Type 31 frigates. The future of the Royal Navy

96
Frigate Type 31, render: babcockinternational.com

In the coming years, the Royal Navy of Great Britain should be seriously renewed.

The "National Shipbuilding Strategy" implemented by the British government involves the purchase of fleet large surface ships. Not so long ago, the fleet included the aircraft carriers "Queen Elizabeth" and "Prince of Wales", which became the largest warships in stories Great Britain. Large-scale replenishment awaits the ranks of frigates.



UK naval building plans


In the near future, the Royal Navy of Great Britain will have to replenish fundamentally new frigates.

Two series are being prepared for construction. Anti-submarine frigates Type 26 and general-purpose frigates Type 31. The dominions of Great Britain are also showing increased interest in the Type 26 frigate. It is known that 9 ships were ordered by Australia and 15 - by Canada.

Frigates of the Type 26 project, the main task of which will be the fight against enemy submarines (while the ships will also be able to solve air defense tasks and be involved in general-purpose operations), it is planned to build a series of 8 ships. The first ship of the Glasgow series was laid down in the summer of 2017. They are slated to be completed by the mid-2020s.

The construction of these ships with a standard displacement of more than 6 tons is expensive for the crown. The laying of the first three Type 900 frigates at the Glasgow shipyards cost the budget £ 26 billion, and the total cost of building 3,7 ships in 8 was estimated at £ 2016 billion. The frigates are designed and built by BAE Systems.

The UK expects to build the General Purpose Frigates Type 31 in a smaller series. Currently, contracts have been signed for the construction of five frigates with a standard displacement of 5 tons. Two more ships will be built for the Indonesian Navy. Of the entire series, one ship is currently laid down.

Frigates of the Arrowhead 140 project, render: babcockinternational.com

The program for their construction is designed for 2021-2027, while all ships of the series are expected to be put into operation by February 2030. Today the names of all five frigates of the Type 31 project are already known: Venturer, Bulldog, Campbeltown, Formidable, Active. The first frigate to be built will be the Venturer. The second name of the warships of this project: Inspiration-class frigates.

In addition to Indonesia, which has already signed a contract for the construction of two warships of this project, the military of Greece, Poland and two other countries, which are still not disclosed, are showing interest in them. The export name of the frigates of this type is Arrowhead 140. The shipbuilding company Babcock International is responsible for their development and creation.

It is worth noting that Babcock International previously became the main industrial partner and contractor of Ukraine in the construction and expansion of the fleet. It is this company that will design and partially build for Ukraine 8 large missile boats with a displacement of 400 tons and a length of at least 50 meters. It is assumed that small patrol ships of the Protector family can become the basis for them.

What is known about the Type 31 frigates


Babcock International is responsible for the development and construction of frigates of the Type 31 project, a large British defense company that specializes in the production of defense, aerospace and nuclear products.

In September 2019, it became known that it was Babcock International that would fulfill the contract for the construction of a series of Type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy of Great Britain. Then the average cost of building one ship in the series was estimated at 250 million pounds. Compared to the Type 26 frigates, these warships can be called budgetary.

Babcock International emphasizes the importance of the project for the UK economy. The construction of the ships will allow loading local enterprises and create new jobs, the maintenance of which will allow, according to the ideas of the developers, the good export potential of the new product.

Babcock International manufacturing facility, photo: babcockinternational.com

Press releases highlight the frigate supply chain across the UK and a wide range of economic and employment opportunities. At the peak of the program's development, 1 new highly qualified employees will be attracted, and the same number of jobs will be created in the wide supply chain within the country.

The new warship grew out of the Arrowhead 140 project and combines innovation with the expertise of UK shipbuilders. Arrowhead 140 (140 in the name - the total length of the ship) - export, commercial designation of new warships. According to the assurances of the developers, this is a modern warship that will be able to withstand the sea threats of today and tomorrow. It is especially emphasized that the ship was created based on British engineering solutions and inventions.

The ship is distinguished by its modular design and flexible, highly adaptable platform, which provides good export advantages. The frigate can compete in the market by changing the value for money. In the Royal Navy of Great Britain, Type 31 frigates will solve a wide range of tasks: from peacekeeping and humanitarian missions to various military operations.

It is emphasized that the Arrowhead 140 is a multipurpose frigate equipped with modern control and communication systems. The ship is specially designed to reduce operating costs. It is emphasized that the ships of this project will receive a Thales combat control system. Thanks to this, the Royal Navy with Type 31 frigates will join the global community of 26 navies around the world, which are already using the Thales Tacticos battle management system.

Technical features of the Type 31 frigates


The frigates of the Type 31 project are fairly large warships. The displacement of the frigates will be approximately 5 tons. The maximum length of the ship is 700 meters, the width is up to 138,7 meters. The maximum draft of the ship is 20 meters.

