Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Type 31 Frigate

Check_0ne_Two

Old-Salt
Welcome to spiral development. why would we say what tech is going to be on a future frigate - why not provided space and power and see what happens?

Unless you want the best of 00's tech on a Frigate entering service in the late 20s/early 30s.
So T32 is a 'funded' placeholder ?!

Christ... if nothing else this should really underline how far behind Land is to SEA and Air in promoting projects to a degree where they are tangible yet consist of nothing but hot air and spread sheets. See T32 and Tempest.
 
I make it about 50 MJ...

Whereas an 8 inch shell would have about 34MJ, though the explosive filling would add 60-70MJ. for about 100MJ total.

Also the CAMM's weight would not be 100kg, most of that will be the rocket fuel used up in flight. Likely the tube + warhead would be in the 5-10kg category. And much of that the guidance.

Also it likely wouldn't be hitting at mach 3 except at brown trousers range. Not sure what the burn time is but after that the CAMM is decelerating.

Hitting say at 10km at mach 2 with approx 10kg mass and 3 kg explosive power would probably be a reasonable and slightly generous assumption.

So likely we are looking at approx 2MJ kintetic energy.
Physics certainly isn't my area, is that enough to seriously impede anything of comparible size to T31?
 
Physics certainly isn't my area, is that enough to seriously impede anything of comparible size to T31?

Assuming it explodes on proximity - It could do a grand job of stripping antennas, and things like that - So whilst it wouldnt poke sinky holes or slow it down in any way - it would wreck its targetting ability.

However if youve got within CAAM range of a T31 sized vessel intent on doing you harm then I strongly suspect youve ither used all 12 CAAM intercepting his ASM or the 57mm is going to be rather better at poking holes. As such I think CAAMS Anti ship capabilities arent all that relevant.

Aster 30 on the other hand is probably both big and long enough ranged to ruin someones day at a reasonable distance.
 
So T32 is a 'funded' placeholder ?!

Christ... if nothing else this should really underline how far behind Land is to SEA and Air in promoting projects to a degree where they are tangible yet consist of nothing but hot air and spread sheets. See T32 and Tempest.
I very much doubt that it is "funded" in the sense that there is any significant budget for it in the Equipment Plan (10 yr horizon). There will probably be a small amount of RDEL in the programme in the last couple of years of this decade to fund the requirement and design activities. Capital spend on it is very unlikely to appear before the 2030's.

This is why, while yesterdays announcements are welcome, it does not signal an RN kit-fest. All it means are that the near-term decisions can be taken now there's a multi-year settlement and the IR can outline the pain and grief as well as the jam.

The single most important recommendation from the National Shipbuilding Strategy remains the provision of a 30 year shipbuilding plan (which T32, T4X and the research ship form part of) and an associated ring-fenced capital budget - which has been given a stiff ignoring. Until you see the latter, the former is simply aspirational.
 
I make it about 50 MJ...

Whereas an 8 inch shell would have about 34MJ, though the explosive filling would add 60-70MJ. for about 100MJ total.

Also the CAMM's weight would not be 100kg, most of that will be the rocket fuel used up in flight. Likely the tube + warhead would be in the 5-10kg category. And much of that the guidance.

Also it likely wouldn't be hitting at mach 3 except at brown trousers range. Not sure what the burn time is but after that the CAMM is decelerating.

Hitting say at 10km at mach 2 with approx 10kg mass and 3 kg explosive power would probably be a reasonable and slightly generous assumption.

So likely we are looking at approx 2MJ kintetic energy.


There’s a display one full of fresh air at NCHQ, even that was a somewhat more than 10kg lift for the chaps erecting it's 10ft long, 7” diameter.

At twice the weight, more than twice speed, and a similar sized warhead to Hellfire, Navy seems quite happy it will give small vessels a painful lesson.
 
So T32 is a 'funded' placeholder ?!

Christ... if nothing else this should really underline how far behind Land is to SEA and Air in promoting projects to a degree where they are tangible yet consist of nothing but hot air and spread sheets. See T32 and Tempest.
Au contraire. Land invented the idea - and also managed to burn hundreds of millions of pounds on it. Ever heard of FRES?
 
I very much doubt that it is "funded" in the sense that there is any significant budget for it in the Equipment Plan (10 yr horizon). There will probably be a small amount of RDEL in the programme in the last couple of years of this decade to fund the requirement and design activities. Capital spend on it is very unlikely to appear before the 2030's.

This is why, while yesterdays announcements are welcome, it does not signal an RN kit-fest. All it means are that the near-term decisions can be taken now there's a multi-year settlement and the IR can outline the pain and grief as well as the jam.

The single most important recommendation from the National Shipbuilding Strategy remains the provision of a 30 year shipbuilding plan (which T32, T4X and the research ship form part of) and an associated ring-fenced capital budget - which has been given a stiff ignoring. Until you see the latter, the former is simply aspirational.

cynical hat on.....

