Steel cut on first Type 31 Frigate HMS Venturer at Rosyth

Too true

The problem is more certifying all these systems for the platform and to work in varying combinations. And then to keep them certified.

Then they need to be crewed…..

It is a nice idea…..but I’m not so sure it will stand the rest of time. Mainly because I can see the ‘less popular’ modules going into storage at the first sniff of a budget cut and never emerging or being relevant.

It is all about the detail, Bolt it under wing on a voyager and if not careful, you may have a fairly substantial blind spot slightly fore and aft of beam, above the waterline that someone could exploit.

Running cables on an airplane isn’t trivial as you have to ensure no inductive interference with other systems etc.

emc requirement for what is basically a microwave under your wing fuel tank….

You will need to ensure it fits in your available power generation capability and update all your procedures for loss of a generator

The biggest issue is certification, particularly if you want it connected to the rest of the mission system. If it sits on the bus to receive nav data or enable off boarding via comms systems etc then you potentially have a major software and interface change on something potentially connected to flight critical elements.

Bolting things to aircraft is rarely cheap.

it is pitched as being useable on to c-130 or c-295 so it must have some of that work done in the design and 2 pods on Merlin fwd hardpoints gives 360 coverage! so being out on a330 wings should have less airframe/rota interference. It is supposedly a self contained system with operator consoles so it obviously sounds better than prob is

baffled me????

and far more than just five of them

Don’t know why the USA bothered really.

The problem is NIH and Pork Barrel – that puts a stop to any sensible defence procurement.

Ordering 5 more with Mk41 and sonar and more mission bay would solve a lot of problems.

I suspect RN might struggle to crew more until the lockdown influx matures into fully fledged trades?

Ah gotcha, I wasn’t sure what you where on about with the crow scarers, thought it might be a comment about the 57mm XD

57mm new,calibre too me Ottomelra Automatic turret of the 80ts springs too mind though

I was level 3 Base Maintainer for the Oto in HMS Tamar 93-96..Fun times…

Thanks Gunbuster, Didn’t the Irish end up buying them ?

The Irish bought a couple early on when the HK squadron was reduced from 5 to 3 boats …the final 3 went to the Philippines Navy as soon as they sailed from the island along with RFA Percival. The rest of the Fleet bomb burst after the handover to do more exercises and port visits.
I was on Beaver having left HK 6 months earlier to bring the family home… There was Illustrious, , Fearless, Richmond, Gloucester, Brittania, Chatham, Trenchant, Trafalgar loads of RFAs and plenty of 40 RM. Lots of other countries vessels dropped in to play… It was a great deployment.

But we still lost the Colony China Fleet Club I wonder what that is now ?

And what ever happened too Jennys Side party use to get a Crimbo card every year ?

it’ll be a car park by now

Or a secret party police HQ that embraces the concept of Democracy with truncheon’s and Pepperspray

Point taken on the sales and marketing. That said I think a good salesman could finesse a T31 sales presentation – if we had T23s in service fitted with the interim AShM. The T31 brochure would have L, GL, Ghia and GT model options.

Fair point!

I’d be happy to bet that the £250m contract fit out is for 12 Sea Ceptors, no AShM and no bow sonar. But that doesn’t mean to say the MOD can’t sign one or more other contracts for additions.
Re the glide bomb thing I have to admit I’m guessing a bit. Obviously the glide range is a function of altitude. High altitude makes early detection easier. The actual performance of Paveway is classified but I did read somewhere that 10 miles might be a realistic distance. Sea Ceptor published range is 25km so it would win that contest. Another comparison might be the SDB versus Spear 3. Spear 3 is preferred by the UK because it has a longer stand off range. SDB II which you would need for a moving target is advertised as having a range of about 45km so there you would be right.

The £250 million did not include missiles – they are GFE.

Ok, forgot that. In any event I think the main achievement of T31 is to prove that it is possible to move away from a procurement process based on cost plus and requirements>design>spec>change the requirements>rinse and repeat never ending cycle to a Pareto 80/20 fix requirements and price and build then review. Argue about the detail when the ship is in the water as a useful asset.
From that point if view it looks like being a success.

There is also non glide ones. Harpoon has a range of around 120miles when air launched. Good old Falkland era Exocet had similar range.

