UK Defence Forum

KiwiMuzz wrote:My only concern with that option is whether the T31/32 will have the same level of noise reduction as T26 for the specialised A/S role.

It won't, but does it matter? The T26 has been optimised as a sub hunter, the last thing the CSG should be doing is actively hunting subs - it's more around keeping them at arms bay to keep the Carrier Group safe IMO. The hunting should be done by the SSNs, T26s, Merlins and future ASW unmanned vessels.

In peacetime, keeping the T26s in the core CSG formation seems a waste - better to assign them to the CSG as needed.

Tempest414 wrote:What is interesting is the RN has pushed Type 31 from a 120 meter OPV to a 140 meter global patrol frigate

True, but only on the assumption that the noise becomes a reality. Also, the budget picture has improved since the T31 concept was raised.

Repulse wrote:True, but only on the assumption that the noise becomes a reality. Also, the budget picture has improved since the T31 concept was raised.

Agreed and as I said had we started with a 2 to 2.5 billion program we could have been better off

I don’t see were the budget picture has improved.

Hopefully the type 31is delivered as spec’d at contract award. If it isn’t they’ve learned nothing.

If you keep within budget originally allocated you don’t break your yearly spend limits, you don’t have to delay or reduced numbers to meet the budget and you don’t have to run on existing things past there sell by date and you end up with budget head room to add things later.

I seem to remember Babcock included a clause in T31 contract that excluded any mods or changes by the RN to the agreed specification and presume Babcock would have deleted any electrical, pneumatic and water supply lines etc for the Mk41s as in the parent Iver Huitfeldt design to save costs to meet the very tight £250 million price.

Following the 1stSL's comments maybe he envisages that as soon as the first T31 constabulary ship (Babcock description of its capabilities) is delivered it will be straight back in the shipyard to be cut up and modified to fit the Mk41 VLS cells all at horrendous cost compared to the cost if it the Mk41s been included in the original RN specification. V Adm Gardner in his recent interview re T31 said much the same as they would insert 'capabilities' through life, though did admit at a cost premium. This seems totally contrary to the National Shipbuilding Strategy which was based on a continuous drumbeat of orders, first with a Mark 1 and then sold on early to be replaced with a Mark 2 with additional capabilities and so on.

The constabulary T31 the result of the Treasury imposed cost cap of £250 million per ship following the MoD/RN total mismanagement of the T26 programme whose costs rocketed way over budget, SD67 noted as £4.7 billion for the first three T26s (initial design, demonstration and build phase costs).

NickC wrote:I seem to remember Babcock included a clause in T31 contract that excluded any mods or changes by the RN to the agreed specification and presume Babcock would have deleted any electrical, pneumatic and water supply lines etc for the Mk41s as in the parent Iver Huitfeldt design to save costs to meet the very tight £250 million price.

Babcock didn't include the clause it was mutually agreed because it's mutually beneficial.

NickC wrote:Following the 1stSL's comments maybe he envisages that as soon as the first T31 constabulary ship (Babcock description of its capabilities) is delivered it will be straight back in the shipyard to be cut up and modified to fit the Mk41 VLS cells all at horrendous cost compared to the cost if it the Mk41s been included in the original RN specification. V Adm Gardner in his recent interview re T31 said much the same as they would insert 'capabilities' through life, though did admit at a cost premium. This seems totally contrary to the National Shipbuilding Strategy which was based on a continuous drumbeat of orders, first with a Mark 1 and then sold on early to be replaced with a Mark 2 with additional capabilities and so on.

If Mk41 is plug and play and T31 is fitted to receive, why is there an need to cut up at horrendous cost? Capability insertions are a normal part of business at HMNBs. As for Admiral Gardner's interview and whether to mid-life update or dispose of the T31, he addresses exactly this issue if you listen to whole interview.

NickC wrote:The constabulary T31 the result of the Treasury imposed cost cap of £250 million per ship following the MoD/RN total mismanagement of the T26 programme whose costs rocketed way over budget, SD67 noted as £4.7 billion for the first three T26s (initial design, demonstration and build phase costs).

The Treasury didn't cap the cost, the MoD did.

