The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The Forum doesn't tolerate fake news and false narratives. At the present time this could also be classified as a political statement given the posters location and politics are forbidden on the forum. Any more such incidents from you will result in Moderator action. Consider this as an adjunct to the second warning that you have managed to accumulate in the space of two posts made within 6 minutes. Not a good look for your continued stay here especially as you have attracted the attention of two of the three grumpiest Moderators on here.
Received aft!
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I suspect your right. I was possibly abit hasty there. But BAE has alot of "influence" and I tend to default to that when looking for a reason. And they are the competition.

In terms of type 31 - that I wasnt aware of how acute the timeline was. That is another impressive aspect if they pull it off which looks very possible. A while back on this forum the issue of high tempo state on state conflict and the issue of replacement munitions came up. I think that extends to replacing losses of hulls. In which case a crash build template of type 31 might be very wise thing to have up the sleeve (a CANZUK light frigate program?).

Timescales are incredibly tight for Type 31 - but they are being contracted in a way which is new for the RN as far as I understand it. Basically, instead of laying out a spec of kit and telling industry "it must use this" industry was asked "what can you do for this much money">
Some of the choices are interesting - the radar arguably may be better than Artisan for instance as it's a generation on.



I'd sooner see more Sea Ceptor cells but honestly ? It's five dirt cheap frigates which are large, have growth margins and should be relatively resistant to damage, and have good sea keeping.

The fit of 3 med calibre cannons does make life for the kind of threats it's aligned against look short and exciting and if it takes the weight off the rest of the fleet, and maybe clocks up some orders for export, that's a good outcome.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Some exports would be nice. No doubt export customers would be free to specify various options, of which more Sea Ceptor wouild probably be one of the simplest & easiest. I can see Mica VL NG, CAMM-ER, or ESSM also fitting in easily, along with the land attack missile of your choice. There's scope for either a hull or towed sonar. That's the advantage of space.
 

Albedo

Member
I am surprised at RN procurement though. 40mm L70 is fair enough but was there no coordination between 40mm naval mounts and army CTA? And why then acquire 57mm that is not even passingly a NGFS round when you could sneak in with the passable 76mm? Type 31 is a big ship, oto 76mm don't weigh that much and I'm sure the last purchase of 76mm I saw had a sticker price of 6 mill USD including support. Seems that 57mm was possibly about more BAE marketing than being a serious medium calibre gun (2.4kg projectile to 76mm's 6kg).
Since the Type 31 doesn't have Phalanx, the Bofors 40mm might have been selected to provide some measure of gun-based anti-missile capability to backup Sea Ceptor. If we take the marketing claims at face value, the Bofors 40 mm does claim an anti-missile capability whereas the 40 CTA doesn't. The Bofors 40mm fires at 300 rpm vs 200 rpm for the 40 CTA which may help in that regard.

The choice of the Bofors 57mm could be influenced by the US doubling down on the 57mm by requiring it in the FFG(X) and trust that the US will succeed in developing the ALaMO guided anti-ship round and the MAD-FIRES guided anti-missile round.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Considering the donor Danish design has a Mk41 vls I wonder if the type 31 has retained the structural provisions for same?

It would make sense but I could also see the UK deliberately altering the design to make this upgrade impossible.
 

Albedo

Member
Considering the donor Danish design has a Mk41 vls I wonder if the type 31 has retained the structural provisions for same?

It would make sense but I could also see the UK deliberately altering the design to make this upgrade impossible.
It seems like the Sea Ceptor mushroom farm on the Type 31 is located where the Mk41 is on the Iver Huitfeldt-class. So adding back the Mk41 will require the removal of the Sea Ceptor tubes which I believe are 1 deck high and depend on whether the 2 decks below that are available (I believe strike-length Mk41 launchers are 3 decks high). Seeing the Type 31 has 2 additional boat bays on the side it's quite possible the space under the Sea Ceptor tubes is spoken for to compensate.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Considering the donor Danish design has a Mk41 vls I wonder if the type 31 has retained the structural provisions for same?

It would make sense but I could also see the UK deliberately altering the design to make this upgrade impossible.
Given the time and budget constraints, I can't see the design team lifting a finger to do anything that didn't win them the bid. And I also suspect if you rang them with an export offer, but it had to mount a ram bow and ballista, they'd pop the top off their biro and ask "broadside for the ballista or superimposed ?"
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I've been surfing social media this evening & seen a few posts pointing to the fact that HMS Bristol is allegedly serving her last day as an RN ship. Comments are stating that Wednesday 28th October 2020 will be her last day, after being launched in 1969 & also serving during the Falklands war.

I've been searching for other news outlets / confirmation from both RN & local Portsmouth newspaper websites, but they aren't carrying anything.

However, the article in the link below from June this year, implies that it could be a certainty...

Fresh calls to save Portsmouth one-of-a-kind warship from being scrapped
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I've been surfing social media this evening & seen a few posts pointing to the fact that HMS Bristol is allegedly serving her last day as an RN ship. Comments are stating that Wednesday 28th October 2020 will be her last day, after being launched in 1969 & also serving during the Falklands war.

I've been searching for other news outlets / confirmation from both RN & local Portsmouth newspaper websites, but they aren't carrying anything.

However, the article in the link below from June this year, implies that it could be a certainty...

Fresh calls to save Portsmouth one-of-a-kind warship from being scrapped
Interesting that she outlasted the succeeding Type 42. Always wondered what they could have done with more extensive upgraded or a Batch II version.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Outlasted the Type 42 as a harbour training ship, with never-repaired damage to her propulsion incurred in 1991. When she was sent to Tyneside for refit 10 years ago, she arrived under tow, & they took off the (unused for years) radar masts. I suspect she outlasted 'em mostly because she was already outfitted internally for training, including accommodation.

