Type 31 GPFF

TomS said:
Ron5 said:
TomS said:
Wyvern said:
Not sure if this has already been posted here, but the following is a detailed article about the history of the Type 31 frigate:

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

Type 31 General Purpose Frigate (GPFF) - Think Defence

The Royal Navy Type 31 General Purpose Frigate (GPFF) is a new class of vessel designed to provide a lower cost vessel in the capability space between the Batch 2 River Class OPV and Type 26 Frigate.
www.thinkdefence.co.uk www.thinkdefence.co.uk

Also, I have seen quite an amount of controversy about the chosen armament of the Type 31, mainly the 57mm cannon. I assume it has been chosen because it is getting guided shells, and gives a high rate of fire as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the availability of guided rounds is decisive -- there are 76mm guided rounds as well. But the fact that BAE is the shipbuilder and selected their own in-house gun products isn't exactly surprising. Remember, given how the Type 31 was ordered, the manufacturer has a lot more leeway to specify armament and combat systems than in some other ships.
Click to expand...
Bae is not the builder. They lost the competition.
Click to expand...

Quite right. Not sure how I had that stuck in my head wrong.
Click to expand...
You are usually 100% so definitely out of character!
 
www.babcockinternational.com

Babcock sells first new frigate design licence to Indonesia

Babcock the aerospace, defence and security company has secured the first export contract for its Arrowhead 140 (AH140) frigate through a design licence agreement with PT PAL Indonesia (Persero), a state-owned enterprise that builds and maintains ships for military and commercial use from its...
www.babcockinternational.com www.babcockinternational.com
 
www.babcockinternational.com

Babcock marks completion of new Rosyth assembly hall with recruitment drive

Babcock, the defence, security and aerospace company, has unveiled plans to recruit 500 workers for its Type 31 frigate programme as the build of its new state-of-the-art assembly hall, The Venturer Building is completed at its Rosyth site. The announcement was made as Douglas Chapman MP...
www.babcockinternational.com www.babcockinternational.com
 
Hmmmm....so the Bofors 40mm returns to the RN....

It's sad to see the CTAS 40mm fail here, but not surprising. Having funded development to then not spread the capability as widely as possible puts off possible customers.

The clear hope is funding for 3P ammunition.
But in theory it also keeps open the door to future guided rounds and allows for cheaper basic 40mm as well.

I see it's to provide both CIWS, anti-FAC and GP capability.
It also undermines the need for 57mm and frankly makes 76mm main guns a bit pointless.
 
zen said:
I see it's to provide both CIWS, anti-FAC and GP capability.
It also undermines the need for 57mm and frankly makes 76mm main guns a bit pointless.
Click to expand...
The extra range of the 57mm will help push engagements out, and be more useful for an indirect fire role.
 
starviking said:
zen said:
I see it's to provide both CIWS, anti-FAC and GP capability.
It also undermines the need for 57mm and frankly makes 76mm main guns a bit pointless.
Click to expand...
The extra range of the 57mm will help push engagements out, and be more useful for an indirect fire role.
Click to expand...
But is it worth it?
Might as well leave defence to 40mm and FLAADS.
 
zen said:
starviking said:
zen said:
I see it's to provide both CIWS, anti-FAC and GP capability.
It also undermines the need for 57mm and frankly makes 76mm main guns a bit pointless.
Click to expand...
The extra range of the 57mm will help push engagements out, and be more useful for an indirect fire role.
Click to expand...
But is it worth it?
Might as well leave defence to 40mm and FLAADS.
Click to expand...
It certainly might appear that there is considerable overlap between 40mm and 57mm in anti-aircraft roles. But dropping 57mm in favor of missiles leaves quite a gap in the surface engagement solution.

