Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Royal Navy Type 31

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • spider
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post

    The Campbeltown story itself is one that should have far more significance in the history of WW2, given what was achieved, and the ultimate cost. As significant as the Dambusters raid perhaps, but without the faff.
    Not only did it keep Tirpitz out of the Atlantic for good, it also focused the Nazi war effort on the Atlantic wall.
    Absolutely.

    Just a thought but the St Nazaire raid happened at a time when the war in Europe was limited to raids...

    Maybe... the focus at that time was in N Africa and the Far East...or The Battle of the Atlantic...St Nazaire important as it was just got treated as an after-thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by spider View Post

    Great to see Campbeltown again...the WW2 Campbeltown's Skipper was a VC winner.
    The Campbeltown story itself is one that should have far more significance in the history of WW2, given what was achieved, and the ultimate cost. As significant as the Dambusters raid perhaps, but without the faff.
    Not only did it keep Tirpitz out of the Atlantic for good, it also focused the Nazi war effort on the Atlantic wall.

    Leave a comment:


  • spider
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    The RN has announced today the first 5 ships in class (from hereon to be known as Inspiration class)will be named as follows.
    • Active
    • Bulldog
    • Campbeltown
    • Formidable
    • Venture
    Great names, with some fantastic history behind each, and said to reflect the RN's values and aspirations.
    Great to see Campbeltown again...the WW2 Campbeltown's Skipper was a VC winner.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    The RN has announced today the first 5 ships in class (from hereon to be known as Inspiration class)will be named as follows.
    • Active
    • Bulldog
    • Campbeltown
    • Formidable
    • Venture
    Great names, with some fantastic history behind each, and said to reflect the RN's values and aspirations.

    Leave a comment:


  • ancientmariner
    replied
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    It is a common size today, around the 8000 tons mark, the Burkes are a bit heavier, the Type 26 are around the same size, the Australian variant of the Type 26 will push 9000 tons. It is the problem when you want the ship to do everything, AAW, ASW, ASuW………. While steel is cheap, crews are not and a larger ship requires a larger crew, even if only for damage control. In fact the classification as frigate or destroyer is interchangeable, for one man it is a frigate, for another a destroyer.
    These new FREMM based Frigate types will be built in US Yards and no doubt will be of US fit-out from stem to stern. In general the US persists with their ship types and can continue with building programs of a Class over some decades. No matter what we think of the various types of Littoral Combat ships, which started around 2008, they are to this day still building in quantity twelve years later with more to come. Various foreign design offices have been involved in these Littoral ships as well but all were and will be built in the USA. The crews on the newer ships tend to be sparser than their predecessors some 15 core crew augmentable in role to 75. There are 8 Freedom class LCS building and 7 Independance Class LCS at AUSTAL USA yard. The Burkes started building in 1991 and are still building at Ingals, and Bath Iron works almost 20 years later. It you learn from the early builds eventually you get it almost as you wanted it. However one caveat don't try to make a steady logistics type ship from a frigate hull---too fine and not good at slower speeds.

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Demonstrating the total failure of the Littoral concept, and zero confidence in US designs. The USN for too long were dictated to by the US shipbuilding industry, providing them with lots of ships with a 30 year old design, delivered late. Too big to operate in confined waters, i.e the type of waters where they would be needed most. The Average USN Destroyer, its smallest major warship, is almost the same size as HMS Belfast, which was a light cruiser.
    This ship comes in just over 150m, just 4m shorter than the Burke Class destroyer.
    It is a common size today, around the 8000 tons mark, the Burkes are a bit heavier, the Type 26 are around the same size, the Australian variant of the Type 26 will push 9000 tons. It is the problem when you want the ship to do everything, AAW, ASW, ASuW………. While steel is cheap, crews are not and a larger ship requires a larger crew, even if only for damage control. In fact the classification as frigate or destroyer is interchangeable, for one man it is a frigate, for another a destroyer.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    So the US Navy has also now decided on its next frigate, a version of the Italian FREMM

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...e-competition/
    Demonstrating the total failure of the Littoral concept, and zero confidence in US designs. The USN for too long were dictated to by the US shipbuilding industry, providing them with lots of ships with a 30 year old design, delivered late. Too big to operate in confined waters, i.e the type of waters where they would be needed most. The Average USN Destroyer, its smallest major warship, is almost the same size as HMS Belfast, which was a light cruiser.
    This ship comes in just over 150m, just 4m shorter than the Burke Class destroyer.

    Leave a comment:


  • ias
    replied
    Originally posted by A/TEL View Post
    The major cost of the T31 will prob be sensor suite and weapons fit.

