Steel cut on new Type 31 Frigate in Scotland

Still the huge type 26 cruiser can do it if anyone has the brains to actually admit that its not really a frigate after all.

I agree in what you are saying but I think the definition of “Frigate, Destroyer & cruiser” no longer really applies in modern times. They have all merged into one ship type with different rolls.

Isn’t a cruiser any ship capable of being flagship other than aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship?

No, the term cruiser used to be used for any ship that could protect the world wide sea lanes of the British Emprire. A ship with good range and able to defend the interests of the UK. Ships with long range be that a frigate or even a sloop could be called a cruiser. The modern thinking of what a cruiser is only came about because of the 1922 Washington Treaty, 6 inch or 8 inch guns, 10,000 tons etc.

So yes the T31 could be seen as a cruiser, able to defend herself, able to roam the sea lanes, show the flag, show that the UK is keeping watch, able to assist a task force but not important enough to be a major loss. In the age of sail the best cruisers in the world would have been the US frigates. Powerful enough to overcome an enemy frigate fast enough to run away from a 74.

Post war Frigate and destroyer in the RN is simply a term related to primary function. All modern frigates and destroyers of every nation are effectively the same as an early 20c cruiser.

even when you go back to the post war regeneration of the navy, the county class destroyer was simply a cut down of the post war heavy cruiser concept. It was called a destroyer as its primary function was AAW, It’s secondary function was to counter surface actions by Russian sverdlov cruisers. The Destroyer as a focused AAW asset then stuck. The concept of frigates as primary ASW ships came a bit later and in the 50-60s they were still considered smaller combatants that could be either AAW or ASW or patrol types. By the 80s they had become a large general purpose combatant focused on ASW. But now the RN also classes it general purpose vessels as frigates as well.The RN is a bit confused.

the US in the post war period keep the concept of a cruiser for a while longer…(17 are still in service, but are all to be out of service by 2027,replaced by AB destroyers) designating all large combatants focused on AAW as cruisers and Designated its large ASW focused combatants as destroyers ( the Tico cruiser has its hull form from the Spruance class destroyer). With frigates being smaller multi purpose escorts, it dropped the frigate from its inventory in 2015 and had no plans to continue as it was going to have LCS until it changed its mind as the LCS concept was a pit rubbish). In the end the US is moving to all large general purpose combatants being Destroyers and it’s slightly smaller large general purpose combatants being frigates (the USN seems to have really confused itself as much as the RN has.). But it will not have cruisers after 2027..just 7500ton do it all frigates and 9500ton do it all destroyers.

basically a frigate can be a general purpose vessel or ASW focused vessel up to around 8000 tonnes. A destroyer is generally an AAW or general purpose vessel from around 6000 tons unless your French and then it’s a large suface combatant of any type ASW or AAW over Around 6000 tons with frigates being small surface combatants of around 3000 tons…as for Russia….

basically there is not internationally accepted definition of cruiser, frigate, destroyer or how big or small they are…even individual nations change the concepts and meaning over time….but generally everyone has stopped calling ships cruisers.

Like the IAShM that the MOD has announced it is buying several sets of?

8 dual purpose land/sea missiles changes the offensive/defensive punch quite a lot?

I also think getting the VLS in them is something of a priority as RN is weak on offensive missile punch. Adding the VLS to that and T26 is a game changer. That way in a CSG RN would likely have 4 No Mk41 VLS systems 96+ missiles) and 2 No AAW VLS on T45.

IRL in a CSG a T31 is likely shepherding STUFT and RFA.

Agreed, the way I see the T31 in a CSG is as a RFA escort. I also agree on installing four blocks of Mk41s, one block for quad packed Sea Ceptor, one block for Aster 30 and two blocks for anti ship/land attack or anti air. A further eight anti ship missiles could be canister launched. I would however make one major change the aft 40mm postion. In this postion on a raised half deck housing I would have Sea RAM, then on the port, starboard corners of the hanger I would have the 40mm guns with the magazine in the lower corners of the hanger. At the moment the aft 40mm will have no magazine and must be reloaded above deck by hand. These alterations would give the RN at a reasonable cost a good GP frigate. If they could get CAPTAS 4 lite and there is the space below the flight deck for this even better.

