The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[StingrayOZ]

That's depressing. Fitted for practically anything, very little actually required. Stick a 127mm on a stretched River and you're done.

Sounds like an official proposal.

Not a fan of the Type 31 concept. Why not just build more Type 26 and fit them with less stuff. At least then you would have a common hull and could make a good ship out of them later.

You would be better off building smaller OPV with less crew and more systems and weapons.

At least it has a hanger.

 

[John Fedup]

Why not just build more Type 26 and fit them with less stuff. At least then you would have a common hull and could make a good ship out of them later.

I like the Type 26 and a lean kit out initially for our CSC program could be a way forward. Our governments seem to love upgrading stuff so starting off with lean Type 26s might lead to very good ships 10-15 years after proper kitting out.

 

[ADMk2]

That's depressing. Fitted for practically anything, very little actually required. Stick a 127mm on a stretched River and you're done.

Sounds like an ANZAC 'light patrol' frigate circa 1989, but with a pea shooter instead of a 127mm gun...

Hasn't naval technological advancement come such a long way?

 

[hauritz]

The only ray of sunshine in that depressing tale is "design life 10-15 years"

I see the new "fitted for but not with" now becomes "fitted to receive"

Wasn't the Type 23 originally designed for an 18 year hull life?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Did I read that right that the Type 31 will have a =>57mm gun?

If you are going to have a full size crew (~100-140 I would call fullsized in a modern context) then I would get a full sized ship. If you are short of money, systems can be fitted later (ideally be funded before the ship is even commissioned). Or do the Italian thing and cover it with guns (from a gun pool) or lift equipment off from older ships.

I don't quite know what the gap is with these ships. I see more value going smaller (cheaper and more numerous) or larger (far more capable).

I guess they have pretty good aviation capability.

 

[StevoJH]

Will have to wait and see what eventuates, remember this is just an RFI.

If they carry through HMS, Radar and VLS from the Type 23 it should be roughly equivilent in capability to an end of life Type 23 in everything but ASW, and absolute top speed.

Except that wont work because this is looking like a simultaneous build of both Type 26 and Type 31....so at least 3-4 additional shipsets would be acquired.....

So basically this could either go very well or fall on its head, though it does look like a reversion to the 'Future Surface Combatant' program, in pretty much every detail.

We have:
- River Batch 2 = C3 (sort of, need more if they want to replace the MCM fleet)
- Type 31 = C2
- Type 26 = C1

Just saying....

 

[swerve]

We're now scheduled to get 8 instead of 13 Type 26, & 5 Type 31e, so the same number of ships in about the same time.

The T26 build appears to have been spaced out a bit, so the last of the smaller number arrives at the same time. I think delivery of the first one is also a bit later.

T31e starts arriving before T26, to coincide with the retirement of the first Type 23, & will be built concurrently with T26. This means that we'd need at least one additional ship set of Artisan, CAMM, & anything else carried over, but IIRC this was also the case with the original T26 schedule. I don't recall any suggestion that we'd downgrade the fit-out of some T26s to fit the schedule.

Sellers referred earlier to a rumour of the purchase of 3 sets of radars, etc. in addition to those on T23s, presumably to cover the mismatches in building & retirement schedules. It'd be interesting to know if that's true.

Fitting the T31e with a 'pea shooter' would mean introducing a new type & logistics chain into the RN, so any savings would be limited. If they're desperate to keep costs down, they could always carry on with 4.5" guns carried over, as long as there are spares & ammunition available.

The Venator 110 & Arrowhead 120 are as long as or a bit longer than an ANZAC, but between 20 & 30% broader beam, so can carry a fair bit more. I'm not sure why technology is referred to as if it has something to do with the size of a ship.

 

[WillS]

Wasn't the Type 23 originally designed for an 18 year hull life?

Design life and Hull life are different things (if that's what you were asking). The RFI implies that the basic design should still be fit to build in 15 years time, with a different weapons/sensor fit etc.

WillS

 

[WillS]

That's depressing. Fitted for practically anything, very little actually required. Stick a 127mm on a stretched River and you're done.

I think that's an overly pessimistic reading of the RFI. In particular there's no way you could identify the evolution paths required with a stretched River class, especially when combined with the non-headline requirements for endurance, comms, etc. And you'd have to stretch a River a long way to get it to 4000t ;-)

If I had to guess at this early stage I think we're looking at something very close to BMT Venator light-frigate variant. In fact the RFI looks like it was based on BMT's spec sheet.

