Type 31

[hauritz]

This is my interpretation of the Type 31. I can actually see an enormous amount of potential with this ship although its currently planned weapons fit is a little underwhelming. I have it equipped with 57mm and 40mm Bofors and 24 Sea Ceptors and if you look hard you might spot a couple of miniguns.


Many more images here if you are interested.

 

[StobieWan]

very nice - one point, miniguns are going out of service with the RN - I was chatting to someone in warfare and apparently they're being phased out for various reasons, Lovely looking model though

 

[Systems Adict]

As a 'shipbuilder', it is impressive to see what rendering tools can do, especially in helping others visualise a concept.

I am however, a 'picky' sod (or at least that's what my better half tells me when I spot continuity errors in movies/tv programmes).

I do love the realism of the rust runs (especially around the anchor), but feel there are too many others shown around the ship (After all, it will be a British warship & while we do have them in the UK, they aren't as bad as our American counterparts ! )

Upper deck electrical cabling between bulkhead units - Loose cabling is generally a max length of 500mm (i.e. between say loudspeaker & an associated comms JB). Anything larger than 12mm OD cabling, would be ran in some form of conduit (flexible or solid drawn steel), for protection reasons. Where possible designers try to limit the amount of penetrations thru the hull on the upper decks, as it leads to issues later on in the life of the ship (aforementioned rust runs / ingress point for water / 'leakage' point for ships electronic signals).

Also, the inclusion of the decoy tubes on the fo'c'sle - very much 'borrowed' from Type 45 / Type 26, as I hadn't seen any detail in any of the blurb for Type 31.

I'm also assuming that you've had a good look at the video clips from the suppliers of the vessel ?

Type 31 - Babcock International

The video from October 2020 has some good info within it.


Finally, in case I hadn't conveyed it - Your imagery is an impressive piece of work !

SA

 

[Lucasnz]

I do love the realism of the rust runs (especially around the anchor), but feel there are too many others shown around the ship (After all, it will be a British warship & while we do have them in the UK, they aren't as bad as our American counterparts ! )

Excellent we've got a goer for the next ship into the RNZN. I have to agree excellent piece of work

 

[shanes_world_05]

Hauritz - that is a beautiful piece of work. What software did you do this in? And is this your profession or hobby?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

Excellent we've got a goer for the next ship into the RNZN. I have to agree excellent piece of work

only question... how many?

 

[shanes_world_05]

only question... how many?

How about a continuous build and change the question to how long?

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

How about a continuous build and change the question to how long?

to be fair I am not 100% convinced that type 31 is the correct platform for the RNZN

 

[shanes_world_05]

to be fair I am not 100% convinced that type 31 is the correct platform for the RNZN

What sort of vessel would you think would better suit? I suspect type 26 is going to be more controversial than the anzacs

 

[Lucasnz]

to be fair I am not 100% convinced that type 31 is the correct platform for the RNZN

I'm not convinced either, but if on a price basis if the RNZN can acquire 4 or even (in my dreams) 5 x Type 31 vs say 2-3 Type 26, then potentially the RNZN needs serious consider the quality (in terms of fire power / ASW etc) over quantity (though both the T31 and 26 are good designs) issue. We know that given the mandated tasks the RNZN is already strained (i.e. combat capability, amphib, limitations on OPV in term of weight, helicopter capability etc). In many ways I'm beginning to see the Type 31 more in the role of a "Loch Class Frigate" for want of a better descriptor as opposed to the Type 26 as a more task group orientated vessel, which isn't how the RNZN typically operates on a day to day basis (though I don't deny its importance).

 

[ngatimozart]

The Type 31 is a variant of the OMT F-370 design which is in service with the RDN as the Iver Huitfeld class. The design itself is quite capable of meeting our requirements and the RDN do use their Iver Huitfeld frigates in task forces both with NATO TF and USN CBG.