NickC wrote:…presume Babcock would have deleted any electrical, pneumatic and water supply lines etc for the Mk41s as in the parent Iver Huitfeldt design to save costs to meet the very tight £250 million

As is mentioned in the brochure I posted above, the AH140 design is ready for MK41, so I would argue it would be more expensive to delete that capability for the UK alone, because there are redesign costs and then added manufacturing costs for a one-off alternative… it’s probably cheaper to leave everything in place, even if it’s never used by the RN… a good example of this thinking is the F-15EX, which is a two-seater but is only planned to have one pilot; it was just cheaper to produce the two-man version and it’s the one that already certified for Qatar and Saudi Arabia…

Mk.41 is never "plug and play". You need required front-end electronics (dedicated box attached to Mk.41), you need new control software installed, and you need improved CMS capability to actually input the needed data to the missile-system. Of course, you need at least weeks of training of your crew to be capable of handling and maintaining that system onboard.

On T31, there are the CAMM launcher in the place IH-class has 32-cell Mk.41. I understand what the 1SL says means, the space below the CAMM launcher is kept open (may be another gymnasium?) so that in future the CAMM launcher can be replaced with Mk.41 VLS.

As we know T45 was with "Mk.41 VLS FFBNW", and apparently the space is there, but none of power/network lines are provided (to my understanding), the T31's case will be similar, I guess. This is justified because "a gym there" costs zero.

donald_of_tokyo wrote:Mk.41 is never "plug and play". You need required front-end electronics (dedicated box attached to Mk.41), you need new control software installed, and you need improved CMS capability to actually input the needed data to the missile-system. Of course, you need at least weeks of training of your crew to be capable of handling and maintaining that system onboard.

Plug and play was perhaps not the best choice of words. The point I was trying to make is that it's capability that can be inserted at the ship's home port as part of scheduled upkeep and doesn't need major structural work at a shipyard.

An observation comparing T26 and IH.

IH has 4 x 8 cell Mk41 launchers arranged 4 rows of 8 cells

T26 has 3 x 8 cell Mk41 arranged 2 rows of 12 plus 4 x 6 Mushrooms arranged 3 rows of 8 cells. The Mk41 and mushrooms take up roughly the same width across the deck.

Therefore on T31 if the only available space is the IH Mk41 area I can't see how you have more than 1 x 8 Mk41 and 2 x 6 Mushrooms.

A space that can take 4 x 8 cells can now only take 1 x 8 plus 12 CAMM are you shitting me or what

tomuk wrote:An observation comparing T26 and IH.

IH has 4 x 8 cell Mk41 launchers arranged 4 rows of 8 cells

T26 has 3 x 8 cell Mk41 arranged 2 rows of 12 plus 4 x 6 Mushrooms arranged 3 rows of 8 cells. The Mk41 and mushrooms take up roughly the same width across the deck.

Therefore on T31 if the only available space is the IH Mk41 area I can't see how you have more than 1 x 8 Mk41 and 2 x 6 Mushrooms.

Are you really saying 8 CAMM cells take up the same width as 12 Mk41 cells, when we know each Mk-41 cell can take 4 CAMM missiles? Looking at the available pictures, it's clear the CAMM 6-cell sets are not exactly up against each other and the overall width is still clearly smaller than that of the Mk41 array....

JohnM wrote:

tomuk wrote:An observation comparing T26 and IH.

IH has 4 x 8 cell Mk41 launchers arranged 4 rows of 8 cells

T26 has 3 x 8 cell Mk41 arranged 2 rows of 12 plus 4 x 6 Mushrooms arranged 3 rows of 8 cells. The Mk41 and mushrooms take up roughly the same width across the deck.

Therefore on T31 if the only available space is the IH Mk41 area I can't see how you have more than 1 x 8 Mk41 and 2 x 6 Mushrooms.

Are you really saying 8 CAMM cells take up the same width as 12 Mk41 cells, when we know each Mk-41 cell can take 4 CAMM missiles? Looking at the available pictures, it's clear the CAMM 6-cell sets are not exactly up against each other and the overall width is still clearly smaller than that of the Mk41 array....

tomuk wrote:

JohnM wrote:

tomuk wrote:An observation comparing T26 and IH.

