UK Defence Forum

RichardIC wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 15:21With respect Donald it's not a design. It's some marketing material.

As you've intimated you'll need a couple of years and many millions in investment if you want to turn it into something you could use to build a ship.

Exactly. So, the first builder do the detailed design, and they can (try to) export it, as Babcock themself did with Vard7 80 and 90 OPV designs.

We remember Arrowhead 120 design, a significantly modified derivative of Vard 7 110 design. Vard 7 110 is now on build for USCG, and Babcock supported the detailed design, and therefore has some know-how.

But they eventually moved to Danish design, Arrowhead 140. It was a good decision, so that Babcock won the bid. But, Babcock lost the chance to design a ship by their own. If any T32 to be newly designed, Babcock shall try to do it nearly from scratch. If T32 is more and more Vard-7 like, they will do better (because they have such experience). If more a full-fat frigate like, it will be very difficult for Babcock, and hence they will be importing designs from abroad.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 16:44

RichardIC wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 15:21With respect Donald it's not a design. It's some marketing material.

As you've intimated you'll need a couple of years and many millions in investment if you want to turn it into something you could use to build a ship.

But they eventually moved to Danish design, Arrowhead 140. It was a good decision, so that Babcock won the bid. But, Babcock lost the chance to design a ship by their own. If any T32 to be newly designed, Babcock shall try to do it nearly from scratch. If T32 is more and more Vard-7 like, they will do better (because they have such experience). If more a full-fat frigate like, it will be very difficult for Babcock, and hence they will be importing designs from abroad.

Don’t know why anyone would go to the cost and expense of designing something new when what they already have something that offers a far larger and more flexible platform. Look at what Poland is doing with it.

RichardIC wrote: ↑21 Jun 2022, 17:29 Don’t know why anyone would go to the cost and expense of designing something new when what they already have something that offers a far larger and more flexible platform.

What’s more we have two flexible platforms (T26 & T31) buy more of each if needed

By the way how effective will a T-26 be in ASW if it loses its Merlin?

Lord Jim wrote: ↑23 Jun 2022, 20:55 By the way how effective will a T-26 be in ASW if it loses its Merlin?

If she is accompanied with P-8A, I think almost zero loss. However, capabilities provided by Merlin and P-8A differ, and thus it will not be a "replacement".

If she carries Wildcat, effectiveness will degrade, but not significantly.

In passive ASW mode, like in 1980-90s, distance to the enemy sub is not know, so sensors on ASW helos' were "must". On the other hand, CAPTAS4 sonar works mainly on active mode, in which case distance to the enemy Sub is measured. So, T26 can guide her Wildcat to it.

This is my thought.

I still hold out hope of ASROC being used in Mk41 VLS fitted to T26.

Does seem a no brainer 2have just incase merlin is not operational or really bad weather...

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑24 Jun 2022, 17:51 I still hold out hope of ASROC being used in Mk41 VLS fitted to T26.

USN mentioned on the Jan 2019 FFG(X)/Constellation briefing slide the Mk41 VLS supports for all wx stand-off ASW (future), presumably to replace the old and relatively short range ASROC, whether it come to fruition don't know as have seen no funding for the new system.

Damen for the new German F126 frigate slightly larger in displacement to the T26 have chosen a CODLAD propulsion system, saving the considerable expense of a GT. Damen have contracted for the RENK AED, Advanced Electric Drive, a high-speed electric motor, reduction gearbox, flexible coupling to prop shaft mounted on a vibration absorbing lightweight raft with soft-elastic bearings, max power for AED 6MW per shaft shown on RENK website, claiming its compact, lightweight, low noise gearbox allowing output speed adjustable flexibly to propeller speed requirements and shock resistant.

No mention in the PR of the diesels or the diesel generators to be fitted.

Would seem to be a compromise in cost between the unsilenced all diesel CODAD of the T31 and the CODLOG of the T26.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -for-f126/

Not directly RN frigate, but RNZN ANZAC frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana, is for me, typical GP frigate.