True, but a subsonic missile is still vulnerable to both Sea Ceptor and the ‘Bofors BAE guns as it approaches. I recall Sea Wolf could take out a supersonic artillery shell. Sea Ceptor should be at least as good.

Yeah it’s just matter of saturation attack. Launch 13 missiles at the ship and it’s going to be depleted and that assumes 100% interception rate which I doubt is realistic in real world scenario, probably more realistic is 50%

You wouldn’t use Ceptor to take out a glide bomb – you would use the 57mm and 40mm combo – more than adequate for that.

Having said all that, I’d have no problem with an HMS Thor or HMS Odin, as I like names from mythology.

And we already have a Neptune.

Odin was an O Boat so the names on the Ships register for R N vessels

Maybe India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, NZ could be in the mix?

India, Malaysia Thailand and Vietnam definitely no. India could easily design and build their own. Malaysia and Vietnam have shipbuilding capacity so likely would only be interested in the design. Thailand has local built a version of the River Class so likely could build T31 with support. NZ is a real possibility but probably not for 8/10 years. They are in the middle of upgrading their current Frigate fleet.

NZ aren’t going to be doing anything. They can’t even deploy their total of two frigates properly and their government are otherwise engaged.

Cant see the need for 5 full time MCM mother ships. Maybe if they also field Orca type unmanned drones and airborne drones too! depends if RN really embraces all the new tech or dances around demonstrator programs like normal while others go hi tech

Hi andy,

I don’t either, but on a fleet of 5 ships lets say 3 are reliably at high readiness at any given time. Having 1 on MCM duty means your up lift in escorts is just 2.

With five ships assuming they have no problems like the T45 and that there are the crews available for them, it is llikely that routinely there will be 1 or 2 hulls in dock being repainted, inspected or perhaps even upgraded…

On such small numbers 1 unit is a lot. That’s all.

Cheers CR

How many MCM squadron’s does the Navy now field ?

You’re right. By “cheap cruiser” I meant multi-purpose in concept, capable of ASW, ASuW and NGS, rather than just AAW, which is how I hope the Type 83 will go. I think an Arrowhead design could be stretched to say 7000 tons, but the budget couldn’t. The idea of sending lone ships to patrol Indo-Pacific made me think cruiser.

If it gets off the ground, NavyPODS might kill the idea of a specialist drone mothership frigate.

Hi Jon,

I agree that a bigger ship is needed for patroling the Indo-Pacific region but I think the T31 is that ship. The French Floreal Class are only about 3000 tons at full load, slightly bigger than a Leander class whereas the T31 are 5500 tons (ish).

The French however have quite a bit of sovereign territory in the area on which to base the ships for maintenance and R&R. We no longer have the same extent of territory so our patrols will be relient on friendly port visits. The deployment of OPV’s around the world will be a good indicator of whether the ‘no home port’ roving patrol concept is a goer.

The NavyPODS concept (and thanks for reminding me of it) is an important development and I think is critical to the flexible frigate / mission bay / autonomous vehicle concepts. I hope to see these things deploy on say an OPV sooner rather than later. A container full of quad copters would be very useful recce assets for disaster relief operations in the Caribbean, for example, and would be a great IOC level proof on concept outing.

As for killing the specialist drone mothership frigate concept I think the opposite is true. I think that if the concept works as hoped then pretty much all future RN surface combatants will have large mission bays and, if implemented properly, will be able to fit anything from submersibles and air vehicles to additional SAM. The latter would require a hole in the mission bay roof allow the missiles to fly but that is entirely possible.

The RN is pushing ahead with these concepts in an incremental way. They are currently focused on MCM which has well developed autonomous or remotely controlled tech. In addition, boats for raiding, air vehicles and command and control modules all seem to be at various stages of development. Probably because these systems are realively easy to package up and can add much to the capability of a vessel without too much disruption to the existing ship systems. SAM and weapons in general would need a greater level of integration and as such I would think represent a greater risk until the NavyPODS concept is proven.

In the long term I could see a T31 type frigate loaded up with a significant payload of SAM’s operating in high threat areas. Or may be carrying a bunch ASW air vehicles some equipped with Sono buoys or dipping sonars and other carrying the torpedos to mount an ASW patrol in the GIUK gap.

Lots and lots of new capabilities that can be dreamed up and frankly I think the RN is really going for it. That’s why anything from an OPV to HMS PoW is likely to be used to prove the autonomous vehicle / drone concepts big and small. Right now imagination and innovation are being exploited like never before. If it comes off then the RN could be in a very healthy possition in a few years time. Politics allowing, of course.

