Model Boat Mayhem
Mess Deck: General Section => Full Scale Ships => Topic started by: Colin Bishop on September 18, 2019, 06:35:47 pm
-
When I first heard of the plan to substitute a less capable design for some of the planned Type 26 frigates to save money my first reaction was , here we go again, an inadequate design that will be overpriced and underspecified. Probably just a souped up Ocean Patrol Vessel.
However, looking a some of the latest information published on the Arrowhead design from BAE, the vessel looks to be quite a potent ship if fully equipped as intended and apparently several can be had for the cost of the more sophisticated Type 26. This does seem to offer the potential to boost numbers of surface ships which the RN requires although at the moment they just seem to be substituting for Type 26 ships on a one for one basis.
The Arrowhead builds on an existing apparently successful design for the Danish Navy so hopefully might suffer less teething problems than might be associated with an entirely new design. Its size also offers a degree of future proofing for updating through service life as well.
Has anyone else had a look at this and if so what are your thoughts?
Some deatails here:
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-of-the-royal-navys-type-31-frigate-emerge/
Colin
-
I must admit when I first heard about the Type 31e project I thought it was going to be somewhere between an OPV and a frigate, more of a corvette kind of design. But seeing what the Babcock Consortium have designed I’m surprised that we haven’t ordered more of them, especially if the price doesn’t double as we have seen with recent Royal Navy warship programmes.
Personally I preferred the aesthetics of the BAE ‘Leander’ proposal but considering that they are building the Type 26 Frigates it perhaps was a good idea to award Babcock the bid as it opens up other shipyards again that were closing down.
Until quite recently I always thought that RN vessels were always under armed for their size but they seem to be getting their act together, the refit of HMS Sunderland and the testing of the Martlet missile in conjunction with CWIS is a beginning of arming our warships with more weapons that work.
-
Sorry, I meant to say Babcock - senior moment!
I was down at Portsmouth today, no Navy on display unless you count HMS Victory.
A report I've seen suggests that you can build 5 type 31s for one Type 26. A bit staggering if true.
Colin
-
The Arrowhead is a Babcock design based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class frigate, its impressive capability rest assured i've been in the thick of it :-)) :-))
-
Sorry, I meant to say Babcock - senior moment!
I was down at Portsmouth today, no Navy on display unless you count HMS Victory.
A report I've seen suggests that you can build 5 type 31s for one Type 26. A bit staggering if true.
Colin
Yes, a bit thin on the ground with surface ships at the moment!
-
They don't look bad. I'm not sure about reducing the main armament to 57mm instead of the usual 110mm It means they will lose fire support capability. but the 40mm look like a good system. Either way the more ships the better!.
-
All weapons and sensors are interchangable
-
Fingers crossed that all the numbers ordered are built and delivered. We should have had 12 Type 45 but ended up with just 6.
Weapons fitment on the 31 seems good although Im no expert. Im a bit concerned the ships wont have CIWS even if they will be armed for 'swarm' type attacks and two 40mm bofors. One of the lessons from the Falklands was the ships couldnt always defend themselves. Again, a concern is weapons fit is reduced to save costs.
-
I think the reasoning is that fewer larger calibre shells at longer ranges are better than the CIWS "scatter gun" approach. In addition the 40mm will be dual purpose, able to engage surface targets out to 12.5 Kms
-
So already out of date against a Chinese drone attacking at Mach 3+ :embarrassed:
-
Personally I'm sad that the Type 26 orders went to a Scottish yard.
After the OPVs build issues, I would have thought the Type 31s should have gone to a yard south of Scotland.
-
Cammell Lairds/BAE were the lead yard until they, whoever they are, decided to review the contract. Just a sop to the Scots in my jaundiced view.
