Type 31 Frigate

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
I am still limited in what I can discuss, but the 57mm will do all the tasks set out in the requirements to an adequate level.

If those requirements are correct is a slightly different question to why not a bigger gun.

To answer the "why not a bigger gun?"

A significant length of time was spent, by gunnery experts, looking at what weapon system would fulfil the requirements best, with some excellent analysis of both the physical effect of the weapons involved and the maintainability and so forth. The 57mm was the most effective, given the constraints of budget, time, training and so forth.

It also does all the jobs asked.

"Was the spec right?"

Unless you have seen the full requirements set (and I doubt you have), you don't know. I think it reflects a fair stab at what we want this platform to do in the future. ETA and that is all it will ever be...
Bugger what gunnery experts want, the armchair Admirals and retired-but never-really-were-involved on Arrse know way better! Even when they proclaim to have no such knowledge....

A little knowledge is very dangerous and doubly so when not sighted on the context nor wider issues and some people would do well to accept that.

Time to leave this thread.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Regarding CMS , how far does MoD cast it's net ?
Open commercial competition, open globally.

We do have good knowledge of most of the CMS in use and being developed. Navy to Navy links help us understand the realities as opposed to the commercial spin too.

Do we look at the stuff the Israelis use for their Saar 5/6 ? Their ENTCS is allegedly cots based and open systems architecture and all those jazz phrases.
Or would getting our stuff to talk to it give too much away ?
There are innumerable suppliers who all say the same. At the end of the day there is a competition against a requirements set that is very mature and detailed and the suppliers have to demonstrate against that and we choose the best on satisfying the requirements, which are functional and non-functional.
 
Open commercial competition, open globally.

We do have good knowledge of most of the CMS in use and being developed. Navy to Navy links help us understand the realities as opposed to the commercial spin too.



There are innumerable suppliers who all say the same. At the end of the day there is a competition against a requirements set that is very mature and detailed and the suppliers have to demonstrate against that and we choose the best on satisfying the requirements, which are functional and non-functional.
The other thing a lot of people forget with COTS and Open Architecture is that the RN as a 'blue water' navy often have tougher requirements than many others, this will often mean COTS have to be modified or protected and you would be better off with MOTS or even purpose designed - sometimes even cheaper! The Open Architecture piece is a balance between ease of update and integration and the security aspects.

Oh, and it might be worth looking at the selected CMS and if it also has features that are being shouted about....the BAES offering...I have an opinion on the claims....
 
Risking what are now essentially billion pound capital ships for NGS in littoral waters when they are at their most vulnerable by far?

That’s like fitting your SSBNs with cruise missiles and deleting them from your SSKs. Someone asks how you’ll attack land targets from beneath the sea and you say “we send the SSBNs”.
We don’t have SSK, We have SSN. When do you go back to school?
 
I am still limited in what I can discuss, but the 57mm will do all the tasks set out in the requirements to an adequate level.

If those requirements are correct is a slightly different question to why not a bigger gun.

To answer the "why not a bigger gun?"

A significant length of time was spent, by gunnery experts, looking at what weapon system would fulfil the requirements best, with some excellent analysis of both the physical effect of the weapons involved and the maintainability and so forth. The 57mm was the most effective, given the constraints of budget, time, training and so forth.

It also does all the jobs asked.

"Was the spec right?"

Unless you have seen the full requirements set (and I doubt you have), you don't know. I think it reflects a fair stab at what we want this platform to do in the future. ETA and that is all it will ever be...
Are the requirements ultimately made public? As you point out, they are much, much more important (and interesting) at a policy level than the kit chosen to meet them.
 
Are the requirements ultimately made public? As you point out, they are much, much more important (and interesting) at a policy level than the kit chosen to meet them.
Generally no. For very good reasons. Proliferation of M3 cricket balls (as an example of a "public" requirement) is a serious issue.....

If Achmed the Awful discovers the Dukes ball we're in serious bother.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
The other thing a lot of people forget with COTS and Open Architecture is that the RN as a 'blue water' navy often have tougher requirements than many others, this will often mean COTS have to be modified or protected and you would be better off with MOTS or even purpose designed - sometimes even cheaper! The Open Architecture piece is a balance between ease of update and integration and the security aspects.