Cheers CR

Absolutely too small, they extended the frigate shed to accommodate T23s, T26/31 will have to go into the docks, as the frigate sheds cant take them. Not entirely sure what the plan for the T26/31 is wrt refits, not that they will need one for a while!

The sheds could take T22 until they stretched them …after that one dock was extended and the flightdeck sticks out of the dock cover.

Cheers mate, begs the question though, as T31 and T26 are some 5/17 m longer and 3-4 m wider then a T23 where sqid refit is going to take place? Plenty of time yet I know, but cant see the frigate sheds being much use for this….

Nope not much use at all. Major rebuild would be needed. If you extend into the basin there would not be enough room left to manoeuvre into the dock. You could extend the front part into the road that runs towards towards Albert Gate but the dock probably still wont be wide enough.

Could any major refit work be done at Cammell Lairds ?.

Or even at a shot H&W ?

Not British Steel…could always buy that cheap Chinese steel, which is responsible for many building collapses around the world where they are ‘ investing ‘

Great idea Jason Chinese Steel saves them the bother of their Nsvy sinking them , we could do it ourselves with Force 5 wind and sea state Hee Hee just hope Life Rafts aren’t Chinese Knock offs though

I think RN and Cousins are holding off for the lasers too really take off. 12 miisles or 24 if we go toe to toe with china they will just flood us with missles.
On that point what happened to the British laser? Dragonfire? I know USA is fielding 3 different sizes on ships now!

I have no idea.

I think they had a largely aluminium superstructure. A fire hazard when hit.

Correct on your assumption With the Amazon class 21s Dave aluminium, bulkheads on Superstructure , light in Weight ratio too steel, bad melting point, though , upper deck to Superstructure later reinforced with what looked like bloody Railway track
21s Fast and Sleek good looking Frigates ,but 82 and conflict was their Acillies heal sorry too say

2 Still on Patrol GBNF

Ye ,thought so .

Again, could you not simply fit those weapon systems to a smaller ship? The point of the question being that if you spent less on patrol frigates you could afford more Type 26, or to at least up-arm the Type 26. CAMM doesn’t seem adequate against anything more than cruise missiles and the T31 seems vulnerable to subs.

Well making the ship a couple thousand tons lighter will never get you more Type 26. The actual size of the ship is relatively cheap compared to the stuff that gets fitted onto it.
So if you fitted the weapons onto a smaller hull and all the electronics, sensors and decoys, the savings will be quite small.

Then there are advantages to a big hull:
-Most corvettes have quite short range. The German Braunschweig class is a perfect example, it can spend 7 days at sea before it needs a resupply, and even if it gets filled with food regularly it has only about 4,000nm range (Type 31 has 9,000nm range by comparison).
-A smaller hull means it’s harder to maintain the ship. You need to cram everything in much closer, it’s harder to access, harder to replace etc. Increases running costs.
-Less space means crew are much more cramped. A large hull means more space for modern accommodation, which in turn means better retention, which means less money being spent on recruitment and training up replacements for outgoing personnel.
-Bigger hulls are better at Seakeeping, less uncomfortable to be onboard when the weather is bad, means they’re more effective in adverse conditions, and the crew don’t get worn down as badly.

While I’m not an expert on CAMM Gunbuster, who should be in the know, has pointed out that a CAMM missile is enough to mission kill a frigate. It’s small, but supersonic, and that’s a lot of kinetic energy to dump into a hull. And then remember that you still have Sea Venom, Martlet, and Stingray that can be loaded onto it’s helicopters.

*Edit* Bear in mind that the RN had the choice of smaller ships with the same load out. When it ran the Type 31e competition the choices where between the 6kt Arrowhead design, the 3.7kt Meko A-200 design and the 2.5kt Leander design, and tbh BAe seemed very sceptical they could deliver their Leander design for 250m..

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Reach and endurance is obviously hugely important, even if it’s not as sexy as weapons systems.

The River Class B2’s were £112m cheaper per ship than the projected T31 costs. Does the cost-saving come from sensors and fit-out? Or the construction?

