Size comparison with other RN escorts. The Type 31 has the smallest crew (110) compared to the contemporary Type 23 (185), Type 45 (191) and Type 26 (157)
(Left) A hallway on an Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate. (Right) The equivalent location on a Type 31 shown in a CAD model. This shows how the Type 31’s higher survivability and recovery standards add complexity. System duplication achieves this without increasing the number of personnel required to repair battle damage.
Southampton stupidly tried to cut across the bow of a tanker it was escorting in the Persian Gulf and got impailed. Nottingham ran aground on Wolf Rock because the second officer of the watch drew a dead reckoning line in pencil over it on the paper chart, obscuring it from view. Endurance almost sank because an engineer opened up a valve below the waterline that should only be opened in a dry dock. I was on RFA Blackrover at the time and watched it being loaded onto a recovery ship ready for its journey back home to Portsmouth.
It is all well and good having a smaller crew, but this is a man-‘o’-war not some sort of cost effective merchant ship. You need the right size of crew to ‘fight the ship’. That means not just personnel too man the weapons and their system. You a crew for damage control to fight fires and floods, you need personnel for first aid and rescue, you need personnel to sail the ship, and that includes engineering.
Excellent comment! Are only a few people still conscious and aware of the empirical realities, instead of simply and uncritically just lauding any reason for reduced manning needs to operate modern warships? Reductions that while they do represent a potential chance to regrow the fleet somewhat, are STILL not wholly non-problematic developments for precisely those very cogent reasons you list!
All too common. There are videos describing new warships that don't even mention length and displacement, just connected snippets of stock footage with "stirring" music. Pathetic.
fewer numbers to operate...another Navy forgetting you also need people to maintain, civilian contractors aren't going to fly to an area of operations to fix your shit
Looking at the desing these are cheap and useless ships, no where near enough VLS to be useful, to few guns, poor range and speed. These will be only slightly more useful than LCS.
Type 31 frigates will be equipped with a 32 cell MK 41 VLS. 8 of those cells will be for anti-ship missiles. The other 24 cells could be quad packed with Seaceptor SAMs, giving a total of 96 missiles. That's not bad for a cheap frigate conducting local area defence inside 20 nautical miles. The 2 x Bofors 40 mm will also have 3P ammunition for closer in anti air/surface engagements.
@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 If the anti-ship missiles are placed into deck launchers as they are in many other ships, this would free up 8 cells for Tomahawk land attack missiles. Remember, it is a general purpose frigate, and it's meant to be cheap. I do agree that it's undercrewed.
@stephennelmes4557 I disagree. In the age of missiles, the simulations suggest any naval combat with a peer opponent is a game of who runs out of air defence missiles first. I do think the cheap deck mounted ASUW missiles and short-range anti air missiles are useful. The deck mounted ASUW missiles are to wittle down the enemy anti air missiles, at which point you fire a large hypersonic anti ship missile to make the kill and they have to be in VLS . I think on today's age you need minimum, Destoryers 96-144 VLS General purpose frigates 48-96 VLS ASW frigates, yeah, 32 is fine, but 42 - 48 is better. All VLS should be at a 3-1 or 4-1 ratio, AAW missiles - ASUW and land attack missiles. The AAW cells will be quad packed, and the ASUW or land attack will be singles to twin cells depending on the missile.
Size comparison with other RN escorts. The Type 31 has the smallest crew (110) compared to the contemporary Type 23 (185), Type 45 (191) and Type 26 (157)
(Left) A hallway on an Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate. (Right) The equivalent location on a Type 31 shown in a CAD model. This shows how the Type 31’s higher survivability and recovery standards add complexity. System duplication achieves this without increasing the number of personnel required to repair battle damage.
Southampton stupidly tried to cut across the bow of a tanker it was escorting in the Persian Gulf and got impailed.
Nottingham ran aground on Wolf Rock because the second officer of the watch drew a dead reckoning line in pencil over it on the paper chart, obscuring it from view.
Endurance almost sank because an engineer opened up a valve below the waterline that should only be opened in a dry dock. I was on RFA Blackrover at the time and watched it being loaded onto a recovery ship ready for its journey back home to Portsmouth.
Good Informations😎🇬🇧
Good
Man the ships with Filipino crew with ten officers..😂😂😂😂
It is all well and good having a smaller crew, but this is a man-‘o’-war not some sort of cost effective merchant ship. You need the right size of crew to ‘fight the ship’. That means not just personnel too man the weapons and their system. You a crew for damage control to fight fires and floods, you need personnel for first aid and rescue, you need personnel to sail the ship, and that includes engineering.
Excellent comment! Are only a few people still conscious and aware of the empirical realities, instead of simply and uncritically just lauding any reason for reduced manning needs to operate modern warships? Reductions that while they do represent a potential chance to regrow the fleet somewhat, are STILL not wholly non-problematic developments for precisely those very cogent reasons you list!
And nato countries are buying these ships so I don’t understand why people overlook quality and lethality
There is about 45 seconds of useful commentary in this video, the rest of just music and video stuck together.
All too common. There are videos describing new warships that don't even mention length and displacement, just connected snippets of stock footage with "stirring" music. Pathetic.
This is a much realistic British frigate compared to type 26 shitp which is an expensive flop like Zumwalt class
thats how they crashed into each other
fewer numbers to operate...another Navy forgetting you also need people to maintain, civilian contractors aren't going to fly to an area of operations to fix your shit
pointless video, told me nothing...
Looking at the desing these are cheap and useless ships, no where near enough VLS to be useful, to few guns, poor range and speed. These will be only slightly more useful than LCS.
Was this drunken ramblings? Maybe a bot ? Why are you're boys trying so hard to get data regarding lol
Type 31 frigates will be equipped with a 32 cell MK 41 VLS. 8 of those cells will be for anti-ship missiles. The other 24 cells could be quad packed with Seaceptor SAMs, giving a total of 96 missiles. That's not bad for a cheap frigate conducting local area defence inside 20 nautical miles.
The 2 x Bofors 40 mm will also have 3P ammunition for closer in anti air/surface engagements.
@@stephennelmes4557 exactly, it's poor, cheap design that's underarmed and undercrewed.
@fightforaglobalfirstamendm5617 If the anti-ship missiles are placed into deck launchers as they are in many other ships, this would free up 8 cells for Tomahawk land attack missiles.
Remember, it is a general purpose frigate, and it's meant to be cheap.
I do agree that it's undercrewed.
@stephennelmes4557 I disagree. In the age of missiles, the simulations suggest any naval combat with a peer opponent is a game of who runs out of air defence missiles first.
I do think the cheap deck mounted ASUW missiles and short-range anti air missiles are useful. The deck mounted ASUW missiles are to wittle down the enemy anti air missiles, at which point you fire a large hypersonic anti ship missile to make the kill and they have to be in VLS .
I think on today's age you need minimum,
Destoryers 96-144 VLS
General purpose frigates 48-96 VLS
ASW frigates, yeah, 32 is fine, but 42 - 48 is better.
All VLS should be at a 3-1 or 4-1 ratio, AAW missiles - ASUW and land attack missiles. The AAW cells will be quad packed, and the ASUW or land attack will be singles to twin cells depending on the missile.