Type 31 Frigates

Author
Discussion

MartG

Original Poster:

20,619 posts

203 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
Two possible designs for the planned Type 31 frigates have been revealed

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-unveils-potent...

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Thursday 28th July 2016
quotequote all
I'm not keen on the stretched River Class. The Cutlass seems - from the pictures - to better suit the RNs needs. However if it comes down to cost Vs extra hulls then perhaps what amounts to a Batch 4 River class makes sense.

Good cheap GP frigates are what the RN has been lacking for ages. A ship for all those duties where an OPV is not enough and a tooled-up frigate or destroyer is too much.

My concerns are that little bits will be added to the design which will increase cost and result in something that's nearly as expensive as a type 26 but that's no where near as good.

Also for all the economy these have to be warships. By that I mean that they need to be able to properly defend themselves and be able to take damage. These are going to be single ship deployed most of the time and as such have the potential to be the first ship on scene if something kicks off. They also must be able to operate with the bigger carrier and amphibious groups. It's easy to look to the past and bring up the Falklands but the events of 1982 saw ships pulled from patrols like the West Indies guard ship and chucked into a pretty brutal conflict. I'd not be comfortable with the RN getting involved in such a situation with a mixture of top end warships and what amounts to enhanced OPVs.

I've kind of contradicted myself in this post, but I think it highlights the risks and dilemmas of bringing a much needed class of new warships into service.



Edited by wildcat45 on Thursday 28th July 21:55

MartG

Original Poster:

20,619 posts

203 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Archer Class ? They certainly are - HMS Trumpeter and Explorer seen last weekend at Sunderland Airshow




And compared to HMS Blyth minehunter ( which isn't very big either )


DMN

2,983 posts

138 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Its what the Navy has needed for a while. Agree with some of whats said above, they need to be fighting ships first and foremost. However once you start down that road it gets expensive. Finding the right balance will be key.


Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Right, im a tad confused.

The type 26 looks quite huge, it is larger then the "Zeven provincien" class ships the dutch navy has, which while called a frigate by the RDN is considered a destroyer, then why is the Type 26 a frigate? Is this down to the T26 mainly being aimed at ASW? (if im to believe wikipedia) and the Zeven Provincien class being more general purpose including AA and command roles?

Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Interesting, considering hull-size wise the T26 is slightly smaller then the T45. (i always though a destroyer was size-wise between a cruiser and a frigate) So what the RN is looking for in the T31 is a smaller ASW vessel to complement the T26? Considering the River class OPV doesnt seem to have any missile based weaponry on board.

Looking at the RDN, with the 4 destroyers and 2 Multipurpose frigates, it looks like we dont really have dedicated ASW surface ships, we do have 4 attack subs, not sure how those fit in.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Vitorio said:
Interesting, considering hull-size wise the T26 is slightly smaller then the T45. (i always though a destroyer was size-wise between a cruiser and a frigate) So what the RN is looking for in the T31 is a smaller ASW vessel to complement the T26? Considering the River class OPV doesnt seem to have any missile based weaponry on board.

Looking at the RDN, with the 4 destroyers and 2 Multipurpose frigates, it looks like we dont really have dedicated ASW surface ships, we do have 4 attack subs, not sure how those fit in.
Type 31 won't have the ASW sonar or low-noise design. It will be ASW in that it can hangar a Wildcat, and probably deck a Merlin.

SHutchinson

2,040 posts

183 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
MartG said:
Archer Class ? They certainly are - HMS Trumpeter and Explorer seen last weekend at Sunderland Airshow


Are these the boats that live at HMS Calliope on the Tyne?

Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Type 31 won't have the ASW sonar or low-noise design. It will be ASW in that it can hangar a Wildcat, and probably deck a Merlin.
So more low end general purpose frigate/high end corvette then? Without ASW Sonar it wont be able to operate independently in an ASW role right?

