UK Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Mr T

Senior Member
OK so you don't know what countries are getting even lighter models like MEKO2000; Daewooo DF- and DW-; Sigma; Gowind
I have news for you. Lighter does not equal better. The Type 23 is a decent frigate. No one with any credibility has ever argued it's a bad frigate because it's larger than other frigates. Just as the Type 31 won't be bad because it's bigger than other frigates.

Also, and I'm surprised you don't understand this, the bigger the ship the more flexible it is, because it can have a wider array of mission modules and equipment. Steel is cheap, so the cost of making a ship larger is not that great. Of course there comes a point where you're wasting money because there's no significant benefit. But I think the Type 31's estimated displacement is fine. A bit more than the Type 23, but not a lot. Still a general-purpose frigate. And obviously less than the Type 26 (which is still called a frigate).
 

Brumby

Major
I have news for you. Lighter does not equal better. The Type 23 is a decent frigate. No one with any credibility has ever argued it's a bad frigate because it's larger than other frigates. Just as the Type 31 won't be bad because it's bigger than other frigates.

Also, and I'm surprised you don't understand this, the bigger the ship the more flexible it is, because it can have a wider array of mission modules and equipment. Steel is cheap, so the cost of making a ship larger is not that great. Of course there comes a point where you're wasting money because there's no significant benefit. But I think the Type 31's estimated displacement is fine. A bit more than the Type 23, but not a lot. Still a general-purpose frigate. And obviously less than the Type 26 (which is still called a frigate).
The design philosophy behind the Type 26 and similarly I suspect with the Type 31e is a higher allowance provision for future growth and is reflected in the higher displacement.A RAND study concluded that for military ships the cost driver is primarily embedded military systems and not steel Building to a higher displacement would only be marginally more expensive. That said, the Type 31e at approximately US$310 million (depending on exchange rate) would be challenging to achieve at this price point based on western standards. It depends on what would constitute its baseline capabilities as separate from government equipment provision. The other main consideration is whether it is built to commercial standard or military specs and if so at what grade. The US LCS was built to 1 plus to keep cost down and was criticized for its survivability. .
 
The design philosophy behind the Type 26 and similarly I suspect with the Type 31e is a higher allowance provision for future growth and is reflected in the higher displacement.A RAND study concluded that for military ships the cost driver is primarily embedded military systems and not steel Building to a higher displacement would only be marginally more expensive. That said, the Type 31e at approximately US$310 million (depending on exchange rate) would be challenging to achieve at this price point based on western standards. It depends on what would constitute its baseline capabilities as separate from government equipment provision. The other main consideration is whether it is built to commercial standard or military specs and if so at what grade. The US LCS was built to 1 plus to keep cost down and was criticized for its survivability. .
well individuals who went for me in this thread might've started at the Type 26 wiki:

£8bn UK programme cost (2016 est.)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(eight units)

to be able to appreciate Thursday at 7:37 PM
what a joke of a frigate! scandalous, sending the RN to Bangladesh level (and I don't mean to downplay the Type 056 export-version!)

shame on those compliant to such a "solution" mainly the current Admiralty!
Thursday at 10:08 PM
I offer you, genius, the part of my post Today at 7:37 PM you omitted:

shame on those compliant to such a "solution" mainly the current Admiralty!

plus
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Yesterday at 7:29 PM
OK so you don't know what countries are getting even lighter models like MEKO2000; Daewooo DF- and DW-; Sigma; Gowind,

and you don't know the prices and capabilities of those models,

so you can't see the Type31 is going to be a tin can considering the budget,

but I think you can see the RN goes downhill,

and I add people involved in this should protest, instead there's "a decent frigate" type of argumentation,

cheers
EDIT in fact those individuals expressed an amazing enthusiasm about this like quarter-price model
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
well individuals who went for me in this thread might've started at the Type 26 wiki:

£8bn UK programme cost (2016 est.)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(eight units)

to be able to appreciate Thursday at 7:37 PM

Thursday at 10:08 PM
Yesterday at 7:29 PM
EDIT in fact those individuals expressed an amazing enthusiasm about this like quarter-price model
Military ships are specs based on requirements. In the case of the Type 31e, according to MOD they "shall operate globally with sustained forward presence” and that it must have “the speed for interdiction of commercial vessels and maintaining station with adversary warships in UK waters". The Type 31e has a planned endurance of 9000 nm and that defines certain engine performance and fuel storage capacity. In contrast the Gowind has a stated range of 3700 nm which basically means it is a coastal vessel with limited on station capacity. Comparing vessels solely based solely on tonnage is rather meaningless without reference to its intended performance requirements..