Frigate Type 31, render: babcockinternational.com

The frigate is powered by a twin-shaft diesel main power plant, consisting of 4 powerful Rolls Royce / MTU 20V 8000 M71 diesel engines with a total capacity of 8,2 MW. The maximum speed of the ship is over 28 knots (approximately 52 km / h). The maximum cruising range is over 7 nautical miles (approximately 000 km). In this case, the autonomy of the ship is up to 12 days.

The frigate can be operated with a crew of less than 100 people, which is obviously achieved due to the high level of automation and computerization of the processes taking place on the ship. At the same time, there are premises on board the ship that allow, if necessary, accommodate up to 180 crew members with all the conveniences.

Armament of frigates Type 31


Thales is responsible for the radar armament, electronic warfare and electronic warfare systems of the ship. As noted above, the frigates will receive the Thales Tacticos battle management system. In addition, all ships will be equipped with the modern Thales Vigile-D electronic warfare system. Fire control systems are also performed by this company, as well as the Thales NS110 general target detection radar.

The artillery armament of the export ships will be represented by the Mark 114 universal 8-mm naval artillery system with a barrel length of 55 calibers. The maximum firing range of the gun slightly exceeds 30 km. The same guns have already been installed on the Type 45 destroyers and will appear on the Type 26 frigates. In addition, the ship can be equipped with up to two 57-mm universal turret artillery mounts Bofors Mk. III with a barrel length of 70 calibers.

At the same time, the British chose a more modest armament model for their ships. On October 1, 2020, it became known that the Admiralty had purchased five Bofors Mk. III and 31 automatic 10-mm cannons Bofors 40 Mk40 in turret mounts. In addition, 4 six-barreled 4-mm M7,62 Minigun machine guns and 134 general-purpose machine guns of the same caliber will be installed on board.

57-mm universal artillery mount Bofors Mk. III on a Finnish missile boat, photo: wikimedia.org

The ship's anti-aircraft missile armament will be represented by the Sea Ceptor air defense system with 24 vertical missile launch cells. This complex can use various CAMM missiles with a range of 1 to 40 km.

In addition, there is ample space on board the ship to accommodate various anti-ship missiles. On the renders and videos shown by Babcock International, you can see up to 8 launch containers for anti-ship missiles, which most of all resemble the installation for launching the RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile system.

There is a covered helicopter hangar on board the frigates. At the same time, the ship can take on board the AgustaWestland AW159 Wildcat and AgustaWestland Merlin HM2 anti-submarine helicopters. The latter can also be used in the role of AWACS helicopters equipped with aviation complex radio detection and guidance (AEW) Crowsnest.
96 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    22 October 2021 18: 13
    A worthy addition!
    Interestingly, did anyone compare the fleets of Great Britain and Russia?
    Well, with all the aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, nuclear submarines?
    I wonder whose fleet is stronger now?
    1. -4
      22 October 2021 18: 27
      Quote: Tim Werner
      Interestingly, did anyone compare the fleets of Great Britain and Russia?

      The Britons have one fleet, we have 4, with which one to compare? does it make sense?
      1. -4
        22 October 2021 18: 37
        with which one to compare?

        Generally, the Russian and British navies.
        1. -5
          22 October 2021 18: 44
          Quote: Tim Werner
          With all fleets

          is it just for statistics? because they will never get together
          1. -12
            22 October 2021 18: 47
            Quote: Sandor Clegane
            is it just for statistics?

            This is for the show-off of the pan-head. The more minuses he gets with stupid / provocative / Russophobic comments, the more candy wrappers he gets.
          2. -1
            22 October 2021 18: 53
            why don't they come together?
            NATO is our geopolitical rival.
            Great Britain confronts us on the northern flank.
            You can compare the RF Federation Council and the British fleet, for example
            1. -19
              22 October 2021 18: 58
              Quote: Tim Werner
              You can compare the Federation Council of the Russian Federation and the British fleet,

              Clown, compare the aviation of the Russian Federation with the PKR and shallow troughs. Taking into account the fact that our aviation does not enter the air defense zone of the troughs at all. Have you compared? Now you can go and cry.
            2. +3
              22 October 2021 18: 58
              Quote: Tim Werner
              why don't they come together?

              learn materiel
              Quote: Tim Werner
              You can compare the Federation Council of the Russian Federation and the British fleet

              it is possible, but how by what criterion? quantity? tonnage? with a salvo of anti-ship missiles? or speed ??? maybe the opportunity to land on the coast? or fleet aviation
              1. -2
                22 October 2021 19: 31
                quantity? tonnage? with a volley of anti-ship missiles? or speed ??? maybe the opportunity to land on the coast? or fleet aviation

                yes, by these very criteria
                1. -4
                  22 October 2021 20: 52
                  Quote: Tim Werner
                  yes, by these very criteria

                  this data is publicly available - Yandex for help
            3. +9
              22 October 2021 22: 13
              Quote: Tim Werner
              Great Britain confronts us on the northern flank.