What I find encouraging about this program so far is the timescales. With an entry into service of the first unit so soon, it gives very little time for the endless design iterations and tinkering that seem to crush equipment programs in the MoD.

To me, and I may be very wrong, BAE's submission of a pathetic River+ design indicates that they may have already unofficially been told they aren't getting the contract.

WillS

 

[Systems Adict]

What I find encouraging about this program so far is the timescales. With an entry into service of the first unit so soon, it gives very little time for the endless design iterations and tinkering that seem to crush equipment programs in the MoD.

Sorry for my emphasis on your extracted comment, but you think this is a 'good thing' ??

Many people outside the shipbuilding fraternity (including politico's / serving members of the armed forces whom serve on such vessels & Joe public), have absolutely no real idea of the concepts of timescales on procurement of parts for a warship.

Do you seriously think that anyone whose thinking of entering this competition can walk up to Rhienmetal / Otto-Melara / MSI / any gun manufacturer & throw down a contract, saying "Here mate, this project was announced 2 weeks ago & we have a further 2 weeks to get round the table & agree a "fixed & firm" price for x5 main guns, along with a delivery / parts / maintenance / operators training & ordnance delivery schedule. How ya fixed ??" would be laughed outta the room !

It's not like going down the supermarket & buying a new pair of shoes, or some chocolate, or a bottle of wine.

I'm sorry to say that this will be a 'cluster', & the UK Gov't PLC (i.e. the idiots in Whitehall who approved this shambles), should be taken outside & publicly flogged.

Yes, the RN could do with more ships. Yes, these ships could do with being smaller / cheaper & Yes, spreading the work around in case the Scots go pear-shaped & leave the union (post BREXIT), is all 'positive'.

However, the reality of costs, of customer driven change / modification, the inability of the RN to have enough serving personnel to actually crew these ships, never mind the crew having the training to operate them, leaves a bitter taste & will come back to haunt us all, when the project timescales / costs aren't met.

When our European & American equipment suppliers start asking for more money & the media twist it to blame the companies for not doing the job they said they'd do, who will be blamed ?

DO we seriously have enough skilled staff in the industry, across the South of England to handle this task ? After all the UK population's average age is in the 40's, the majority of the skills needed to pull this off is in the hands of those over 50 & our younger generations aren't interested in getting their hands dirty at a long term job (>5 years long).

SO...

DOES it make sense to give this work to another company / lots of companies, or should we just be getting them built in South Korea & shipped back, for us to 'tinker' with them ??

SA

 

[StobieWan]

we'll have to wait and see -the price includes design costs, I'm assuming it excludes weapons and sensors as they'd be pulled through the Type 23's and the design could be cheaper as a platform if it went CODAD or CODLAD - skip the GT's and so forth. Can't say I'm sanguine however.

 

[ASSAIL]

we'll have to wait and see -the price includes design costs, I'm assuming it excludes weapons and sensors as they'd be pulled through the Type 23's and the design could be cheaper as a platform if it went CODAD or CODLAD - skip the GT's and so forth. Can't say I'm sanguine however.

Surely the timeline prevents " pulling gear through from the T23s". Secondly, I suspect these will be diesel powered only as the max speed requirement is equal to or no less than 24 kts.

 

[ngatimozart]

Video of Adm Zambellas RN (Rtd) discussing the Type 31e, last week. He makes some very interesting points.

Zambellas : Royal Navy's Type 31e Frigate 'Not Worth Building' Unless It Can 'Fight to Survive'

 

[StobieWan]

It's annoying for a lot of reasons :

We're now spending money on a design exercise that could be avoided, and those are usually fraught with customer spec changes.

We had a really straight forward plan to pull all the kit through 23 into 26 and now we'll need two integration plans..assuming 31 gets the kit in the first place.

The RN then needs two training and logistics paths for two different ships in service, which I suspect will swallow some of the savings intended to be realised.

The final spec of the 31 seems to be very low end - just up from an OPV in terms of the requirements expressed.

Additionally, the schedule is so tight as to be a bit unrealistic and seems to be so tight that it precludes shifting kit over from type 23's which is just odd...

 

[swerve]

Surely the timeline prevents " pulling gear through from the T23s".