Regarding CAMM the issue for me is not that it won’t ruin a warships day, it’s that (A) it’s not rated highly by most on here in the anti-missile role against anything more than sub-sonic threats and (B) it could also be fitted to a cheaper ship anyway. If you’re patrolling an area threatened by a second-tier hostile, in this day and age you can expect worse than sub-sonic anti-ship missiles. Iran for example has short-range ballistic missiles. If you can’t handle those then you need a better ship or to downgrade responsibilities. If you down-grade responsibilities you can use a cheaper ship.

Staying on that topic, it’s not just AShM’s that are a threat to T31’s. Iran and North Korea have submarines, as would any other foe in that category. These subs keep getting better, as do unmanned systems. The Type 31 doesn’t seem to be survivable in that kind of environment. Again you either need a better ship or you might as well drop expectations and use a cheaper ship.

Still though, the endurance and range make total sense.

The Rivers are actually way more expensive than they should have been. Basically their cost represents the price of keeping BAe’s shipyards open between finishing the Aircraft Carriers and starting the Type 26’s. Remember all you need to purchase and integrate into a River is a 30mm gun. No CIWS, no SAM, no potential for SSGW, and not the sensors to make any of those systems effective.
*Edit* I actually didn’t answer your question, so it’s less construction (although building to commercial v naval standards can have an impact here, River B2’s actually are surprisingly sturdily built for OPV’s according to TD) it’s more the weapons and sensors and, just as importantly, integrating them into the design and fitting them, that costs the money.

CAMM seems to have a pretty good rep as far as I’ve seen as a PDMS, yes it’s not Aster, but Aster is a much larger and more complex system.
Fitted to a cheaper ship? That would be extremely difficult. The Inspirations/Type 31’s are coming in at under 300m£ each, which is a ridiculously low cost for a ship. Compare that with the Braunschweig class, which comes in at nearly 350m£, is similarly armed (76mm, 2x27mm, RIM-116 launcher and RBS SSGM, no helicopter capable hangar though) and is1,800t.
Essentially if you start looking at ships that’ll be less than 250-300m£ they won’t be carrying CAMM.

Submarines:
If you really need to deal with a submarine right now and the only available asset is a Type 31, then a Merlin with a dipping sonar and stingray torpedoes will do. However, if you think a single surface combatant, even a Ticonderoga class cruiser, will survive a hot war on it’s own against every single asset a nation like Iran could bring to bear on it… no. So nothing on it’s own is survivable in that environment, and no single RN ship is capable in all domains.

At the end of the day the hard line with the Type 31 was the budget. The RN needed to retain surface escort numbers and it had long been recognised that this will require a “High-Medium-Low” mix, which after some stops and starts have turned out to be 45/26-31-RB2. Effectively Type 31 is the cheapest an ocean going surface combatant can be before it ceases to before you have to strip out things that would enable it to be a surface combatant. People just see the 6kt hull and forget that.

CAMM seems to have a pretty good rep as far as I’ve seen as a PDMS, yes it’s not Aster, but Aster is a much larger and more complex system.

The RN is happy to replace Aster 15 with CAMM on the Type 45’s.

But not Aster as a whole.

No.

Oops. I meant yes, you are correct. Not no, you are not.

SeaCeptor has been successfully tested against both supersonic sea skimming and high diving supersonic targets. If it was so poorly performing, why are the RN getting rid of Aster 15 and replacing it with SeaCeptor on the T45s or not fitting Aster to the T26?

You have to remember that first and foremost SeaCeptor is a direct replacement for SeaWolf, which was a point defence missile basically a CIWS. SeaCeptor has a much faster response time (acceleration time out of the cannister) and can be launched in swarms towards multiple targets with very little time delay between firings compared to hot launch systems.

Because it’s not only vertically launched but also rotated and pointed towards the target, after its been lobbed up vertically 30m, it still has the point defence capability. This is something that the US ESSM cannot do, as its launched in a ballistic arc, so has a long minimum engagement window. Which is why some ships back up their ESSM with SeaRam. It is in some respects comparable with ESSM, but with significantly less range. Whereas CAMM-ER is the version that is directly comparable to ESSM.

The missile is pretty light, it’s based on ASRAAM after all. But as other have said it can achieve mission kills against another ship. It is doubtful that it can sink another ship on its own, unless the ship suffered a catastrophic magazine explosion. But taking out a ship’s bridge and crew, damaging some of its weapon systems or even its helicopter will severely handicap the ship.