I do not understand the RN thinking of having T26s to escort the carriers in a CSG. The UK has spent a lot of money on making the T26 quite. Yet a carrier, RFA support ships make noise so an enemy sub will here the group from miles away. So the escorting ASW platform does not need to be super quite she needs to be super effective. I think the T31 could make a beeter escort for the carriers leaving the T26s to do the job they are desinged to do, hunt subs in quite.

How do you know they are noisy – they haven’t even been built yet.

Because they are not being built to the hull or powerplant specifications of an anti sub frigate! That’s openly available information.

The parent design does ASW.

Not as well as T23 for sure.

Given that diesels have generally got significantly quieter it *might* be better than the parent design.

That said there is no point in having a world class super optimised ASW and then spraying budget around of half arsed solutions.

But with a tiny surface fleet T31 needs a clearly defined role in a CSG.

Love it SB, better 1-2 more T26s for ASW.

Noise optimisation was an offer the MOD did not pick from Babcock for T31 as it significantly increases the cost and that’s what T26 is for.

Not strictly correct. These ships were originally designed to NATO standards wrt noise reduction/ASW capabilities. They are clearly not as capable as a T26 in this respect, but then again are only roughly 25% of the cost of a T26!
Can they do ASW, yes they can. Are they as capable as a dedicated ASW ship, no they are not.
The major difference between T26\31 ASW wise is that the T31 will be detected by a SM at a greater range then a T26. A T26 will also be able to detect a SM at greater range then a T31 with a similar sensor fit. In the world of ASW, you get what you pay for.

All true statements, but have you perhaps left unstated the concern that beyond the City Class frigates, the Astutes and the SSN(R)s, the rest of the fleet will not be thepredators but rather the potential prey of ChiCom SSNs in the 2030’s and 2040’s? The rest of NATO has the same issue. 🤔😳😱

Agreed but like everything it’s down to money and priorities. The RN will have to guess what it’s budget will be in the future. Whether to go for more platforms (Type 32) with or without upgrades to weapons or systems or forego in favour of upgrades to existing and planned ships. That may be the issue they’ll have to decide. Apart from the price the best thing about this class is there’s room to add to add new systems with minimal structural change. The RN won’t get it but they deserve huge praise for this. They’re prepared for whatever budget the future brings. 

I Was reading a paper on the design of the T31 and the spiral design process..it’s very clever they have designed these ships specifically to be upgrades…so for instance if you wanted to fit a 5inch gun the design has all the pipes and cables in the correct place so you don’t have to move a lot of stuff around.

Even how they designed the weapons fit was clever.. the RN basically gave a set of requirements…what would need to be engaged at what speed and at what distance and to what effectand left the bidders to all come up with the best solution…so contrary to popular belief the 57mm, 40mm, 40mm set up is not actually the cheapest option it was the one that performed the best within the requirements envelope and total cost envelope.

they gave the bidders a list of critical requirements, must haves and then graded requirements and of the graded requirements the bidders evidenced which ones they achieved and why…it was a really clever procurement. Also what was done with the hull….the shape was kept the same but internally is was significantly changes to ensure it met RN navel build standards which are by all accounts very much higher than other European navies.

Then they agreed a fixed price and the the RN and MOD would then remove themselves from the development process at that point…they ordered XX at an fixed price and they would get XX no modifications to XY possible.

Yes the RN has high build standards, particularly with regard to redundancy and resilience, which is why the River 2 OPVs were more expensive than the Amazonas class corvettes on which they’re based.

Hadn’t heard of this spiral design process but it does sound a ground-breaking way to ensure the RN gets what it wants for the price it can afford.

Indeed I was actually going to mention the rivers 2 as a good example. RN builds are premium for a reason and I don’t think anyone would argue with safer is better on a warship. I will find the reference document and post a link.