Replacing the steam turbines with more GTs or diesels would have been necessary for a Batch II. The navy was giving up steam. A hangar would also have been a good idea, & a bigger flight deck.
 

Systems Adict

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I've been surfing social media this evening & seen a few posts pointing to the fact that HMS Bristol is allegedly serving her last day as an RN ship. Comments are stating that Wednesday 28th October 2020 will be her last day, after being launched in 1969 & also serving during the Falklands war.

I've been searching for other news outlets / confirmation from both RN & local Portsmouth newspaper websites, but they aren't carrying anything.

However, the article in the link below from June this year, implies that it could be a certainty...

Fresh calls to save Portsmouth one-of-a-kind warship from being scrapped
Still nothing in Local press, or RN News feeds, put saw this on facebook...

Britain's Cold War-Era Monster Destroyer Has Finally Been Retired
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Interesting that she outlasted the succeeding Type 42. Always wondered what they could have done with more extensive upgraded or a Batch II version.

Not in active service she didn't - Bristol went out of front line work years before the last of the 42s from memory.

She was really designed to run with the carriers she was ordered to protect - CVA-01, hence no hangar and of course, COGAS was never going to fly so a batch 2 would have been pretty much a different ship.

Sad to see her go to the breakers but she's not remotely in a historical configuration I suppose.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Batch 2 propulsion: COGAG with more powerful Olympuses plus four (because two wasn't enough for going flat out) Tynes for cruise & hotel load? Or just say to hell with it, & replace the steam stuff by two more Olympuses, with the ability to run on one?

The questions are, how much space would the extra GTs have taken up compared the steam plant, & how many crew?
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Batch 2 propulsion: COGAG with more powerful Olympuses plus four (because two wasn't enough for going flat out) Tynes for cruise & hotel load? Or just say to hell with it, & replace the steam stuff by two more Olympuses, with the ability to run on one?

The questions are, how much space would the extra GTs have taken up compared the steam plant, & how many crew?
Rule of thumb, GTs are easier to maintain and need fewer crew to do so. Also thinking on it standardizing on either diesels or GTs for propulsion and power generation also introduces savings, as does replacing as many fluid, i.e. pneumatic / hydraulic systems, with electric. Basically the fewer system types, the fewer specialist rates you need with in the maintenance departments.

Not much could have been done with Bristol as a one off RN ship used to introduce new systems into service. In an alternate reality where the basic hull and systems was sold to Australia Canada and say Brazil, there could have been some very interesting permutations.

An idea of what could have happened with the Bristol design, look at the various Burke evolutions, not just the US but the Japanese and Korean variants.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
And in general terms,GTs take up les space than steam, combustion area and power turbine contained in one package vs at least two for steam, and boilers are big; but uses more upper deck area for air intakes and exhausts
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
S
And in general terms,GTs take up les space than steam, combustion area and power turbine contained in one package vs at least two for steam, and boilers are big; but uses more upper deck area for air intakes and exhausts
Set up properly the exhausts provide a path to remove and replace a GT in a manner that would never be possible with a steam or diesel plant.

I quite like the GT generators on USN major combatants, diesel has its advantages but I can see the benefits of all GT. This is especially the case with greater and greater electrification combined with batteries.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
For a Type 82 Batch 2 (or maybe a Type 83) we're talking of a decision made in about 1967, to keep the basic Bristol design instead of building the much smaller (too small, as was recognised by the time Batch 3 was ordered) Type 42. I'd expect avoidance of anything seen as untried, & AFAIK diesels in destroyers were untried in the RN back then. The Germans had been building Köln class frigates for 10 years, but despite being much smaller they had four diesels as well as two GTs. I suspect that the RN would have thought all GTs was easier.

Bristol had a crew of 397. Type 42 had about 250-270. Any ideas about how many a steam-free Bristol might have needed? I assume at least the weapons of Type 42.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
For a Type 82 Batch 2 (or maybe a Type 83) we're talking of a decision made in about 1967, to keep the basic Bristol design instead of building the much smaller (too small, as was recognised by the time Batch 3 was ordered) Type 42. I'd expect avoidance of anything seen as untried, & AFAIK diesels in destroyers were untried in the RN back then. The Germans had been building Köln class frigates for 10 years, but despite being much smaller they had four diesels as well as two GTs. I suspect that the RN would have thought all GTs was easier.

Bristol had a crew of 397. Type 42 had about 250-270. Any ideas about how many a steam-free Bristol might have needed? I assume at least the weapons of Type 42.
Interesting question - are you deleting the ASW fit ? No Ikara and Limbo ? You're also saving on some drive train by removing the steam turbines so mechanically a bit simpler.

Add in a hangar and permanent aviation detachment and I'd guess similar figures to the high end of a 42 - say 270 ish ?

Tempting to try and work in a second Sea Dart launcher but that complicates the hangar arrangements.

I'm just reading "End of an Era " which covers much of the ship building decisions of the time - can't recommend it enough as it's literally four really juicy anecdotes a page.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hull stretch if necessary, retain Sea Dart where it is with hangar aft of it as seen on Tromp, Audace, Brooke, Cassard. Maybe a second Sea Dart forward in place of the RN Ikara monstrosity, possibly an RAN configuration Ikara in place of Limbo if the helo is limited to a Lynx

Definately an all GT propulsion, maybe four Olympus, with two of them driving generators through a gearbox and two solely for boost.
 
Top