Details matter. For example the Tico and Burke have almost identical tonnage displacement but their on station capability is very different. Below is an extract comparing their respective performance under certain sailing conditions :

After a 1,OOO nm sprint, the cruiser can remain on station at 13 knots for 6 days to 50 percent fuel, with a load on the electrical plant sufficient to keep Spy radiating at high power. Shifting the main plant to the nonstandard configuration low speed quiet mode (by following classified information in the combat systems doctrine) should boost endurance to 7}12 days at 5 knots. If the decision is made to drop to 30 percent fuel, on-station time is 10 days at 13 knots, and just over 1 2 days at the low speed quiet mode 5 knots.

Note the reason for the high 13-knot patrol speed. The cruiser, like most U.S. twin-screw combatants with controllable reversible pitch propellers, is most quiet with both shafts powered and both props at 100 percent pitch. The Prairie/Masker system must also be aligned in accordance with the specific classified parameters in the class combat systems doctrine. Below 100 percent pitch, the props cavitate. The slowest speed the cruiser will normally make at 100 percent pitch on both shafts is between 12 and 13 knots. Low speed quiet mode achieves improved quieting, lower speed, and greater fuel economy, but at the cost of a nonstandard plant configuration that takes engineering control away from the bridge watch team.

Under the same conditions, the endurance of the DDG is strikingly different. Patrol time to 50 percent is just under 3 days at 13 knots, with about 5}12 days total to 30 percent fuel state. The DDG 51 class combat systems doctrine does not yet detail a low speed quiet mode configuration for the class; but if a setup similar to that for the cruiser is presumed, then endurance to 50 percent would be boosted by a day, and to 30 percent by 2 days, maintaining a patrol speed of 5 knots. Thus, at the lowest speed and lowest fuel state, the cruiser can remain on station more than 1 }12 times as long as the destroyer. At a more responsive 13 knots and a more responsible 50 percent fuel state, the cruiser will have lasted twice as long as the destroyer-and will have done it with 35 percent more VLS cells.

While this simplistic arithmetic shows the logic of selecting the cruiser for the NTW mission , it also helps to highlight one of the JFMCC's greatest logistical challenges: the iron logic of fuel. Warships have redundant weapons, redundant sensors, and plenty of manpower. When the fresh fruit and vegetables run out, a Navy ship's galley can still serve macaroni and cheese well into the next century. Fuel, however, is an absolute. Empires were built around coaling stations for good reason, and the NTW cruiser captain who finds himself at 30 percent fuel in the face of the enemy is not going to sleep well.
 

Mr T

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


....

Assessing this frigate design overall, it seems to be well-armed for its intended role in low-medium intensity conflict. For maritime security operations, it is especially well equipped while being capable of stepping up to defend itself and other vessels from air and missile attack. The 57mm and 40mm guns do have something of an overlapping capability but a heavier main gun would probably have been unaffordable. This ship will be able to throw up a wall of lethal shrapnel around itself quicker than you can say “Iranian gunboat”.

Type 31 could also make credible second-tier escorts for the carrier strike group. Anti-submarine capability is pretty limited, probably on a par with a Type 45 destroyer, although this could perhaps be partially mitigated in future with off-board unmanned ASW systems carried in the boat bays. A big advantage of Arrowhead is the generous margin of space and weight to add additional weapons and sensors including interim or future anti-ship/land-attack missiles.

13 Type 26 frigates might be preferable but are not affordable. The Type 31 should deliver 5 frigates for little more than the cost of a single Type 26 while diversifying the industrial base. There is still much more detail to emerge but it is safe to say, although Arrowhead is far from perfect, the RN can be satisfied it is getting a credible platform, allaying early the fears that Type 31 would deliver a warmed-over corvette.