              Quite rightly, in the years of the Cold War, it was the British Navy that guarded the SSBN / PLA of the Soviet Navy in the North Atlantic, just then the British allocated 26 FR URO, 12 EM URO and three light aircraft carriers for this ...
              Now the British Navy is much smaller (like the KSF today), but they are returning their strength in the fight against Russian submarines / SSGNs / SSBNs in the same North Atlantic, there is nothing to oppose to the surface forces in the North Atlantic of the Russian Federation, single TAKRs will not change the overall picture, so moreover, the British themselves have good SSGNs ... and basic anti-submarine aircraft ...
              You can, of course, throw caps into the sky as much as you like, but the British Navy is a good addition to the US Atlantic Fleet ...
    2. -2
      22 October 2021 18: 28
      Quote: Tim Werner
      has anyone compared the navies of Great Britain and Russia?
      Well, with all the aircraft carriers, destroyers, frigates, nuclear submarines?
      You can't compare like that. After all, the pursued goals are different.
      Here's an example: at the beginning of the 20th century, developed countries relied on dreadnoughts, but they were so expensive that they were not even used. And in the USSR, minesweepers were built. And in the end, who was the superior?
      1. -4
        22 October 2021 18: 44
        Well, there are general criteria - combat coefficients, number of pennants, etc.?
        1. -5
          22 October 2021 19: 02
          The task of the Royal Navy is to go out to sea-ocean with a flagship in the form of an aircraft carrier, and the rest of the ships and submarines are a group of guards. They only act in a crowd.
          The task of our fleet is to protect our maritime borders. And this happens with coastal support. Only submarine missile carriers have the task of "not being fired," but to frighten the hostile world with their presence! Sunsya to us from any side of the entire British fleet, then ours in the end will only have to collect the surviving British.
          Therefore, there was a comparison of minesweepers with dreadnoughts. The latter simply could not swim to our shores, and it was not possible to catch up with the minesweeper in the open sea of ​​this sea fortress.

          The tasks are different. Our fleet is doing its job.
          1. -1
            22 October 2021 19: 30
            Well, if the task of the Russian fleet is to protect its shores and ports, then yes ... you are right.
            It is not clear just why spend hundreds of billions on the construction of Ash trees and the modernization of Peter the Great and Kuzi?
            Would it be more correct to order more corvettes and minesweepers? ..
            1. +1
              22 October 2021 19: 32
              Exclusively for waging local wars. Support for Syria, someone else. But not for the global Karachun.

              Do you really think that now someone will dare to arrange a naval battle? The days of direct sea battles are long gone. Home ports will now be destroyed. And other coastal fortifications.
              1. -2
                22 October 2021 19: 36
                Ash trees and nuclear cruisers were created for strikes not on the Syrian barmaley))) but even on AUGs)))
                I am already silent about the zircon, which has no analogue in the world ... which was clearly not created for the defense of their ports
                the problem is that the ambitions are big, but the strength to realize them is dumb
                1. +2
                  22 October 2021 19: 39
                  All this is created for potential adversaries to realize that a retaliatory strike is inevitable! - defense, not attack.
                  Is it possible, in your opinion, that the "perimeter" (a dead hand, if it is more understandable) is being modernized due to some kind of ambition?
                  1. -1
                    22 October 2021 19: 45
                    the awareness of the inevitability of a retaliatory strike by the forces of the fleet should arise in the presence of this FORCE!
                    So I ask - is it there? even in comparison with the brits?
                    or only on yadrenbaton all the hope?
                    1. -5
                      22 October 2021 19: 49
                      Our sub, not so long ago, made a lot of noise off the coast of New York. They swam unnoticed, surfaced, plunged and disappeared in an unknown direction.
                      Launching a nuclear missile from the territorial waters of the United States at them is not cool!?!
                      1. -3
                        22 October 2021 19: 54
                        clear.
                        Those. we cannot resist the adversary with conventional weapons.
                        and even shaved at sea ... alas
                      2. -5
                        22 October 2021 19: 57
                        This does not need to be done with the help of an expensive fleet. You can drown the Saxons in a cheaper, but not important way. Non-nuclear missiles are at our best today hi Although there are torpedoes.
                      3. -5
                        22 October 2021 20: 55
                        Quote: Tim Werner
                        Those. we cannot resist the adversary with conventional weapons.
                        and even shaved at sea ... alas

                        laughing laughing your country - definitely cannot, and the SF is quite real with the task of destroying the fleet of the Britons, are we considering TWO fleets - the Britov and the Northern Fleet?
                      4. -5
                        23 October 2021 12: 33
                        and I thought Tim Werner about the Russian fleet says, theirs of course will not cope, and the Russian will destroy the British
                      5. +1
                        22 October 2021 23: 45
                        Quote: Tim Werner
                        we cannot resist the adversary with conventional weapons.
                        and even shaved at sea ...