Against very steeply diving missiles such as an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), I believe all ships will struggle to track those in the terminal phase. In the transition phase, i.e. where its travelling parallel to the Earth, a T45 and Arleigh Burke (AB) will find and track these no problem. However, if the missile then dives on you near vertically, neither ship will be able to track it. This is due to the physical limitations of the radar’s field of view that an electrically phase steered array has. The array has a +/- 45 degrees elevation angle limitation from the array’s boresight. Admittedly, you can see past this limitation but the detection range decreases exponentially and you require more and more signal processing to remove self-generated feedback ghosting. This is why on the ABs and the T45’s Sampson. The arrays lean back by 20 to 30 degrees. This is recognised as a problem for the T45s, which is why as part of the T45’s mid-life update, the RN are considering placing a third array above the two existing arrays, but have this array’s boresight pointing directly up. Thereby giving the ship full coverage directly above it.

However, and this is a big however. The ability of an ASBM to not only locate the ship but then track it, requires a very lengthy kill chain. From local intelligence to surveillance assets. Disrupting any part of this chain will prevent the ship from being targeted. Even then, an ASBM will not be dropping on the ship at speeds over Mach 6, it will be transiting to the terminal phase at speeds over Mach 6. As the issue here is that due to the hypersonic speeds the atmospheric friction causes the missile’s boundary air layer to massively heat up. This will cause the air molecules to break down and become ionized. Thereby generating a plasma sheath which blocks both RF and optical sensors. Therefore, the missile must slow down, to stop this plasma sheath being generated, so it can use its own sensors to locate and then track the target. But this will make it easier for the ship’s radar, combat management system and air defence missile to work out an intercept.

The T31 when accepted in to service, I believe should not be considered the finished article. It is foremost a production versus cost exercise, to see if the manufacturer can build to cost and on time. Which is why I think the proposed specifications and the delivered ship will be pretty basic. However, the ship being not much smaller than a T26, means there’s room for growth and up-armouring. You just have to look at the specifications of the Iver Huitfeldt frigate its based on, to see how the ship may end up. It is most likely going to be equipped with the mission modules the RN are developing, that were shown at this year’s DSEI show. So yes, I agree on the face of it the ship seems poorly equipped. But look at it anyway, the RN are getting a very adaptable blank canvas that can be easily improved upon!

“could you not simply fit those weapon systems to a smaller ship?”

Sure. Look at the Israeli Sa’ar corvettes. But those never go more than a thousand miles from home. If you want a blue-water navy, you need bigger ship for a bit of elbow room.

Nothing awkward about what he is asking

There is zero criticism of the Astutes from me, I’m just questioning how effective they can be in a conflict when their numbers are so low. They could keep a nation from deploying a battle group but they couldn’t keep a dispersed fleet under an area denial envelope in port if the enemy was willing to accept some losses.

Serious question, everyone here says how good astute is but are there any real statements from say American officers saying same thing

Hi Andy,

To answer your question, yes.

When an American flag officer went on board Astute in the early days he was reported to be ‘amazed’ a what he was seeing.

HMS Astute ‘held’ an American SSN at an impressive distance (can’t remember the range now). I understand that to mean that the Astute was tracking the US sub whilst staying out of harms way or remaining undetected herself. That may not be the strickly correct interpretation, there are others on here who could give a better explanation.

Anyway, the Astutes are reportedly very good.

Cheers CR

So can we have 1-2 more please…

Certainly, where’s me cheque book… Oh, sorry no more cheques left… I’ll get back to you 🙂

There’s 8 towed array frigates, that’s why there’s 8 t26’s

To clarify, incase I was unclear about my counting. I know there are 8 towed array and 5 general purpose frigates (4 now, I guess). However, the 2019 contract notice stated that I-SSGW will equip 5 *towed array* frigates.

To me, it sounds as though I-SSGW will equip the *towed array* version for carrier escort duties, and that they will only be buying 5 systems to be shared among the 8 T23 TA frigates. But the contract notice is old, and I am in no way an expert, so maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

As I said, you are guessing. And there are fewer Harpoon sets than ships fitted to use them. See if you can work out why.

5 sets of I-SSGW… that is not being planned to be fitted to the City class, need I say more.

Thanks for playing Ron.

Are you sure about that?

