Type 31 Frigate

They certainly drink plenty of that in the Admiralty

Where to start?
Tigerfish? Our all singing all dancing wunderwaffe torpedo that wasn't so wunder and didn't waffe?
20 years to get into service, a terror to the boats firing it, (it did manage to score a hit in tests, on the boat that fired it) utterly innocuous to the enemy. Amazing weapon, in tests to prove how wonderful it was after the Falklands, all 5 didn't work, well actually only two didn't work, the other 3 went off and missed the target.
But hey! It was so much better on paper than that rubbish American torpedo we considered buying in the 60's and everyone else did - that worked.

The relentless desire for the 'perfect' weapon or system that almost invariably sees us ended up with something that doesn't work, or costs a fortune and is decades late and rapidly nearing obsolesence by the time it does. See the GMD's entering service in the 60's with 'anti aircraft' missiles designed to shoot down Dorniers - alas, the jet age came along while we got them to work(wish), once they completed the 20 minute warm up on the valves. If ever there was a well named missile, it was SeaSlug - it was certainly slow, who needs supersonic anti aircraft missiles!

They should pin a huge sign over 1SL's desk 'The perfect is the enemy of good enough'

We aim for the 'perfect', then can't even afford the good enough when the 'perfect' fails.
You provide no value to this thread or forum.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
They certainly drink plenty of that in the Admiralty

Where to start?
Tigerfish? Our all singing all dancing wunderwaffe torpedo that wasn't so wunder and didn't waffe?
20 years to get into service, a terror to the boats firing it, (it did manage to score a hit in tests, on the boat that fired it) utterly innocuous to the enemy.
1591111988677.png


Yep, innocuous and ineffective, never worked... oh, wait a minute, the actual trials of Mk 24 Mod 2 would strongly disagree.

Then there's the lightweight torpedo side of the shop, where we fielded Sting Ray - knocking Mk 46 into a cocked hat. So the US decided they were going to develop their Mark 50 "Advanced Light Weight Torpedo" which was going to be the besterest torpedo in the world, with computer controlled guidance (only a decade behind Sting Ray) and a super-duper closed-cycle thermal propulsion system, and apparently we were idiots for going it alone with a UK solution when the US were so much better at everything.

After all, when your power-up procedure is "melt a block of lithium metal with pyrotechnic squibs, react it with fluorine gas to make heat, flash some water to steam to spin a turbine, condense the steam using the weapon's skin as a heat exchanger..." nothing could possibly go wrong.

Once it got to the point that the designers were not-so-politely told there was no way this self-combusting pressure vessel was ever getting cleared to be carried and dropped by manned aircraft, the US fell back on the tried and true solution: they lined up the 1980s homing electronics of the Mark 50, the 1960s propulsion of the Mark 46, and the 1940s warhead of the Mark 44, and - with the aid of big Stilson wrenches and some black nasty - graunched them together into the "Mark 54 Lightweight Hybrid", less kindly known as "Frankentorpedo"...
 
Once it got to the point that the designers were not-so-politely told there was no way this self-combusting pressure vessel was ever getting cleared to be carried and dropped by manned aircraft, the US fell back on the tried and true solution: they lined up the 1980s homing electronics of the Mark 50, the 1960s propulsion of the Mark 46, and the 1940s warhead of the Mark 44, and - with the aid of big Stilson wrenches and some black nasty - graunched them together into the "Mark 54 Lightweight Hybrid", less kindly known as "Frankentorpedo"...
Isn't this what our P-8A's are meant to be carrying?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Isn't this what our P-8A's are meant to be carrying?
Sadly so - the wing kit needed for Sting Ray, and the integration costs, would have been serious money for a small batch.

They eventually coaxed decent performance out of the Mk 54, but it took them a long time - it did very poorly in OT&E in the early noughties, was handwaved in because peace dividend and nobody cared about ASW because of Iraq/Afghanistan, and they only started getting serious about it when the Chinese started getting assertive about the Nine Dash Line.
 
So basically “the requirements are appropriate because they are the requirements”?
When coming up with requirements you need to look at how each ship design fits in with the entire navy and the jobs it needs to do. I don't have the document that does that, but I know that this is the basis for starting requirements for anything.

Before you start saying that "a 127mm gun would be useful for providing naval fire support", you have to answer how the T31 will fit in with the RN in situations where that is required. Will they even be present in the area, or will they be off doing other jobs in other parts of the world?

If the primary role of the T31 is to protect British trade around the world, then a 57mm gun is probably a pretty useful thing to have and will handle fast attack craft quite handily.

The T31 is called a "frigate", but so far as I am aware it will be doing a lot of the work that in the early 20th century between the wars was being done by some of the classes of light cruisers on foreign stations. They didn't have the biggest guns or the thickest armour or the highest speed of any of their contemporaries, but they had enough of each to meet the expected opposition and they had the range and endurance to operate in support of a global empire. They probably won't win a top trumps competition when playing video games today, but they did the job they were built for, and their cost was low enough to be built in enough numbers given the restraints on the budget which existed at the time.
 