                        Wow! What are some serious conclusions ... belay
                        But is it? In terms of firepower, one of our 1144.2s after modernization, with 3M22, is capable of sinking the entire surface fleet of small shavens ... But the trouble is: loners are not in vogue now, raiders have sunk into oblivion. Now, to win need a system - reconnaissance, support, target designation, cover, interaction, etc.
                        That is the question. And not in which combatant has a trickier trick ... Proof of this is Bismarck's historic raid into the Atlantic and his struggle with the SYSTEM of Her Majesty's Royal Navy ... The result is known.
                        Therefore, the system needs to be tweaked, among other things. Everything will depend on the area of ​​hostilities and whose preparation of the area (reconnaissance system, control center, electronic warfare, RTR, etc.) will be steeper. In any case, our wearable weapon will be cooler than that of the Angles. But without a combat support system (when you are blind and deaf, and they see you as if a fly on glass), you can not even count on success ... That's all for a short time.
                        AHA.
                      6. -6
                        23 October 2021 15: 40
                        one of our 1144.2 after modernization, with 3M22 is capable of sinking the entire surface fleet of small shavings

                        this is not true
                        the surface fleet of small shavens has air defense, which neutralizes the salvo of Peter, and their missile salvo is ten times larger than the salvo of the modernized Peter and the air defense of a lone cruiser will never cope with it
                        we need a system - reconnaissance, support, target designation, cover, interaction

                        and this system for the only Peter the Great is? well, at least in the plans?
                        why is he needed without her?
                        to show the flag in Cuba?
                        the combat value of the lonely Peter in isolation from its shores tends to zero
                      7. -4
                        23 October 2021 17: 34
                        Quote: Tim Werner
                        the small-sized surface fleet has air defense, which neutralizes Peter's salvo

                        Well, what system is capable of reflecting the ZALP of 3M22 products !?
                        Quote: Tim Werner
                        The air defense of a lonely cruiser will never cope with it

                        RKR pr. 1144.2 do not go alone, tk. will be the core of the KUG to defeat the AUG, well, at least the same English one.
                        Quote: Tim Werner
                        and this system for the only Peter the Great is?

                        You have some kind of misconception about the missile ships' database support system ... The system is created by various types of forces of the RF Armed Forces, including the Aerospace Forces ... It is for the FLEET forces, not a single ship.
                        Therefore - not a test!
                      8. -5
                        23 October 2021 20: 04
                        Well, what system is capable of reflecting the ZALP of 3M22 products

                        any, because for zircon, target designation is needed. which is NOT
                        RKR pr. 1144.2 do not go alone, tk. will be the core of the KUG

                        list at least the approximate composition of this IBM.
                        The system is created by various types of forces of the RF Armed Forces, including the Aerospace Forces ... It is for the FLEET forces, not a single ship

                        Well, what system will ensure the military value of Peter away from his native shores?
                        Or is Peter's lot in your system sailing in a 200-mile zone along our coast? under the umbrella of aviation and coastal complexes?
                      9. -3
                        23 October 2021 12: 30
                        From what answers did you form the opinion that we cannot resist even the Britons with conventional weapons?
                    2. -9
                      22 October 2021 20: 14
                      So I ask - is it there? even in comparison with the brits?
                      or only on yadrenbaton all the hope?

                      The modernized Orlan is capable of single-handedly destroy the entire fleet of the United Kingdom, subject to external target designation from a satellite or from a submarine)))
                    3. -1
                      23 October 2021 12: 28
                      yadrenbaton is one of the weapons (this is a terrible POWER), why do you exclude it?
                      1. -4
                        23 October 2021 15: 42
                        in a local collision at sea with NATO ships, no one will arrange a nuclear armageddon
                2. -2
                  23 October 2021 12: 26
                  Ash trees and nuclear cruisers were created for strikes against the augs, so that the augs did not attack our shores and ports
                  zircon helps ash trees and nuclear cruisers cope with augs
                  there is enough strength to protect our shores and ports
                  1. -3
                    23 October 2021 15: 44
                    protect your ports - yes, that's enough
                    coastal complexes and aviation will help
                    but only
                    zircon helps ash trees and nuclear cruisers cope with augs

                    without support, cover, reconnaissance and target designation - no
            2. -1
              23 October 2021 12: 23
              the task of the Russian fleet is to protect its coasts and ports. Ash, Peter the Great and Kuzya will interfere with the protection of their shores and ports
              build corvettes and minesweepers
              1. -5
                23 October 2021 15: 44
                the budget is not rubber
          2. -2
            24 October 2021 03: 26
            Quote: Anarchist
            Sunsya to us from any side of the entire British fleet, then ours in the end will only have to collect the surviving British.

