Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[donald_of_tokyo]

“Once accepted from Babcock, all five ships will undergo a period of capability upgrades under the MoD and demonstration trials before entering service”.

This is good. This is one of the reasons the Danes attributed to the low cost of their vessels. They didn't keep a whole ship yard on standby while the government faff about on their KPIs.

Increases likelihood of first hulls being fitted with MK41?

But, if yes, huge delay is needed. RN have not ordered Mk41VLS for T31 yet. It will take, say, two years or more, from contract to delivery? And you need at least one year to mount it onboard the hull. And then, we need “first of class ship trial”.

I hope hull-1 delivered to RN on 2025 (very tight schedule), and in service on 2026-27, without Mk41VLS. T23GP needs urgent replacement. Already 2 has gone…

If there be Mk41, 3rd ship or 4th ship onward is the best I guess. Anyway, the defence review coming this week shall tell us how much the money is tight.

[serge750]

would they be able to first of class trials & while that is going on, fit the mk41 on the next hull ? personally i wouldn't mind just having 2or3 with mk41 & the couple with only CAMM mushrooms....& NSM !!

[new guy]

Or just fit the MK41 on the first 2 hulls at there next refit, or when the 3&4 hulls come in.

[donald_of_tokyo]

would they be able to first of class trials & while that is going on, fit the mk41 on the next hull ? personally i wouldn't mind just having 2or3 with mk41 & the couple with only CAMM mushrooms....& NSM !!

Or just fit the MK41 on the first 2 hulls at there next refit, or when the 3&4 hulls come in.

Both reasonable I think. Just a matter of money (and man-power)...

[Caribbean]

Another interesting point is, SeaCeptor has a rumor that the system can handle only up to 48 missiles. But, if it is 32x4 = up to 128 CAMM in the 32-cell Mk41 VLS, this "limit" is overcome? (or just not correct information).

That may or may not be true (presumably based on the Land Ceptor having 48 missiles to a battery). If it is, then I suspect the quickest solution would be to arrange your missiles in "banks" of 48 missiles and switch between them as each bank is used up). Either that or have more than one system each.

[Tempest414]

For me what would be a good out come would be to hulls 1 & 2 with 24 to 30 CAMM and 8 x NSM then start fitting Mk-41 from hull 3 on then at the first 5 year refit fit Mk-41 to hulls 1 & 2

[Poiuytrewq]

For me what would be a good out come would be to hulls 1 & 2 with 24 to 30 CAMM and 8 x NSM then start fitting Mk-41 from hull 3 on then at the first 5 year refit fit Mk-41 to hulls 1 & 2

If this isn’t current planning then it probably should be current planning.

It’s time to maximise the T31. With a funding squeeze readily apparent across the MoD RN need to put the T32 on the back burner and start working on a class of OPVs for Rosyth at the end of the decade.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy was supposed to give industry a 30yr pipeline to facilitate higher investment and maintain skills. Rosyth now needs to cut steel for the vessels following the T31s within 3 years and currently it’s as clear as mud.

It’s simply not good enough.

[Poiuytrewq]

- Interesting is the sonar is "BlueHunter (or KINGKLIP Mk2) hull sonar" and "CAPTAS-2" (not 4) VDS-TASS.

IMO this is the most interesting takeaway.

If the lack of a sonar capability on the T31 is going to be solved with a modular system as hoped by many, 2087 was never going to be realistic.

Captas 4 compact may be compatible with the Pod system but Captas 2 always looked like the most realistic and affordable option.

Perhaps this confirms it.

[Tempest414]

For me what would be a good out come would be to hulls 1 & 2 with 24 to 30 CAMM and 8 x NSM then start fitting Mk-41 from hull 3 on then at the first 5 year refit fit Mk-41 to hulls 1 & 2

If this isn’t current planning then it probably should be current planning.

It’s time to maximise the T31. With a funding squeeze readily apparent across the MoD RN need to put the T32 on the back burner and start working on a class of OPVs for Rosyth at the end of the decade.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy was supposed to give industry a 30yr pipeline to facilitate higher investment and maintain skills. Rosyth now needs to cut steel for the vessels following the T31s within 3 years and currently it’s as clear as mud.

It’s simply not good enough.

There is another way and that is if funding of 1.6 billion can be found then Babcock build 3 more T-31's at say 360 million per ship and a 210 by 40 meter Ocean style LPH at 500 million

Then speed up Type 26 and have BAE build a class of LSV's between T-26 and T-83

[NickC]

PGZ-MIECZNIK consortium have given presentation on the Polish Miecznik Class Frigates based on Babcock Arrowhead 140, it will be a real frigate not like the pseudo RN frigate T31 i.e. its DGs will produce an extra 2 MW of power no doubt necessary to power its S band radar etc which are four panel arrays, not a single panel rotating antenna on the T31 and it has a X-band radar, none on the T31 plus it has a HMS and TAS sonars whereas again T31 has none and its a similar story on weapons fit etc, etc. full details in the Naval News write up.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

[Caribbean]

For me what would be a good out come would be to hulls 1 & 2 with 24 to 30 CAMM and 8 x NSM then start fitting Mk-41 from hull 3 on then at the first 5 year refit fit Mk-41 to hulls 1 & 2

Just a different thought: Add an extra T31 to the build.
Equip hulls 3 & 4 with Mk41 and AAW-focussed radar.
Build hulls 5 & 6 with Mk41, HMS and TA.
There was a quote from one of the Arms Fairs that adding ASW capabilities to T31 would cost about £60m. I suspect that an improved radar (if we are sensible and go for something already integrated with TACTICOS) would be in the same ball-park.
Then add the MK41 to hulls 1 & 2 for land attack at refit
Total cost approximately the same as 2 additional T-31 - so c.£500-600m

[Jdam]

Wont that lead to sub classes in an already small fleet of ships?

