The Type 31e Frigate is expected to sit at 5,700 tonnes and 138.7 metres in length.
Babcock’s ‘Arrowhead’ design offering requires a ships company of around 100 with space for an embarked military force of 60. Babcock’s Team 31 has selected the in-service Iver Huitfeldt frigate design as the baseline for their offering.
Endurance/Speed/Range
The requirements here are pretty straightforward, the Ministry of Defence demand that “T31e shall operate globally with sustained forward presence” and that it must have “the speed for interdiction of commercial vessels and maintaining station with adversary warships in UK waters”.
- Speed of 28 plus knots
- Range of 9000 nautical miles at 12 knots
Armament/Weapons Capabilities
Arrowhead features Medium Calibre Gun options up to 5” (127mm) for maritime interdiction, self-protection and engagement of surface and land targets. Small Calibre Guns up to 40mm calibre can be located in predesignated upper-deck weapon positions.
Additional capability options include:
- Provision for up to 8 canister-launched SSGW
- Up to 32 Vertical Launch cells, capable of hosting SAM/SSGW/Land Strike/ASW ordnance.
- Installation of Close-In Weapons Systems, such as Phalanx.
- Towed array sonar
Babcock say that the ability to fit the existing systems and equipment from the parent design, the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate, is retained to provide flexibility in the capability supplied at build and through the life of the platform. The company say that, for example, this retained capability means that (just like on the base design) a 32 cell Mk41 Strike Length silo can be fitted to incorporate a combination of a larger number of anti-air missiles, vertical launch anti-surface missiles, precision land attack missiles or ASW weapons such as ASROC.
This particular adaptability feature they say, alongside the ability to install a 127mm medium calibre gun, host an organic helicopter such as Merlin, install sensors such as a towed array/variable depth sonar and re-introduce a magazine-launched torpedo system, amongst other proven features, will allow the platform to be tailored on build and through-life to suit operational requirements from low-threat maritime security to task group operations.
Mission Bays and Boat Bays
The vessel features 4 large dedicated Boat Bays with flexible launch & recovery arrangement to cater for varying operational roles, including the deployment of RHIBs, USVs & UUVs.
The Mission Space which is located under the flight deck, say Babcock, offers significant operational flexibility allows for numerous TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit) containers, extended stores, or personnel accommodation space.
Aviation Capabilities
Arrowhead’s flight deck can land a Merlin sized helicopter and the vessels hangar will be capable of storing one or if required, according to Babcock, two Wildcat helicopters together.
Build Programme
Babcock say that the Arrowhead design lends itself equally to either a single build strategy, or a cross–site build strategy bringing together modules – an approach used for aircraft carrier assembly at Rosyth.
If this becomes a successful build then the export possibilities are viable as a multi crime frigate main build in the UK with final fitting in the purchasing countries ship yards. And for a carrier strike group to protect the QE class surely we will need 2Type 45, 1Type26, 1Type 31e, 1 Astute and support RFA ships (which seems very achievable)
Alan, you probably mean multi-role 🙂
We would only really need 1 type 45 plus 2 type 26s, along with rfa and any additional foreign ships would also be nice. However, personally I’d like to see two additional type 31s ordered with all the fittings including sonar. So each carrier can have one permanently attached to it as a sought of close in escort. But its all just fancy fleets.
The T31e’s aren’t designed or equipped to be part of a Carrier Strike Group, nor will the crew be suitably sized, composed and trained for such duties. I can already see the danger that because the T31e hull is only slightly smaller than the T26, and both are painted grey – that the former becomes regarded as a possible substitute for the later for high-end tasking. But there are good reasons why a single T26 (c.£1 bn) will cost only slightly less than all five T31e’s (c.£1.25bn), and have a much larger crew (c.160 vs 100 personnel). This is a… Read more »
Excellent news.
Re “a 32 cell Mk41 Strike Length silo can be fitted to incorporate a combination of a larger number of anti-air missiles, vertical launch anti-surface missiles, precision land attack missiles or ASW weapons such as ASROC.”
Would it not be more prudent to fit the Mk41 Strike Length silo from the start and add the additional missiles when required?
