Type 31 Frigate

It's a case of cut your cloth to suit your budget. The Type 31 isn't intended to be able to do everything.
Whilst I agree with the bold
Personally id rather the more expendable** 31 was doing NGS that the 26 or 45 - Can look after itself so not a sitting duck on the gunline - leaving the 'Escorts" to Escort



**In as much as it hasn't a specialist role and equipment in comparison to its brethren
 

Dafty duck

War Hero
In your own time, any RN ships that have been significantly up armed during their lifetimes.....

Looks at the whishful thinking aspiration that T45 would gain a 5” gun and Mk41 VLS
Serious question. Are you ever happy?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Hang on are you saying Sea Ceptor can not deliver 50% of the capability of Sea Dart?
Sorry. Later posts - that by @jrwlynch in particular - cover better what I was trying to say.

Sea Dart was classed as an area-defence weapon.

(And very effective it was, too. Certainly, the Argentinians, who also operated the T42/Sea Dart combo, were wary enough of it during the Falklands to come in flat on the deck during their air attacks. They knew that at altitude it'd just turn them into confetti. That necessity for low-level profiles also severely affected aircrafts' effective ranges, deterring pilots from engaging in A2A and meaning that no-one loitered over ground targets; it was 'one pass, hit the burner to get out of trouble and then coast home on fumes'. So there were probably indirect casualty reductions generated there.

Sea Dart, in GW1, was also accredited with the first kill in action against an anti-ship missile. HMS Gloucester took out a Silkworm and saved the USS Missouri's bacon.)

Sea Wolf was/is a point-defence system. From memory, the conventionally launched version used in the Falklands had a range of about three miles (or that was what was being quoted in the press at the time); the vertically launched version does about five miles.

Sea Ceptor is also point defence but in 'kinetic' terms (range, height) offers 50 percent of the performance of the previous area-defence weapon. That's before you get to what might be termed its better 'electronic' performance (again, the post by @jrwlynch applies). And that's just the official range figures...


I have no idea what a paradigm is.
 
Last edited:
So......

An Admirals aspiration to up gun his 2,500 tonne B2 OPVs with a 76mm gun, a couple of cannon is rubbished

But fitting a 6,500 tonne Frigate with a 57mm gun and a couple of cannon is a great idea.

Maybe they will name the T31’s after their equally illustrious barely armed forebears, the Blackwood Class?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
So......

An Admirals aspiration to up gun his 2,500 tonne B2 OPVs with a 76mm gun, a couple of cannon is rubbished

But fitting a 6,500 tonne Frigate with a 57mm gun and a couple of cannon is a great idea.

Maybe they will name the T31’s after their equally illustrious barely armed forebears, the Blackwood Class?
Because the only weapon on the Type 31e is the 57mm and 40mm guns, correct?

Oh, wait, 3D radar and decent combat system and 24 x Sea Ceptor, which are what actually get used for AAW and ASMD (and are conspicuous by their absence from a B2 OPV, whether it's got a 76mm or a 30mm on the forecastle)

In some strange places (those commonly known as "reality") that works out reasonably well - whereas sticking a 76mm gun on an OPV and declaring "It's now a full-spectrum warrior able to blast enemy warships to scrap, shoot down swarms of missiles, conduct area air defence..." belongs in Cloud Cuckoo Land, where it'll make Unikitty lose all her happy thoughts.
1568748699253.png
 
The first time it was recommended the RN looked hard at adopting an automatic 40mm was mid 70’s.... gun of choice back then was the DARDO Twin 40 - recommendation duly ignored as the future was going to be missiles.

Well here we are, over 40 years on and the old is the new hotness.

Still, nothing like bringing back a round you deleted, to help make the logistic nightmare the merrier.

20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 57mm, 4.5”, 5”
Just add 76mm to the OPVs and you’d have a clean sweep of everything in the book.
 
Because the only weapon on the Type 31e is the 57mm and 40mm guns, correct?

Oh, wait, 3D radar and decent combat system and 24 x Sea Ceptor, which are what actually get used for AAW and ASMD (and are conspicuous by their absence from a B2 OPV, whether it's got a 76mm or a 30mm on the forecastle)

In some strange places (those commonly known as "reality") that works out reasonably well - whereas sticking a 76mm gun on an OPV and declaring "It's now a full-spectrum warrior able to blast enemy warships to scrap, shoot down swarms of missiles, conduct area air defence..." belongs in Cloud Cuckoo Land, where it'll make Unikitty lose all her happy thoughts.
View attachment 417633

You're going to have a 6,500 tonne heavy Frigate that will be outgunned by most OPVs.
At least a Khareef comes with a bigger gun and anti ship missiles.

It would be funny If it all wasn’t so utterly predictable when big boys in Dark Blue couldn't just want what they could afford.
If they’d acted a bit more maturely and accepted a 4,000 tonne light Frigate was what they needed and could afford, they’d have ended up with a balanced design.
Alas, the idea that if you designed the biggest ship possible and left the weapons off, it would make Treasury blink and stump up an extra Billion to arm it didn’t survive contact with reality.

