The Ship Model Forum

Interesting! Thanks.

Hi All,

Hi Guest yes that's correct, plus I think HMS Beatty became HMS Howe?

Hi Admiral John Byng I remember reading somewhere that HMS Prince of Wales was originally to be named Edward VIII but after the abdication the name was obviously changed. There was still some controversy with the rename as the abdicated King was formerly the Prince of Wales.

Whether this is true or not is something I'm still looking into, the evidence for which will probably be found in the constructors papers in the National Maritime Museum.

Hope that helps,
Best wishes
Cag.

David P is correct, however, according to a reliable source that I have read (Alan Raven: Ensign 1), the matter was resolved by naming the third of the class, DUKE OF YORK instead of ANSON. DUKE OF YORK was HM King George VI's, previous title as the second son of the previous sovereign. The Royal Navy did eventually get an ANSON by giving the name to the ship that was to have become JELLICOE.

Guest, thanks for the info on names. I did not know that the first capital ship was named after the reigning monarch. I wonder if they had a ship lined up to be named Edward VIII? I assume there was no KG VI because he was a last minute replacement for Edward?

While there is nothing wrong with BULLDOG, I am still obliged to agree with Admiral Byng. These names have nothing in common and to term them the "Inspiration" class smacks of psycho-babble. I am amazed. By alphabetical sequence and leaving out the recent "E" class of survey vessels, they should surely be the "F" class. What would have been wrong with FAME, FOXHOUND, FURIOUS or FURY (to have had both would eventually have led to confusion), FORESIGHT, FEARLESS, FORTUNE, FIREDRAKE and FORESTER? They would have perpetuated the names of the handsome "F" class destroyers of the 1930's. Although Her Majesty, The Queen has approved the names, I do think that the Ship Names Committee has not thought very hard about those for this class. It could have done better. Sorry: still time for a re-think though.

The explanation why these names were chosen are explained in the article. The common theme is "Inspiration".

"HMS Bulldog is focused on operational advantage in the North Atlantic"

The City names of the Type 26 are nicer.

That's a strange list of names which have nothing in common. HMS Bulldog? Yikes!

It was OK in a large fleet when they needed to find names for B class destroyers but these days you would think they had more sense. Well, maybe not.

[i]Inspiration[/i] class? REALLY???!!! Cue: Elton John song.

Well at least they're bringing back the HMS [i]Formidable[/i] name. Having a Singapore frigate (RSS [i]Formidable[/i]) as the only existing ship in the world with that name didn't seem right...

:big_grin:

[url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-inspiration-class-type-31-warships-named?fbclid=IwAR2Ic6MLWj0gRW5vpfad10Zm942Mgz8gD7gaY21zMdUd1-zgA-BM33AzVbU]UK Official MoD press release[/url]

[quote]
Press release
[b][size=200]New ‘Inspiration Class’ Type-31 warships named[/size][/b]

The names of five next-generation Type-31 frigates for the Royal Navy have been announced by the First Sea Lord, Admiral Tony Radakin.

From:
Ministry of Defence
Published
19 May 2021

Approved by HM The Queen, [b][u]the vessels will be named HMS Active, HMS Bulldog, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Formidable and HMS Venturer.[/u][/b]

Grouped together as the Inspiration Class, the names of the new vessels are drawn from former warships and submarines whose missions and history will inspire Royal Navy operations.

The names also represent the Royal Navy’s future vision: HMS Active signifies the forward deployment of Royal Navy ships to protect UK values and interests, whilst HMS Bulldog is focused on operational advantage in the North Atlantic.

HMS Campbeltown symbolises the ‘raiding from the sea’ focus of the Royal Marines’ Future Commando Force, HMS Formidable recognises the history of aircraft carrier strike operations and HMS Venturer promotes the navy’s technology and innovation forward-look.