So basically “the requirements are appropriate because they are the requirements”?
No - He clearly stated it was entirely appropriate for the requirements.

Whether the requirements are correct is a separate issue - Requirements are to an extent political - The government decides what it wants the armed forces to do* (or in the case of A400, Aster, T45 Engines what it will buy) - Whether the focused tasks and associated requirements = equipping to fight the wrong war only time will tell. On the upside T31 is big enough that dropping in a 5 inch ( to future builds) should requirements dictate ** with minimal rework of design.

*This of course changes every few years and since projects take a few years to deliver , Hence The Army /Navy / Airforce are always behind the times idiots buying the wrong kit in certain posters eyes

**With the obvious caveat that the space required for a 5 inch is left free on the current design and not encroached upon. I would assume not as BMT have said 5inch is an option and logically designing everything around that but fitting a smaller gun would save them a lot of work if an export order materialises.
 
No - He clearly stated it was entirely appropriate for the requirements.

Whether the requirements are correct is a separate issue - Requirements are to an extent political - The government decides what it wants the armed forces to do* (or in the case of A400, Aster, T45 Engines what it will buy) - Whether the focused tasks and associated requirements = equipping to fight the wrong war only time will tell. On the upside T31 is big enough that dropping in a 5 inch ( to future builds) should requirements dictate ** with minimal rework of design.

*This of course changes every few years and since projects take a few years to deliver , Hence The Army /Navy / Airforce are always behind the times idiots buying the wrong kit in certain posters eyes

**With the obvious caveat that the space required for a 5 inch is left free on the current design and not encroached upon. I would assume not as BMT have said 5inch is an option and logically designing everything around that but fitting a smaller gun would save them a lot of work if an export order materialises.
I think you misunderstood me. My initial question to @Joe_Private was whether he agreed with the requirements (which he helpfully shared earlier). His reply to me was to again quote the same requirements he already shared and agree that the 57mm met them. :?

The latter part of your post is exactly what I was getting at though.
 
Are you that dull or purposely just ignoring posts. Go find your favourite tool, use Google maps and locate New Zealand. Then look around for the next biggest contemporary Navy and join the dots.

If they can eventually join up with the RAN and have hull commonality they will make an enormous logistical and strategic saving. It really is as simple as that and the may be able to continue to pick the best elements of US and UK capabilities and direction as they do now.



The Government made the decision for 8 + 5 not the MoD so get over it, decision made, move on. Your retirement will be a lot happier.

There are pros & cons for the argument for the RN having GP 26, the reality is there isn't such a thing as an austere T26, the cost and manpower savings simply aren't there. And you can argue all you like, you will not change the immutable fact, the RN will get T26 and T31.
see them T26’s, they are built in the UK too, but you seem to think it’s impossible to gain any reduction in unit costs by increasing our build quantity.

RNZN : 2 T26 added to the tail of the RAN build of 9 renders T31 uncompetitive.
RN : despite its original claim. 5 austere T26 were the way to go, it’s now unpossible to build 5 austere T26 on top of the 8 high end T26 and gain the same savings the RNZN see and we originally planned for.

and if you think the unique equipment fit T31 are not going to be an expensive PITA to run and man, want to buy a Bridge? short batches of orphan kit always ends up costing lots.
where are you magicking all the training, support and logs chains for all its unique weapons and equipment fits from? Of course you might just decide not to train people to fix things like the odd man out guns and rely on sending home to BAE, but that defo won’t be cheap as they bend you over.

‘you can’t build an austere T26! - despite that being exactly what the RNZN intends to do = We got it wrong with the £500 million T31 OPV that’s now nearly as big and nearly as expensive as T26, and now need to big it up to save face.


T31 will deliver nothing a stretched B3 OPV would have, except a much bigger bill, less teeth, and lots of loose ends.
...land considering that’s exactly what T31 is going to do, be a 1 4 1 replacement for forward based B2’s, that’s not very smart procurement.
And don’t blame MoD, it was clever Admirals who thought they were being oh so clever stretching a 4,000 tonne light patrol Frigate into a 7,000 tonne OPV

now that really would have delivered savings, all OPVs and light frigates based on the same basic BAE design, equipment and weapons fit.
 
So basically “the requirements are appropriate because they are the requirements”?
you’re Getting it.

and if the requirement turns out not to be appropriate, you move your goalposts so it is now appropriate. Doctrine shall fit the equipment available, not equipment shall fit the doctrine.
 
see them T26’s, they are built in the UK too, but you seem to think it’s impossible to gain any reduction in unit costs by increasing our build quantity.