I understand that these can be built within a three-year time frame, how many can be constructed within this period?
It is highly unlikely that T31 frigates will get Mk. 41. in the beginning of build.
These vessels are meant to be maritime security patrol warships, or general propose frigates.
It is likely they will get NSM.
Looking at the render NSM & Mk41 aren’t mutually exclusive, the silo appears to be aft of the canisters. In a discussion a few weeks ago when I was moaning about packing density on the Sea Ceptor mushroom farm someone made a really good point (maybe that was even one of you, I forget). The point was that there’s not much point in putting in Mk41 until we have missiles to go in it and that will probably be driven by T26 hence, while the first T31s are in the water waiting for the T26 program to get its Mk41… Read more »
The problem I have with the mushroom farm is CAMM is basically all you can fire from it (along with taking up too much area). 24 CAMM is not enough on a ship of this size anymore & is too short ranged to be the only missile for a ship of this size (especially with hypervelocity AShM). They need the ability to also fit longer range missiles (such as CAMM-ER) for a more layered defence. Other navies are fitting missiles like ESSM to similar tasked frigates (some of which are 2,000t lighter).
Oh, I agree. I’ll be disappointed if we get stuck at the mushroom farm stage but as a cost-effective first stepping stone to better things I can see a rationale. Very good point on the only-CAMM thing. My two big wishes there are one that you already mentioned, CAMM-ER, and also a hope that MBDA might make those VLS SPEAR 3 renders a reality which to some extent is related since both would require a discardable booster on the end of an existing missile. I would also hope that any dedicated soft-launch silos put into RN service could host both… Read more »
I read recently that Italy have reinstated funding for camm-er.
You can quad pack Sea Ceptor into the Mk41 tubes, until more missile come on line such as LRASM or others missles that really need the Mk41 without the need to modify them again in the future
I understood this was now a £2 Billion Contract for 6 vessels at £330 million each? Should be enough to put Mk41 Vls on them?
You guys are missing the point on this ship its a transformer everything you need is in a container at the key side you just bolt in the containers or weapon containers. Plug them into the combat system and your good to go. You don’t build anything in each ship is equipped to accept current and future packages.
I don’t think we’ll see Mk41 on the first 5 Type 31s unfortunately. I think we’ll end up with 6 x Type 26 and if they need more, they’ll build more Type 31s and add Mk41 VLS then.
A “multi crime frigate” Alan?!? Hope that is a typo 🙂
I notice that there’s a lot of mention of ‘can be fitted’, and ‘offers the ability to fit up to’…and not much detail yet on what £250m apiece will actually get us! Here’s hoping we can cannibalise some of the less dated systems off T23…
It will be interesting to see whether the MoD accept TACTICOS as the CMS or require the consortium to use the BAE Systems CMS. It was only in 2017 when HMS Bulwark went into extended readiness that the last ADAWS system left service and the RN had a single CMS on all its large surface ships.
MoD have chosen a TACTICOS variant to replace NAUTIS in the MCM fleet, so there is a precedent for it in RN service.
Agreed. Highly speculative, but MoD might decide to replace the MCMV fleet with T31 frigates and MCM mission modules for a much more flexible and capable fleet, Tacticos for T31 might then make sense in that context too.
I also wonder if BAES is committed to naval control and sensor systems in general. They don’t seem to have had any significant exports for their CMS and they seem to have nothing beyond Sampson, Artisan and AWS-10 in their radar portfolio. Compare the radar portfolio to what Thales, Hensoldt, SAAB, Leonardo, CEA Technologies are developing, let alone the US suppliers.
And none of them listed on Wikipedia either, except as an entry under the ships that have them. Most Command Systems / Combat Management Systems seem to be named using acronyms (Action Data Automation [plus] Weapon System [control]) or meaningless letter number combinations (9LV, IPN-20, SSDS, H/ZKJ).
If they actually put the weapons on it that it could have, we will have a very capable addition to the fleet. But no doubt, like the OPVs, we will end up with nice looking ships that can travel the world but cannot do much when they get there!
