Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Scimitar54]

mrclark303 wrote:-

Hopefully Mk41 will go ahead on T31, it makes them far more flexible ships with different potential load outs.

As a consequence of the uncertainty as to the contents of each vessels Mk41 silo’s, the T31s would become much more of a headache for both actual or potential adversaries.

[Ron5]

Sigh.

No reputable source has said the Type 31's will be getting Mk41's with ExLs. Hence it is a figment of imagination.

How the Poles and Saudi's configure their ships has fuck all to do with it.

Why do you have to be so obnoxious?

How the Saudis and Poles configure their ships is very relevant. The Saudis in terms of LM and MBDA working together to deliver CAMM in EXLS and the Poles even more so as T31 and the Polish ship are the same ship are from the same supplier with same CMS and larger but common basis weapons fit and UK\Poland are in partnership to develop CAMM together.

Relevant to the fact that no reputable source has said the RN's Type 31's will get Mk41's equipped with ExLs? No.

Not really.
If RN want Mk41 on T31, which serving officer have indicated haven't they? T31 will still need CAMM. This could be done with a small Mk41 install combined with a couple of 2x6 mushroom launchers.

But developments elsewhere with Babcock, MBDA, LM on fitting CAMM in EXLS\Mk41 on Polish Swordfish, Saudi LSC, Canadian CSC have been progressing. So maybe a different solution has revealed itself.

Plus there was the odd update of the RN website suggesting T26 will have EXLS.

If I said grass was green, you'd argue it was purple

[new guy]

[Poiuytrewq]

[Ron5]

That's not going to be in the water anytime soon. So 3 months late and counting.

PS looks like its Bob's day to work at Govan

[Fr0sty125]

Does anyone know the cost of CAPTAS-2 and why it why it was discounted for the Type 31?

[Poiuytrewq]

That's not going to be in the water anytime soon. So 3 months late and counting.

PS looks like its Bob's day to work at Govan

It looks like June/July at the earliest.

[Ron5]

Does anyone know the cost of CAPTAS-2 and why it why it was discounted for the Type 31?

Not in the requirement and even if it was, not containable within the budget.

Supposedly, the design allows for a later fit of a HMS of indeterminate origin.

[donald_of_tokyo]

That's not going to be in the water anytime soon. So 3 months late and counting.

PS looks like its Bob's day to work at Govan

It looks like June/July at the earliest.

According to this story, we should be amazed at the super fast progress:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-fri ... e-factory/

[donald_of_tokyo]

That's not going to be in the water anytime soon. So 3 months late and counting.

PS looks like its Bob's day to work at Govan

It looks like June/July at the earliest.

According to this story, we should be amazed at the super fast progress:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-fri ... e-factory/

But, in reality, Babcock is a ship builder with no experience on escort, and only a little experience on OPVs, while Odens was a shipyard with many orders, backed by the world larges sealift company. Big disadvantage, Babcock has. So, yes, I am amazed at the progress.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Discussion on the missile fit out is there. George knows something which we do not, or it is actually his own analysis (which shall be appreciated to some extent, he lives there and can listen to more rumors than us (or, at least me in the far east) ).

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-fri ... e-factory/

The vertical launching system for the Type 31 and its associated missile loadout has gone through a number of revisions over the course of its development. Originally, the design would retain, but would however be “fitted-for-but-not-with” its 32-cell strike length Mark 41 Vertical Launching System and in its place was to be a Sea Ceptor 24-cell ‘mushroom farm’ in a similar configuration as found on the Type 23 frigates.

This was later revised with a more modular version of the launcher. However, on 17 May 2023, the First Sea Lord Ben Key stated that Type 31 frigates will, in fact, be fitted with the 32-cell Mark 41 Strike-Length complex.

[Poiuytrewq]

Discussion on the missile fit out is there. George knows something which we do not….

Hopefully.

Multiple sources are now suggesting that 32x Strike cells will be fitted. Time will tell.

If 32x Strike cells are genuinely to be fitted it’s time that 16x Tactical cells also go into B position. Fitting CAMM into Mk41 Strike cells with ExLS is a ridiculous extravagance.

