the preceding T23 GPs in almost every way.

Up until yesterday RN was introducing a class of patrol vessel with the offensive capability similar to Khareef corvette. After the Mk41 announcement RN will have the most lethal class of ASuW Frigates the UK has ever produced and substantially more lethal than the T26 in terms of ASuW potential.

It is a triumph by those that pulled it off and it should be applauded by all but it was by no means certain….until yesterday.

[Repulse]

And whilst it is welcome, with a stroke of a IR pen it can be taken away.

It’s good that people are starting to rewrite history - the whole purpose of the T31 was to “stick it to BAE” and prove a £250mn Frigate was possible - let’s see how that goes. Just a shame we will never know what the price tag would have been for 13 T26s, which is what should have happened. I know people will claim that the T32 will grow the Navy but I will be expecting the defence paper to make positive noises as it’s kicked to the long grass.

[Poiuytrewq]

I will be expecting the defence paper to make positive noises as it’s kicked to the long grass.

As it should be until around the mid 2030s.

RN now needs more OPVs…..again.

[new guy]

I will be expecting the defence paper to make positive noises as it’s kicked to the long grass.

As it should be until around the mid 2030s.

RN now needs more OPVs…..again.

assuming the random number set up by the times of £2.5bn, which may I add the RN doesn't have, my proposition is the following:
+3 T31B2, programme cost £400m per unit. would bring T31 to 8, T26 to 8, considering both are replacements of T23 with its original 16 units. Also space to order +2 for NZ?
+6 MPHC/OPV/T32/MROSS/LSV or 15 commercially sourced ones.

[donald_of_tokyo]

The implications of the T31/Mk41 decisions are huge. Quite literally it changes virtually everything. RN would do well to protect this decision even if a follow-on batch of T31/T32 is smaller as a result.

A few observations,

- The rationale for the T32 in the next 10 to 15 years is dead.

- The LRGs can now be adequately escorted by T31s in non peer conflicts.

- RN needs a new class of HiCap OPVs to provide presence in low threat areas plus support the off-board technology and act as Littoral enablers for the FCF.

- The current Amphibious and Auxiliary fleets needs to be maximised with the T31s slotting in as escorts. The money needs to be spent on operating the Amphibs rather than embarking on costly programs to replace them.

- RN will now be able to operate not one but two CSGs concurrently without any involvement from allies as a maximum effort in an extreme scenario. A huge gain from a relatively small investment and another reason why the 3x FSS, 4x Tide, 2x Wave auxiliary fleet must be maintained.

- Apart from working out where all the money is coming from to fill the VLS cells RN needs to prioritise a follow on batch of T31 and get Captas4 into PODs asap. Now that the T26s are ordered there is no reason not to push forward with this as an essential.

- Should the follow-on T31B2 be a IH derivative? Full AAW spec and replace the 57mm with a Mk45, add 32 CAMM to the B position, move the 2x 40mm to above the hanger and allow the 32x Mk41 cells to remain free for other options. Could this be another AUKUS export possibility? It would be a much cost effective option for the Australians rather than messing around with Hunter too much.

The T31 has come a long way!

Interesting, I got very different point of view.

- "T31 with Mk.41" just started the assesment phase (shepard media title)

- I'm not sure to see CAMM on Mk.41 VLS. When we are talking about T26, were we saying, "48 CAMM in mushroom AND another 24x4 = 96 CAMM in Mk.41 VLS = total of 144 CAMM"? I think not (for many). We know adding CAMM in Mk.41 is expensive choice.

- I think Mk.41 will be carrying FCASW. And I strongly push TLAM to be added as interim solution.

- If Mk.41 on T31 is really "32 cells", then where to locate CAMM? Abandoned port-side 2nd boat-bay will be a candidate, but it means large re-design work. May be 12 CAMMs there?

So, I here come with a T31 with,
- Option-1: 32 TLAM (later FCASW) in Mk.41 VLS, and 12 CAMM aside (needs cost). Note the TLAM is anti-ship capable, although many of the anti-ship tasks will be carried out by SeaVenom on Wildcat.