That is, 57mm offers roughly 50% more engagement range than 40mm against surface targets. This, combined with the increases potential for guided rounds in the larger shell (ORCA and ALaMO, for example), suggests a clear benefit to having a bigger gun in the 57-76mm range for surface engagements. This isn't a new observation -- the RN adoption of the OTO 76mm gun on the Peacock OPVs back in the 1980s reflects the limitations of 40mm in "junk bashing" roles.

Having opted for 57mm, the next question is whether the choice of 40mm for secondary gun is better or worse than the alternatives. Those would appear to be either 35mm or 30mm firing air-bursting/AHEAD type rounds instead of 40mm with 3P proximity rounds. The choice between 35mm and 40mm seems to be a toss-up to me. Millennium is fast-firing but not much lighter and the ammo isn't that much smaller either. Going to 30mm might allow three rather than two mounts but complicates arrangements so you might not have more guns that can point in any given direction. And you sacrifice range against all sorts of targets.
 
Last edited:
www.navyrecognition.com

British Navy plans to introduce five Type 32 frigates

According to a report published by the UK’s House of Commons Defense Committee on December 7, 2021, the British Royal Navy is planning to introduce five Ty
www.navyrecognition.com www.navyrecognition.com

According to a report published by the UK’s House of Commons Defense Committee on December 7, 2021, the British Royal Navy is planning to introduce five Type 32 frigates, which would increase the escort fleet (frigates and destroyers) from 19 to 24.

During the DSEI, British defense exhibition in September 2021, British company Babcock International revealed it was pitching its Arrowhead 140 design, used by the Type 31 frigate, as the base design for the Type 32.

According to information from the UK’s Minister for Defense Procurement Jeremy Quin, the new Type 32 frigate will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the British Navy’s capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.

Citing British navy military experts, the Type 32 will offer an ability to host MMCM modules in addition to supporting littoral operations by the Royal Marines. Initiated in 2012 under a cooperation agreement between France and the United Kingdom, the MMCM program develops a prototype autonomous system for detection and neutralization of sea mines and underwater improvised explosive devices (UWIEDs).
Click to expand...
 
I'm not convinced that a frigate is the most cost effective MCM mothership, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine a Type 31 with those four bays loaded with USVs and a light armament of CAMM and a 57mm gun. It would still be beefier than a River II, which can only be good.

ASW capability sounds good, lets hope it doesn't herald some MoD/Treasury bean counters to cancel some of the Batch 2 Type 26s though.
 
ASW capability is likely USV based, as the costs of redesign and building a quietened version is prohibitive. Couple this with Proteus UAV-H

Arguably a AAW variant is much easier.
 
I would also assume that the Type 32s with autonomous systems will help replace the minehunters that are currently in service with the Royal Navy, as these are slated to be replaced by remotely piloted vehicles instead.

Also, what is the present weapons outfit for the Type 31?
 
Wyvern said:
I would also assume that the Type 32s with autonomous systems will help replace the minehunters that are currently in service with the Royal Navy, as these are slated to be replaced by remotely piloted vehicles instead.
Click to expand...

No-one really knows. I agree with previous posters that a Frigate design is not the best platform. It's more likely that the RN will go with a commercial style hull. A development of an Oil and Gas Offshore Support Vessel would appear to be the likely direction. Lots of growth margin as well, which a Frigate design will not have. BMT got the design's right years ago with Venator 90 for a more warlike posture and Venari 85 for more peacable areas...

Current weapons outfit for Type 31 is 1 x 57mm, 2 x 40mm Bofors, 12 Sea Ceptor (number is not fully confirmed but thats all that have been seen positively in images, still some hope for 24, even if its FFBNW). Nothing else has been confirmed, that includes the AShM fitout and any possibility of Torpedo Tubes.
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
Current weapons outfit for Type 31 is 1 x 57mm, 2 x 40mm Bofors, 12 Sea Ceptor (not confirmed but thats all that have been seen positively in images). Nothing else has been confirmed, that includes the AShM fitout and any possibility of Torpedo Tubes.
Click to expand...
Which isn't exactly earth-shattering kaboom firepower, a 1980s FAC probably packed just as much firepower...

timmymagic said:
It's more likely that the RN will go with a commercial style hull. A development of an Oil and Gas Offshore Support Vessel would appear to be the likely direction.
Click to expand...
Sounds possible, although the RN seems to want something that will tag along with the Littoral Group so presumably they are looking at some kind of self-defensive armament given its going to be loitering fairly close to shore.