A 127 mm gun, a 20mm CIWS, 2x 12.7mm RWS, 4x 12.7 mm MGs, 20x CAMM, 2x triple anti-sub torpedo tubes, a SH-2G helo, and 3x 7.5m-class RHIBs. Has a SMART-S 3D radar, a hull sonar, SeaSentor ship torpedo defense system (with both towed and dispenser decoys), MASS chaff-flare launchers, so-so good ESM kit, so-so EO sensors, Link.16 and 22, SatCom, and SharpEye navigation radars, with Canadian CMS330. Has a long range of 6000 nm at 18 knots, 30+ days endurance, with a crew of 180+, including flight team.

Significantly LESS capable than so-called tier-1 frigates (such as T23/T26, FREMM, etc), but well balanced kits as a "GP frigate".

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑29 Jun 2022, 16:20 Not directly RN frigate, but RNZN ANZAC frigates, Te Kaha and Te Mana, is for me, typical GP frigate.

A 127 mm gun, a 20mm CIWS, 2x 12.7mm RWS, 4x 12.7 mm MGs, 20x CAMM, 2x triple anti-sub torpedo tubes, a SH-2G helo, and 3x 7.5m-class RHIBs. Has a SMART-S 3D radar, a hull sonar, SeaSentor ship torpedo defense system (with both towed and dispenser decoys), MASS chaff-flare launchers, so-so good ESM kit, so-so EO sensors, Link.16 and 22, SatCom, and SharpEye navigation radars, with Canadian CMS330. Has a long range of 6000 nm at 18 knots, 30+ days endurance, with a crew of 180+, including flight team.

Significantly LESS capable than so-called tier-1 frigates (such as T23/T26, FREMM, etc), but well balanced kits as a "GP frigate".

Compared, we can see RN's T31 GP-frigate is much more biased on
- larger hull and good sea keeping
- better helicopter support gears
- much better close-range gun fires (a 57mm 3P (+ALaMo?) + 2x 40mm 3P)
- a bit limited AAW capability (if with 12 CAMM. If with 24, then "similar").
- similar level of soft-kill against ASM, and torpedo attack
- similar helicopter (Wildcat vs SH-2G(I))
but inferior in
- lack of ASW capability (although those of ANZAC frigate is also still limited)
- significant shortage of NGFS (57 mm vs 127 mm)

PS Actually, RNZN Te Kaha/Te Mana after modernization shall be compared with T23 after LIFEX. Here, larger T23 GP has better capability, while the over-all policy looks the similar...

Thought I would post the latest drawing of the Canadian Surface Combatant. Some items are mislabeled, such as the location of the CAMM launchers, which are actually just aft of the funnel (in six ExLS launchers). There are a few other mistakes as well, but nevertheless, it is the first comprehensive image showing all the kit. Note that all the guns, including the aft 30mm, are Leonardo.

Interesting one to watch.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto

Repulse wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 19:43 Interesting one to watch.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto

It's supposed to cost 94 MEUR and be built to commercial standards... essentially a glorified/kitted up hydrographic survey ship... before people go there, it's not some sort of T32, although something like this, but bigger and built to military standards could be...

JohnM wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 19:51

Repulse wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 19:43 Interesting one to watch.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto

It's supposed to cost 94 MEUR and be built to commercial standards... essentially a glorified/kitted up hydrographic survey ship... before people go there, it's not some sort of T32, although something like this, but bigger and built to military standards could be...

I would have suggested that it would be sensible for RN to acquire 1 or 2 similar ships to start building up experience of being a mothership to the various UAV/USV/USuV, so that when then T32 get introduced that we already have practicised such capabilities. Then once all the T32 crews had been trained up ready for active deployment, the RN could then allocate those 1-2 ships either for training, to another government department or sold.

However I realise this is on the day that HMS Echo was decommissioned. Seems little point in RN acquiring new vessels when we can't even crew the ones we have.....

Just shows how short we are of “Jacks” and “Jills” we are then, does it not. If we had the extra 20% of the defence budget now, it should not be seen as acceptable to take eight years to train additional crew. I do however accept that we are starting from much too small a base. It should NEVER have been allowed, let alone MADE TO HAPPEN.

wargame_insomniac wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 22:47 I would have suggested that it would be sensible for RN to acquire 1 or 2 similar ships to start building up experience of being a mothership to the various UAV/USV/USuV, so that when then T32 get introduced that we already have practicised such capabilities. Then once all the T32 crews had been trained up ready for active deployment, the RN could then allocate those 1-2 ships either for training, to another government department or sold.