Upgrading to the 57mm in A position with port/starboard 40mm, 8x NSM in canisters, 32x Mk41 Strike cells for FCASW and 32x quad packed CAMM and 16x doubled packed CAMM MR in 16x Tactical cells located in B position gives RN a phenomenally well configured ASuW Frigate.

Adding a TAS or containerised TAS and widening two of the davits for 11m craft probably would result in one of the most capable GP Frigates afloat.

RN does not and will not have the manpower to add another 5x T32. It’s time to fully maximise the T31.

Considering where the program started that alone would be a fantastic outcome.

[Ron5]

Discussion on the missile fit out is there. George knows something which we do not, or it is actually his own analysis (which shall be appreciated to some extent, he lives there and can listen to more rumors than us (or, at least me in the far east) ).

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-fri ... e-factory/

The vertical launching system for the Type 31 and its associated missile loadout has gone through a number of revisions over the course of its development. Originally, the design would retain, but would however be “fitted-for-but-not-with” its 32-cell strike length Mark 41 Vertical Launching System and in its place was to be a Sea Ceptor 24-cell ‘mushroom farm’ in a similar configuration as found on the Type 23 frigates.

This was later revised with a more modular version of the launcher. However, on 17 May 2023, the First Sea Lord Ben Key stated that Type 31 frigates will, in fact, be fitted with the 32-cell Mark 41 Strike-Length complex.

His source, as are all the others, is a Navy Outlook article which claimed 32 cells with zero supporting evidence. Some claim Adm Ben Key said 32 but he didn't.

What Ben Key said was that the Mk 41 were for long range anti-ship and land attack missiles.

[tomuk]

Does anyone know the cost of CAPTAS-2 and why it why it was discounted for the Type 31?

Not in the requirement and even if it was, not containable within the budget.

Supposedly, the design allows for a later fit of a HMS of indeterminate origin.

Polish Swordfish gets Kingklip Mk2 HMS and Captas 2 tail one would thought the same for T31 would be the route of least resistance if sonar was required, money available etc, etc.

[tomuk]

That's not going to be in the water anytime soon. So 3 months late and counting.

PS looks like its Bob's day to work at Govan

It looks like June/July at the earliest.

According to this story, we should be amazed at the super fast progress:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-fri ... e-factory/

But, in reality, Babcock is a ship builder with no experience on escort, and only a little experience on OPVs, while Odens was a shipyard with many orders, backed by the world larges sealift company. Big disadvantage, Babcock has. So, yes, I am amazed at the progress.

Odense shutdown as the IHs were finished the last IH being the last ship built in the yard. Odense only assembled the frigates anyway with most of the basic fabrication carried out in Lithuania and Estonia.
Babcock does have experience albeit at Appledore of building numerous OPV, it of course had a hand in building the QECs, and there are a number of staff including senior directors ex Clyde yards.

[tomuk]

Discussion on the missile fit out is there. George knows something which we do not….

Hopefully.

Multiple sources are now suggesting that 32x Strike cells will be fitted. Time will tell.

If 32x Strike cells are genuinely to be fitted it’s time that 16x Tactical cells also go into B position. Fitting CAMM into Mk41 Strike cells with ExLS is a ridiculous extravagance.

Upgrading to the 57mm in A position with port/starboard 40mm, 8x NSM in canisters, 32x Mk41 Strike cells for FCASW and 32x quad packed CAMM and 16x doubled packed CAMM MR in 16x Tactical cells located in B position gives RN a phenomenally well configured ASuW Frigate.

Adding a TAS or containerised TAS and widening two of the davits for 11m craft probably would result in one of the most capable GP Frigates afloat.

RN does not and will not have the manpower to add another 5x T32. It’s time to fully maximise the T31.

Considering where the program started that alone would be a fantastic outcome.

Ok CAMM in ExLS in Mk41 strike length is a ridiculous extravagance but CAMM in ExLS in Mk41 tactical length is the opposite?

