UK Defence Forum

It would probably be easy and cheap to have T32 be a modified T31, where the 24 CAMM farm goes behind the radar mast (like in the T26), which would enable a full width mission bay amidships, with 8xSSM mounted on top. Add some silencing by mounting the engines on absorbers, add a HMS and a VDS and you have a great GP ship that can be a mothership to a host of UVs...

Of one needs/wants more VLS cells, I believe the parent IH design has two deck-penetrating 76mm guns, so the forward 40mm gun could probably be replaced by at least another 12 CAMM or even some ExLS...

All heading in the right direction....

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... conference

The devil will be in the detail.

Timmymagic wrote:. If only T31 could have been built with a proper mission bay....then we could just build 10 rather than 5....

May be they will 'double' correct that,,, considering the ever bigger autonomous systems. Instead of doing this https://i1.wp.com/www.globalsecurity.or ... jpg?zoom=2
doing this (but 'bigger')
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... egUIARCiAQ

JohnM wrote:It would probably be easy and cheap to have T32 be a modified T31, where the 24 CAMM farm goes behind the radar mast (like in the T26), which would enable a full width mission bay amidships, with 8xSSM mounted on top. Add some silencing by mounting the engines on absorbers, add a HMS and a VDS and you have a great GP ship that can be a mothership to a host of UVs...

Things is....with its lower end, mainly defensive weapons fit (particularly for near shore threats) the T31 would make more sense to carry MCM kit than a GP or ASW oriented T32. That was the beauty of the BMT Venator 90. It was armed enough to deploy MCM gear near shore without needing an escort. Hell that sort of vessel would be useful with a proper medium calibre gun as you're more likely to risk them close to shore to conduct NGFS. Instead we've got our prime ASW asset (T26) armed with our best naval gun, and our low end vessel armed with a 57mm....its so mixed up. Add in mission bays on T32 when they'd be better suited on T31, 4.5 on T45 when 57mm suits it more, old SSM's, missing hangars on LPD's and we're in a real muddle...

Maybe the T32 would be an extended T31 with a plug around where the boat bays are to extend the length of said boat bays, & if they are built at Rosyth they should be up to the challenge as they have just built the T31, hopefully cheapish thing to do if they really want to grow back the escort fleet to nearer 2010 levels...

Even better if they had a sonar, bigger main gun 5 inch & mk41 VLS, maybe what the T31 should of been....

Then try to sell the T31 at knockdown prices ( as usual with the MOD ) then build some more T32 to replace them while Bae build the later T26 then T45 replacement

I could see New Zealand buying them for 100m each then up arming them....

I like JohnM's thinking.

To develop it further, at DSEI 2019, Babcock told me, Type 31 admidships could be stretched (is there time?) and Captas 1 or 2 (I think it was the latter) could be fitted. I presume the torpedo decoy could be fitted. There was some rumour of a batch 2 variant, which could speed the design changes. I would leave the guns alone. I would go for full NBC, instead of citadel, like the new RNZN supply ship. The MTU generators cold be the same as Type 26. ExLS by the mast could provide 48 Sea Ceptor missiles. Type 26's mission bay can't be that expensive. Babcock told me Type 31 was at NATO ASW quietening standards.

There is a no change design agreement, which could change at no cost with an extra order. The additional cost, could be funded as an extra to the defence budget, as well as providing 6+ MCM motherships.

I think MP's will not be happy with the capacity cuts in all three services nor our allies and friends, so await some "U" turns .

Apparently the “24 Frigates” mentioned by the PM relate to:

6 x T45
4 x T26
5 x T31

And 9 x T23s...

Speculation but is the RN heading towards having 13 ASW Frigates (8 T26 + 5 T32)

Repulse wrote:Apparently the “24 Frigates” mentioned by the PM relate to:

6 x T45
4 x T26
5 x T31

And 9 x T23s...

Eh? That doesn't make much sense...

Probably meant 9 x type 32 patrol craft (I mean frigate.... wink, wink, nod, nod.)

Repulse wrote:Apparently the “24 Frigates” mentioned by the PM relate to:

6 x T45
4 x T26
5 x T31

And 9 x T23s...

Speculation but is the RN heading towards having 13 ASW Frigates (8 T26 + 5 T32)

Have you got a source please?

Repulse wrote:And 9 x T23s...

That would be a large increase from the 4 or 5 expected to make to make it to 2029/2030. It would also in all likelihood be eye-wateringly expensive.

It would be cheaper and much more efficient to just build more Frigates.

Just to make everyone's day here is the great Lewis Page in the DT

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... -spending/

(I din't know where to post this..)