I understand the above image is the export variant. Has the mod’s tight budget meant the UK version will be fitted for bit not with doors for the mulitmission bays? I really expect these ships to be fitted with either mk 41 or exls launchers. It really will be a joke if the mushroom farm finds itself on top of these ships. The exls launchers should be fitted instead of the mushroom launchers on the T26 in my opinion. What’s the point in spending so much money and under arming the ships.
You Should Not expect much for under £300m each per warship! Just standard armament fit.
Ah, I was reading in order. I just made a fairly long post on that which maybe would have been better here. On the boat bay doors, I asked about that a week or so ago as to whether there were doors because if not I was worried about increased radar returns. I was assured that doors have always been in the design but for some reason the renders have always showed them all open until now. It looks as if the Babcock consortium marketing team have finally closed those doors to celebrate their win. In my opinion it transforms… Read more »
It’s likely the bays were displayed open so that there was no misunderstanding as to what they were. Otherwise I am sure there would have been some media & other comentators complaining of the lack of boat bays. Afterall, those covers could have been hiding 12pdr muzzle loaders – that’s for those that even spotted there were covers there (rather than a poor paint job).
The important words here are ‘Provision for’, ‘option’ and ‘up to’. It is highly likely that these ships are going to be bare bones. The Daily Mail trumpeted this announcement referring to ‘Five new billion pound Royal Navy frigates will be built in Britain’. five new Frigates for 1.5bn would have been more accurate and as such the end result will be rather more limited.
Sigh. Yet more rubbish reporting in the mainstream media. Some dunce at the Daily Mail defence deck who probably only (barely) understands the concept of a frigate and is oblivious to the fact that there is (or soon will be) two new frigate classes (T26 & T31) probably just reused the “billion pound Royal Navy frigates” phrase from their last article on frigates which happened to be about T26. The British public really does deserve better reporting than this.
With my lack of “real” knowledge of the ins and outs of ships, and the thousands of posts we have read here on the subject of T31, should I be pleased or not?
1st Non British design for the RN? I’m not bothered myself.
Very little detail on armament, so presumably Sea Ceptor, Main Gun, Wildcat, and some sort of ASM.
Final build in Rosyth. That was always going to happen with the noise of the SNP.
Only 5? This disappoints me.
I don’t think we could have achieved a ship this size in budget unless it was an off the shelf design. I still don’t know why BAE could not have offered a GP type 26 without the noise dampening, fancy cranes and 5 inch gun when the sunk R & D costs had already been spent. Maybe it would be hard to justify to the public that the asw version takes 7 years to construct vs 2 years for the gp version.
BB85 – Yes I’m curious too about a T26 Lite/Austere version,surely nothing is impossible at the end of the day,maybe BAE thought that to achieve the price limit would open up a can of worms regarding the price paid for the Full Fat version.It will be interesting to see what price the Batch 2 T26 comes in at.
Yeh, I’ve always wondered why the T26 GP couldn’t be the basis for T31. Thinking about it though, and I’m not a naval architect, it would’t surprise me if the ‘world class’ ASW hull of T26 required some very clever and expensive 3-D welded shaping in order to achieve quiet acoustics. So it wouldn’t simply be a case of a few rubber engine mountings. The quiet acoustics would be integral to the hull design.
Type 26 was never design to be as accessible as this ship the Iver is deigned from scratch to be interchangeable and on spend days not months in Dock when fitting her out for her next mission the t31 is an improvement and more versitile.
On the non-UK design I’m not too bothered either, our F-35s and much other stuff isn’t UK design. I’ll be even less bothered if we have acquired licensing rights to resell the design which I assume that we have in order to enable the export aspirations for the project and I’ll be pretty much totally unconcerned if that licensing were to be for exclusive export rights. On the “only 5” thing, if the ships do come in within budget it’s a relatively small outlay (£250m) to add at least 1 extra ship to the build. Cameron’s government did say that… Read more »
Wasn’t the type 23 hull design based on a Dutch frigate design?