Feels like Type 32 might become a Type 31 Batch 2 (which Admiral Radakin was recently quoted as saying might happen), - a T31 with minehunting USVs and dedicated datalinks and control space. Though those items are likely to be roll-on roll-off modules so the question is why not future proof Type 31 by being compatible with this kind of modular kit now?

A little more info on the Type 31's 40mm gun: https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-bofors-40mm-mk-4-gun-that-will-equip-the-type-31-frigates/
 
The Type 31 due to the nature of its a procurement will be a fitted for not with to begin with. The price cap on the unit price has lead to an austere fit initially and until all five ships are completed I think they will stay that way till the first refit. The Type 32 design will get the stuff they would like of the Type 31, and some of this will be back fitted onto 31s once the RN get a new Anti-ship missile.

The 57mm has been used by the Canadian Halifax class, and has been selected for the new USN Frigate, but with the 40mm in the CIWS role, and the GP nature of the Type 31 it would make more senses to fit the 5in as per the Type 26 so they can be used for NGS, then fit the 57mm onto River II class
 
Thorvic said:
The Type 31 due to the nature of its a procurement will be a fitted for not with to begin with. The price cap on the unit price has lead to an austere fit initially and until all five ships are completed I think they will stay that way till the first refit. The Type 32 design will get the stuff they would like of the Type 31, and some of this will be back fitted onto 31s once the RN get a new Anti-ship missile.

The 57mm has been used by the Canadian Halifax class, and has been selected for the new USN Frigate, but with the 40mm in the CIWS role, and the GP nature of the Type 31 it would make more senses to fit the 5in as per the Type 26 so they can be used for NGS, then fit the 57mm onto River II class
Click to expand...
Agreed.
Funding additional 5 sets of Higher end kit is going to be cheaper once Type 32 funding is secured for the initial 5 sets.
It also opens up a long term sell off of low end Type 31 and repeat orders for Type 32 keeping shipyards open.
 
Thorvic said:
The 57mm has been used by the Canadian Halifax class, and has been selected for the new USN Frigate, but with the 40mm in the CIWS role, and the GP nature of the Type 31 it would make more senses to fit the 5in as per the Type 26 so they can be used for NGS, then fit the 57mm onto River II class
Click to expand...

Thing is, a 5-inch gun would not be very useful in escort or antipiracy type duties, which seem likely to make up a big chunk of the T31's tasks. It's too slow-firing for the counter-small-boat role, which seem likely to be more important than NGFS. And a ship with only 12 CAMM is probably too vulnerable to send inshore for NGFS in a modern threat environment with armed/suicide drones and coastal-defense missiles. (Think the coast of Yemen, for example.)
 
Will be interesting to see what the actual armament on the Polish version will look like. The MEKO A-300 concept that was circulated is very heavily equipped (5-inch gun, 32 Mk 41, 32 medium-range SAM, 16 SSM, 2 RAM, laser and HPM, helicopter, etc.) That seems almost comically over-stuffed. But the baseline Type 31 design was very understuffed.
 
TomS said:
zen said:
starviking said:
zen said:
I see it's to provide both CIWS, anti-FAC and GP capability.
It also undermines the need for 57mm and frankly makes 76mm main guns a bit pointless.
Click to expand...
The extra range of the 57mm will help push engagements out, and be more useful for an indirect fire role.
Click to expand...
But is it worth it?
Might as well leave defence to 40mm and FLAADS.
Click to expand...
It certainly might appear that there is considerable overlap between 40mm and 57mm in anti-aircraft roles. But dropping 57mm in favor of missiles leaves quite a gap in the surface engagement solution.