However I realise this is on the day that HMS Echo was decommissioned. Seems little point in RN acquiring new vessels when we can't even crew the ones we have.....

The premature demise of HMS Echo is a real wake up call. It also makes a mockery of those that believe the RN “won” the last IR at the expense of the other two services.

Going back to the Portuguese design, it’s a very interesting concept and one that I believe could be extended to also act as a RM littoral platform.

Perhaps three of these plus 3 MRSS would give a better overall capability to the RN. I just cannot see the resources or sense in a new T32 frigate.

Repulse wrote: ↑30 Jun 2022, 19:43 Interesting one to watch.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... rettyPhoto

We have seen through deck Cruiser's(UK) and Destroyers (Japan) will we now see through deck Frigates or OPV's

I’m struggling to think of the practical advantage of a through deck frigate as opposed to one with a very large / outsized flight deck.

I get that it enables STOVL drones to operate as opposed to rotary winged drones (with the range payload advantages) but presumably if these take off conventionally they would need conventional landing facilities also (either traps or an old fashioned net). Or am I missing something obvious (eg they can ditch in the sea and be recovered?)

it was said some what tongue in check however the design above looks to be about frigate size

Tempest414 wrote: ↑01 Jul 2022, 15:14 it was said some what tongue in check however the design above looks to be about frigate size

Looks bigger to me using the helicopter as a guide, plus there is zero chance of operating a MQ-1C Grey Eagle off something the size of frigate.

Dobbo wrote: ↑01 Jul 2022, 13:05 I’m struggling to think of the practical advantage of a through deck frigate as opposed to one with a very large / outsized flight deck.

I get that it enables STOVL drones to operate as opposed to rotary winged drones (with the range payload advantages) but presumably if these take off conventionally they would need conventional landing facilities also (either traps or an old fashioned net). Or am I missing something obvious (eg they can ditch in the sea and be recovered?)

I think they will simply "conventionally land" on the flat top. No about RQ-1, but GA Mojave's stall speed is said to be 45 knots = 23.2 m/s. With 0.2G (2 m/s2) break, the landing distance is 134m. Looks not easy.

But, if the ship can steam at 20 knots = 10.3 m/s, then the landing distance is only 42 m. With 80-100 m flat-top deck, landing will be "doable". How stable, weather permission, sea-states etc. of course needs operational research. But, basically, it is easy.

I sense a new warship class classification coming… LPM (Littoral Platform Mothership)

If the “T32” programme delivered 3 LPMs similar to the Portuguese design built to Civilian+ standards, optimised to FCF, MCM, and NavyX requirements, but capped at £0.5bn, there would be money to squeeze in one more T26. These would also act as replacements for the Argus aviation support ship requirement.

The MRSS program could then focus on logistics both for the FCF and moving the Army BCTs.

A slight tangent, but Sir H’s recent article on how the B2 Rivers are the right long term answer for the UK’s presence for the Indo Pacific region made me think about the optimal way to deploy the current fleet of 6 T45s and expected 11 T23s.

The two Carrier Strike Groups should IMO be allocated each with 3 T45s and 3 ASW T23s.

One option is to earmark one CSG for NATO operations in the North Atlantic, and the other to be based in the Med (perhaps frequently in Gib) to support NATO on the South flank with occasional deployments to the Indo Pacific region.

This effectively leaves 5 T23s (2 ASW + 3 GP). One is needed for Kipion, another for TAPS which with FRE feels about right, but given the underwater threat from Russia, I would argue that ideally one GP T23 would have a tail added to make it ASW focused.

This deployment model matches the current need and resources. No big dream of permanent frigate deployments EoS beyond Kipion. Also, no escorts for separate LRGs - assets could be deployed independently if in low threat environments or with a CSG over watch if not.

Longer term the model probably still holds water, and any increase in numbers should add additional redundancy to each force. I would say it highlights that future plans are short of at least one ASW platform, plus that an escort fleet of 19-20 is probably the correct size of ensuring all are properly equipped.

One impact would be that LRG(N) and LRG(S) formations, made up of a LPD + LSD, are attached to the CSGs, meaning primarily the Med for LRG(S), however like the River B2 argument perhaps a new light LRG(X) force with RFA Argus bases in the Indo Pacific region is the answer (with a Bay also based in the Gulf).

We dont have two “carrier strike groups”, there is only one.