All in all this is good news ,the T23’s cannot go on forever and a decision had to be made ASAP seeing as the T26 build seems to be progressing at a leisurely pace for whatever reason.For my own version of Fantasy Fleets,id have gone PPA,in my eyes an uncanny successor to the Type 21’s sleek lines,and while it fits the bill in some ways it falls a bit short in range and price.As for Armament I’m not sure,76mm (oto melara) or 57mm (BAE) main Gun would be sufficient,24 VLS,2 X 20mm or 30mm cannon, 4 0r 8x canister for… Read more »
I think we will get 8, but only after we have reduced Type 26 order to 6.
I think the Elephant in the room is the Deadnought project!
I think a Astute with VLS scale up to about 12Kt could do UK CASD much cheaper.
Savetheroyalnavy thinks Dreadnought can’t be a scaled up Astute.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-dreadnought-class-submarine-in-focus/
As long as we get them in time to replace the retiring GP T23s then I’m not too concerned.
But I do hope we’re going to follow the national shipbuilding strategies recommendation not to do expensive refits and sell these off and replace with newer ships.
Given it’s based on an existing Danish design, and the cheapness, I wonder if there might be a possibility of submitting it for the US Navy’s new budget frigate competition?…
I don’t think the USN would be interested… they don’t really do ‘cheap’ anything. Their requirement is for a high end frigate, more along the lines of our Type 26. Its a real pity the Type 26 got excluded from bidding, had it won, the Type 26 would truly be a global combat ship.
A high end equipment version of A140/IH design would meet US requirements, that’s what is actually great about the IH platform, that it scales so well based on budget. It is still possible that Huntington Ingalls actually offer an IH based design instead of the assumed upgraded Coast Guard cutter design.
I think part of Congresses problem is that the US Navy were supposed to be going for a frigate as a cheaper option compared to their Arleigh Burke destroyers. But the USN is setting the spec so high that their won’t be a huge price difference between the two.
If the USN wants their increase in numbers they should look at the Type 31, and cancel the littoral ship programme too.
I agree Sean, USN should look to Arrowhead to increase global presence. Can be fitted with Mk. 41, which the USN will most likely do.
Littoral is already canceled in effect by the FFGx program. The only work to be continued in LCS is the already contracted ships and further development of the modules. As for Congress and the Navy? They both set the spec that high. Neither the USN or Congress is really interested in cheap near as much as they are in greater number of more capable hulls in the water. The Type 31 is under armed by the Navy requirement. In addition as it is based on the Iver Huitfeldt it likely wouldn’t pass NAVSEA build standards and would require significant modifications… Read more »
Equipment is not known yet, so my “wish” is… If additional money is “modest”; how about, – Install 6 ExLS on the B-position (where RAM is located in the “apparently export version image”) to hold 24 CAMM. – reserve amidship space (where Mk.41 and SSM are in the image) as an open mission deck with 25t crane, to enable carrying up to 18m long boats (across the beam) or other boats (A140’s boat bay size is only up to 9.5m long boat. T26 has >12m long and ~20 m wide amidship mission bay). – like to see 30mm gun+LMM than… Read more »
… Somehow give them uk built sea spear / spear 3. Low cost option to take out swarm attack craft over extended distances, saturation option against larger foes and, if ever necessary, perform precision land strike.
I do think those are interesting options for the future Pete. Spear 3 for precision land strike if necessary is one that is potentially interesting. I think Spear 3 rather than Brimstone (Sea Spear – henceforth “SS”) would be useful there assuming it is going to have longer range than SS. MBDA did show off renders of a soft-launch VLS Spear 3 a while back so it has at least been considered at some point. I also started wondering about the utility of SS for saturation attack against larger foes after seeing the packing density and elegance of the box… Read more »
Indeed Julian. Can imagine integration of SS for RN only helping export drive of both SS and type31.
Good suggestions Donald. On the gun we (the UK) do have the 40mm CTAS coming into service on Ajax so there is a logistics chain going to go into place for that, at least on the Army side. I know there would be a job to be done to adapt and certify that for naval use but it would give synergies on ammo that might help drive those costs down which would benefit the Army. Also, there are quite a few ammo natures available that are selectable (amongst 2 or maybe 3 on the existing turret I think) including 200-pellet… Read more »
For the price, the Type 31 will likely use second hand Type 23 weaponry . I’m thinking the existing 4.5 in and 30mm guns, a basic sea captor fit, fitted for but not with ASM, Mk 41 etc. The five sets of interim ASM being purchased for the GP variant of the Type 23 might be an option, but it might make more sense to transfer these to the Type 45 until the arrival of the new UK/French ASM missile around 2030.
Thanks Julian-san and Greham-san. I’m not sure how many weapons and equipments will be transferred from T23GPs to T31s. For example, I think Brazil might be interested in buying a few T23s with LIFEX. They are using frigates built in early 1980s (T22 Batch-1). A 30-32 years old T23 is “younger”. If yes, it would be cost effective to sell T23s as is, and buy new gears for T31e, because ripping off equipments are time consuming work. CTA 40mm guns is interesting, but I’m afraid it is very very expensive, especially, the shells. As a general-purpose gun (including warning shots),… Read more »
@ donald_of_tokyo
I would agree, that ripping out the old Sea Wolf tubes welded to CAMM tubes, would be very time consuming work! Better to install new tubes in Type 31 CAMM silo, to accommodate CAMM-ER.
40mm CTA doesn’t have the range of 40mm bofors (range 7 to 12k depending on elevation) also the flexibility of the 3p ammo is useful in the quick reaction time required for CIWS also rate of fire is higher than CTA. As for 30mm plus LMM being superior again range and weight of fire is not the same. Range of LMM can be improved with an upgraded launcher but max at the moment is about 4-5km 30mm closer to 1.5-2km range. My preferred fit would be 76mm oto (5 inch unaffordable) 2x bofors 40mm, as many exls/mk41 cells we can… Read more »
My money is on 57mm for the main gun, same as US FFG(X), LCS and Coast Guard vessels. It seems lots of the flexible ammunition capabilities that we see for 5″ and 76mm guns will be available for 57mm.
While many will argue for NGFS, I’d point them to the recent statement by the USMC 4* highlighting the vulnerability of ships standing close into shore, in his case he was referring to the Marines amphibs.
The Arrowhead 140 web site has been renewed.
H&W and Ferguson Marine (FM) do not appear anymore. Babcock is to build A140 in Rothys, alone. Good for efficiency, but not good for those hoping some revive of H&W and FM…?
Realistically neither H&W or Ferguson marine have ever had anything to do with warships building. Better to keep all the work in one yard that actually builds warships that try to keep several commercial yards open with just 5 frigate to be built.
Between BAE on the Clyde and Babcock at Rosyth the Uk can build nay surface warships require and workers can transfer between both yards depending on what’s required. It’s the best combination available fir surface warships.
Martin, H&W has built dozens of significant warships over the years, but to name a few
HMS Belfast, Formidable, Black Prince, Tweed, Glory, Eagle, Centaur, Bulwark, Torquay, Blackpool, Berwick, Leander, Kent & Fearless. This is just some of the more major ones
When would the final decision on armament be made public knowledge?
I can’t believe we will get 5 even with basic fit for £ 1.25billion
Why only five !! Surely the RN needs a minimum of eight, no wonder we struggle to meet operational tasks.
I believe we should be aiming for the following:
8x T45 replacement, 5 GP versions, 3 BMD
8x T26
10x T31, 5 light patrol, 5 medium with decent asw/aaw fit and able to escort our amphibs.
Escort fleet of 26 ships, far from ‘fantasy’ imo.
On top of this, I believe we should be looking at building a small fleet, around 3, of drone motherships able to launch and retrieve multiple drones in every spectrum, surface underwater and air. These would sail with task groups to offer greater protection, long range surveillance and strike capability.
Of cause, it will require a campaign to get more than 5 built!
Is 5 enough…..think if it works we need to double down and get another 5 maybe slightly better kitted out as T23s will be done.
The announcement of the larger hulled Arrowhead 140 makes the chances of only getting 6 x Type 26 more likely in my opinion.
Let’s hope the Type 31s get Artisan, Sea Ceptor and anti ship missiles at the very least.