LB
-
I expected a glorified OPV fit for the cost being mentioned so the proposed design is certainly larger and more capable than I thought, begging the question how this can be achieved. I suspect that the target figure given is for the cost as delivered and has no allowance for the the through-life support facilities that will be required to keep the ships operational. This may be considerably higher than for a BAE alternative given the high proportion of equipment that hasn't been in RN service before - propulsion, radar, command system and weaponry just to give a few all appear to be new to the RN. Is this a case of penny wise and pound foolish when looking at the long term overall costs?
-
Personally I'm sad that the Type 26 orders went to a Scottish yard.
After the OPVs build issues, I would have thought the Type 31s should have gone to a yard south of Scotland.
the OPVs were built on the Clyde by BAe Systems, these ships are being built on the Forth by Babcock's....another company so you cannot compare the 2
Cammell Lairds/BAE were the lead yard until they, whoever they are, decided to review the contract. Just a sop to the Scots in my jaundiced view.
LB
According to the media they were the lead, the government/ MoD never said much about it, the review was carried out as all 3 tenders broke the financial cap on the ships costs
it may interest all those moaning that Babcocks wanted to build sections at Appledore's, H&W and Fergusons yards from all over the UK, All are now in different stages of financial problems how that will turn out for the build of the ships, it could open the door for other yards such as Cammel laird.
The Babcocks yard employs people from Scotland but the majority when I was there come from England and Poland.
Second last point the information that this is to keep the Scots happy, the Drydock they intend to build in was originally done up for the Trident refits..... do you want to really continue????
And lastly lets be thankful, we are not sending these overseas if they did then I wouldn't see the return of warship manufacturing in the UK
-
Well done on Babcocks getting the contract, finally competion to BAE and these ships are getting sections built all round the UK, great to see yards from up and down the country getting a piece of the cake.
Good looking ships too.
-
Personally I'm sad that the Type 26 orders went to a Scottish yard.
As an English-born fella, living in Scotland the last 26 years, I'd be banned if what I wanted to say, was said. So I won't. %%
Andy, not saying nuffin'
-
Well, as suggested earlier - better the orders are placed in the UK than in South Korea.
Also, the hull construction is probably 50% or less of the total cost, the balance being made up of the equipment and weapons systems which come from various sources.
Colin
-
topic modified.
keep it nice guys. let's keep politics out of the discussion please. family forum and all that.
-
Well said Klunk. :-)) :-))
-
I think the issue will be that the base spec is a bit pony - but it meets the budget requirements.
The additional extras that make it into a potent warship (in particular the fact that missile tubes are optional!) are (no doubt expensive) optional extras.
-
Keep politicians out of the decisions and most certainly the Treasury, you may get some decent vessels. One small question, this country has always relied heavily in war on convoy escorts, even in the days of sail, can these vessels keep up with modern container ships at sea!!
-
Yes they can, the 25 knot requirement was for exactly this.
-
25+ :-))
-
HMS Queen Elizabeth has a "design speed" of 25 knots but hit slightly over 32 knots on light ship trials so should be good for 28 knots at full load
-
Yep, well in excess of the requirement for both. I think the Arrowhead will actually do something like 27. Faster than commercial shipping anyway.
-
Guys I was thinking of sea state, RFA Lioness left Falklands the same time as the fleet on return after action, she maintained 21 knots and arrived in UK 14 days ahead of the frigates and destroyers. Container ships maintain 20+ what ever the weather. The best escorts in the last war were the auxiliary carriers with swordfish. But I suppose what matters nowadays is showing the flag. Though I suppose the Nuc hunter killer subs would do good at it as they can do in excess of 30kts below what ever the weather and can kill subs as well as surface ships, though not aircraft. A friend of mine made a good suggestion missle launchers in iso containers, load them on and off merchant ships as required. But the 31's do seem to have good lines and as to the 57mm a/a is what is probably more useful than the old Vickers 4.5 which was never that special.
-
Yes, but surely size matters? The bigger vessels can just bash on regardless while the smaller ones, whatever their nominal top speed, have always been more affected by bad weather. Plenty of instances in WW2 when capital ships outstripped their escorts which in some cases had to turn back.Colin
-
The Iver Huitfelt ships are pretty big to be honest, they’re almost the size of a 45 and definitely more seaworthy than a 23. And if a 23 can escort people okay then I’m sure the arrowhead can.