And at what point after adding all these extras would you just be better going for more Type 26?

At the end of the day value is what these ships are adding to the Royal Navy, I just fear that adding X, Y and Z as suggested the costs will be back at the start and not really the goal of these vessels.

[Tempest414]

Wont that lead to sub classes in an already small fleet of ships?

And at what point after adding all these extras would you just be better going for more Type 26?

At the end of the day value is what these ships are adding to the Royal Navy, I just fear that adding X, Y and Z as suggested the costs will be back at the start and not really the goal of these vessels.

Well as said before Type 31 as at this time costs 268 million per ship adding Mk-41 and NSM would add about 40 to 50 million making them 320 million

Type 26 B2 at this point is 846 million and it could a be a little bit more in the end

so in real term we will always get 2 full fat type 31's for every type 26 but remember type 31 will never be a type 26 and type 26 is being built slower

[Tempest414]

PGZ-MIECZNIK consortium have given presentation on the Polish Miecznik Class Frigates based on Babcock Arrowhead 140, it will be a real frigate not like the pseudo RN frigate T31 i.e. its DGs will produce an extra 2 MW of power no doubt necessary to power its S band radar etc which are four panel arrays, not a single panel rotating antenna on the T31 and it has a X-band radar, none on the T31 plus it has a HMS and TAS sonars whereas again T31 has none and its a similar story on weapons fit etc, etc. full details in the Naval News write up.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

Lets remember that this will be Poland's top ships where type 31 for us is a GP frigate

[wargame_insomniac]

PGZ-MIECZNIK consortium have given presentation on the Polish Miecznik Class Frigates based on Babcock Arrowhead 140, it will be a real frigate not like the pseudo RN frigate T31 i.e. its DGs will produce an extra 2 MW of power no doubt necessary to power its S band radar etc which are four panel arrays, not a single panel rotating antenna on the T31 and it has a X-band radar, none on the T31 plus it has a HMS and TAS sonars whereas again T31 has none and its a similar story on weapons fit etc, etc. full details in the Naval News write up.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

The FIRST Polish Miecznik Class Frigate will be real frigate, as you have described.
The final two have been ordered with many weapons and system Fitted For But Not With, to be added later as funds allow.

Whereas UK might be doing it the other way around. The first few T31s ordered as is being underarmed light patrol frigates, whereas seeimingly (or at least hopefully) the latter ons might be properly uparmed with supposedly additional CAMM and / or Mk41 VLSand also NSM Canisters. Just add a sonar on and I will be happy.

[NickC]

PGZ-MIECZNIK consortium have given presentation on the Polish Miecznik Class Frigates based on Babcock Arrowhead 140, it will be a real frigate not like the pseudo RN frigate T31 i.e. its DGs will produce an extra 2 MW of power no doubt necessary to power its S band radar etc which are four panel arrays, not a single panel rotating antenna on the T31 and it has a X-band radar, none on the T31 plus it has a HMS and TAS sonars whereas again T31 has none and its a similar story on weapons fit etc, etc. full details in the Naval News write up.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

Lets remember that this will be Poland's top ships where type 31 for us is a GP frigate

Lets remember the T31 has zero, zero ASW capability, and so in my view without that capability can it be classed as GP frigate besides all its other limitations.

[Tempest414]

PGZ-MIECZNIK consortium have given presentation on the Polish Miecznik Class Frigates based on Babcock Arrowhead 140, it will be a real frigate not like the pseudo RN frigate T31 i.e. its DGs will produce an extra 2 MW of power no doubt necessary to power its S band radar etc which are four panel arrays, not a single panel rotating antenna on the T31 and it has a X-band radar, none on the T31 plus it has a HMS and TAS sonars whereas again T31 has none and its a similar story on weapons fit etc, etc. full details in the Naval News write up.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

Lets remember that this will be Poland's top ships where type 31 for us is a GP frigate

Lets remember the T31 has zero, zero ASW capability, and so in my view without that capability can it be classed as GP frigate besides all its other limitations.

What other limitations ?