RichardIC wrote:Have you got a source please?

Thank you.

So we'll still be in the transition period as the T23 go.

By 2030 half of T26 delivered; all Type 31; Type 32 about to come on stream.

As long as...

Someone is going to have to pay a pretty penny to extend the life of T23s by that much...

RichardIC wrote:By 2030 half of T26 delivered; all Type 31

2 T26 ready to sail with the MTF
1 on TAP, but ready to join in (any T23 to step in)
1 in maintenance
-------
1 T31 fwrd based
1 on world tour
1 sailing in the Caribbean- Falklands- UK triangle, to relieve the RB2s as appropriate
1 as the Fleet Ready Escort
1 in maintenance

RB1s since long gone;
slack = whichever T23s can (by then ) still soldier on, on a full-time basis

So,
1.a fully expeditionary MTF
2. EZ+BOTs
3. Sea Denial by SSNs (where we choose to, not in many places simultaneously)
... and of course
4. CASD (outsourced for the navy to run), by then with many more warheads; also our stand-by should the OpFor resort to tactical nukes?

JohnM wrote:Someone is going to have to pay a pretty penny to extend the life of T23s by that much...

Most already going through extensive Lifex. Already planned to run some until mid 2030s.

RichardIC wrote:

JohnM wrote:Someone is going to have to pay a pretty penny to extend the life of T23s by that much...

Most already going through extensive Lifex. Already planned to run some until mid 2030s.

Still, it’s probably not feasible to keep 9 in service until 2030... this came out today in Navy Lookout...
https://www.navylookout.com/when-will-t ... estroyers/

JohnM wrote:Still, it’s probably not feasible to keep 9 in service until 2030... this came out today in Navy Lookout...

Speeding up the T26 build would be ideal but for what purpose If no additional T26's are ordered?

The most realistic way to hit 24 escorts by 2030, both commissioned and 'in build', is to construct the T31's and T32's concurrently in Rosyth.

Another option worth be to build a modified Leander design concurrently with the T26's at Govan/Scotstoun but that seems less likely.

One thing is virtually guaranteed however....RN won't have 24 escorts by 2030 regardless of what Boris says.

Good info (including the end statement: 'that's all we can know for now')

"In order to keep frigate numbers from dipping too low in the mid-2020s, the RN plans to extend the life of HMS Lancaster and HMS Iron Duke beyond their original OSD, probably for an extra 1-2 years.[...]

Further details about the future of the RN’s fleet will be published in the White Paper next week."

Command Paper, White Paper... fog of war?

Poiuytrewq wrote:The most realistic way to hit 24 escorts by 2030, both commissioned and 'in build', is to construct the T31's and T32's concurrently in Rosyth.

Would also lend credence to someone building a 'factory' to be able to build two frigates concurrently... in a batch of five

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Would also lend credence to someone building a 'factory' to be able to build two frigates concurrently... in a batch of five

True but the current T31 build schedule is already pretty ambitious without lobbing a class of five T32's into the mix.

A balance between ambitious enough, without being too ambitious, is critical now.

Poiuytrewq wrote: already pretty ambitious without lobbing a class of five T32's into the mix.

I agree. I meant the economics of payback for that factory investment, not that there would be concurrent production of the T31s and T32s
... whereas I have been saying for a long time that the ASW and AAW versions of the T26 hull are likely to be dovetailed towards the end of the production run of the former

As @ Ron says about AFVs, it is not a T-Ford production line how they are made
... and for frigates/ destroyers it is even less so (but sharing hulls, propulsion - perhaps shed of all the ASW niceties and finesse - there are still economies of scale; and also potential to gain on the lead time from design to build)

From Navy Command to 2030
Here's how a revised schedule for the retirement and replacement of the T23 frigates might look.

Prior to 2030 3xT31 and 2xT26 are due to be commissioned then ...

You can see the schedule on page 8 of the Navy Command to 2030 post but for some reason I can't get it to transfer to here

In contrast to what's being said above. The easiest way to get to 24 escorts being available in 2030 is to keep five more T23s available!

So in 2030 there would be 6xT45, 3xT26, 4xT31 and 11xT23.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:but sharing hulls, propulsion - perhaps shed of all the ASW niceties and finesse - there are still economies of scale; and also potential to gain on the lead time from design to build

The RN is pretty good at reusing systems between classes and has always been so. Except for the Type 31 which is an outlier that's still too young to be judged as being successful.

"Sharing hulls" doesn't mean anything. If you mean hull shape below the water line, then once again, the RN is good at that and there's a long line of examples. If you mean actual bits of steel (above and below the water), that's pretty pointless and doesn't and shouldn't happen.