I believe it was Lusty who pointed out that there hasn’t been an ASW patrol missed by a helicopter in the RN yet.
But riddle me this: If the Helicopter is US for whatever reason, why would a submarine close into a ships lightweight torpedo range when it can attack from way beyond that without any fear of being hit?
(For perspective, the RN Sting Ray torpedo that Type31 would use if it had torpedo’s has an effective range of 11km, the Spearfish torpedo an Astute uses has a range of 54km…)

Hopefully they’ve made allowance for a set to be fitted later.

Actually the Seacat system on a T21 was about as good as it got without being Sea Wolf. The 912 Tracker with the TV B guidance was outstanding. OK the Sea Cat missile itself was a bit hit and miss but on a T21 it was OK if you had a reliable batch of missiles.
T21 4.5 Gun was again OK in its primary role which is NGS. AA was always a nice to have.
Exocet added for some surface punch although it was limited to around a 38km/23 miles which isnt much more than the current dual purpose Ceptor which flies at 3 times the speed of an exocet.
T21 had 184 sonar, STWS , a Lynx with air dropped weapons and the sensor fit was OK. Radar 992 which was on T42 and T22 (968 on a T22 is a below decks 992 with a different radome that also contained 967).
EW and decoys where the same as on T42 and T22 .

Anyone in the 21 Club ( Not Me…T42, T22, T23, LPD and a bit of small ships but I worked maintenance teams on T21 and County class) who served on them raved about them. The Falklands did cause issues but for places like the Windies Guard Ship they where ideal…just as a T31 will be.

Well if that is the case then we cannot afford a Navy, so are we just kidding ourselves ?. Look at the latest ships Russia and China are turning out. For example Gorshkov class( Russia)or Chinese type 054A. They are much more heavily armed. What other modern navy has a 5700-ton ship that is so lightly armed?

No, if that’s the case it’s an understandable case of the RN being a High-Mid-Low mix of combatants. It’s not a “everything has to be a battlecruiser.”

Why are you making an issue of tonnage? Look at ships with similar roles and suddenly you see that other navies do have ships that are similarly armed for that role.

Which ships of similar roles? which navies ? give some examples.

Literally off the top of my head the Floreals and La Fayettes?

Floreal class – 30 years old, 2900 tons – purposed as a surveillance vessel

LaFayette class 20- 25 years old,- 3800 tons – Has Exocet , some have sonar.
 -> Being replaced from 2024 with a new 4460-ton frigate that will have Exocet and anti-submarine torpedoes.

Not a “surveillance vessel” a surveillance frigate, with almost exactly the same mission set as Type 31…. but ignore that all you want.

We’ve been over anti-submarine torpedoes elsewhere in this thread, if you’re too lazy to read that I’m going to be too lazy to repeat myself again here.
But hey the replacement for La Fayette proves my point: A frigate with under 20 SAM, 8 old SSGW, a medium calibre main gun and 2 light guns (which unlike the Type 31 is not a CIWS).

Meanwhile Type 31 is a frigate with 12-24 SAM, 8 ISSGW, a medium calibre main gun, and 2 CIWS/light guns.

The only difference is the torpedoes, but as I said, it’s been covered.

Nothing you have said proves your point, you just love to argue.

The replacement for the Lafayette will be equipped to deal with surface threats by having anti-ship missiles and will be equipped to deal with subsurface threats. We will simply agree to disagree on this one.

Put your fingers in your ears and shout lalalal if you like, but that doesn’t change the facts I’m afraid.

You can choose to be wrong if you like go ahead. I’ll just correct you when I see it happening.

Look, this forum is here for all of us to put forward our opinions. We should do that in an ADULT way i.e DO NOT be disrespectful, dismissive, or insulting when someone’s opinion differs from yours , even if you think you are right and they are wrong. Can we do that .. please?

Try the German F125 class frigates, designed for low-med intensity warfare. At 7200 tonnes, armed with a lightweight 127,mm, 2x Ram systems some 12.7mm mgs, harpoon and some water cannons!!!!!
As@Dern says, not everything needs to be top end stuff.

Yes but they currently have 8 harpoons, that are about to be replaced the RBS15 Mk 4 giving the F125 frigate a 300km reach

Agreed they do, but in the context of the discussion, broadly speaking they are similar and fulfil similar missions., although not all.
Neither has a ASW sonar, or area AD system. T31 has some advantages in certain areas, which the T125 can’t much. The reverse is also true.
T125 costs twice as much as T31, with the first hull having been built some 6 years ago. T31 will get some upgrades to its systems, eventually, it’s why this class was selected, just not on commissioning. I personally think if we do get I-SSGW, they will eventually end up on T31, if so very similar in capabilities.