As for modular weaponary, it’s the in thing. They love sticking Phalanx on stuff because all it really needs is a power supply and a control desk. Sadly the LPDs have lost their goalkeepers for Phalanx, for this reason, so I’d say that if it was required to arm merchant ships they’d just crane a Phalanx on, probably ex-Centurion ones at a guess.
-
I do not disagree with anyone, the only info on these boats are their weaponry and artist pics of them. But I imagine in future the main threats are subs, which are countered by a hunter killer sub and A/S helicopters, and aircraft countered by aircraft A/A weapons. Though these new supersonic missles that the Russians are boasting of are real game changers, not yet heard of a counter to them yet! But if it is in cost 5 for the price of 1 of the others lets have 30 of them to show the flag and carry out gun boat diplomacy. The tanker incident in the Gulf a few weeks ago shows the weakness of one or two boats in a large sea area.
-
Could always design a ship that can submerge like a sub for when a mach 3 missile inbound, even as it is descending it will produce a smaller target on the way down %) {-)
-
Brilliant idea, sure the M.O.D would give a grant to research the idea. Remember talking to a scientist at Portland ASWE who was developing a high speed missile/torpedo, fired from a submerge platform on the seabed. I saw the models and I believed St Margarets did a trial for it once, but like all these good ideas it fell by the wayside due to finance cuts.! ok2 :}
-
I know a multi-role vessel, the stern and bow areas have the electronic warfare parts in watertight sealed compartments the centre area is kept clear to allow for the recovery of other vessels by diving and having the boats berth on top, also as it transits to another area of operations this allows the navy to save fuel with one carrying the other, if need be, the centre area could be loaded with tanks, trucks or containers, or better still watertight containers containing the stores / vehicles, the air in the containers is removed to remove buoyancy and illegal hitchhikers. if the vessel has to submerge then the containers don't hinder this. {-) Oh and during no combat times, do some commercial work to supplement the naval cuts
-
Brilliant conception, you must make a model for Wickstead. Instead of modelling past and present why not do the future, should be fun. {-) %%
-
Guys I was thinking of sea state, RFA Lioness left Falklands the same time as the fleet on return after action, she maintained 21 knots and arrived in UK 14 days ahead of the frigates and destroyers. Container ships maintain 20+ what ever the weather. The best escorts in the last war were the auxiliary carriers with swordfish. But I suppose what matters nowadays is showing the flag. Though I suppose the Nuc hunter killer subs would do good at it as they can do in excess of 30kts below what ever the weather and can kill subs as well as surface ships, though not aircraft. A friend of mine made a good suggestion missle launchers in iso containers, load them on and off merchant ships as required. But the 31's do seem to have good lines and as to the 57mm a/a is what is probably more useful than the old Vickers 4.5 which was never that special.
Didnt many of the frigates and destroyers coming back have battle damage and patched up water line holes in them so would have travelled slower?
-
Cannot finish the Victory, so what chance of starting this concept boat :embarrassed:
-
Warspite never say die as they say, have a similar job with Endeavour, finally got it down and I am determined to finish it by next spring and I have just got out my Lesro kit of the Sun21to do after 15 years in the attic. To Jay s query there was no battle damage just smaller lightly built vessels cannot punch through a seaway like bigger heavier vessels, you see Jay a cubic yard of water weighs one ton, so a large wave of several hundred cubic yards of water has quite an impact on a hull, without the flexing off the hull passing over waves and straddling gullies between waves. So the larger and stronger the hull the bigger the waves they can handle. The big container boats put the hammer down when clear of the English channel and usually do not ease up until next port off call like Singapore at 21 to 30 knots depending on the vessel. Though this explains why damage an loss of containers at sea used to be more common than people realised.