That is, 57mm offers roughly 50% more engagement range than 40mm against surface targets. This, combined with the increases potential for guided rounds in the larger shell (ORCA and ALaMO, for example), suggests a clear benefit to having a bigger gun in the 57-76mm range for surface engagements. This isn't a new observation -- the RN adoption of the OTO 76mm gun on the Peacock OPVs back in the 1980s reflects the limitations of 40mm in "junk bashing" roles.

Having opted for 57mm, the next question is whether the choice of 40mm for secondary gun is better or worse than the alternatives. Those would appear to be either 35mm or 30mm firing air-bursting/AHEAD type rounds instead of 40mm with 3P proximity rounds. The choice between 35mm and 40mm seems to be a toss-up to me. Millennium is fast-firing but not much lighter and the ammo isn't that much smaller either. Going to 30mm might allow three rather than two mounts but complicates arrangements so you might not have more guns that can point in any given direction. And you sacrifice range against all sorts of targets.
Click to expand...
A very (very very) rough analogy of the difference between 57mm and 40mm is think the difference between the 2pdr AT gun and the 6pdr AT gun.
 
TomS said:
Thorvic said:
The 57mm has been used by the Canadian Halifax class, and has been selected for the new USN Frigate, but with the 40mm in the CIWS role, and the GP nature of the Type 31 it would make more senses to fit the 5in as per the Type 26 so they can be used for NGS, then fit the 57mm onto River II class
Click to expand...

Thing is, a 5-inch gun would not be very useful in escort or antipiracy type duties, which seem likely to make up a big chunk of the T31's tasks. It's too slow-firing for the counter-small-boat role, which seem likely to be more important than NGFS. And a ship with only 12 CAMM is probably too vulnerable to send inshore for NGFS in a modern threat environment with armed/suicide drones and coastal-defense missiles. (Think the coast of Yemen, for example.)
Click to expand...
The "small boats", meaning Iran's fleet, now have boats sporting a pair of 25km* range (I believe Sea Skua might be a good analogue) missiles. 127mm or 76mm with terminally guided Vulcano have the range to take those boats out before they reach launch range. Additionally the DART anti-air round can also be used for surface engagement of small boats. I think both make more sense than 57mm, which doesn't have the range to attack the boats before they can launch. I don't know how DART compares to 40mm in the CIWS role, but if it's comparable the flexibility of the 76 makes for a better armament fitment.

*Rockets and 14.5mm were interim, I wouldn't be surprised if the next generation of boats carries 100km+ range ASMs.
 
apparition13 said:
The "small boats", meaning Iran's fleet, now have boats sporting a pair of 25km* range (I believe Sea Skua might be a good analogue) missiles. 127mm or 76mm with terminally guided Vulcano have the range to take those boats out before they reach launch range. Additionally the DART anti-air round can also be used for surface engagement of small boats. I think both make more sense than 57mm, which doesn't have the range to attack the boats before they can launch. I don't know how DART compares to 40mm in the CIWS role, but if it's comparable the flexibility of the 76 makes for a better armament fitment.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the bit where I said that 76mm and 57mm are roughly equivalent. Both have guided rounds suitable for small boat engagements.

The use of 127mm Vulcano guided rounds against small boats is more complicated. First, the IR-guided round needed for such engagements appears to not actually exist, though Leonardo says it can be done "easily." Second, I have real doubts about the ability of boats with such long-range weapons to actually employ them effectively. There is a lot of C4ISR needed to back that up. And third, I also have questions about how easy it would be to preemptively engage small boats at very long range in a less than total war scenario. RoE is very unlikely to allow you to shoot at a small boat 25 miles away just because it has missile armament and is headed in your direction. Time-of-flight constraints mean that even if you can open fire as soon as you see some tangible step toward a launch (which literally might be nothing at all until a missile actually leaves its launch tube), the missiles will be gone before your rounds arrive.