A.Smith – a reduction of T26 from 8 to 6 is perfectly feasible,but seeing as all 8 have been named the MOD/Govt might have to call upon the services of Edwina Currie to clean up the fallout in my opinion.
The latest drawing on babcock website clearly 1 x main gun. 2 x small guns 30mm? And a 24 cell mushrooms farm.
https://www.arrowhead140.com/design
… My assumption is the blue bits are customer choice areas.
Really interesting snippet on same babcock website…….’ Capable of being designed, built and assembled in less than one million working hours, Arrowhead 140 will leverage the skills of an in-place and experienced workforce.’
That puts the engineering and construction labour cost at about #50mm per hull (excluding profit) …with about 250 pax years of engineering and construction effort on the hull and fit out.
Obviously doesnt include all the effort and cost of system’s being procured for installation but orovided long lead procurement and project activity is well planned then claimed timelines should be readily achievable.
P
Good decision, Remember what this is though – a basic GP Frigate that can be adapted as necessary So the key thing for me is how do we adapt it cheaply. the Danes have really nailed it with the Stanflex system and we should introduce it, we already move the CIWS between vessels based on deployment, so we are partially there, but if we could add and remove blocks of Mk41 VLS between ships that is a game changer for the RN (and the IV class can). Likewise, the ability to launch and manage a fleet of Atlas MCM UV’s… Read more »
Arrowhead boat bay is oply up to 9.5m boat. It is too small to handle Atlas MCM UV’s, which is 12m long.
This is why I propose re-arrangement on amidship configuration.
> – Install 6 ExLS on the B-position (where RAM is located in the “apparently export version image”) to hold 24 CAMM.
> – reserve amidship space (where Mk.41 and SSM are in the image) as an open mission deck with 25t crane, to enable carrying up to 18m long boats (across the beam)
Arcims is stated at 11mm and 9000kg fully loaded
Arrowhead boat bays have a capacity of 9.5tonnes and able to accommodate larger loads at a later date (blurb on the website)
So it looks possible to launch 4 Arcims (I must admit I thought 2 boat bays were larger than the other 2) or more likely have 2 Arcims and 2 Rhibs as a normal load.
Thanks. My point is, looking at all the image, it looks like the additional boat bays are not larger. If you scale it (believing the CG), the 4 boat bays is about 9.5m long, each.
I agree it is important to enable T31 to carry 11-12m long USV, so that’s why I am stressing here.
Couldn’t agree more.
One of these with the ability to deploy 4 atlas and secure shipping lanes would be a very wise move indeed.
I am like almost everyone on this forum, caught between doing the right thing and doing the affordable.
The Arrowhead mission bay is under the flight deck. Does this mean there’s a slipway at the stern.
not on this model – it is accessed via the deck itself.
For this particular Type (T31) we would be better off with the Absalon Flex deck being added back in, this does have stern access and a lot of additional flexibility, I suspect at very little if any additional cost.
As ever, well thought out plans with foresight! As I said before, wish you worked for HMG!
Hi Daniele
I was on the CMN site this morning, and if you take a look at what they can deliver against the Rivers we built at huge cost, a lot of people should be embarrassed followed by the sack…
They have 65m craft that would give our T23’s a run for their money and would definitely sink a River class..
I really do think the RN is under armed, and whilst they dont often fire a weapon, they do need to have the capability to do so and win.
Will there be provision for a Royal Marine Detachment to augment the ships capabilities as with the previous Tribels??
Great ship, hope that the RN eventually gets 9 of these and an additional Type 26. 9 Type 26 and 9 Type 31 because of Rule of 3. But quick aside, what if the RN also got like 6 to 9 Khareef class corvettes. Not the Type 31 offering of Leander but the original 99 metre long corvette modified for RN requirements to better protect the UK’s EEZ since the River class don’t offer much in real combat. The cost of the 3 Khareef class bought by the Omani Navy was £400mil total (according to wikipedia) so that would mean… Read more »
Should go for 10 of the TX ships 2 for each carrier group and 1 each of the other 6 dotted around the globe, these boats will be on station ready for anything maned or unmaned, chk tales site this boat is mint RN needs these in its future.