Thanks for that I knew most of that but not all. It’s ridiculous in some ways. As a model for procurement it makes so much sense. Don’t get involved in the minutiae. Set broad parameters and choose the best option provided on grounds of goals and costs. Wouldnt it be amazing if the public sector as a whole implemented it. Time and time again disasters have been the result of futile attempts at micro management.

The only real concern re T-31 and any derivative design is the potential acoustic emissions signature. Every other potential issue can be addressed w/ periodic updates. The 2030’s and beyond could prove to be very perilous for surface fleets not loaded for bear, in terms of ASW capability. Ivan will still be operating SSNs and there is a significant variance in estimates of projected number and quality of ChiCom SSNs. Anticipate T-26 will be able to hold it’s own; the rest of the fleet (and NATO as a whole)? Perhaps not so much. Dunno, the score for the movie Jaws keeps recurring…🤔😳😱

Well from what I have read Russia has pretty much given up on the idea of challenging western ASW and is going for a bastion approach even with is SSNs ( which all now focus of long range missile attacks) as they are effectively stalled at a soviet level of tec. China is the wild card, not sure what their tec base will look like in a decade, but we do know they willl have the money and industrial capacity to capitalise on there developments. ASW is one of those areas where quantity does not have a quality of its own, it just makes more dead better to have 1 very top end platform supported by plenty of rotors that a load of “sort of” ASW frigates. Personally I think we should have had 1 more type 26 for a total of 9 ( rule of three gives you three deployed units, 2 for the carrier and one for the amphibious group).

I do think we need more ASW cabs. Taking around 6 the Merlin fleet for AEW work was think a mistake. Rule of 3 only gives us 8 deployable Merlin ASW cabs.. three needed of the ASW frigates that leaves five for the carrier and other escorts…I think the carrier should be Aiming for 6 ASW cabs ( with 2 on the ASW frigates that gives a carrier group 8 ASW Merlins.which is going to make a very effective ASW screen)

I do actual think there is a place in the RN for a TASS tug. Just like the US Surtass ships ( stalwart class) say three 2087 sonar tugs of around 1500 tons, just like the US had for a long time. Used for cleansing around the CASD and maybe supporting monitoring of other sub sea infrastructure or as part of an amphibious group…if they are part of a group they will not need organic self defence ( the original type 23 design was close…a cheap as can be towed array tug with no real self defence) or even be that quick.

Interesting, 🤔, need to do some reading. Concur re T-26 and Merlin numbers. Perhaps there are alternate methods to provide the ASW function. Absolutely believe it will be critical capability in out-years.

I recall the many moans here about these ships not having this and that.
I agree, the whole point is flexibility and an ability to upgrade later, if it’s necessary.
I hope they order another batch of 5, this T32.

Indeed, the RN have sort of formally adopted and formalised in the T31 the concept that the ship as first commissioned is not the ship the RN end up with in the end. T31 is designed to embrace that concept..it’s build to be changed.

I agree I think it would be wise to make the T32 a batch 2 T31. If they don’t they could end up with a really large number of different escort hulls and all that complexity of logistics and training….type 23, type 31, type 32, type 26 and type 45…five escort types…there it has not be that level of variation in 30 years…when the RN has a lot of escort hulls and types.

The RN escort fleet is too small, and has been since 2004. More ships are always welcome, but then so are more people to crew them.
I’d be ecstatic with the RN back to 24 escorts, but will believe it when i see it as it was so much BJ grandstanding knowing full well another Parliament will be actually funding it.

Hi Daniele,

I think the RN is probably winding back the T32 program to a T31 B2 as we speak. If we get 3 I’d be really happy given we have a couple of bean counters in charge at the moment, which means that the Treasury is in charge again… 3 would also keep the line open long enough for next government to perhaps order a B3 to bring the total up to 10 (or heavens above 12!).

The recent article about the GIUK Gap highlighted something I have been saying for quite sometime – don’t forget the Battle of the Atlantic III. We nearly lost versions I and II because we were totally unprepared for the first and only barely prepared fo rthe second.