Some of the T23’s are how shall we put it delicately, getting on a bit (lot) and a bit frail.
fast forward, 1SL orders the deletion of the most tired T23’s and orders 5 ‘new’ Frigates.
and while the 23’s are still on the books, the ‘new’ order increases the numbers on paper.

Ah the procurement announcement number padding games people can play.
 

Check_0ne_Two

Old-Salt
Au contraire. Land invented the idea - and also managed to burn hundreds of millions of pounds on it. Ever heard of FRES?

Indeed, invented, but not learned from nor expanded upon. Since then all things blue have had CVF,T26,T31, Dreadnought etc and Atlas F35, Taranis - whatever happened there ? - Protector, Wedgetail etc. All very public and well promoted internally and externally.
 
Indeed, invented, but not learned from nor expanded upon. Since then all things blue have had CVF,T26,T31, Dreadnought etc and Atlas F35, Taranis - whatever happened there ? - Protector, Wedgetail etc. All very public and well promoted internally and externally.
To be fair, CVF, T26, Dreadnought, F35 all precede FRES by some distance. It took about twenty years and many tears for T26 to get to final approval of contract. Part of the price for which was the downscoped T31.

They also had a coherent requirement and articulated role, which I guess is where Land has been struggling.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Land / Army problems are:
  • it has forgotten what it is for,
  • ignored the reality that a light role inf bn is based on what it had on Somme and faces similar life expectancy if it ventures into sub peer combat,
  • forgot that IED's bugger up unprotected vehicles (which it learned in 40 years in Ulster, hence Iraq and Afghan Debacles,
  • persuaded itself that MBT were obsolescent
  • Made most of its armoured officers (who could actually do high tempo warfare) redundant
  • protected infantry cap badges rather than capability
  • played politics (badly) rather than soldiers (well)
... depressed and so stopping before I commit terminal thread drift
 

Himmler74

On ROPS
On ROPs
Land / Army problems are:
  • it has forgotten what it is for,
  • ignored the reality that a light role inf bn is based on what it had on Somme and faces similar life expectancy if it ventures into sub peer combat,
  • forgot that IED's bugger up unprotected vehicles (which it learned in 40 years in Ulster, hence Iraq and Afghan Debacles,
  • persuaded itself that MBT were obsolescent
  • Made most of its armoured officers (who could actually do high tempo warfare) redundant
  • protected infantry cap badges rather than capability
  • played politics (badly) rather than soldiers (well)
... depressed and so stopping before I commit terminal thread drift
Christ, PM me your details and I’ll start a crowd fund to get you a OBE
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
There’s a display one full of fresh air at NCHQ, even that was a somewhat more than 10kg lift for the chaps erecting it's 10ft long, 7” diameter.

At twice the weight, more than twice speed, and a similar sized warhead to Hellfire, Navy seems quite happy it will give small vessels a painful lesson.

Depends...

I was merely pointing out that your comparison to an 8" shell was wrong by at least an order of magnitude.

Probably a lot more, as someone else pointed out CAMM is likely proximity fuzed with shrapnel or continuous rod whereas an 8" shell would penetrate and then detonate on a downwards trajectory.

Can't imagine many good reasons why you wouldn't just use the gun... Unless by small vessels you mean boghammers.
 
Depends...

I was merely pointing out that your comparison to an 8" shell was wrong by at least an order of magnitude.

Probably a lot more, as someone else pointed out CAMM is likely proximity fuzed with shrapnel or continuous rod whereas an 8" shell would penetrate and then detonate on a downwards trajectory.

Can't imagine many good reasons why you wouldn't just use the gun... Unless by small vessels you mean boghammers.

nope, at the same baseline, ’launch’, ones going M3 vs M2.5 for the same weight. Missile packs substantially more Ke, and its the Ke that does the damage, missiles go ’splat’ transferring everything into the target, not doing a through and through leaving a neat hole as heavy shells often did against lightly built targets. A SeaCeptor hitting a corvette sized vessel will do rather more than scuff the paint.
End of the day, the end users seem happy Sea Ceptor packs a credible anti surface punch that warrants the option.
 
Last edited:
Given the headcount problems in RN the cynic in me guesses T32 may replace the OPVs?
 

philc

LE
Given the headcount problems in RN the cynic in me guesses T32 may replace the OPVs?

Report yesterday RN numbers up and basic training to start at Collingwood as well as Raleigh.
 

Rab_C

LE
Report yesterday RN numbers up and basic training to start at Collingwood as well as Raleigh.
And already up and running at BRNC. To me it does beg the question how did they get in the hole that requires 3 new entry intakes running at the same time? Or is it because the numbers per class are reduced due to Covid?
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top