            Yes, it seems that the British also have atomic missiles ... Or theirs "will not be able to do anything" for us? Are we "spellbound" or what?
    3. +4
      22 October 2021 18: 32
      The British are stronger ... there technology is two generations ahead. Read the article on Topvar that Russian submarines are so backward inside, torpedoes are ancient, defense systems are ancient, modernization is scarce, there is no money for R&D, some units have not changed since the 60s.
      Remember, when the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation from Syria threatened to hit the Tomahawk carriers, as FOX NEWS reports, the Americans sent ONE Virginia class submarine, which in which case had to multiply by zero the entire grouping of the Russian fleet in Syria ... Imagine, they are so feel superior. They know the state of the Russian fleet.
      1. +2
        22 October 2021 19: 02
        Even, to me, not an expert, by simple counting, it is clear that the British destroyer 45 is not weaker than the entire Caspian flotilla.
        1. -3
          22 October 2021 19: 18
          There is a Caspian flotilla, and a destroyer ......?
          1. +3
            22 October 2021 19: 24
            Victor, there are destroyers. There are SIX ships. The last one entered service 7 years ago.
            1. -1
              22 October 2021 20: 10
              And what, they ply the vastness of the Caspian?
        2. +1
          22 October 2021 19: 23
          Coastal fortifications and fire complexes of the Caspian Sea also belong to the Caspian Flotilla. How many such destroyers do you need to break through the defenses? Of course, provided that they could walk on the Caspian, the depth would allow.
          The Caspian is shallow, hence the size of our flotilla. And in fact there is no one to fight with.
        3. +1
          22 October 2021 20: 22
          Quote: knn54
          British destroyer 45 is not weaker than the ENTIRE Caspian Flotilla

          depending on which tape measure
          remember the cruise missile salvo of the flotilla in October 2015?
          is the Briton able to do this?
        4. 0
          23 October 2021 00: 42
          Quote: knn54
          Even, to me,not a specialist, by simple counting, it is clear that the British destroyer type 45 not weaker than ALL Caspian Flotilla.

          1. You are right - not an expert! Because as soon as a specialist will not begin to compare the striking power of 1 NK and at least 6 missile ships capable of "playing" with their missile salvo ...
          2. The ranges of the Calibers and Harpoons are not comparable. Brawlers and Cheetahs can launch a missile strike at the Dering-type Em base. And he, in response, cannot.
          3. Fleet ships can vary their rocket arsenal, and Daring? Let's put ready to load Axes ... but where? They simply will not fit into the Harpoon's PU ...
          4. Daring has 48 Aster missiles, but I'm not sure that they will definitely cope with the 3M54 in the conditions of REP, unless of course they happen ...
          5. The helicopter is very important, but it is PLAIN. the truth is, it can issue a control center for 200-250 km, which will provide the Republic of Kazakhstan with a UAV flotilla, which will surely appear in our fleet.
          Therefore, personally, I would bet on our RK.
        5. -1
          23 October 2021 12: 40
          these destroyers are armed with antique harpoons (3 out of 6) and anti-aircraft missiles, so they can cope with the Caspian flotilla
        6. +1
          25 October 2021 00: 53
          Quote: knn54
          Even, to me, not an expert, by simple counting, it is clear that the British destroyer 45 is not weaker than the entire Caspian flotilla.

          Give this your simple calculation. lol
          I affirm that no Type 45 destroyer can do what 1 Brawler can. And I can prove it.
          And this destroyer simply did not dream of the capabilities of the entire Caspian flotilla. Yes
      2. -17
        22 October 2021 20: 08
        so FOX NEWS reports that the Americans sent ONE Virginia class submarine, which in case of which had to multiply by zero the entire grouping of the Russian fleet in Syria ...

        Near Cyprus, the NATO fleet searched for one Varshavyanka for a week, even attracted 3 Poseidon anti-submarine aircraft at once, dropped a bunch of buoys ... and the result was 0, Varshavyanka was not found.
        These are facts, and all of the above is your fiction.
        1. +2
          22 October 2021 20: 57
          Quote: lucul
          Near Cyprus NATO fleet searched for one Varshavyanka for a week

          infa from where? do not read the tabloids .....
          1. -12
            22 October 2021 21: 19
            infa from where? do not read the tabloids .....