(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

[url=https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/august/8816-babcock-completes-type-31-whole-ship-preliminary-design-review.html?fbclid=IwAR2VNp8o1cMjDhaDc24pGrGB8i8L__fXk54_A_oqUIIz-uhNgc7wyf7M464]Navy Recognition[/url]

[quote]
[b][size=200] Babcock completes Type 31 whole ship preliminary design review[/size][/b]
August News 2020 Navy Naval Maritime Defense Industry
06 AUGUST 2020
The Ministry of Defence's Type 31 frigate programme has passed a significant milestone in its development, with a comprehensive review of the ship’s design having been completed.
What is known as the Whole Ship Preliminary Design Review (WSPDR) was completed, virtually, by 15 experts during ten days of scrutiny, which provided a key indicator of the compliance, maturity and engineering risk in proceeding to the next Detailed Design phase.
The WSPDR was carried out virtually over a period of ten days by an independent board to review the design and quiz the engineering team. Contributors from the British Ministry of Defence also attended the event.
The independent board were impressed with the rate of progress made since contract award in November 2019, and the level of technical maturity of the design. The Engineering team in particular, and all contributors to the successful WSPDR, are to be commended for their efforts.(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

[url=https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/britain-gets-a-new-frigate-factory/?fbclid=IwAR0zX_v3A2KlzXgFodT_HSzmDVaQvvhScsU3JFhb_fdWGRN7VttEmxH0PSM]Save the Royal Navy[/url]

[quote]February 20, 2020
[b][size=200]Britain gets a new frigate factory[/size][/b]

[b][u]As part of their successful bid to build 5 Type 31 frigates for the RN, Babcock is constructing a new module hall to assemble the ships at their Rosyth yard.[/u][/b] Here we examine the new facility and the implications of this investment.

On 24th January 2020 planning permission was given for the development at the dockyard at Rosyth. The building will occupy land between the Syncrolift hall (opened in 1980 and used primarily for minehunter refits), and Number 1 Dry Dock where both QEC aircraft carriers were assembled. This area was previously used to fabricate and erect the 14 sponson blocks for each carrier that Rosyth contributed to the construction. A spokesperson for Babcock said this week: “Demolition work for the new module hall is now complete, with development of the new facility underway”.
[b][u]
The basic building design is relatively simple, a large hall where two Type 31 frigates can be assembled side by side. [/u][/b]This will be an impressive structure measuring 160m in length, 60m wide and 40m high. A prefabricated steel-framed shed can be usually be constructed rapidly, once the foundations are in place. The main internal feature will be two rail-mounted gantry cranes each with two hooks able to provide lifting cover to the full internal floor area of the hall. The cranes will be used to lift the modules into position as the ships are assembled. Both the north and south facade of the building will have two vertical-lift ‘megadoors’. Each door is 24m wide by 30m high with a demountable column between, creating a 48m-wide opening. The building is designed with flexibility for future shipbuilding operations beyond the conclusion of Type 31 construction.
(...SNIPPED)
[/quote]

Contract signed:

The UK's Type 31 frigate program in the news again:


[url=https://www.forces.net/news/type-31-babcock-signs-ps12bn-frigate-contract?fbclid=IwAR1a5DSXm_ybEKEyFH6fP4Urp9SudGponP6s807W_-aT9sYLoPvDmjk1qLM]Forces.net(UK)[/url]

[quote][b][size=200]Type 31: Babcock Signs £1.2bn Frigate Contract
The first vessel expected to be in the water by 2023.[/size][/b]
15th November 2019 at 4:35pm
Defence company Babcock has confirmed it has been awarded a £1.25 billion deal to supply the Ministry of Defence with its fleet of Type 31 frigates.
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

The decision was made: Babcock will built the new Type 31, very likely based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class:
[url]https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-49670332[/url]
[url]https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/dsei-2019/2019/09/babcock-team-31-selected-as-preferred-bidder-for-uk-type-31-frigate-programme/[/url]

That means no large OPV or small ASW corvette, but a proper general purpose frigate based on a proven design. Probably a design, which is in regard to air defence and anti-ship armament similar to the much more expensive Type 26.

[url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/babcock-tipped-to-win-type-31e-frigate-bid/?fbclid=IwAR21s1LgIogp3A5l1vhep5z5V7TRSXoXKGuP4hg8C96RB7Iv2MCNgTuGKDY]UK Defence Journal[/url]


[quote] [b][size=200] Babcock tipped to win Type 31e Frigate bid[/size][/b]
By
George Allison
August 25, 2019
It has been reported that Babcock’s Arrowhead 140 design will be picked for the Type 31e Frigate competition.
Alan Tovey reported here that the government is to announce the winner in a major announcement at next month’s Defence & Security Equipment International show in London.
This news, if accurate, means that Scottish shipyards will be working on 18 vessels in total. Including the five Offshore Patrol Vessels launched on the Clyde since 2014 and the 8 Type 26 Frigates to be built at Govan.
Rosyth is hoping to assemble Type 31e Frigates if Babcock and their industry consortium win the work.
(...SNIPPED)
[/quote]
[url=https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/arrowhead-140-a-guide-to-the-royal-navys-potential-future-frigate/?fbclid=IwAR2PUPAbRdDG52MZflq5IlBQHmJBbnk1g3N8PkUW3fGi28Ntwu1iu0fmdkM]UK Defence Journal[/url]