The first one is scheduled to be commissioned as the first T23 retires, so unless the T23 is stripped of basic kit such as the radar & then remains in service for a while, which is hard to believe, we'll need an extra set for the first T31e. Someone's looked at the schedule & reckoned that maybe three extra sets will be needed overall.

But IIRC at least one, & probably more, sets were always going to be needed. The plan was always to start commissioning new ships before we'd had time to strip retiring ships & refurbish their equipment. The only reason the first T26 is now expected after the retirement of the first T23 is because it's been delayed

Actually, I was always a bit suspicious of the plan to keep porting over ex-T23 stuff to Type 26s until we ran out of T23s. Do we really plan to carry over 20 year old radars to brand new T26s?

 

[hauritz]

I can see the type 31 going the same way as the ANZAC. It was also intended as a light patrol frigate.

Since then all of the Anzacs have probably well and truly blown their growth margins.

Undersized hulls are pretty poor investments in my opinion.

I don't see the point in building more OPVs when the navy is already building OPVs that they apparently don't want.

 

[swerve]

Twice the tonnage of the River B2 OPVs, & second rank frigates in the French style, to the Type 26 first rank. Not quite in the position of the (smaller) Anzacs, which are the chief warships of the RNZN & the only frigates in the RAN.

One can criticise the RN's adoption of the MN first & second rank frigate model, but saying that 4000 ton ships which (unless we throw kit away) will get the same radars & SAMs as the Type 26, the same helicopters (& weapons for them), etc. are OPVs is a little inaccurate, I think.

Note that the French haven't ended up overloading their second rank frigates. Rather the contrary: they've tended to concentrate any money for upgrades onto the first rank ships, & unlike the RAN & RNZN they operate the model the RN's now adopting.

 

[Muar River]

Twice the tonnage of the River B2 OPVs, & second rank frigates in the French style, to the Type 26 first rank. Not quite in the position of the (smaller) Anzacs, which are the chief warships of the RNZN & the only frigates in the RAN.

One can criticise the RN's adoption of the MN first & second rank frigate model, but saying that 4000 ton ships which (unless we throw kit away) will get the same radars & SAMs as the Type 26, the same helicopters (& weapons for them), etc. are OPVs is a little inaccurate, I think.

Note that the French haven't ended up overloading their second rank frigates. Rather the contrary: they've tended to concentrate any money for upgrades onto the first rank ships, & unlike the RAN & RNZN they operate the model the RN's now adopting.

RAN also operates the modified OHP frigates Darwin, Melbourne and Newcastle.

 

[swerve]

RAN also operates the modified OHP frigates Darwin, Melbourne and Newcastle.

As air defence ships. Frigates in USN service, used in the role of destroyers (e.g. the Horizons in France, Type 45 in the UK) in the RAN, & to be replaced by the Hobart class destroyers.

 

[ASSAIL]

Twice the tonnage of the River B2 OPVs, & second rank frigates in the French style, to the Type 26 first rank. Not quite in the position of the (smaller) Anzacs, which are the chief warships of the RNZN & the only frigates in the RAN.

One can criticise the RN's adoption of the MN first & second rank frigate model, but saying that 4000 ton ships which (unless we throw kit away) will get the same radars & SAMs as the Type 26, the same helicopters (& weapons for them), etc. are OPVs is a little inaccurate, I think.

Note that the French haven't ended up overloading their second rank frigates. Rather the contrary: they've tended to concentrate any money for upgrades onto the first rank ships, & unlike the RAN & RNZN they operate the model the RN's now adopting.

I don't think size will be the issue, most of the proponents are in the 3500 a 4000 tonne range and 110 a 120 mtr length, the same as the modified Anzacs.
The level of equipment though is worrying, if some or most is transferred over from the T23 it will be a capable ship but the cost limitation makes a complete outfit difficult.
The RFI indicates a 76 mm gun and only point defence missiles with a speed limitation around 24 kts. This would be fine for all those single ship duties listed in the RFI but the facts are that they will not always be deployed in that way. The severe demands made upon the RN escorts by deploying a carrier force means that inevitably these C2 frigates will called to join them and if both carriers were in service, maybe one as an amphibious asset then?
With 8 x T26 the rule of threes means two maybe three are available and the same for T45s - eventually. Consequently this leaves no doubt about the T31 involvement in major ops.
I wish and hope that these ships are up to the task when called upon to serve beyond their design criteria.