Oh, and it might be worth looking at the selected CMS and if it also has features that are being shouted about....the BAES offering...I have an opinion on the claims....
The RN is really evolving how C2 systems afloat are deployed and integrated. Warships are getting more and more complex with many capabilities the average person will never be exposed to. The integration of these into the CMS and into other systems for monitoring and protection are equally complex and a lot of work has been done to reduce the complexity, increase assurance and make updates more agile. The so what is a model that is highly cohesive (well defined functions) and low coupling (interaction) is now in play which reduces OEM lockdown and IPR issues and allows for more agile capability insertion. Low coupling means that where we need to make specific changes for an RN system or capability we can, more quickly and at less cost, and we own the interfaces.

It may seem counter intuitive, but this means we can choose the best CMS per platform, the training and support burdens are quite small. The benefits it brings in terms of capability insertion hugely outweighs the disadvantages, and it also means we can take an approach that allows the RN to see a global market and select best of breed.
 
Are the requirements ultimately made public? As you point out, they are much, much more important (and interesting) at a policy level than the kit chosen to meet them.

57mm gun? It was the cheapest option.
The 76mm can do everything it does and more, like NGS, but is a bit dearer.
But hey! NGS is so last century! Which is why our all singing, all dancing best of class ASW dedicated Frigate comes with a 5" gun optimised for things like NGS

See them dots? They don't join when its all about the money.

Now you may well ask, why not do a switcherroo and fit the 57mm to the T26 as its going to be a Carrier escort, and put the 5" on the cheap and cheerful and expected to loiter in the littorals T31?
(See Falklands where NGS was the stock in trade of the cheap and cheerful T21)
Well, that might mean admitting you got things a bit wrong, the Treasury called your bluff, and that simply wont do.
 
Last edited:
The RN is really evolving how C2 systems afloat are deployed and integrated. Warships are getting more and more complex with many capabilities the average person will never be exposed to. The integration of these into the CMS and into other systems for monitoring and protection are equally complex and a lot of work has been done to reduce the complexity, increase assurance and make updates more agile. The so what is a model that is highly cohesive (well defined functions) and low coupling (interaction) is now in play which reduces OEM lockdown and IPR issues and allows for more agile capability insertion. Low coupling means that where we need to make specific changes for an RN system or capability we can, more quickly and at less cost, and we own the interfaces.

It may seem counter intuitive, but this means we can choose the best CMS per platform, the training and support burdens are quite small. The benefits it brings in terms of capability insertion hugely outweighs the disadvantages, and it also means we can take an approach that allows the RN to see a global market and select best of breed.

Very good, except we're not going to see this system retrofitted across the fleet and it will remain an orphan system on a low end B2 OPV on steroids constabulary ship so none of its ability to insert new wunderwaffe will ever come to pass. Its was chosen because it was popular abroad when the T31 was an 'e'.
Unique guns, unique CMS, uniquely bad decisions all down the line that will make them an orphan fleet of 5 with all the non transferrable skills fun and games that will bring.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
Very good, except we're not going to see this system retrofitted across the fleet and it will remain an orphan system on a notionally low end constabulary ship so none of its ability to insert new wunderwaffe will ever come to pass. Its was chosen because it was popular abroad when the T31 was an 'e'.
Unique guns, unique CMS, uniquely bad decisions all down the line that will make them an orphan fleet of 5 with all the non transferrable skills fun and games that will bring.
Once again you miss the entire point and don't have visibility of the way this is being developed.

Two platforms types already using this model; T45, QEC and T26 will use the same model - the actual CMS used is increasingly irrelevant as long as it meets the functions we need, and by platform/role this is different hence different CMS. The work is done "under the hood" and this is where the wider fleet coherence is achieved and where the effects are best delivered.

As for your uneducated option around B2OPV - some integration enhancements are already in service. So, you're utterly wrong and out of your depth here.
 
Maybe, maybe not.
I have a suspicion Boris and Rishi may be planning on spending their way out of the apocalypse/
Any spending, and investment for growth is fine - even for a Tory gov now, will need to be on visible infra that the public can see. It's as much about the next elections and the one after as anything. NHS, roads...ARPA....

Mr Cummings doesn't have a sympathetic view of defence budget handling so MoD/Services will have to up their game considerably before getting a slice of that pie.
 
Mr Cummings doesn't have a sympathetic view of defence budget handling so MoD/Services will have to up their game considerably before getting a slice of that pie.
I think that DC needs to up his game considerably too; he almost lost his job a week ago, so picking additional battles in Whitehall, particularly against foes who might be otherwise well-disposed towards his boss, would be unwise to say the least.
 
The RN is really evolving how C2 systems afloat are deployed and integrated. Warships are getting more and more complex with many capabilities the average person will never be exposed to. The integration of these into the CMS and into other systems for monitoring and protection are equally complex and a lot of work has been done to reduce the complexity, increase assurance and make updates more agile. The so what is a model that is highly cohesive (well defined functions) and low coupling (interaction) is now in play which reduces OEM lockdown and IPR issues and allows for more agile capability insertion. Low coupling means that where we need to make specific changes for an RN system or capability we can, more quickly and at less cost, and we own the interfaces.