We are obviously not going to solve the the problem over night but 3 extra T31 would give the RN 16 frigates and 6 destroyers an expansion of 15% in the surface fleet! As such a good start.

If we are serious about being able to defend the GIUK and the reinforcement conveys from North America we need to be able to provide at least one ASW escort group (within the context of NATO) and still maintain a CSG and a LSG. Right now we will struggle with the latter two.

Of course SSN are the most potent ASW capability but they are expensive, take a long time to design and build and we have too few of them as well…

I would also point out that the Chinese / Russian ‘friendship’ might yet throw up a real threat to NATO. Remember those Chinese ships passing through the Channel a few years ago? Time to get worried is when they just don’t go home after their exercises with the Russians. With the ice melting as well… “We’re going to need a bl***dy bigger navy.”

Cheers CR

Hi mate.

I agree.

As it is, without a Batch 2 all their talk of naval expansion is maintaining the bare minimum of 19 escorts and not expansion at all.

It’s a pattern that constantly repeats itself over the decades, as the new low becomes the benchmark to emulate.

I cannot see it changing while pensions and the deterrent remain in core budget, they eat up too big a slice of the funds.

To be fair, Britain spends lots on defence but too much vanishes due to delays, gold plating, and an inability to stick to a plan ( I’m looking at you Britsh army )

https://labourlist.org/2022/04/now-more-than-ever-labours-manifesto-on-defence-must-put-people-first/

And if the incoming Labour lot follow this way of doing defence you can kiss your extra T31s and god knows what else goodbye.

Hmm, that is a scary read, I note it was published on 1 April… To be fair it does look like a discussion piece which will hopefully never get into the real manifesto.

Starting to look like a tails you loose, heads I win situation 🙁 It has been that way for as long as I can remember.

Cheers CR

Indeed, it is not policy or official. Nevertheless, and spoof piece or not, I worry this is what lies beneath the respectable Labour once in power.

And I will be here to admit I was wrong or to say “told you” when the expeditionary pieces and assets start getting thrown away by their own ideology on what “defence” actually means.

Do you remember N Kinnook wanting to alter all the Tornado IDS into interceptors?

The speeches I found by the Shadow DS Healey, also do not give much of a clue apart from a long rant about Tory failures and cuts while ignoring their own record.

So the jury is out for me, big time.

OMG… 🤦🏻‍♂️

Shame the guys who ordered Ajax didn’t do the same.

Well they designed the T45s to have lots of room for additional weapons systems and they now going to use it for Sea Ceptors. So there is a precedent for the space getting used.

Agreed there’s been a seismic change in Naval procurement. But Type 31 has taken it to a new level. I can actually believe that ‘Steel is cheap and air is free’ apologies to David Hobbs is hanging on the wall of Ben Wallaces office.

Monty Hobbs'(flying circus) Ark 85, good choice, good boss, brilliant author I’d really recommend. 👏👍

👍👍

Yes, but “only” 24 CAMM”. Wish they’d try for 32-48 if not putting in any MK41s. Can even FFBNW up to 4×4 AShMs too, like on the Italian DDX and pre-T83. There’s plenty of space and shouldn’t impede its AAW role.

It is a little surprising as the T23s have 32 Sea Ceptors and one of the ways of keeping the T31 costs down was to transfer weapons across from the T23s. So you would expect a similar number…

Presumably the interim Naval Strike Missile will be migrated across from the T23s to the T31s, with the T26s getting the new anti-ship missile currently being developed.

I’m making 80 US dollars for every hr. to finish some internet providers from home. I absolutely never thought it would try and be reachable anyway. My comrade mate got $13k just in about a month effectively doing this best task and furthermore she persuaded me to profit. Look at additional subtleties
going to this article.. https://needpeopleNYC.blogspot.com

Good points as always Jonathan 👍

Agree that the plan is to use unmanned rotary craft for ASW work, but, unfortunately that’s still years away.
I can see them being equipped to deploy sonar bouys, but not a dipping sonar, believe that that is probably a step to far given that we don’t even have anything remotely ready to go just yet.