            Don't you live in Russia? )))
            Although yes, they tried to hide this news on the opposition sites.
            https://topwar.ru/173838-podvodnyj-komponent-chf-postavil-na-ushi-protivolodochnuju-aviaciju-vms-ssha-bliz-kipra-chto-proishodit-v-vostochnom-sredizemnomore.html
            1. +5
              22 October 2021 21: 50
              Quote: lucul
              Don't you live in Russia? )))

              I live in her heart, and what kind of boat have you been looking for for a year? what name does she have, do you even know? I personally know the chief officer, and much more ...
            2. 0
              24 October 2021 03: 32
              Quote: lucul
              Don't you live in Russia? )))
              Although yes, they tried to hide this news on the opposition sites.
              https://topwar.ru/173838-podvodnyj-komponent-chf-postavil-na-ushi-protivolodochnuju-aviaciju-vms-ssha-bliz-kipra-chto-proishodit-v-vostochnom-sredizemnomore.html

              Will the American submarine be easier to spot?
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. -1
            23 October 2021 12: 44
            so he replied to the commentator who took the info from the same yellow press, while Vitaly has minuses, and Turbo3000 puts pluses
      3. -3
        23 October 2021 12: 36
        this boat is armed with machine guns with whom he can cope
    4. -14
      22 October 2021 20: 09
      A worthy addition!

      He has time for our Gorshkov with a larger displacement)))
      1. 0
        22 October 2021 20: 16
        Quote: lucul
        He has time for our Gorshkov with a larger displacement)))

        it is conceived as an inexpensive multifunctional ship
        1. -10
          22 October 2021 20: 24
          it is conceived as an inexpensive multifunctional ship

          In what sense ? After all, he
          and the total cost of building 8 ships in 2016 was estimated at £ 8 billion.

          Let me remind you that £ 1 is $ 1,37.
          That is, in fact, one Type 31 frigate costs $ 1,37 billion, against $ 250 million from Gorshkov)))
          1. +2
            22 October 2021 20: 33
            Quote: lucul
            Let me remind you that £ 1 is $ 1,37

            I don't need to "remind" the obvious things
            1 billion is the cost of a Type 26 frigate
            while the price of a type 31 frigate
            In September 2019, it became known that it was Babcock International that would fulfill the contract for the construction of a series of Type 31 frigates for the Royal Navy of Great Britain. Then the average cost of building one ship in the series was estimated at 250 million pounds.

            be careful with numbers
            1. -11
              22 October 2021 20: 37
              be careful with numbers

              Okay, £ 250m x 1,37 = $ 342m. Despite the fact that it is inferior to Gorshkov in many respects.
              1. +6
                22 October 2021 20: 54
                Quote: lucul
                Okay, £ 250m x 1,37 = $ 342m

                it's bad that a fourfold error is good for you
                Well, the fact that Western weapons and equipment are more expensive than Russian ones is not a secret to anyone
                as well as the reasons for this difference
                1. -3
                  23 October 2021 12: 48
                  they just tell you that this ship is inferior to Gorshkov, with a larger displacement and price
                  1. 0
                    23 October 2021 12: 55
                    Quote: Janerobot
                    they just tell you that this ship is inferior to Gorshkov, with a larger displacement and price

                    they just tell me this ship is worth a billion pounds
                    and I just say that it is 4 times less
                    do you understand, the question here is exactly the wording
                    1. 0
                      23 October 2021 13: 04
                      well then, yes, everything is correct, but inferior to Gorshkov
                      1. +2
                        23 October 2021 13: 26
                        Quote: Janerobot
                        well then, yes, everything is correct, but inferior to Gorshkov

                        without a doubt
                        different concepts
                        Since the days of Soviet military shipbuilding, Russian ships have been created with the maximum teeth.
                        apart from the last misunderstanding called patrol ships.
                  2. -3
                    24 October 2021 03: 37
                    Quote: Janerobot
                    they just tell you that this ship is inferior to Gorshkov, with a larger displacement and price

                    Well, the "quality" of Russian manufacturers is well known. Therefore, even good developments will be performed worse in Russia than in England. This is unambiguous. Therefore, the expression "inferior to Gorshkov" is in great doubt.
          2. 0
            25 October 2021 14: 22
            Quote: lucul
            That is, in fact, one Type 31 frigate costs $ 1,37 billion, against $ 250 million from Gorshkov)))