    It would easily fit the budget of €200m without the RN requirement of sensors and weapons, however it doesn't really fit the RFI specs issued a few years back.
    Would it be too much to believe that Babcock could produce/offer a FSS (Absalon) version of the T31, and was the original EPV spec not very similar to the Absalon? Has there been any update on those specs?
    Last edited by ias; 2 May 2020, 14:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • A/TEL
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparky42 View Post
    To be honest, there's not really anything to that other than the Babcock team coming over to Dublin to the Embassy, but really I don't see how the Type 31 would be what the MPV/EPV would be needed, and the price tag is another issue.

    The major cost of the T31 will prob be sensor suite and weapons fit.

    It would easily fit the budget of €200m without the RN requirement of sensors and weapons, however it doesn't really fit the RFI specs issued a few years back.

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    So the US Navy has also now decided on its next frigate, a version of the Italian FREMM

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news...e-competition/

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
    Frigate Factory Being Built on the Clyde. It appears tey think the Irish NS will want one, if only we had the crew...

    https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bri...igate-factory/
    To be honest, there's not really anything to that other than the Babcock team coming over to Dublin to the Embassy, but really I don't see how the Type 31 would be what the MPV/EPV would be needed, and the price tag is another issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Frigate Factory Being Built on the Clyde. It appears tey think the Irish NS will want one, if only we had the crew...

    https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/bri...igate-factory/

    Leave a comment:


  • Anzac
    replied
    https://www.janes.com/article/92615/...gate-programme

    Contract signed for an average production cost of GBP250 million per Arrowhead 140.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparky42
    replied
    Interesting that they want to widen out the supply chains, would have though the main driver would be to limit the extra costs and training paths that the 31's would need just to save overheads for the RN. I mean the Combat System is going to be a Thales system rather than the fleet wide BAE one as well from what I've read, and they aren't pulling through the Artisan Radar Sets either?

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Some more details on the ship coming out also. A combination of Bofors 57mm Mk110 and 40mm as main and secondary armament, a huge change for the Modern RN.
    https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mor...rigate-emerge/

    Babcock says they are open to sharing work around the UK in line with the National Shipbuilding Strategy. Both Ferguson (Clyde) and Harland and Wolff (Belfast) were part of the original Team 31e consortium but are in poor shape. The consortium members are not guaranteed a workshare but would be allowed to bid to build blocks. Babcock insists they won’t take risks with the programme and any commercial partners would be subject to the usual financial due diligence. Cammell Laird says they are not tied exclusively to the BAE Systems Leander bid and would be open to working on Type 31.
    In the era of the ‘swarm attack’ either by small boats or UAVs, light-medium calibre gunnery is back in fashion. The Type 31 will mount at least 3 modern gun systems which are well suited to dealing with multiple small targets.

    The heaviest weapon will be a Bofors medium-calibre 57mm Mk 110 Mod 0 gun which is already in service with the US and several other navies. It can deliver up to 4 rounds per second and has a range of about 17km. The whole system, including 1,000 rounds weighs around 14 tonnes. This is a very different weapon to the much heavier 114mm (4.5”) Mk 8 that delivers a single shell every 2 seconds and has equipped the majority of RN frigates since the 1970s.

    The Mk 110 is not optimised for supporting troops ashore but for multiple and unpredictable targets. Different ammunition types can be readily reselected, including Pre-fragmented, Programmable and Proximity-fused (3P) ammunition. It has a useful airburst mode to defend against boat swarms but could switch to defend against aircraft or missiles using proximity fuses or heavier targets using delayed action fuses. (The vast range of sophisticated modern ammunition types are a complex subject well beyond the scope of this article).
    Its high rate of fire means the 57mm actually delivers a greater weight of explosive onto the target than the latest Oto Melara 76mm gun. The gun mount holds 120 rounds but can be replenished by a 3-man crew in the gun bay on the deck below.

    The Type 31 will not be fitted with 20mm Phalanx CIWS but instead will mount two Bofors 40mm Mk 4 guns. These lightweight 2.3-tonne, non-deck penetrating mounts can deliver 5 rounds per second out to about 12.5km and are designed to respond rapidly at a wide range of elevations. By delivering heavier shells further away from the ship the Mk 4 is superior to Phalanx in some ways. They provide defence against air and missile attack but use the same sophisticated 3P type ammunition as the 57mm so can quickly change to engage small boat or UAV threats. 100 rounds are held in the gun ready to fire with the ability to shift between different types of ammunition.

    Bofors is owned by BAE Systems so the Type 31 decision is not all bad news for the company, with an order for at least 15 gun systems and ammunition coming for manufacture in Scandinavia and the US.



    Leave a comment:

Working...
X