If I remember correctly, the deal included a number of mod owned equipment, so not entirely clearly what actually the fixed cost includes and doesn’t.

Navy Lookout put out a tweet on cost of Type 26 batch 1 and 2 and Type 31. Type 31 was £268m all included.

Due to your mate in the Kremlin pushing up everyone’s energy costs because he sent his rapist army of Orcs into the Ukraine.

Energy prices are falling rapidly – at least wholesale traded gas is!

Blame it on your comrades who flattened the Azovstal plant in Mariupol.

Of more note to me is that Jingye, British Steel owner, evidently wants us to provide industry subsidies – whilst China floods market with subsidised steel. Confusing – or Confucius? 😎

Steel is still a small part of the overall budget when it’s being used in warship construction.
The savings made from taking a type 31 down to 3500 tons would not be hugely significant.
Markets are adapting to the new normal of European energy supply and prices are settling down. As Europe and some other nations wean themselves off Russian energy products other countries are delighted to step in to fill the gap.

Unlike you Russian inbreds we still have the capability to manufacture major military equipment. Our facilities not suffering so many fires also tends to help…

See what you did there 🕵️‍♀️

Harpoon will be out of service by the time the T-31 is in service. Hence NSM.

But the canisters can surely be used still, assuming NSM fits into them

Completely different Missile profiles and sizes – unless by some fluke they match id compare it to putting a square peg in a round hole.

Golly, no.

There is far more to the canister than a metal can.

It has to
– resist ejection forces
– resist heat during launch
– resist heat in a misfire (ie missile gets stuck or does not ignite properly)
– protect the sensitive bits of the missile from certain calibres of incoming and shrapnel
– protect the missile from external heat
– protect the missile from salt

And of course launch the thing when needed.

Yes that’s correct. Kongsberg had to redesign the intakes, by splitting the underbody intake into two and moving them to either side of the fuselage. This made the body flatter so it could fit in the weapon’s bays of the F35A & C. By doing so it also meant it could also fit the Mk41 launcher. A very happy coincidence…..

Glad I wasn’t dreaming.

Interesting, ABCR as I was unaware.
My comment majors on the comprehensiveness of the design, which looks convincing enough within an increasingly unstable political outlook.
Your reveal would appear to indicate that BAEs had direct knowledge of the requirements for a vessel combining aspects of both earlier classes? That, perhaps, and a knowledge of what happens to their submissions if they get unrealistic, with the consensus that Babcock still holds likely first refusal.
I tend to take a slightly less critical view of Gov/MoD tendency to call fairly regular Time Out on projects, considering how much we could be contemplating having to stump up for protection as instability progresses. Maybe gives companies pause for serious consideration over how they treat their paymasters – including the above mentioned cost creep (or piss-take /potential fraud, if you like).
Still feel BAES could be more beneficial concentrating on our perhaps more woeful submarine numbers for the longer term….Still.

Yes we are reducing the numbers of sweepers which will release some numbers but I do think we still need more.
A T23 has a crew of 185 and the T31 is headlined at 90 -100, but the Iver Huitfeldt uses 165.
Given that they had to increase the crew size of the Carriers I just get a wee but nervous about the crew size of the T31 especially if we upgrade it.
And if we do deploy 3 T31 semi permanently overseas then using the present Gulf T23 manning scheme we will need 8 crews for 5 T31’s.

I would have thought 8 TLAMs would be an operational benefits but using the inserts do they lose the MK41 Gym ? 🤣

Half of the gym will go with the CAMM fitted.

Spot on answer, as I’ve said already I’d wait and see if the T31 comes in on budget and try to buy 3 more. Meanwhile upgrade those that are going overseas and use the rest as Basic GP frigates.

You might well be correct, but if it’s T31\T31 B2 or T32 is surely largely irrelevant, so long as more vessels are built, to whatever the requirements are?