RNZN : 2 T26 added to the tail of the RAN build of 9 renders T31 uncompetitive.
RN : despite its original claim. 5 austere T26 were the way to go, it’s now unpossible to build 5 austere T26 on top of the 8 high end T26 and gain the same savings the RNZN see and we originally planned for.

and if you think the unique equipment fit T31 are not going to be an expensive PITA to run and man, want to buy a Bridge? short batches of orphan kit always ends up costing lots.
where are you magicking all the training, support and logs chains for all its unique weapons and equipment fits from? Of course you might just decide not to train people to fix things like the odd man out guns and rely on sending home to BAE, but that defo won’t be cheap as they bend you over.

‘you can’t build an austere T26! - despite that being exactly what the RNZN intends to do = We got it wrong with the £500 million T31 OPV that’s now nearly as big and nearly as expensive as T26, and now need to big it up to save face.


T31 will deliver nothing a stretched B3 OPV would have, except a much bigger bill, less teeth, and lots of loose ends.
...land considering that’s exactly what T31 is going to do, be a 1 4 1 replacement for forward based B2’s, that’s not very smart procurement.
And don’t blame MoD, it was clever Admirals who thought they were being oh so clever stretching a 4,000 tonne light patrol Frigate into a 7,000 tonne OPV

now that really would have delivered savings, all OPVs and light frigates based on the same basic BAE design, equipment and weapons fit.
I'd love to destroy this post, but as I like my job I'll stick to the bits in the public domain.

1)Bridge - are you sure this will be orphan - look at the provider for T26, T45 and T31: link here More details of the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate emerge

2) £500 million? WTF how have you got to that number?

3) But small gun - which meets the requirements set. Is the requirement set right? - I don't know, my crystal ball is broken. And designed around a 5" gun being able to be fitted for export customers

4) it's just a big OPV - no, it is a frigate, designed to a set of requirments for a price. it has room to grow and change and adapt, that is called intelligent design.

5) what export orders they are all buying T26 including the impossible austere ones - so far, bearing in mind the first T26 is quite advanced in build, making salkes much simpler, the T31 has not yet had steel cut, but export is still very much in the picture if you actually know anything about the project.

and now I am going to go back into not talking about T31 on here as I like my job.
 
Doesn't the LCS also mount the 57mm giving commonality with a key ally ( curiously overlooked by the same poster whose other raison D'etre is banging the bespoke UK kit drum ) a vessel which ludicrous speed requirement aside is very much a light Frigate. With the US now looking to procure a more capable Escort for the more demanding tasks.

Spruance, FFGX, LCS
T45, T26, T31

Perhaps the Navy isn't as daft as some think
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Doesn't the LCS also mount the 57mm giving commonality with a key ally ( curiously overlooked by the same poster whose other raison D'etre is banging the bespoke UK kit drum ) a vessel which ludicrous speed requirement aside is very much a light Frigate. With the US now looking to procure a more capable Escort for the more demanding tasks.

Spruance, FFGX, LCS
T45, T26, T31

Perhaps the Navy isn't as daft as some think
Also the Canadians, who are famously bad at naval warfare, run with the 57mm on their frigates. Obviously they're all know-nothing idiots too.

It's almost as if it's more complicated than slapping a 76mm gun on the forecastle of an OPV and declaring that it can now take on the Pyotr Velilky single-handed...
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
you’re Getting it.

and if the requirement turns out not to be appropriate, you move your goalposts so it is now appropriate. Doctrine shall fit the equipment available, not equipment shall fit the doctrine.
Utter, predictable, rubbish.

You set your project/procurement up and you have to jump through a lot of hoops because you're spending vast sums of public money. Whilst we whine about the process, it's there for good reason.

Your requirements are scrutinised. Firstly the JROC will wire brush them to ensure your KURS are absolutely in line with strategic direction and you're not attempting to gild the lilly. That's all done at the strategic level with VCDS chairing the session with CSA, and all of the sS Heads of Capability.

Meanwhile at a more tactical level DPAS/Scrutiny in MoD have independent technical scrutineers who pour over your Operational Analysis (the need) and your detailed requirements (the URD) in microscopic detail, to make sure you're asking for the right things, you can evidence why, you know where your trade space is and you are set for an affordable procurement. Then we can talk about how risks and 3rd Order Assumptions are managed, in equal detail with equal rigour and scrutiny.

So whilst idiots like PhotEx from the safety of their keyboards like to make out this is some amateur hour exercise, the reality couldn't be further from the truth.
 

A2_Matelot

LE
Book Reviewer
‘you can’t build an austere T26! - despite that being exactly what the RNZN intends to do
I'd love to know who you talk to in the RNZN by the way, given Te Mana and Te Haha haven't even finished FSU and returned to the Fleet yet, it'll be a long time before RNZN looks to new Frigates.
 

Latest Threads

Top