Type 31 maybe able to conduct ASW using USV's we don't know yet

[NickC]

PGZ-MIECZNIK consortium have given presentation on the Polish Miecznik Class Frigates based on Babcock Arrowhead 140, it will be a real frigate not like the pseudo RN frigate T31 i.e. its DGs will produce an extra 2 MW of power no doubt necessary to power its S band radar etc which are four panel arrays, not a single panel rotating antenna on the T31 and it has a X-band radar, none on the T31 plus it has a HMS and TAS sonars whereas again T31 has none and its a similar story on weapons fit etc, etc. full details in the Naval News write up.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -frigates/

Lets remember that this will be Poland's top ships where type 31 for us is a GP frigate

Lets remember the T31 has zero, zero ASW capability, and so in my view without that capability can it be classed as GP frigate besides all its other limitations.

What other limitations ?

Type 31 maybe able to conduct ASW using USV's we don't know yet

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

This limitations of the T31 all stem from RN overspending £billions on T26 over their estimates, final bill ~£10 billion for the eight T26s and resulted in Treasury enforcing the £250 million price cap for T31 per ship and would also add the Government is not funding Defence adequately.

The House of Commons Defence Committee very recent report 11th July "It is broke — and it’s time to fix it - The UK’s defence procurement system" Ninth Report of Session 2022–23, highlighted the T26 as a prime example.

https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 7/default/

[Tempest414]

Type 31 is the UK's base line GP frigate and not its tire 1 ships its primary role is Maritime Security

Lets remember that the RM could have stated fix radar but it didn't

[donald_of_tokyo]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

Isn't X-band more affected by stealth than S-band? If the wavelength is "similar" to the missile size, I understand stealth efficiency gets worse.

This limitations of the T31 all stem from RN overspending £billions on T26 over their estimates, final bill ~£10 billion for the eight T26s and resulted in Treasury enforcing the £250 million price cap for T31 per ship and would also add the Government is not funding Defence adequately.

The House of Commons Defence Committee very recent report 11th July "It is broke — and it’s time to fix it - The UK’s defence procurement system" Ninth Report of Session 2022–23, highlighted the T26 as a prime example.

I did not read trough it, but some articles said that the document states the "too much requirments from RN" is the root cause. So, on T26, RN added and added requirements. On T31, RN was prevented to do that. I do agree the latter is better. But, this means, RN need to put the ship into "refit" (adding equipment) right after the hull delivery. Let's see how it will go...

[new guy]

Cancel the 40mm Bofors order immediately....

40mm CTA with 4 LMM (or Starstreak 2).

EDIT: Gabrielle Molinelli has spotted that they are in fact Starstreak tubes, the end of the missile tube s just visible as is the same diameter as the front, plus you can just make out the circular indentations in the end caps.

Also...the 4 round launcher is the exact same one as seen on the MSI Seahawk Sigma in recent years.

If anything this makes me even more convinced that we should cancel the Bofors...includes the fact that guided ammunition based around a single dart from the Starstreak system will be developed....a far better option than 3P, ORKA or MADFIRES for the simple reason it would be made in the UK...

CTA40mm...with airburst or point detonation AND guided rounds...
4 x LMM or Starstreak 2

[tomuk]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

[pko100]

Range resolution and accuracy is not determined by the transmitting frequency of the radar. It is determined by mainly by the pulse width after processing but is also impacted by such factors as the weighting applied in the pulse compressor to reduce range sidelobes, the quality of the signal sampling system, receiver noise performance and STALO/COHO phase stability etc etc. There is also a practical limit on range resolution as usually radars are designed to limit the chance of target range walk during each each beam well to maximise detection probability.

Azimuth resolution is determined by the width of the antenna, the operating frequency and again the weighting applied to reduce azimuth sidelobes. So yes azimuth accuracy is improved by having a higher frequency but frequency choice is one of many trade-offs that have to be made to optimise the radar performance against its intended role and requirement. Improving azimuth resolution might mean reducing scan and update rate or reducing doppler resolution in a PD system. Azimuth Accuracy can be greater than resolution using centroiding, monopulse and similar techniques.

[bobp]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

a. Rain can be compensated for by using a circular polarisation filter in the receiver chain.
b. Range is determined by Transmitter Power as well as Pulse Repetition frequency.
c. Faster rotation reduces the number of signal returns from a target.

[bobp]

Range resolution and accuracy is not determined by the transmitting frequency of the radar. It is determined by mainly by the pulse width after processing but is also impacted by such factors as the weighting applied in the pulse compressor to reduce range sidelobes, the quality of the signal sampling system, receiver noise performance and STALO/COHO phase stability etc etc. There is also a practical limit on range resolution as usually radars are designed to limit the chance of target range walk during each each beam well to maximise detection probability.

Azimuth resolution is determined by the width of the antenna, the operating frequency and again the weighting applied to reduce azimuth sidelobes. So yes azimuth accuracy is improved by having a higher frequency but frequency choice is one of many trade-offs that have to be made to optimise the radar performance against its intended role and requirement. Improving azimuth resolution might mean reducing scan and update rate or reducing doppler resolution in a PD system. Azimuth Accuracy can be greater than resolution using centroiding, monopulse and similar techniques.

Azimuth resolution is determined by the beam width, the narrower the beam the better, so a wider antenna produces a narrow beam.
Side Lobe returns can be filtered out, by synching the receiver timing to the transmitter, and antenna construction helps to reduce them.