[quote][b][size=200] Arrowhead 140 – A guide to the Royal Navy’s potential future frigate[/size][/b]
By
George Allison
August 26, 2019
Arrowhead is expected to sit at 5,700 tonnes and 138.7 metres in length.
Babcock’s offering requires a ships company of around 100 with space for an embarked military force of 60. Babcock’s Team 31 has selected the in-service Iver Huitfeldt frigate design as the baseline for their offering.
Endurance/Speed/Range
The requirements here are pretty straightforward, the Ministry of Defence demand that “T31e shall operate globally with sustained forward presence” and that it must have “the speed for interdiction of commercial vessels and maintaining station with adversary warships in UK waters”.
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

Modern corvettes, which are specialised ASW ships? These are rare, most corvettes are more specialised in the anti-ship role. And why they should be better and more useful than a Type 31 frigate, which should be at least as capable as these corvettes, but with much more space for modernisations?

I also do not understand the statement mentioned in this article that the Type 31 would be similar than a River class patrol ship. The current proposals are Leander, Iver Huitfeldt class-derived, and MEKO A-200. A River class has one small gun and some have a helicopter deck. One view on the other designs should reveal that the proposed Type 31 designs are much more heavily armed, faster, more sophisticated sensors etc....

And the WW2 Flower class were extremely problematic and already decommissioned during the war when better ASW were available. Why they should be a good example?

The defence blog that normally focuses on land issues now compares the WW2-era [i]Flower[/i] class with the emerging Type 31e class, arguing that the Type 31s are the modern incarnation of the tough WW2-era corvettes:

[url=https://uklandpower.com/2019/03/29/a-modern-royal-navy-asw-corvette-based-on-the-ww2-flower-class/?fbclid=IwAR3XW-OpFV9Uq_pMXdfIJXR-SPFRlzmtT0WvOMQoZYOGGzUUc3LISlMeP3E]UK Land Power[/url]


[quote] Date: March 29, 2019
Author: UK Land Power 18 Comments
[b][size=200]A modern Royal Navy ASW corvette based on the WW2 Flower-Class[/size][/b]
By Nicholas Drummond
In another departure from regular Land Domain content, this article considers a naval topic that has aroused much recent interest both within and beyond the UK Defence Community: the need for light frigates and corvettes to compensate for a reduced total number of warships. As the UK Ministry of Defence prepares to review bids for its Type 31 frigate requirement, it may be helpful to consider UK requirements in this area by looking back on similar ships produced between 1939 and 1945.
(...SNIPPED)
[b] Given the extent to which the geopolitical environment has now changed, many naval analysts believe that eight anti-submarine frigates is insufficient. This view has split opinion on what the role of the Type 31e should be. Critics of the programme have suggested that it could end-up being only marginally more capable than the Navy’s nine planned River-Class Offshore Patrol Vessels, which cost around £120 million instead of £250 million. Fundamentally, we may need to redefine the Type 31e’s role and refocus it around anti-submarine warfare. If this is right, perhaps the most sensible option is to revert to the originally planned total of 13 Type 26 global combat ships and to make them all ASW ships?
A second option, could be to develop a contemporary version of the Flower-Class corvette.[/b] This would be a low-cost anti-submarine vessel. The term corvette is used here to denote a ship defined by cost not size. Conceptually, this could be a 3,000-4,000 tonne vessel that could be built quickly by a variety of smaller UK shipyards.
[b] In fact, contemporary versions of Flower-Class corvettes already exist. These are the advanced corvette designs developed in recent years by British and European shipyards. Typically, they are around 100 metres in length, have twin 7,000 Kw engines, a top speed of 30 knots, a range of 3,500 Nm, and a 30-day endurance. Modular by design, modern corvettes can be equipped with a variety of weapons, including 76mm or 113mm main guns, vertical launch cells for AA, ASROC and S2S missiles, CIWS for point defence, cannons and ASW helicopters. Bow mounted sonars, towed arrays and powerful radars help them track and engage targets. A large part of the cost is not the ship itself, but the weapons, sensors and other systems that make it credible. The Artisan radar for example is extremely expensive, but it is a less-expensive version of the Sampson system used in Type 45 destroyers. If the weapon and sensors used can be specified according to price, there is no reason why a corvette cannot be both potent and inexpensive.[/b]
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