T31 has made FRES look like a well managed programme with its feet firmly rooted in reality.
 
One common CMS for a MineHunter, an Aircraft carrier, an LPD, an SSN and a AWW doesn't make sense. A common baseline might, with modules added to it for platform functionality, but that has other implications.
Well Canada has fewer types of ships, so this is less of a problem. The AOPVs are getting a simplified version of the same CMS as the frigates (Halifax and T-26).

I'm not saying that what the UK has in mind won't work, but it makes for an interesting contrast.

What is the plan for training simulators ashore?

At the moment making a leap away from pretty bespoke and tightly bound CMS to more OPEN capabilities is the right thing for the RN at this moment. How that then evolves is another matter,
How does an "open CMS" work? Who owns the copyrights on the software source code? How is it licensed? Or is it "open" just in the sense that there are defined interfaces which third parties can use?
 

Guns

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
The first time it was recommended the RN looked hard at adopting an automatic 40mm was mid 70’s.... gun of choice back then was the DARDO Twin 40 - recommendation duly ignored as the future was going to be missiles.

Well here we are, over 40 years on and the old is the new hotness.

Still, nothing like bringing back a round you deleted, to help make the logistic nightmare the merrier.

20mm, 30mm, 40mm, 57mm, 4.5”, 5”
Just add 76mm to the OPVs and you’d have a clean sweep of everything in the book.
What the **** do you know, you're not even able to hang around the water cooler at NCHQ anymore and will have to rely even more on Google instead of overhearing conversations or cribbing notes from the powerpoint slides you worked on adding clip art.
 
What the **** do you know, you're not even able to hang around the water cooler at NCHQ anymore and will have to rely even more on Google instead of overhearing conversations or cribbing notes from the powerpoint slides you worked on adding clip art.
You funny.
 
You're going to have a 6,500 tonne heavy Frigate that will be outgunned by most OPVs.



If they’d acted a bit more maturely and accepted a 4,000 tonne light Frigate was what they needed and could afford, they’d have ended up with a balanced design.
Why exactly is the Tonnage significant here?

You yourself have argued the T26 was delayed in design because people were stupidly conflating hull size and cost - and it was a stumbling block.

Yet here you seem to be presenting the argument that smaller = significantly cheaper
 
Why exactly is the Tonnage significant here?

You yourself have argued the T26 was delayed in design because people were stupidly conflating hull size and cost - and it was a stumbling block.

Yet here you seem to be presenting the argument that smaller = significantly cheaper
Interestingly, everything I have read states that it will be 5,700 and yet photex keeps stating 6,500?

I don't know much but if it gives the Royal Navy growth margin and allows them to upgrade them over time, what's the problem?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
And, again, larger means that you can add stuff, or have more space to carry stuff and people.

T26 is so big to allow it to do many things well. If we’ve had to downscale with the T31, I’m still glad of the size.

Certain people moaning here are the same people who gleefully highlighted the T42’s seakeeping issues - which resulted from putting a quart into a pint pot.

The real issue with T31 is rather different. For too many years our politicians have hidden behind the figleaf that fewer ships didn’t matter because the fewer were better*. Now they’re just fewer.




*Which was of course bollocks - one ship only being capable of being in one place at once.
 
Maybe they will name the T31’s after their equally illustrious barely armed forebears, the Blackwood Class?
Blackwoods were short lived because they were small hulls and incapable of being upgraded when the threat changed - I cant see that being an issue for T31
 
Interestingly, everything I have read states that it will be 5,700 and yet photex keeps stating 6,500?
Possibly Empty Vs full load


Although its equally possible Photex has decided its T31 Size/ T26 Size x T26 displacement = T31 Displacement
 
What the **** do you know, you're not even able to hang around the water cooler at NCHQ anymore and will have to rely even more on Google instead of overhearing conversations or cribbing notes from the powerpoint slides you worked on adding clip art.
Judging from the low information/abuse ratio I'd guess he might just have a point, or did you just get shit from your boss and need to vent.
 
Last edited:
What the **** do you know, you're not even able to hang around the water cooler at NCHQ anymore and will have to rely even more on Google instead of overhearing conversations or cribbing notes from the powerpoint slides you worked on adding clip art.
And you were an OF-3 or OF-4? Kindly explain to this simple C/S exactly what a T31 is designed to achieve because from where I am sat it appears that it will have the ability to protect itself from airborne threats and also the ability to engage dhows, junks, boghammers and rhibs in a hail of lead. Is this what the RN actually wanted or have they gone for the biggest hull that they could get away with and hope that at some point the Treasury will relent and allow it to carry some anti-ship missiles and a bigger gun?
 
Last edited:

Latest Threads

Top