- Option-2: Above does not look like a good balance and looks expensive. Hull-1 build is in good progress and adding yet another CAMM location will be expensive. Thus, I may keep 20 CAMM (RNZN located 20 CAMM in an area equivalent to 16-cell Mk.41 VLS short version), and 16 Mk.41 VLS.

We see no announcements for adding CAMM in Mk.41, nor any other missiles. It is just the Mk.41 VLS boxes = empty. We know filling the VLS will cost huge, and cannot be silently done. If RN be to fill the VLS, the added cost can exceed £1Bn, more £2Bn figure. It will easily kill the "T32 program" as a whole.

So, for me, adding Mk.41 on T31 adds "strike" and "anti-ship", but nothing being added as an "escort". (at least, nothing announced. And anything to be announced must come with huge spending increase). No ASW added. No CAMM increase known. As the 32-cell Mk.41 is high value, T31 needs to increase CAMM number, say, to 48? Yet another cost needed. T31 needs to be added with CAPTAS-4CI sonar? Yet another cost needed.

In short, I need to see how CAMM will be handled with this, before saying T31 getting much better as an escort. It will add the capability of strike. Only this part is known. Nothing on escort capability. Needs more info, I think.

[tomuk]

Why do you think the RN chose Arrowhead rather than an overgrown OPV from BAE. It was always the plan to build up the escort fleet. You seem to be the one late to the party.

Not at all.

Before the Mk41 announcement the T31 was a flag waving, frigate sized liability in a peer on peer conflict. Only 12 CAMM was a bad joke and it wasn’t confirmed that NSM would be fitted. The large hanger added ASuW utility which was a redeeming characteristic. The propulsion setup was simple but fast with good range and endurance but overall it was very clearly below average when compared with other nation’s vessels. The total lack of any ASW capability was and still is a very serious omission.

The Mk41 addition changes everything. Quite literally everything. Leaving aside the ASW aspect (which could be facilitated through PODs) RN has in an instant produced a class of Frigate that will exceed the performance of the preceding T23 GPs in almost every way.

Up until yesterday RN was introducing a class of patrol vessel with the offensive capability similar to Khareef corvette. After the Mk41 announcement RN will have the most lethal class of ASuW Frigates the UK has ever produced and substantially more lethal than the T26 in terms of ASuW potential.

It is a triumph by those that pulled it off and it should be applauded by all but it was by no means certain….until yesterday.

That is complete nonsense adding MK41 does not change the fundamentals of the design of the ship. RN was buying five frigates, poorly armed in their delivered state but frigates not patrol vessels. And we don't want a sonar in a shipping container. If it needs a sonar fit one.

[Poiuytrewq]

I got very different point of view.

Considering the UK MoDs track record I understand your scepticism. I agree with your costing concerns also. Perhaps the T32 is the lamb that has been slaughtered.

On the technicalities of CAMM placement.

46901439-900C-4550-8CFF-B8BF3A369D78.png

E71E0ED4-5451-4D1A-8552-15DDBC06BB84.jpeg

Why not put them forward of the Mk41s? The canisters appear to have moved to allow for this.

[Poiuytrewq]

That is complete nonsense adding MK41 does not change the fundamentals of the design of the ship.

True but it does change the capabilities and therefore the kinetic effect on a target.

RN was buying five frigates, poorly armed in their delivered state but frigates not patrol vessels.

Perfect description. Poorly armed Frigates suitable for patrolling and escorting in low threat environments. It was a great idea in 2016 but doesn’t seem that relevant in 2023.

And we don't want a sonar in a shipping container. If it needs a sonar fit one.

Completely agree but until that happens a TAS in a POD is better than a Frigate with no idea what is happening sub surface.

[wargame_insomniac]

...Add say 8*NSM Canisters, as they get transferred across from the retiring T23's, then T31 COULD be very capable ASuW escorts.

As now T31 has larger number of VLS cells than T26, why not locate these NSMs on T26, not T31?