MartG

Original Poster:

20,619 posts

203 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
SHutchinson said:
MartG said:
Archer Class ? They certainly are - HMS Trumpeter and Explorer seen last weekend at Sunderland Airshow


Are these the boats that live at HMS Calliope on the Tyne?
Not sure where they are permanently stationed - Trumpeter is currently en-route between Lowestoft and Ipswich ( http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/... ), while Explorer sailed from the Tyne to Whitby yesterday ( https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships... )

DMN

2,983 posts

138 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Nanook said:
Vitorio said:
Right, im a tad confused.

The type 26 looks quite huge, it is larger then the "Zeven provincien" class ships the dutch navy has, which while called a frigate by the RDN is considered a destroyer, then why is the Type 26 a frigate? Is this down to the T26 mainly being aimed at ASW? (if im to believe wikipedia) and the Zeven Provincien class being more general purpose including AA and command roles?
The definitions are kinda open to interpretation these days, but we appear to call AAW stuff a Destroyer, and ASW stuff a Frigate.

Although 26 is an all purpose frigate, more heavily armed than a T45.
To expand on what Nanook has put, the RN for a while has classed ships by what they do, rather than how big they are.

Destroyers tend to be Anti-Aircraft ships, whilst Frigates are sub hunters. So the Type 42 was a destroyer, yet the larger Type 22's where frigates.

DMN

2,983 posts

138 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Vitorio said:
Evanivitch said:
Type 31 won't have the ASW sonar or low-noise design. It will be ASW in that it can hangar a Wildcat, and probably deck a Merlin.
So more low end general purpose frigate/high end corvette then? Without ASW Sonar it wont be able to operate independently in an ASW role right?
It will have a very basic ASW sonar (the Type 45 has one), but will lack the fancy towed array the Type23 has (and the Type 26 will get). But as said above the Wildcat will be the primary ASW weapon. The Heli might even form the main surface engagement weapon as well, meaning the ship will not need Harpoon (or similar) missles to keep the costs down. Wildcat carries two different anti-ship missles, the small and cheap LLM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightweight_Multirole_Missile) and the larger Sea Venom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Venom_(missile))

Ideally they'd keep the same 76mm the Khareef class has, with two 30mm DS30M mounts for close in defence. The DS30M mount comes with an option for up to 7 LLM or Starstreak (anti-air) missles to be mounted on the same unit. Add in Sea-Ceptor so the ship has an area air defence role and some decent electronic warfare kit and its done.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
I'm not keen on the stretched River Class. The Cutlass seems - from the pictures - to better suit the RNs needs. However if it comes down to cost Vs extra hulls then perhaps what amounts to a Batch 4 River class makes sense.

Good cheap GP frigates are what the RN has been lacking for ages. A ship for all those duties where an OPV is not enough and a tooled-up frigate or destroyer is too much.

My concerns are that little bits will be added to the design which will increase cost and result in something that's nearly as expensive as a type 26 but that's no where near as good.

Also for all the economy these have to be warships. By that I mean that they need to be able to properly defend themselves and be able to take damage. These are going to be single ship deployed most of the time and as such have the potential to be the first ship on scene if something kicks off. They also must be able to operate with the bigger carrier and amphibious groups. It's easy to look to the past and bring up the Falklands but the events of 1982 saw ships pulled from patrols like the West Indies guard ship and chucked into a pretty brutal conflict. I'd not be comfortable with the RN getting involved in such a situation with a mixture of top end warships and what amounts to enhanced OPVs.

I've kind of contradicted myself in this post, but I think it highlights the risks and dilemmas of bringing a much needed class of new warships into service.



Edited by wildcat45 on Thursday 28th July 21:55
They have to be very wary of the "Homer's Car" situation.



With the long procurement lead time it's always hard to work out what we need 25 years down the line. However, with Brexit there is a definite need for ships of the River class for fisheries protection and other EEZ enforcement duties. They're also more or less exactly what we need to be fishing migrants out of the Mediterranean, and it seems a bit silly to divert a type 45 to do that sort of job.

I agree that this sort of ship shouldn't go to a shooting war, but proper navies do tend to have ships that don't go to shooting wars.

Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
My concerns are that little bits will be added to the design which will increase cost and result in something that's nearly as expensive as a type 26 but that's no where near as good.
What would be the result of taking a T26 and scrapping/toning down some bits? Like only give it half the SAM/Harpoon Batteries, take out the fancy sonar, halve the helicopter support facilities and fill up some of the remaining space with general purpose bays (side bay for launching dingies?) to aid in stuff like drug patrol, refugee fishing etc..