RBS15 Mk 4 … I hope.

Personally from a totally joined up perspective, I would plump for a NSM/JSM combination. Then again I dont hold the purse strings so, probably totally wrong!!

Interestingly the F125 Frigates are sometimes referred to as Colonial Cruisers.

They have received there fair share of critisism for their lack of armament for such a large ship! Yet the Germans seem happy enough with what they have got!
Colonial cruisers is an apt descrittion, not sure what an apt description of our T31 would be though?

Because most of the places our ships need to go are a long way away and that means big hulls with range and endurance.

Yes we could pack the same capacity into a smaller hull, but it would not be able to go much further than the med, which is f all use to the RN.

Also you are forgetting what it brings, space for missions, rotor assets, unmanned platforms, marines, boats. All the stuff you need to do most millitary tasks that are not some world war three thing….just remember what nelson said and what we needed in the Second World War.

Gorshkov is quite well armed. But its taken on average 10 years to build each of the first 3 . They will have 3 in the Northern Fleet, 3 in Pacific Fleet and the rest spread around when they get them.

Funny how virtually every other navy doesn’t leave out essential equipment of weaponry.

Neither does the RN.

The problem of T21 was not the ship but the weapons.

So when they started breaking up in heavy seas that was a fault of their weapons?

A fault that cost a lot of money, a lot of weight, and 4 knots off their top speed to fix.

So you can operate all these things from a storage bay under the flight deck?

Most amusing.

That space would be most usefully employed to house a towed sonar array and an SSTD array. Neither of which requires or benefits from being in a pod. Any room left over could house disaster recovery supplies in standard commercial containers to be put ashore at the nearest port when needed.

Obviously they are not operated directly from the TEUs, they are deployed on the warship or from the boat bays. The TEUs contain command facilities once the system is deployed- they become an office. The Danish version has a smaller mission bay with a towed array and a rer boat ramp, but the RN chose to delete the ramp (only good in calm waters) for an extra boat bay which allows deployment in heavier seas.

You’ve clearly not been in the spaces beneath a frigate flight deck at sea. A most inhospitable place. Noisy and lots of motion.

Not sure how you plan to move equipment from under the flight deck to the boat bays. Will be an interesting trick.

The boat bays are accessible from the hangar, so I guess that is the mechanism. I’m not sure how the TEUs are stowed – flightdeck elevator maybe. Navy wants to use ‘stabilised UAVs’ to move them around at sea.

The point of the system is to divorce the capability from the platform- so ships can be reconfigured at sea. Your solution does not achieve that goal.

Another interesting trick will be deploying containers to the Type 31’s at sea and then storing them below the flight deck.

Pretty sure that will need a dockside with a big crane.

By the way the LCS tried to do the whole “separate the mission equipment from the platform” – total failure.

Yet the Danish Navy has made it work with Stanflex, and this ship is based on a Danish Stanflex capable design.

Thanks for the help @Dern.

Yes, the display at the show was to demonstrate that as a new buyer you could specify all kinds of different equipment fits in all kinds of configurations. All at additional cost of course!

The display said nothing about the RN’s Type 31 The RN has already picked their configuration. They won’t be going back and rebuilding parts of the ship in the future.

Well yes, but the display was showing the RN fit out, in all confirmed respects. The only thing people can speculate about is that the number of CAMM hasn’t been publically confirmed yet.

People are happy to grab a unofficial Babcock screenshot of 12 and run with that, but unhappy to say 24 from a Babcock display.

Hi Dern, wish we had kept the StanFlex model that Abslom/Iver H use, I think the option to be able to vary the load according to where being sent from just small guns (West indies) to few missiles etc in 2 containers for further afield to full load with 30+ AAW and ASM for adding as additional escort for ARG etc would have been better the dreaded fitted for but not with game especially for the T31’s

I do need to look into the Ivar Huitsfelds and find out just how often the StanFlex system is actually used to it’s full potential by the Danes….