Looking at the Danish approach for the Type 31:

[url=https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/in-focus-the-arrowhead-140-type-31e-frigate-candidate/?fbclid=IwAR24K-UJhMD6nPwwBRDosOM3Ma_6IiSz7qbtTMDrEjVzCeFyQ7k2iMqx_j0]Save the Royal Navy[/url]

[quote] July 5, 2019
[b][size=200] In focus – the Arrowhead 140 Type 31e frigate candidate[/size][/b]
Derived from the Danish Navy’s Iver Huitfeldt class frigate, the Arrowhead 140 is the Babcock/Thales concept for the Type 31e frigate competition. Here we look at the Danish parent design and the Arrowhead proposal in detail.
Doing it differently in Denmark
The Absalon class Logistic support ships and the following Iver Huitfeldt class frigates were developed in Denmark based on the same hull form. They have attracted global attention for their distinctive approach to design and procurement which delivered three large and credible warships for a total of around $1Bn. Even within the US naval community, there are many advocates for ‘the Danish model’ as a way to get more ships for their money. For the Royal Navy’s cost-conscious Type 31e programme this seems like a perfect fit, although the Huitfeldt may appear to be considerably larger at 5,700 tonnes than the “light frigate” envisaged at the outset of the project.
[b][u] In order to control costs the Absalon/Huitfeldts drew on lessons from commercial naval architecture practice, notably from Maersk, the largest container shipping company in the world. The design has been kept as simple as possible with long straight cable and piping runs wherever it can be achieved. [/u][/b]Large items of equipment have pre-planned access routes through the vessel with soft patches (removable deck and bulkhead panels) which simplifies construction, makes maintenance and upgrades faster and cheaper, allowing the ships to spend more time at sea. This is not an entirely new concept for warships, but was taken to another level by the Danish designers.
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

The Type 31e Frigate candidates compared at the full table at the link below:


[url=https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-31e-frigate-candidates-compared/?fbclid=IwAR0LBKX4VgLVGh78L_J-CHSPGuO-Tsmw4a3Er4WcxDRaxtrDJ5ovPiP69Ks]Save The Royal Navy[/url]


[quote] March 23, 2019
[b][size=200] The Type 31e frigate candidates compared[/size][/b]
This is a basic comparison of the three Type 31e frigate candidates using publicly available information. The consortiums are currently in the Competitive Design Phase, refining these concepts before the winner is selected in late 2019.
It is possible to usefully compare the general design, size, propulsion and performance of the three platforms but the sensor and weapons fit is speculative at this stage. The RN is expected to furnish some of the equipment and is likely to select armament consistent with its existing fleet. All three designs have considerable flexibility in how they are outfitted and can be tailored to suit the budget and preferences of both the RN and potential export customers.
[b] While ‘Team Leander’ and ‘Team 31’ have been more forthcoming about their concepts, AEUK has not published any specific information about how the A-200 will be adapted for the Royal Navy requirements. Details of the A-200 in this comparison are based on the specification of the six existing ships in service with the South African and Algerian navies.[/b]
Whatever the merits of the three frigate designs, the industrial situation underpinning the Type 31 and the National Shipbuilding Strategy is concerning. Since the Type 31e competition was launched, the Babcock shipyard in Appledore has closed, Harland & Wolff shipyard was put up for sale by its parent company in December and Cammell Laird have been making redundancie
(...SNIPPED)[/quote]

"Fitted for but not with" would still better than only to built small OPVs, because it would be possible to update the ships if money is available.

At least for the kind of UK politics of the last decades (or perhaps the size of UK's economy) a navy with SSBNs and carriers appears to be too expensive to be able to maintain the normal, more used and more useful parts of the navy.

The £250 Million price tag is unattainable for a frigate. I suspect that the hulls might get built (some at least) but they will not have the weapons fitted so they will be little more than glorified OPVs in the tradition of "for, but not with".

It may be that they are never going to be frigates in any meaningful sense of the term. Once Brexit is achieved then money for such fripperies as weapons for these ships is likely to be even harder to come by.

Of course, the plan to purchase them may simply be dumped as the government thinks that SSBNs are enough to secure the defence of the UK.

The question would be what kind of sensors or weapons would not be added - a smaller hull with the same systems (the Russian approach) does not make a ship much cheaper.