RN doesn't have the money to keep manpower numbers up but it does have the money to fit a ship with 32xFCASW a well as 8x NSM

[Poiuytrewq]

Ok CAMM in ExLS in Mk41 strike length is a ridiculous extravagance but CAMM in ExLS in Mk41 tactical length is the opposite?

Yes.

Why fit 32x Strike cells with no additional cells primarily to house CAMM when the B position is the obvious solution.

Its illogical.

RN doesn't have the money to keep manpower numbers up but it does have the money to fit a ship with 32xFCASW a well as 8x NSM

Not routinely but in a conflict against a peer all those Strike cells would be invaluable.

RN escorts are seriously underarmed and it needs to be addressed urgently. It’s a priority.

RN wanted 13x Frigates with 24x Strike cells and 48x CAMM. The T31 needs to at least fill that requirement.

[tomuk]

Ok CAMM in ExLS in Mk41 strike length is a ridiculous extravagance but CAMM in ExLS in Mk41 tactical length is the opposite?

Yes.

Why fit 32x Strike cells with no additional cells primarily to house CAMM when the B position is the obvious solution.

Its illogical.

No it isn't because the fitment of Mk41 isn't primarily for CAMM its to allow for FCASW. And B position isn't the obvious solution as you need to put the 40mm somewhere.

RN wanted 13x Frigates with 24x Strike cells and 48x CAMM. The T31 needs to at least fill that requirement.

Which you get close to if quad pack camm and fit 20 FCASW in the 32 cell Mk41

[Poiuytrewq]

No it isn't because the fitment of Mk41 isn't primarily for CAMM its to allow for FCASW. And B position isn't the obvious solution as you need to put the 40mm somewhere.

Babcock clearly don’t agree as they put 16x Mk41 in the B position on the MNP concept.

Which you get if you get close to if quad pack camm and fit 20 FCASW in the 32 cell Mk41

Yes but technology moves on and quad packing may become double packing for CAMM MR.

That would eat through those strike cells very fast.

It depends on your point of view as when the T31 program started 24x CAMM would have been well received.

If the idea is to put 160x cells on 5x T31 and 80x cells of 5x T32 then it’s a total 240x cells.

Much better to put 48x cells each on the T31 and try and squeeze out hulls 6&7 whilst saving a substantial amount of money.

No matter how many amazing concepts are produced with lower and lower crew allocations the T32 program will cost at least £2bn to £2.5bn. Its money RN desperately need elsewhere.

Much cheaper to add an extra 16x cells to the T31 and maximise a class that RN will actually receive.

[Poiuytrewq]

No it isn't because the fitment of Mk41 isn't primarily for CAMM its to allow for FCASW. And B position isn't the obvious solution as you need to put the 40mm somewhere.

Babcock clearly don’t agree as they put 16x Mk41 in the B position on the MNP concept.

Which you get if you get close to if quad pack camm and fit 20 FCASW in the 32 cell Mk41

Yes but technology moves on and quad packing may become double packing for CAMM MR.

That would eat through those strike cells very fast.

It depends on your point of view as when the T31 program started 24x CAMM would have been well received.

If the idea is to put 160x cells on 5x T31 and 80x cells of 5x T32 then it’s a total 240x cells.

Much better to put 48x cells each on the T31 and try and squeeze out hulls 6&7 whilst saving a substantial amount of money.

No matter how many amazing concepts are produced with lower and lower crew allocations the T32 program will cost at least £2bn to £2.5bn. Its money RN desperately need elsewhere.

Much cheaper to add an extra 16x cells to the T31 and maximise a class that RN will actually receive.

Babcock also states that in order to put those 16 cells in the B position, they had to add a hull plug… I believe 2.3m or 3m, I’m not sure. As is, T31 cannot take 16 Mk41 cells in the B position. It can however take 24 CAMM mushrooms, Babcock had a model with it when it first introduced T31.

[Poiuytrewq]

Babcock also states that in order to put those 16 cells in the B position, they had to add a hull plug… I believe 2.3m or 3m, I’m not sure. As is, T31 cannot take 16 Mk41 cells in the B position. It can however take 24 CAMM mushrooms, Babcock had a model with it when it first introduced T31.