            "Gorshkov" cost 250 megabytes in the "fat years", 10 years ago. Now the cost of new pr. 22350 is estimated at 400-450 megabax.
      2. -1
        23 October 2021 12: 46
        and for what the minuses are put, Gorshkov is stronger
        even deny the obvious
        1. +1
          25 October 2021 00: 59
          You are faced with an organized group of bots.
          At least 5 of them. It happens.
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. 0
        25 October 2021 13: 56
        and can you explain to a layman in it inferior?
    5. -2
      23 October 2021 12: 18
      a 6000-ton ship armed only with machine guns (PKR only in the artist's fantasies) is a worthy replenishment
  2. +1
    22 October 2021 18: 27
    Visually, I liked the ship. I won't say anything about the description - I'm not an expert.
  3. +4
    22 October 2021 19: 05
    Canada has ordered 15 frigates, 100 billion rubles each. (with our money) apiece ??? !!! Are you seriously? Where are they so many? They have no such money and why? Well 4-6 pcs., I will understand. But 15! Where does the information come from? And kenguryatniki 9? They now have nuclear submarines in line for 4 trillion rubles. from amers. AUKUS, do you understand ... What are you talking about !? No need, there can be no such volumes, they are, of course, rich, but not so much. If there is a link, send me, I have fluent English, I will go over the topic and come back. Well, I don't believe about 15 about the maple ones. Well, okay corvettes 2 tons, 15 billion rubles each. a piece. 3 frigates close to destroyers. No. Is there something wrong. Or they are already preparing for WWXNUMX. Then bubble poboku. Submit a link, intrigued
    1. +10
      22 October 2021 19: 27

      You mean Type 26 as I understand it. Yes, the specified data is correct.
      Canada - 15 pcs.
      Australia - 9 pcs.
      Britain - initially 13 pcs., But like up to 8 pcs. reduced.

      Only one thing you are missing:
      Royal british navy
      Royal Canadian navy
      Royal Australian navy

      All these 3 fleets are one and their total power must be considered. Naturally, Australia and Canada bought these frigate destroyers by order; Type 31 is much more suitable for them.
      These purchases are directed against China, they have increased too much.
      1. 0
        22 October 2021 20: 48
        Type 31 is cheaper, but Type 26 is a different tier.
        More versatile and better armed.
        In principle, the Canadians could be fifty / fifty.
        And the Australians are still better off the Type 26, if they have taken up the cost of the nuclear submarine, then they want to push the line of defense much further than the coastal waters
      2. +4
        23 October 2021 11: 50
        Type 26 is significantly stronger than Type 31.
        Why are they stuck in two types of frigates?
        Add the same 26 inclined missile launchers to the Type 8.
        And the type 31 becomes completely unnecessary.
        1. +8
          23 October 2021 12: 09
          They save. Type 31 is much cheaper than type 26. Type one for minor tasks, the other for basic. The 31st is more "anti-piracy", he has speedboats, landing like 40 people. Analogue of the German Baden-Württemberg.
        2. 0
          25 October 2021 14: 29
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Type 26 is significantly stronger than Type 31.
          Why are they stuck in two types of frigates?

          Budget. And construction time.
          The fleet is an extremely inertial thing, it is not built and prepared quickly. So, the cheap Type 31 allows, within the budget available in peacetime, to build more ships in advance, put them into service and maintain, and then, in case of aggravation of the situation, re-equip them.
    2. -5
      22 October 2021 19: 27
      The economy of Canada is larger than the Russian ...
      can you imagine?
      can afford more ...
      1. -6
        23 October 2021 12: 53
        The economy of Canada is LESS than the Russian one, though not at times. They have a stock market in their GDP, pieces of paper of varying degrees of overvaluation. Our stock market is small and undervalued. It is correct to calculate the volume of products manufactured, these are industry, agriculture and services. In addition, Canada's budget is in dire straits, and the ratio of public debt to GDP is over 120%. So for them 15 frigates at 100 billion rubles apiece ... how to say, too much. The British ordered 8, but their GDP is definitely greater than the Canadian one. The national debt will continue to grow. Eh, we, too, would not play this fucking budget surplus, especially since we have a national debt / GDP of ONLY 18%, and build more ships. There are good projects, for example 22350.
        1. -1
          23 October 2021 15: 51
          Economy of Canada LESS than Russian

          why did you decide?
          give numbers
          GDP by any estimate is greater for Canada
          and the stock market has nothing to do with
          Gross Domestic Product - the total value of all goods and services produced in the country for a calendar year

          Once again, Canada can afford to order more frigates.
        2. +1
          24 October 2021 03: 47
          Quote: Glagol1
          The economy of Canada is LESS than the Russian one, though not at times.