The F-370 design has capacity for rafting of machinery to reduce / eliminate sound vibrations through the hull. It has the flexibility to go to 32 VLS, if not more. It's agnostic to sensor and weapons fit out so we can stipulate any fit out we want. Don't get hung up on what the Poms are doing with the Type 31 because they are making a pigs ear out of a thorough bred.

The OMT F-370 is 6,700 tonnes, so we have plenty of displacement to work with. If we are serious we could have a frigate with:

• I x 5 in gun
• 32 x Mk-41 VLS cells
• 16 x deck mounted ASCM (NSM and / or LRASM)
• 2 x CIWS 30 - 40 mm gun based?
• 2 x LWT triple tube launchers
• 32 Sea Ceptor
• SM-2/6
• CMS330 2.0
• SPY-7
• Towed Sonar Array
• Variable Depth Sonar
• and so on

That would give us a very capable ship almost on par with the Type 26 but in a different hull. If the NZG was to acquire the sensors and weaponry through FMS and govt to govt contracts, it could supply them as GFE.

So there is quite a viable option with the design.

 

[MrConservative]

The Type 31 is a variant of the OMT F-370 design which is in service with the RDN as the Iver Huitfeld class. The design itself is quite capable of meeting our requirements and the RDN do use their Iver Huitfeld frigates in task forces both with NATO TF and USN CBG.

The F-370 design has capacity for rafting of machinery to reduce / eliminate sound vibrations through the hull. It has the flexibility to go to 32 VLS, if not more. It's agnostic to sensor and weapons fit out so we can stipulate any fit out we want. Don't get hung up on what the Poms are doing with the Type 31 because they are making a pigs ear out of a thorough bred.

The OMT F-370 is 6,700 tonnes, so we have plenty of displacement to work with. If we are serious we could have a frigate with:

• I x 5 in gun
• 32 x Mk-41 VLS cells
• 16 x deck mounted ASCM (NSM and / or LRASM)
• 2 x CIWS 30 - 40 mm gun based?
• 2 x LWT triple tube launchers
• 32 Sea Ceptor
• SM-2/6
• CMS330 2.0
• SPY-7
• Towed Sonar Array
• Variable Depth Sonar
• and so on

That would give us a very capable ship almost on par with the Type 26 but in a different hull. If the NZG was to acquire the sensors and weaponry through FMS and govt to govt contracts, it could supply them as GFE.

So there is quite a viable option with the design.

Ah yes the Type 35!

 

[ASSAIL]

The Type 31 is a variant of the OMT F-370 design which is in service with the RDN as the Iver Huitfeld class. The design itself is quite capable of meeting our requirements and the RDN do use their Iver Huitfeld frigates in task forces both with NATO TF and USN CBG.

The F-370 design has capacity for rafting of machinery to reduce / eliminate sound vibrations through the hull. It has the flexibility to go to 32 VLS, if not more. It's agnostic to sensor and weapons fit out so we can stipulate any fit out we want. Don't get hung up on what the Poms are doing with the Type 31 because they are making a pigs ear out of a thorough bred.

The OMT F-370 is 6,700 tonnes, so we have plenty of displacement to work with. If we are serious we could have a frigate with:

• I x 5 in gun
• 32 x Mk-41 VLS cells
• 16 x deck mounted ASCM (NSM and / or LRASM)
• 2 x CIWS 30 - 40 mm gun based?
• 2 x LWT triple tube launchers
• 32 Sea Ceptor
• SM-2/6
• CMS330 2.0
• SPY-7
• Towed Sonar Array
• Variable Depth Sonar
• and so on

That would give us a very capable ship almost on par with the Type 26 but in a different hull. If the NZG was to acquire the sensors and weaponry through FMS and govt to govt contracts, it could supply them as GFE.

So there is quite a viable option with the design.

Mr C’s back of the envelope costings in the RNZ thread show that by including various capabilities into the OMT F-370 hull the cost very quickly becomes closer to the T-26.
Add to that the engineering changes, rafting machinery and other noise reduction measures and the cost quickly escalates
to a point where such an orphan hardly makes sense and a T-26 acquisition becomes logical.
T-31 is only an option for a budget constrained RNZN if it comes in its basic RN (with minimal change) configuration.
In this way the possibility of an extra hull still remains.