Strike cells aren’t required in the B position and there are a few options available for quad/double packing. Really depends on which RN ultimately goes with.

RN will need those Strike cells for FCASW split either 16x Anti-Ship and 16x Land Attack or 8x Anti-Ship and 24x Land Attack plus 32x CAMM and 16x CAMM MR. Especially when NSM is phased out.

IMO the T26 with 24x Strike cells is starting to look underarmed also. Especially if ASROC is added.

If 6x ASROC are added plus 8x Anti-Ship missiles then that only leaves space for 10x Land Attack missiles in the 24x cell silo. It’s not generous.

Much better to add 32x Strike cells now for 6x ASROC, 8x VLS ASW, 14x VLS Land Attack or 4x ASROC, 8x VLS ASW, 16x Land Attack.

Add quad packed and double CAMM/CAMM MR in the amidships cells.

It really is time now to stop underarming RN escorts.

[tomuk]

No it isn't because the fitment of Mk41 isn't primarily for CAMM its to allow for FCASW. And B position isn't the obvious solution as you need to put the 40mm somewhere.

Babcock clearly don’t agree as they put 16x Mk41 in the B position on the MNP concept.

Which you get if you get close to if quad pack camm and fit 20 FCASW in the 32 cell Mk41

Yes but technology moves on and quad packing may become double packing for CAMM MR.

That would eat through those strike cells very fast.

It depends on your point of view as when the T31 program started 24x CAMM would have been well received.

If the idea is to put 160x cells on 5x T31 and 80x cells of 5x T32 then it’s a total 240x cells.

Much better to put 48x cells each on the T31 and try and squeeze out hulls 6&7 whilst saving a substantial amount of money.

No matter how many amazing concepts are produced with lower and lower crew allocations the T32 program will cost at least £2bn to £2.5bn. Its money RN desperately need elsewhere.

Much cheaper to add an extra 16x cells to the T31 and maximise a class that RN will actually receive.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Why would T32 have half as many cells and cost so much? T32 is T31B2.

[tomuk]

Babcock also states that in order to put those 16 cells in the B position, they had to add a hull plug… I believe 2.3m or 3m, I’m not sure. As is, T31 cannot take 16 Mk41 cells in the B position. It can however take 24 CAMM mushrooms, Babcock had a model with it when it first introduced T31.

Strike cells aren’t required in the B position and there are a few options available for quad/double packing. Really depends on which RN ultimately goes with.

RN will need those Strike cells for FCASW split either 16x Anti-Ship and 16x Land Attack or 8x Anti-Ship and 24x Land Attack plus 32x CAMM and 16x CAMM MR. Especially when NSM is phased out.

IMO the T26 with 24x Strike cells is starting to look underarmed also. Especially if ASROC is added.

If 6x ASROC are added plus 8x Anti-Ship missiles then that only leaves space for 10x Land Attack missiles in the 24x cell silo. It’s not generous.

Much better to add 32x Strike cells now for 6x ASROC, 8x VLS ASW, 14x VLS Land Attack or 4x ASROC, 8x VLS ASW, 16x Land Attack.

Add quad packed and double CAMM/CAMM MR in the amidships cells.

It really is time now to stop underarming RN escorts.

RN aren't buying ASROC. Thee is nothing to say they're buying CAMM MR or ER. There is also no requirement out there stating that T31 needs to load 32x of a mixture of variant of FCASW.

[Ron5]

Does anyone know the cost of CAPTAS-2 and why it why it was discounted for the Type 31?

Not in the requirement and even if it was, not containable within the budget.

Supposedly, the design allows for a later fit of a HMS of indeterminate origin.

Polish Swordfish gets Kingklip Mk2 HMS and Captas 2 tail one would thought the same for T31 would be the route of least resistance if sonar was required, money available etc, etc.

And if the setup is effective. After all, it's the bargain basement Thales offerings.

[Ron5]

Babcock also states that in order to put those 16 cells in the B position, they had to add a hull plug… I believe 2.3m or 3m, I’m not sure.

I do not think this is correct. The 2m plug can clearly be seen on the MNP model. It lengthens the hangar. Not the bow.