The original thought was that the more expensive warfighting T26 was going to get the (likely) more expensive FCASW, while the cheaper gobal patrol T31 was going to get the (comparatively) cheaper NSM. (In this case assessing the price of the NSM ONLY in relation to what I expect will be the very expensive FCASW).

It would have fit the likely missions - the T31 would likly spend more time in the littoral zone, either patrolling the global sea lanes near various geographic chokepoints and/or in support of LSG.

Plus the numbers workd. 11 sets NSM ordered would cover 6*T45 & 5*T31.

However I admit that it is worth reviewing this, especially once we know for sure how many Mk41 VLS are going to be ftted AT LAUNCH to each T26 / and possibly T31. Then the nxt question is what exactly the RN was intending to put in all of these Mk41 VLS, as they can't possibly fill them all with likely very epensive FCASW. I am hoping that at least 1 cell block of Mk41 VLS per ship will be used to quad pack CAMM, to give greater durability against potential massd missile strikes, which could certainly be a danger in the Indo-Pacific.

[wargame_insomniac]

Why do you think the RN chose Arrowhead rather than an overgrown OPV from BAE. It was always the plan to build up the escort fleet. You seem to be the one late to the party.

Not at all.

Before the Mk41 announcement the T31 was a flag waving, frigate sized liability in a peer on peer conflict. Only 12 CAMM was a bad joke and it wasn’t confirmed that NSM would be fitted. The large hanger added ASuW utility which was a redeeming characteristic. The propulsion setup was simple but fast with good range and endurance but overall it was very clearly below average when compared with other nation’s vessels. The total lack of any ASW capability was and still is a very serious omission.

The Mk41 addition changes everything. Quite literally everything. Leaving aside the ASW aspect (which could be facilitated through PODs) RN has in an instant produced a class of Frigate that will exceed the performance of the preceding T23 GPs in almost every way.

Up until yesterday RN was introducing a class of patrol vessel with the offensive capability similar to Khareef corvette. After the Mk41 announcement RN will have the most lethal class of ASuW Frigates the UK has ever produced and substantially more lethal than the T26 in terms of ASuW potential.

It is a triumph by those that pulled it off and it should be applauded by all but it was by no means certain….until yesterday.

At this point my usual innate caution kicks in. As of yesterday the 1SL stated that the RN "intends" to add Mk41 VLS to T31. This is not a firm budgeted cost. And even if if it was, we still have a General Election soon, and that could change everything. The heady days of Liz Truss's brief and chaotic government promising an increase of defense spending to 3%, a significant chunk of extra spending money over and above the previous 2% GDP goal, are long gone. Anything other than a firm budget commitmnt is a brief soundbite and may yet be epheeral as the breeze.

As I said yesterday it is a great sign of what we hope the RN can achieve, but lets not bank on it yet.

[Tempest414]

Went it comes to what to put in all these cells the main one for me is Spear. Spear 2 ( Brimstone) cost 100K and has a range of 60 km's if we could make it VL with soft launch and a bigger motor having 32 of these would really help the escort side of things along with anything within 40km's of the ship having its hands full

Yes quad packing CAMM is more than mushrooms cells how ever if T-31 was to get 32 Mk-41 cells then a load out of

32 x CAMM , 32 x Spear 2 or 3 , 16 x FCASW or TLAM and 8 x NSM gives the ship a lot of options

As for TAS for me the main job of the T-31 is global patrol so having the ability to add a TAS pod is good enough

The day to load out of a T-31 should be 32 x CAMM , 32 Spear and 8 x NSM with a S2170 ATDS fitted

[Poiuytrewq]

As I said yesterday it is a great sign of what we hope the RN can achieve, but lets not bank on it yet.

Completely agree but actually fitting 32x Mk41 cells is very different to having 16x FFBNW on the T45.

A balance must be struck now between introducing a massively capable GP escort whilst achieving a sensible procurement and operating cost alongside a manageable crew allocation.

I would argue for 22 throughly credible AAW,ASW and GP escorts with the gaps filled by highly cost effective OPVs.