 

[hauritz]

Hauritz - that is a beautiful piece of work. What software did you do this in? And is this your profession or hobby?

These days it is a profession. It isn't a particularly well paid one but Covid 19 saw an end to my day job as a CAD designer. The software used is 3ds max with photoshop and 3D-Coat for texturing.

 

[hauritz]

For the benefit of the Kiwis I have also completed a model of of Iver Huitfeldt. I actually did it first and converted it into the type 31.

More pics here

 

[MrConservative]

Mr C’s back of the envelope costings in the RNZ thread show that by including various capabilities into the OMT F-370 hull the cost very quickly becomes closer to the T-26.
Add to that the engineering changes, rafting machinery and other noise reduction measures and the cost quickly escalates
to a point where such an orphan hardly makes sense and a T-26 acquisition becomes logical.
T-31 is only an option for a budget constrained RNZN if it comes in its basic RN (with minimal change) configuration.
In this way the possibility of an extra hull still remains.

But still a long long way off.

From what I have picked up the hull and prop design on the Type 31 / F-370 are of a fairly good standard in terms of acoustic management and that their is anechoic rafting of the diesels, well on the Ivers. That said it is not the class leader like the Type 26 in the ASW role. However there are ASW enablers that do not have to be of the ship, but can be from the ship, a General Purpose frigate, from the obvious MH-60R through to ship deployed ASWUUV assets from the mission bays.

The Type 31 with UK GFE included is around the GBP400m mark or less than a third of the cost of the cheapest Type 26 platform offered by the RN. My point being the Type 31 / F-370 platform, without going mental and trying to re-engineer it into a Type 26 level uber ASW platform which is counter-productive, and using off the shelf GFE fit out that offers a more muscular capability for a GP frigate than the baseline, viz 330CMS 2.0, Mk41 cells, Mk45, AN/SPY-7(V)1 et al, will provide for a very competent surface combatant that will be perfectly fine for future RNZN needs. In fact unconstrained by the local industry requirements and less inhibited by the cost and domestic/political supplier constraints of the RN's Type 31, though being realistic that the RNZN does not need the ultimate uber ASW surface combatant platform, but a capable GP Frigate, it is in a position to build what the Type 31 could or even should actually be.

Sounds as though Babcocks / OMT understand this and are prepared for this obvious marketplace expectation, that Navies out there will demand a higher capability than what the basic RN Type 31 offers. I would be surprised that OMT doesn't already have a number of unreleased digital design adaptations in their database of Type 31's with 32 Mk41VLS, deck launchers for NSM/RGM-84 etc, after all the mother design F-370 possessed such things.

Babcock can provide a UK build strategy that offers flexibility around programme requirements and capacity. However, customers may wish to develop local build and support capabilities and for this we are able to offer a range of export strategies to maximise local in-country content through design, technology and knowledge transfer.

 

[ngatimozart]

Mr C’s back of the envelope costings in the RNZ thread show that by including various capabilities into the OMT F-370 hull the cost very quickly becomes closer to the T-26.
Add to that the engineering changes, rafting machinery and other noise reduction measures and the cost quickly escalates
to a point where such an orphan hardly makes sense and a T-26 acquisition becomes logical.
T-31 is only an option for a budget constrained RNZN if it comes in its basic RN (with minimal change) configuration.
In this way the possibility of an extra hull still remains.

The F-370 design already has a machinery rafting option etc., and as Mr C states in his post above. Secondly NZ is more interested in a GP FFG, not an uber ASW dedicated FFG, so the T-26 is not necessarily the best fit, especially budget wise. Unlike the T-26, we can have a F-370 derivative built at a yard of our choice where the costs are lower and we aren't paying UK, Western European, Canadian, US, or Australian labour costs.