Personally i think the Absalon class (used to be a support ship but they reclassified it!!) type would be ideal for long range patrol and wasn’t expensive in bases fit but had option to add enough to make credible additional escort. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_frigate

I mean to be fair the Inspirations are basically an evolution of the Absalons (Inspirations are based on IH which is based on Absalon). Both Arrowhead and Absalon have a basic fit but space and design allowances for increased armament.
So, in a sense you are getting your wish.

yeh but less of 🙁 smaller main gun, less AA missile, no ASM, no torps (moot if an Astute is within 10 miles your already fcuk’d), no sonar (so you won’t know anyway) only 1 helo so it is step up from Rivers for long range patrol but just think could have been so much more

Mind you, their construction was RAPID, took just four months from laid down – launch, 5 for fitting out and then commisoned 2 months later. If T26 was that quick – HMS Glasgow would be operational by now!

Well no, the model did not show the RN fit out. The forward gun, for example.

The one I saw had the 57mm and 2x40mm.
I can’t help it if you saw a picture where someone had been fiddling with it.

You weren’t there dude.

The footprint would certainly be the issue in these situations. But it was a draftsman involved in the initial designs of T45 who confirmed this particular problem among a number of front end FFBNW points at the time i.e. you could have the 5 inch or the missile provision, but not both with any convenience. Option of Bofors or Ceptor was not part of the discussion back then, though.
Regards

Yes, I have been learning about guns vs missiles from other folks posting here; notably Gunbuster. It would take only a short burst of a few shells from these guns to take out their target. You would need an impractical number of AA missiles to defend against swarm attacks and there’s no possibility of reloading at sea. Guns with hundreds of shells and programmable ammunition are the way to go. The RN have thought this through.

The next up scale iteration would be to replace the two 40mm positions with two 57mm. Replace the single 57mm with a 5″. Put the two 40mm where the DS30 are located. Then move the DS30s to amidships. This would provide a stronger NGS capability, whilst also improving on the gun AA capability, by having two 57mm guns firing the ORCA rounds.

Simples!

I missed that. Where are the DS30s now?

Either side of the 40mm on top of the hangar. Naval News have a video of an interview with Babcock at this year’s DSEI. Babcock were showing off a model of the Arrowhead 140. However, the model had T31 written on the flight deck along with a model Merlin helicopter and he kept referring to it as the T31.

Thx. Wonder if the Merlin is significant.

It is, it shows the deck is strong enough for a Merlin.

If they had a Chinook model, they would have put that there instead.

There’s not been any model or picture or video or article showing or mentioning DS30’s on a Type 31.

Go watch the video again.

You mean like this one from Babcock’s DSEI 2021 presentation. This was shown as part of the modular build capability. So in the shot it also shows a Thales SMART-L radar.

Come on, you specifically referenced the Navy News video which doesn’t show any DS30’s.

And this new picture doesn’t show the Royal Navy variant. So it’s not a type 31 despite the paint on the flying deck. Just a set of configurations that could be bought. Millennium gun for example.

Its now de rigueur that RN flight decks are Chinook capable. Spec for the biggest helo in service and everything else is easy. Even the Helo Start servicing equipment is multi Helo capable nowadays. You can start anything from Lynx/Wildcat, Merlin, Apache up to Chinook.

You mean it will be “de rigeur” surely? I doubt a type 23 can accept a Chinook.

Why not just 3d every deck with the F35 resilient finish and put an F35 on every deck… no quibbles about ability to fight then…

🙂

Hopefully we will also get the ORCA round to compliment the 3P shell. 3P is more designed for FIAC and other lightly armoured targets. Whereas ORCA is designed to combat airbourne threats. The 57mm has multiple ammo feed options, so here’s hoping?

It doesn’t sound cheap.

If it was performed you wouldn’t know 😉
I accept that the process probably went down along the lines you say; ‘ I’ve got this much to spend, this is my most important consideration, what can you offer?’ But at some point the configuration will be modelled so a ship’s captain and crew know what they are up against and how to respond.
Personally I think these ships will be a real winner. Put a bigger mcg on and some Mk41s and you got yourself a light cruiser. Put some Asters A50 cells on and you have a AAW. Put Standard missile in Mk41s and you have an ABM destroyer. More mission bays and you have a minesweeper mother ship. This A40 hull has real possibilities.

I would and it wasn’t.

Well, well. You are Ben Wallace and I claim my £5.
But I bet it will be….

😃