I'd think that using the same hulls and machinery for 90% of the ship would make production, maintenance and training all easier/cheaper, yet removing the more advanced capabilities might lower the price enough.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Vitorio said:
I'd think that using the same hulls and machinery for 90% of the ship would make production, maintenance and training all easier/cheaper, yet removing the more advanced capabilities might lower the price enough.
Most of the cost of producing a small run warship is in designing it. If you want down the road of a decontented T26 you'd probably find you would only save a tiny proportion of the cost, meaning it would have been better to just have more T26s.

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
MartG said:
Archer Class ? They certainly are - HMS Trumpeter and Explorer seen last weekend at Sunderland Airshow




And compared to HMS Blyth minehunter ( which isn't very big either )

These aren't Offshore Patrol Vessels or OPVs. These are RNR training boats. Based I seem to recall on a port security vessel design. The things we are talking about are much bigger.

Think of these vessels as a civvy police worker. An OPV as a beat Bobby with a side handle baton and a can of CS spray and the new ships we are taking about as an armed response officer - still not a soldier in full kit but enough to deal with some prat waving a pistol about.

Getting this right is very hard. It's easy to over spec a ship and also easy to order the wrong type of ship. A few years ago there were a class of corvettes - not unlike the ones the RN is considering - that came on the market after a cancelled order. They were new, and British built. The RN could have had them for a song but despite being grey and carrying British missile systems, they would have been pretty poor in RN service. They were specified for work in warm climates, the accommodation was different and I think there were other things that went against them. Think if it like an American car built for the domestic market. It would need Europeanized suspension, UK compliant lights etc etc to be of any use here.

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
Vitorio said:
What would be the result of taking a T26 and scrapping/toning down some bits? Like only give it half the SAM/Harpoon Batteries, take out the fancy sonar, halve the helicopter support facilities and fill up some of the remaining space with general purpose bays (side bay for launching dingies?) to aid in stuff like drug patrol, refugee fishing etc..

I'd think that using the same hulls and machinery for 90% of the ship would make production, maintenance and training all easier/cheaper, yet removing the more advanced capabilities might lower the price enough.
That idea has been considered in the past and to a certain extent it happens already.

For example not all Tyoe 23 frigates have towed array sonars fitted. That no secret by the way. There is quite a lot of Fitted For rather than Fitted With going on.

While that makes for some savings - a common hull design for example, there are still the unavoidable costs associated with a bigger ship - the engine room crew will be the same no matter what weapons are installed for example. The armed-up ship and the lightly armed ship will drink the same amount of fuel. Also, sometimes smaller is better. A corvette or OPV will be happier in coastal waters than something built to trawl the deep North Atlantic for nuclear subs.

In an ideal world I would like to see a three-teir Royal Navy. Gold plated expensive warships, then a class of cheaper GP frigates as force multipliers and a class of six OPVs (perhaps civvy manned?) for fisheries EEZ counter narcitucs, border force, coastguard type duties.


MartG

Original Poster:

20,619 posts

203 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
wildcat45 said:
.... and a class of six OPVs (perhaps civvy manned?) for fisheries EEZ counter narcitucs, border force, coastguard type duties.
A bit like the US Coastguard ?

Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
davepoth said:
Most of the cost of producing a small run warship is in designing it. If you want down the road of a decontented T26 you'd probably find you would only save a tiny proportion of the cost, meaning it would have been better to just have more T26s.
If most of the cost is R&D, then why not just build more T26s right off the bat?


Nanook said:
What, like the mission bay the T26 has for launching boats and storing containers with other equipment in?
Heh, i figured it would have something like that, i was trying to think of cheap stuff to fill the opened up hullspace with mostly

wildcat45

8,056 posts

188 months

Friday 29th July 2016
quotequote all
DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.
Somewhere like that. Perfect for their role in SE Asia - a nightmare for a 16 stone stoker trying to get some kip while the ship rolls around the ivy North Atlantic in Februsry.