Secondly, it would not be an orphan because the ship's hull and machinery will be in service with the RDN: Absalon and Iver Huitfeld classes; and the RN: Type 31. The weapons, sensor and CMS fitout that both Mr C and myself are proposing is quite similar to the RCN CSC fitout. Hence we are looking at MOTS equipment that is will be in service with one or more FVEY navies. In fact using your logic, that would make the RAN AWD fleet of 3 DDG orphans as well, would it not? After are they in actuality just FFGs masquerading as DDGs?

Just because the RAN didn't chose it, doesn't make it any less of a FFG. The RAN is not the be all to end all.

 

[Systems Adict]

These days it is a profession. It isn't a particularly well paid one but Covid 19 saw an end to my day job as a CAD designer. The software used is 3ds max with photoshop and 3D-Coat for texturing.

Silly question - Have you tried applying for any roles at ASC ?

My understanding is that most of the CAD-monkeys have been working from home...

 

[ASSAIL]

The F-370 design already has a machinery rafting option etc., and as Mr C states in his post above. Secondly NZ is more interested in a GP FFG, not an uber ASW dedicated FFG, so the T-26 is not necessarily the best fit, especially budget wise. Unlike the T-26, we can have a F-370 derivative built at a yard of our choice where the costs are lower and we aren't paying UK, Western European, Canadian, US, or Australian labour costs.

Secondly, it would not be an orphan because the ship's hull and machinery will be in service with the RDN: Absalon and Iver Huitfeld classes; and the RN: Type 31. The weapons, sensor and CMS fitout that both Mr C and myself are proposing is quite similar to the RCN CSC fitout. Hence we are looking at MOTS equipment that is will be in service with one or more FVEY navies. In fact using your logic, that would make the RAN AWD fleet of 3 DDG orphans as well, would it not? After are they in actuality just FFGs masquerading as DDGs?

Just because the RAN didn't chose it, doesn't make it any less of a FFG. The RAN is not the be all to end all.

Ngati you have obviously overdone the rum ration during the break and have a sore head. The comment on “orphan” platform, particularly in this part of the world stands and yes, that’s also true of the RAN’s DDGs or FFG’s as you seem to prefer. That’s one of the reasons I have previously advocated for the Navantia frigate over the T26 before final selection even though it was a less capable ASW platform.

I was commenting on the list of options you proposed; 5”gun, 32cell Mk41, 16NSM,32 Sea Ceptor, SM2/6 et al.
Fitting all these to a T31 would increase its cost exponentially above the already suitable RN version and reduce the chance of more than 2 x hulls in the current political environment. If it were to be 2 x hulls only then that may bring the T26 into consideration.
I make no comment on the capability of a fully tricked T31, my comments were regarding cost.

 

[ngatimozart]

No ASSAIL no squirt.

I disagree with your assessment regarding costs. The RN T31 in its current form is not suitable for the RNZN. Also why would we want to deal with Babcocks when we can deal with OMT direct? Babcocks just add to the costs by clipping the ticket. We know that the sensors, weapons, C3 fitout is an expensive part, but the costings that Mr C’s provided show that we probably can do it cheaper than the T26. Also it won't be for 2 hulls but for 3. The informal backroom chatter has been that the powers that be understand that 2 frigates are not enough and 3 are required. The current ANZAC frigate upgrade program has reinforced that lesson. I am aware of the budget for the frigate replacement and I am also aware of construction costs in various parts of the world.

If I was writing from a NZG perspective, it would be:
We just don't see why we should subsidise any particular countries employment program, be it Australia, Canada, UK or US. Along with Western Europe they are the most expensive places to build ships. Our first responsibility is to the NZ taxpayer and if the ability to acquire a good quality GP FFG that has capabilities near to that of the T26 but for much less cost, then it is an avenue that must be fully explored. One of the requirements of NZ government procurement is VfM - Value for Money, and we expect that Defence follows that. Given that Defence has a fixed capital expenditure budget of $4.5 billion for the frigate replacement, it is expected that Defence will be adroit in its capability acquisition decisions.