IH has 4 x 8 cell Mk41 launchers arranged 4 rows of 8 cells

T26 has 3 x 8 cell Mk41 arranged 2 rows of 12 plus 4 x 6 Mushrooms arranged 3 rows of 8 cells. The Mk41 and mushrooms take up roughly the same width across the deck.

Therefore on T31 if the only available space is the IH Mk41 area I can't see how you have more than 1 x 8 Mk41 and 2 x 6 Mushrooms.

Are you really saying 8 CAMM cells take up the same width as 12 Mk41 cells, when we know each Mk-41 cell can take 4 CAMM missiles? Looking at the available pictures, it's clear the CAMM 6-cell sets are not exactly up against each other and the overall width is still clearly smaller than that of the Mk41 array....

Yes, my point exactly. If you fit them tightly, 3 CAMM 6-cell sets take up approximately the same space as 2 Mk41s, so a loadout of 18 CAMM and 16 Mk41 seems to be quite feasible. Also, all the T31 images and videos show a 24 cell single CAMM launcher, not 4 6-cell ones, which is a much better use of space; I reckon that makes a loadout of 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41 cells doable as well.

It's all bullshit ..

.. putting type 31's in harms way? Sending them against pirates or angry french fishermen is putting them in harms way. Means jack.

.. looking forward to debate about adding capability to what will be the feeblest frigate in anyone's navy? What the eff is there to debate?? The class is useless for war fighting either keep them well away or equip them properly..

.. and the debate will be about adding 4 or 8 Mk 41 cells???? Woopdedoo. That'll fix everything

JohnM wrote:

tomuk wrote:

JohnM wrote:

tomuk wrote:An observation comparing T26 and IH.

IH has 4 x 8 cell Mk41 launchers arranged 4 rows of 8 cells

T26 has 3 x 8 cell Mk41 arranged 2 rows of 12 plus 4 x 6 Mushrooms arranged 3 rows of 8 cells. The Mk41 and mushrooms take up roughly the same width across the deck.

Therefore on T31 if the only available space is the IH Mk41 area I can't see how you have more than 1 x 8 Mk41 and 2 x 6 Mushrooms.

Are you really saying 8 CAMM cells take up the same width as 12 Mk41 cells, when we know each Mk-41 cell can take 4 CAMM missiles? Looking at the available pictures, it's clear the CAMM 6-cell sets are not exactly up against each other and the overall width is still clearly smaller than that of the Mk41 array....

Yes, my point exactly. If you fit them tightly, 3 CAMM 6-cell sets take up approximately the same space as 2 Mk41s, so a loadout of 18 CAMM and 16 Mk41 seems to be quite feasible. Also, all the T31 images and videos show a 24 cell single CAMM launcher, not 4 6-cell ones, which is a much better use of space; I reckon that makes a loadout of 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41 cells doable as well.

The Mushroom VLS only comes in 2 x 3 - 6 cell arrangement see link for more details and picture.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/albatros-ng- ... m-detailed

tomuk wrote:

JohnM wrote:

tomuk wrote:

JohnM wrote:

tomuk wrote:An observation comparing T26 and IH.

IH has 4 x 8 cell Mk41 launchers arranged 4 rows of 8 cells

T26 has 3 x 8 cell Mk41 arranged 2 rows of 12 plus 4 x 6 Mushrooms arranged 3 rows of 8 cells. The Mk41 and mushrooms take up roughly the same width across the deck.

Therefore on T31 if the only available space is the IH Mk41 area I can't see how you have more than 1 x 8 Mk41 and 2 x 6 Mushrooms.

Are you really saying 8 CAMM cells take up the same width as 12 Mk41 cells, when we know each Mk-41 cell can take 4 CAMM missiles? Looking at the available pictures, it's clear the CAMM 6-cell sets are not exactly up against each other and the overall width is still clearly smaller than that of the Mk41 array....

Yes, my point exactly. If you fit them tightly, 3 CAMM 6-cell sets take up approximately the same space as 2 Mk41s, so a loadout of 18 CAMM and 16 Mk41 seems to be quite feasible. Also, all the T31 images and videos show a 24 cell single CAMM launcher, not 4 6-cell ones, which is a much better use of space; I reckon that makes a loadout of 24 CAMM and 16 Mk41 cells doable as well.