....
 

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
Wonder why type 26 is still called a frigate.
With those 24 mk41 + 48 aster, it actually has more armament than type 45 and weighs just as much.
 
since 08:03 "As you know, capabilities are relative term."

I don't know that, Captain Prest, in fact I don't envy your job of defending 6k tons hull with just 24 Sea Ceptors worth mentioning in terms of armament of 6k tons hull
 

Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
what "48 aster" are you talking about in "type 26" context?? please consult wikipedia before opining
By aster, i meant the anti air capable vls.
I formed this opinion from UK MoD reply to letter about T26 GCS.
I don't know if its gratifying for you to talk down to others, but its quite a bit easier to correct somebody without deprecating their comment. With all due respect, I kindly urge you not to do that or to simply not quote me at all.
 

XavNN

Junior Member
Registered Member
DSEI 2019: SEA Unveils Trainable Decoy Launcher System

At DSEI 2019, the defense exhibition which opened its doors today in London, British company SEA unveiled a Trainable Decoy Launcher System to protect surface platforms from missile and torpedo threats.
...
The Trainable Decoy Launcher System will be available in 2020. It could answer the Royal Navy requirement for decoy launchers aboard Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

note also the interesting Fixed, pneumatic launcher that can deploy Sonobuoys and torpedo decoys...

---

DSEI 2019: Steller Systems & Thales Unveil TX Ship Concept

Steller Systems and Thales have launched their design for TX Ship, a ground-breaking vessel that will help navies transition to unmanned operations.
...
TX Ship is a fully sensorised multi-role trimaran, capable of operating at reach, alone or as part of a task group. The ship possesses an unusual high capacity, fully-automated mission bay capable of hosting and deploying a large number, and multiple types, of manned or unmanned mission packages. The stern access and moon pool features enable flexible and covert deployment of a wide range of current and future unmanned aerial, surface and subsurface vessels. At a length of 70m and 600 tonne displacement, TX Ship has a top speed of 30 knots, a design cruise speed of 18 knots, a range of 6000nm and an endurance of 20 days (manned) or 40 days (unmanned).
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


--

DSEI 2019: Roketsan’s ATMACA to be test-fired at sea in November

At DSEI 2019, the defense exhibition currently held in London, Naval News learned from Roketsan that Atmaca anti-ship missile will be test fired from an Ada-class corvette in November this year.

The event will mark the first time that the Atmaca is tested at sea.

As we reported recently, Roketsan’s new anti-ship missile Atmaca (Hawk) has been fitted aboard the fourth Ada-class corvette of the Turkish Navy (Türk Deniz Kuvvetleri), TCG Kınalıada.

Naval News asked Roketsan if the company was planning to answer the interim Harpoon replacement requirement for the Royal Navy. The answer is no, Roketsan is for now fully focused on delivering the Atmaca to its launch customer, the Turkish Navy.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


--

DSEI 2019: SubSea Craft Lifts Veil on VICTA-class Diver Delivery Unit

This revolutionary craft combines the speed, range and capacity of a Long-Range Insertion Craft (LRIC) with the stealth and versatility of a Swimmer Delivery Vehicle (SDV).

Specifically designed around the operator, its 30 kt+ speed, 250 nm endurance and 2-minute transition between surface and sub-surface, enables delivery of 8 operators and their equipment to their objective ‘mission-ready’ before recovering them. Offering leading-edge design and manufacture and providing truly formidable operational flexibility, VICTA opens up potentially game-changing tactical and strategic choices in maritime, joint and special operations.
--

DSEI 2019: BMT Unveils ELLIDA Amphibious / Tanker / Multi-Role Auxiliary Vessel

BMT has unveiled its latest concept design, the ELLIDA™ multi-role support ship, at this year’s international defence trade show DSEI 2019. ELLIDA™ will be the third family of vessels designed by BMT for the auxiliary market and will complement the AEGIR and SALVAS families.

The ELLIDA™ concept is underpinned by the proven experience that BMT has gained while designing the AEGIR vessels now in service, the Tide class with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, and HNoMS Maud with the Royal Norwegian Navy.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


--
 

Top