It may seem counter intuitive, but this means we can choose the best CMS per platform, the training and support burdens are quite small. The benefits it brings in terms of capability insertion hugely outweighs the disadvantages, and it also means we can take an approach that allows the RN to see a global market and select best of breed.
Agreed!
 
I think that DC needs to up his game considerably too; he almost lost his job a week ago, so picking additional battles in Whitehall, particularly against foes who might be otherwise well-disposed towards his boss, would be unwise to say the least.
On that side he and I are similar....we DGAF ;-) All he has to do is point at the ONS reports various and stand back with his eyebrows raised in question.
 
The RN is really evolving how C2 systems afloat are deployed and integrated. Warships are getting more and more complex with many capabilities the average person will never be exposed to. The integration of these into the CMS and into other systems for monitoring and protection are equally complex and a lot of work has been done to reduce the complexity, increase assurance and make updates more agile. The so what is a model that is highly cohesive (well defined functions) and low coupling (interaction) is now in play which reduces OEM lockdown and IPR issues and allows for more agile capability insertion. Low coupling means that where we need to make specific changes for an RN system or capability we can, more quickly and at less cost, and we own the interfaces.

It may seem counter intuitive, but this means we can choose the best CMS per platform, the training and support burdens are quite small. The benefits it brings in terms of capability insertion hugely outweighs the disadvantages, and it also means we can take an approach that allows the RN to see a global market and select best of breed.
TL;DR - dabbers are thick. Give them fisher-price control systems.
 
We don’t have cruise missiles on our SSBNs either. Clearly you don’t understand the use of analogies.
There’s a reason we don’t have them on SSBN’s, do you know why?
 
Are the requirements ultimately made public? As you point out, they are much, much more important (and interesting) at a policy level than the kit chosen to meet them.
Actually, yes. The specific requirements for guns was stated to be "Medium and smaller calibre guns to provide highly visible deterrent and range effects for Maritime Interdiction, to be capable of engaging small vessels of up to FAC size, and surviving attacks".
 
Once again you miss the entire point and don't have visibility of the way this is being developed.

The standard excuse for justifying cocked procurement since 1977 to my personal experience.

'You don't understand the picture'…

Oh we do, time after time after time after time, the RN buys the wrong things for the wrong reasons then blows smoke up its own derrière to try and pretend it was their cunning plan all along.


You were told there was only money for a better OPV, you tried to be clever and grow it into a proper frigate, Treasury outsmarted you, and now you've got the worlds biggest OPV with no ability to do anything to the targets in the littorals its expected to intimidate, and every almost system unique to an orphan class of 5 ships.

And just for a laugh, massively increased your training, support and logistics burden on guns

Look at yourself in a mirror… how did you go from 20mm, 40mm and 4.5" to just about every single naval calibre known to man in the space of a generation of 'rationalisation' and 'standardisation'?

Thats why the navy is skint - Its almost an article of faith, never buy what anyone else uses or we already use, buy different, get a BZ!

Radars, sonars, guns, engines, missiles, CMS, always buy different even across your own fleet,

You laughed and sneered an the French and Italians for putting a 76mm gun on their 'T45' Destroyers, then put the ancient 4.5" gun, a fabulously expensive radar only it uses, an el cheapo sonar only used on a Brazilian Corvette and weird engines on our 'T45'.
At least their every man and his dog uses them engines worked, their sonar is a rather better one, and their every man and his dog uses them guns are still best of class, and their 'inferior' radar seems good enough to allow them kill everything from actual ballistic missiles and actual M3 anti ship missiles, while we still content ourselves with shooting down the odd model plane with ours and telling ourselves it must be better because its ours.
 
Actually, yes. The specific requirements for guns was stated to be "Medium and smaller calibre guns to provide highly visible deterrent and range effects for Maritime Interdiction, to be capable of engaging small vessels of up to FAC size, and surviving attacks".

Point of order, the original KUR specified a medium calibre gun greater than 57mm and a couple of 30mm guns. Hence all the initial design studies used a 76mm gun as the baseline fit - and the general gasps of surprise when the rather svelte 57mm sprung out of fresh air.

However, its will come with just a basic self defence missile fit - and the 'ability' to operate a proper helicopter, as specified in the KUR, if we had any to spare, which we don't. So its going to be a UAV.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top