The Mushroom VLS only comes in 2 x 3 - 6 cell arrangement see link for more details and picture.

https://www.edrmagazine.eu/albatros-ng- ... m-detailed

That was my understanding too, but the latest video on T31 (on the Naval News website) shows a Babcock rep playing around with the location of a densely packed 24-cell set... not sure if that's a real alternative or a just a hypothetical. Maybe Xav can chime in?

Think the RN should be honest and have said we are reducing from 13 frigates to 8 and 5 larger additional opv , which in essence is what they are doing but trying the pretence of still saying 13 frigates ,

inch wrote:Think the RN should be honest and have said we are reducing from 13 frigates to 8 and 5 larger additional opv , which in essence is what they are doing but trying the pretence of still saying 13 frigates ,

That's not being honest as the T31 is in no way an OPV. How can a 6000 odd ton frigate closely related to similar ships operated by one of our NATO allies as ASW frigates and AAW destroyers be classed in anyway as an OPV.

tomuk wrote: How can a 6000 odd ton frigate closely related to similar ships operated by one of our NATO allies as ASW frigates and AAW destroyers be classed in anyway as an OPV.

I was just going to do a 'LIKE'... but it really is the time to cut this bullshit
... so I did a post, instead

tomuk wrote:

inch wrote:Think the RN should be honest and have said we are reducing from 13 frigates to 8 and 5 larger additional opv , which in essence is what they are doing but trying the pretence of still saying 13 frigates ,

That's not being honest as the T31 is in no way an OPV. How can a 6000 odd ton frigate closely related to similar ships operated by one of our NATO allies as ASW frigates and AAW destroyers be classed in anyway as an OPV.

It starts by looking through the sensor and weapon fit of our close allies and ticking off what the T31 will have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Hu ... ss_frigate

Repulse wrote:

tomuk wrote:

inch wrote:Think the RN should be honest and have said we are reducing from 13 frigates to 8 and 5 larger additional opv , which in essence is what they are doing but trying the pretence of still saying 13 frigates ,

That's not being honest as the T31 is in no way an OPV. How can a 6000 odd ton frigate closely related to similar ships operated by one of our NATO allies as ASW frigates and AAW destroyers be classed in anyway as an OPV.

It starts by looking through the sensor and weapon fit of our close allies and ticking off what the T31 will have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Hu ... ss_frigate

How many opv’s are shock tested, or have multiple redundancy and damage control systems/zones, nbc citadel’s ect

RNZN Anzac frigate carries 20 CAMM on the same "area" planned to hold 16-cell Mk.41 VLS. It is arranged in 4x5. (fact)

With some imagination, adding 0.5m or so will enable it to carry 4x6 = 24 cell. As CAMM launcher is very short = shallow in deck space, it will be easy, I guess. (guess)

Repulse wrote:

tomuk wrote:

inch wrote:Think the RN should be honest and have said we are reducing from 13 frigates to 8 and 5 larger additional opv , which in essence is what they are doing but trying the pretence of still saying 13 frigates ,

That's not being honest as the T31 is in no way an OPV. How can a 6000 odd ton frigate closely related to similar ships operated by one of our NATO allies as ASW frigates and AAW destroyers be classed in anyway as an OPV.

It starts by looking through the sensor and weapon fit of our close allies and ticking off what the T31 will have.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Hu ... ss_frigate

No, it doesn't start with the weapons and sensors it starts with the ship. If you fitted all the weapons and sensors from the IH to a Batch 2 River( or French POM) it would still be an OPV.

the 32 CAMM on type 23 are packed into about a 8 x 6 meter space

for me the space between the boat bays should be able to take 2 x 8 cell mk-41 , 24 CAMM and 8 x NSM

SW1 wrote:How many opv’s are shock tested, or have multiple redundancy and damage control systems/zones, nbc citadel’s ect

tomuk wrote:No, it doesn't start with the weapons and sensors it starts with the ship. If you fitted all the weapons and sensors from the IH to a Batch 2 River( or French POM) it would still be an OPV.

Both fair points - but I guess equally a frigate hull without the kit isn't a real frigate either - there is ultimately a spectrum that doesn't fit neatly in warship classifications. Now that we've invested in the T31 I sorely hope the 1SL can find the money to make them fully capable, without killing something else important.