          GDP of Canada in 2020 - 1,64 trillion. dollars (population 38 million)
          Russia's GDP in 2020 - 1,5 trillion. dollars (population 146 million people)
    3. +3
      22 October 2021 20: 16
      Indeed, Canada is changing its 12 Halifax-class frigates to 15 Type 26 frigates, which was decided last year. hi
      1. 0
        22 October 2021 20: 40
        And three Iroquois-class destroyers, they already sawed off. So the replacement is 1 to 1.
  4. -7
    22 October 2021 19: 17
    There are a lot of plans, but will there be enough leper / gas for all plans?
  5. 0
    22 October 2021 19: 29
    in the figure where the connection of these frigates can be seen how the architecture of warships has degraded, everything is clear technology stealth, but what beautiful were the warships of the naval period and what a variety of architectures
    1. -7
      22 October 2021 20: 02
      Battleships in stealth form will return soon, you'll see.
      Achievements in the creation of artillery ammunition with PRVD have achieved great results in NATO countries. Ground-based SPGs will be able to fire 150km in a couple of years.
      The ships will shoot thousands of kilometers. In the USA, a ground gun is being prepared at 1800 km.
      In 2024, the United States is installing a 500kW laser weapon on the ship, and 300kW is needed to destroy missiles. Any missiles will lose value, opponents will need to multiply the number of missiles on ships, which is difficult and expensive ... and here artillery cannons come back into fashion. And the cannons will quickly deliver ammunition with a ramjet or glider.
      1. -1
        22 October 2021 20: 35
        "In 2024, the United States is installing a 500kW laser weapon on a ship, and 300kW is needed to destroy missiles. Any missiles will lose value, opponents will need to multiply the number of missiles on ships, and this is difficult and expensive ..."
        The USA does not have a corresponding 300 kW laser at this time and it is not known whether there will be.
        1. -2
          22 October 2021 20: 51
          The fact that there is no laser in the form of a specific installation does not mean that there is none. If they say according to the program that it will be, then they already have something in the laboratory.
          According to the program, in 2023 there will be a laser on the missile defense satellite for 1 Megawat that will shoot down ICBMs at the initial stage of the flight, and this is not a fantasy. This is a space weapon that was supposed to be announced in early September. The satellite has huge dimensions, like a house, there is no doubt that they will do it. It is not a problem for them to create a powerful laser, they are fighting for size.
          1. 0
            22 October 2021 21: 23
            there will be a laser on the satellite
            On the satellite E. U is a surzhik actually wassat
          2. 0
            25 October 2021 14: 31
            Quote: Turbo3000
            This is a space weapon that was supposed to be announced in early September. The satellite has huge dimensions, like a house, there is no doubt that they will do it. It is not a problem for them to create a powerful laser, they are fighting for size.

            YAL-1 was also talked about. smile
      2. 0
        22 October 2021 21: 22
        Yeah, it can intercept a hypersonic missile, but an artillery shell cannot?
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      23 October 2021 03: 13
      Quote: Ryaruav
      in the figure where the connection of these frigates can be seen how the architecture of warships has degraded, everything is clear technology stealth, but what beautiful were the warships of the naval period and what a variety of architectures

      The forerunners of the beautiful ships of the WWII times were awkward cuttlefish against the background of piercingly beautiful sailing ships
  6. -1
    23 October 2021 10: 27
    AU 57 mm is the caliber too weak for a frigate? Britons have something of their own wassat
    1. -1
      23 October 2021 12: 52
      yes, and even a strange ship, probably weaker than even our patrolman, cursed by everyone, pr 22160
  7. 0
    24 October 2021 16: 19
    The Britons are moving at an accelerated pace along the path of simplification, reduction and reduction in price - a very dangerous path. In general, good luck to them)))
  8. 0
    1 February 2022 20: 11
    Translation: "The British Navy wants to invest heavily in EW (electronic warfare) In the coming years, more than 580 million euros will be allocated to equip Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, Type 45 destroyers, Type 26 and Type 31 frigates with new EW systems. A team consisting of Babcock , Elbit UK and Qinetiq, was the winner of the first round of the tender, which concerns the passive part of the EW.The choice of the British in favor of the originally Israeli system is striking, because the British fleet usually uses EW Thales UK systems.Not much is known about the contract."MarineShips.nl" found out, that the EW technology that the UK has now chosen is "Aqua Marine", a family of EW systems by the Israeli company Elbit which has also been proposed for future Dutch and Belgian anti-submarine frigates. It is not clear from reports from Elbit and the UK Ministry of Defense which ships these new systems are intended for. Although, according to public sources, the Type 31 will be equipped with the Thales Vigile D system,it doesn't seem entirely reliable." With anti-ship missiles, there may also be surprises from "Sea Serpent" - Gabriel-5, especially a joint offer with Thales UK ...