Type 31 Frigate

So the Government in their wisdom have deigned to create a Type 31 Frigate.

Now @Not a Boffin would welcome such a development in the sense of design continuity.

However, the Government have suggested that it might be a bought in design.

Others have argued over Hull design on the Type 26 thread.

What should a GP Frigate look like?
@Cold_Collation @History_Man @jim30 @Not a Boffin @One_of_the_strange @jrwlynch @Guns @Bouillabaisse et al

Please feel free to invite your friends to the bun fight.

Knowing nothing, using the same hull (sic) as a T26 thereby giving greater space, due to lack of the sonar, would create a good platform for international sales when the train was getting ready to leave the platform from so many countries. Creating a new design may mean we miss the train.

T26 suggests some great design. The old adage is if it is not broke, why fix it... Yes, I know the platform has not even had metal cut...
 
Makes sense to me - keeps design skills current - which in turn reduces costs.

Hopefully by 2025 the RN can Aspire to 8 ASW 8GP and ultimately replacing 6 by T45 with 8x new class (mid 30s)
24 Ships 1 a year 24 year Life.
Export the designs.
 

Subsunk

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Big, lots of internal volume for additional personnel or civvies being evacuated. A big hangar and flight deck able to take anything up to Chinook and/or Osprey. A modular design to allow additional, containerised kit such as UAVs, SIGINT/COMINT teams and their kit, containerised accommodation or pollution control kit, Maritime Battlestaff or SF head sheds. The ability to take a clip-on towed array sonar and autonomous mine-clearing or survey vehicles. A 155mm gun and 360 degree coverage by close-in weapons systems. For starters. Have it built by Damen, we're paying out more and more and getting less and less from this country's defence sector.
 
Hmmmm. The original Venator concept was aimed at the old S2C2, C3 space - aka MHC. It's been around for at least 6 years. Not sure they've done much to it since then - but as ever with BMT, they make a good stab at getting in the right ballpark. Not convinced a 107m ship with a 18m beam is going to be easy to get >25 kts, or that there are enough bodies to run picture compilation and man boats on a sustained basis, but that's not the point right now.
 
Hmmmm. The original Venator concept was aimed at the old S2C2, C3 space - aka MHC. It's been around for at least 6 years. Not sure they've done much to it since then - but as ever with BMT, they make a good stab at getting in the right ballpark. Not convinced a 107m ship with a 18m beam is going to be easy to get >25 kts, or that there are enough bodies to run picture compilation and man boats on a sustained basis, but that's not the point right now.
Slight drift - but T26 is estimated to save 40 or 50 Bodies over T26 + I would expect that to have a knock on effect to Topmast or whatever that squadding thing was called).

Expecting the same for T31 - over a dozen ships that saves 4 or 500 bodies - Surely another hull or 2 can be eked out of that.
(offsetting purchase costs against some savings in manpower)
 
Thanks people. @Lindermyer sorry I did not get you and @meerkatz in the original list.

OK, I am out. Hope the thread runs and generates discussion.
Im not a navy type, nor do I work in ship building as such my understanding is limited and on some issues extrapolating from my experience in aviation (ie complications, testing ) No reason I would appear on your list
 
Im not a navy type, nor do I work in ship building as such my understanding is limited and on some issues extrapolating from my experience in aviation (ie complications, testing ) No reason I would appear on your list
Don't put yourself down. You do add to the party @Lindermyer :)
 
Build fast, build it quick, build it cheap or don't bother building it at all.

Corvettes ahoy!
 
Hmmmm. The original Venator concept was aimed at the old S2C2, C3 space - aka MHC. It's been around for at least 6 years. Not sure they've done much to it since then - but as ever with BMT, they make a good stab at getting in the right ballpark. Not convinced a 107m ship with a 18m beam is going to be easy to get >25 kts, or that there are enough bodies to run picture compilation and man boats on a sustained basis, but that's not the point right now.

MHC, that seems awefully quiet. Suspect this 'at least 5' GP Frigates requirement will fill that space. BMT certainly pitched a good product with the Tides.
 
MHC, that seems awefully quiet. Suspect this 'at least 5' GP Frigates requirement will fill that space. BMT certainly pitched a good product with the Tides.
The reason for that is twofold.

1. Until the frigate issue is sorted, it's a secondary priority and that includes money. People sometimes forget that part of the S2C2 / C1/C2/C3 wheeze was to add the long-term provision for Hunt/Sandown/Island/IPS/Scott recapitalisation to the frigate pot. All based on getting over the low (MCM) signature and shock issues bit of the requirement by the use of "offboard systems/autonomy". Lots of people think this will magically allow the use of PSV/OSV as a platform of opportunity, enabled by the magic of NEC/autonomy. A somewhat unproven hypothesis......but one that has any money for MHC out in the mid to late 20s.

2. Autonomy / offboard systems are still a long way off providing all the capability current manned MCMV currently do. Not much point programming "simple" ships in until you're confident that you won't have to change course and build a new generation of tupperwares.
 
@Kromeriz, apologies for the delay in replying, but here are my thoughts for what they are worth; 5,000 tons displacement, 5" inch gun for NGS, CAAM for air defence, CIWS, Harpoon (or whatever replaces it), a hanger for for Wildcat/Merlin and a flightdeck capable of operating Chinook, and sufficient ASW capability for self-protection with embarked aircraft for more offensive ASW operations (apologies to A_T_G and Guns for the less-than-technical terminology here). Finally, optimised for operations in the littoral, with the ability to embark an RM/SF Troop for a sustained period. Not too much to ask is it?
 
@Kromeriz, apologies for the delay in replying, but here are my thoughts for what they are worth; 5,000 tons displacement, 5" inch gun for NGS, CAAM for air defence, CIWS, Harpoon (or whatever replaces it), a hanger for for Wildcat/Merlin and a flightdeck capable of operating Chinook, and sufficient ASW capability for self-protection with embarked aircraft for more offensive ASW operations (apologies to A_T_G and Guns for the less-than-technical terminology here). Finally, optimised for operations in the littoral, with the ability to embark an RM/SF Troop for a sustained period. Not too much to ask is it?
Sounds almost like a T....
 
I foresee towed array being needed again. Should never have binned the T22s.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Latest Threads

Top