Save the royal navy have a good article on their website about the initial weapons fit for type 31- agree with a lot of the comments on this webpage in that these are meaty decent sized vessels that initially will be “underarmed” for their size- albeit with a heavy weight of gunnery- the 2 proposed 40mm bofors mark 4s and the 57mm BAE makr 110 gun will deliver a very high rate of explosive fire onto a target- probably the best defended vessels in the world for constabulary work- close in shore and literal warfare. 600 + rounds a minute… Read more »
The biggest problem is the usual one…..Arrowhead is based on a sizeable, proven hull design, which in Danish Service is very well armed and and credible Fighting Ship. But sadly the RN is getting the bargain basement version, with a very poor armament putting it on par with a Corvette. Nobody knows what tomorrow might bring and we need credible fighting vessels ….remember the Falklands?? This design as proposed is an embarressment! We would be better off spending millions on keeping 5 x Type 23 in service with a new cannister launched SSM like LRASM. The unavoidable truth is that… Read more »
The T23s are knackered especially the older vessels so that’s simply not going to happen. The armament has not been announced, but if as many think it is tailored for anti-piracy and ops such as straits of Hormuz. I think it will get the 76mm rather than 57mm which will mean some NGS capability. This fit will also compliment other ships weapons if deployed as part of a task group – ideal for goalkeeping for carriers or amphibious vessels. The design is about a lot more than weapons and war, it is superior to the cramped T23 design in that… Read more »
Oh forgot …. it is likely to have a much more capable up to date Radar
And greater range too
The Lifex refits being undertaken will ensure some of the Type 23s soldier on past 2030. The key thing is that Naval Warfare and capabilities have come a long way since the first Type 23 was launched, and the vessels we are building to replace them need to be far more advanced and capable. There are no plans to give the Type 31 an ASM of any kind or the 76mm. The hull design is sound, good radar and range etc, but the failure to fit Mk41 vls – a hot launch system already fitted to the existing Danish hulls… Read more »
A thought occurred to me a few weeks ago when I was checking out the progress of the RAN gap filler of 2 x OPV (of a class of 12, 10 to built in another yard) @ ASC (where the RAN T26 will be built). Most sources are pretty consistent on 2 x 40mm for T31 but it appears there may be ongoing negotiations re 57mm/76mm. What if it’s not just 57mm v 76mm, but BAE v Leonardo? The RAN OPV’s are to be fitted with 40mm, with Leonardo winning out over BAE (apparently due to price) – both firing… Read more »
The problem with relying on aircraft for all your NGFS type requirements is that aircraft can’t always fly & if you are relying on third party aircraft, they can be re-tasked even while in the air on the way to you. This happened in 2003 in Iraq & resulted in RAN 5” & RN 4.5” gunned ships doing NGFS as the main element instead of as a support option. Ships can also loiter within range 24×7 & can fire a shell with great accuracy at almost no notice. Long range shells like volcano can really extend the range options (including… Read more »
They need to be adding all the proposed weapon options and ideally building at least 8 of them or they are not going to be capable enough to replace T23s.
I know this is an old article but I have been doing some research and have an intresting question. When I was going through some old Vosper designs I came across the F2000, mostly built for the Asian part of the world. A light frigate of 2000 tons, a 76/57mm gun 2x 30mm guns, 8 Exocet missiles, 16 Sea Wolf, a lynx with hanger anti sub torps and sonar. It looks like a variation of the T21. It had a speed of 28-32 knots and a range of 5000 sea miles. Its cost was about £110 million per ship 1999… Read more »
Ron You are right, this is a rather old article on what is still a moving target, to be raising new comments on. There were two other reasonable light frigate designs put forward. The BAE one felt more like they thought they should (as UK is a major customer & if you bite the hand that feeds you too often ,they may stop feeding you). TKMS was offering a well known MEKO based design. While the MEKO offered was the newer 200A design, both RAN & RNZN Ancac MEKO 200 design patrol frigate has proven to be too small for… Read more »
Why don’t RN install RAM on these vessels forward and rear to keep people out of harms way and give it another fist to deal with any problems.