So, at that point, the emphasis should be on defending against such missiles, for which 57mm or 76mm are better options. Let your armed helicopter deal with the boats post-launch.
 
Last edited:
Volkodav said:
A very (very very) rough analogy of the difference between 57mm and 40mm is think the difference between the 2pdr AT gun and the 6pdr AT gun.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's pretty close as far as the 57mm/6pdr comparison is concerned. The 2pdr was closer to the 40mm Bofors L/60 rather than the current, more powerful, L/70.
 
There was some speculation that the Type 32 might be another batch of Type 31s, but it seems that the programme's heading in a new and interesting direction.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Type 32 Frigate to focus on operating drones

The Type 32 Frigate will be the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk ukdefencejournal.org.uk

“The Type 32 programme will be the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems that add mass and a cost of complexity upon our adversaries. Many of these autonomous capabilities and other complex systems will be delivered in a modular manner, which offers the potential to simplify the host platform whilst retaining the flexibility to optimise it for a range of specific tasks. It also provides a route to delivering the adaptability that will be essential for all future Royal Navy ships to enable them to outpace evolving threats and capitalise on emerging technology.

Is the type worth a new thread of its own yet?
 
Rhinocrates said:
Is the type worth a new thread of its own yet?
Click to expand...

I'd say not yet. This could still turn out to be a version of the Type 31 hull with enlarged mission bay space and unmanned system controls.

Back in 2020, Babcock showed the Arrowhead as a drone platform.

www.navalnews.com

Royal Navy's New Type 32 Frigate to Serve as Unmanned Systems Mothership - Naval News

British MP Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for Defence Procurement, shed some fresh light on the future Type 32 frigate of the Royal Navy today, answering a parliamentary question: The Type 32 will serve as mothership for unmanned systems.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 

Attachments

  • Royal-Navys-Type-32-Frigate-to-Serve-as-Unmanned-Systems-Mothership.jpg
    Royal-Navys-Type-32-Frigate-to-Serve-as-Unmanned-Systems-Mothership.jpg
    70.9 KB · Views: 109
Agreed, until we know more it might not be worth a dedicated thread.
For me there is nothing that indicates the Type 31 couldn't be used for this role, and indeed the RN has stated it might fill the role.
I would guess the only reason they might not use the Type 31 is if they want a cheaper USV/UUV carrier or if an off the shelf commercial design could do the job just as well.
 
Yes, most likely so. Still, I was intrigued by this emphasis on drones. BAE Systems did come up with the UXV concept for a warship optimised for aerial drones based on a Type 45 hull and I was wondering if Type 32 would be a compact version. The RN is doing work with unmanned surface craft so that is more likely.


Keep our ears pricked and wait a while until more emerges, I guess.
 
www.babcockinternational.com

Keel laying for Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate showcases Babcock workforce

Babcock has started construction of the first of five Royal Navy Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer, at its Rosyth facility. After cutting the first steel on the programme in September 2021, the traditional keel laying event formally recognised the start of the build, including placing a specially...
www.babcockinternational.com www.babcockinternational.com
www.navalnews.com

Babcock Lays Keel of Royal Navy’s First Type 31 frigate - Naval News

Babcock has started construction of the first of five Royal Navy Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer, at its Rosyth facility.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
Rhinocrates said:
Yes, most likely so. Still, I was intrigued by this emphasis on drones. BAE Systems did come up with the UXV concept for a warship optimised for aerial drones based on a Type 45 hull and I was wondering if Type 32 would be a compact version. The RN is doing work with unmanned surface craft so that is more likely.
Click to expand...

If the RN does go this route with the Type 32, I hope they really do their homework and don't try to do too much with one hull like we did with the American LCS program. In the most recent budget for 2023, the USN announced they're early decommissioning all but 6 of the Freedom Class LCS variant and are cancelling the ASW mission module.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom