First Sea Lord Admiral Tony Radakin today announced the names of the Type 31 frigates – which will now be known as the Inspiration class.

HMS Active, Bulldog, Campbeltown, Formidable and Venturer draw their names from warships and submarines whose deeds and missions are intended to reflect and inspire current and future Royal Navy operations.

According to the Royal Navy in a news release:

“Each name has been selected to represent key themes and operations which will dominate and shape the global mission of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines: carrier operations (Formidable); operational advantage in the North Atlantic (Bulldog); forward deployment of ships around the globe to protect UK interests (Active); technology and innovation (Venturer); and the Future Commando Force (Campbeltown).”

The names of the five future frigates were revealed at the First Sea Lord’s Seapower conference held in Arundel House.

“I welcome the announcement of the names of the Inspiration-class. Each of the names has been chosen for evoking those values we strive for: cutting-edge technology, audacity and global operations,” Admiral Radakin said.

“They represent the best of Britain’s world-class shipbuilding heritage and will fly the flag for decades to come.”

The Type 31s replace five general-purpose Type 23 frigates which have served the Royal Navy with distinction since the early 1990s.

All five Inspiration-class vessels will be assembled at the Babcock yard in Rosyth, where a new construction hall is nearing completion.

The first steel is due to be cut on the ships this summer and all five are due to be in service by 2028, operating alongside Type 26 or City-class frigates which will be dedicated submarine hunters and will replace the equivalent specialist Type 23s.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

116 COMMENTS

  1. Great thinking. Was wondering if they might get names associated with potential customers ie. Brazil, New Zealand but this is good either way.

          • Russia is Russia i mean they don’t really have a fava route sports they are an all rounder. USA is American football, Sweden more of football then hockey, Finland is a more of a motorsports but they like hockey as well, and Czechia is definitely football. also i was joking, its just a stereotype don’t take it seriously.

  3. Hopefully the name will inspire the MoD to fit more than 12 sea ceptor launchers and otherwise up arm these high-potential platforms.

  4. As they are replacing the general purpose T23’s whats the actual capability differences between the 31 vs the 23 its replacing?

    Lots of criticism on here they are massively under gunned, are the like for like 23’s also in the same situation?

    • They will be replacing the GP Type 23’s that had their tails removed years ago.
      If they carry over the anti ship missiles from the old ships to the new one the main issue will be reduced Sea Ceptor. They will have significantly more room for unmanned drones and humanitarian roles.

      • They never had tails to begin with…but there was as a result a nice big open area for gym equipment ….which was nice!

    • If you look at raw numbers, then they certainly look underarmed. Smaller main gun, only a third as many Sea Ceptor, and no ship launched torpedoes or anti ship missiles.

      However, a T31 is cheaper than a T23 in today’s money, and it’s better suited for general purpose tasks; it has a bigger hangar and more space for boats and storage, it has a 57mm and two 40mms that can fire guided shells and form a far superior CIWS against FIACs, aircraft, and missiles, with much better fire arcs than the single 30mm per side and the obsolete 4.5″. It has enough Sea Ceptor to defend against the odd missile attack by a terror group or rogue state.

      In short, the T31 is an actual general purpose frigate, armed appropriately. The T23s were more multi purpose and capable in many areas, especially in a peer war, but that isn’t what T31 is for. Its a modern T21, not a new T23.

      • But wasnt the lesson from the Falklands that the T21s were a dangerous place to be and wont these ships be in a similar position? With limited numbers you dont know which kit may end up where?

        • True, but it’s worth noting the differences, both in armament and overall design philosophy. The T21 as built had a 4.5″ main gun that was useful for shore bombardment but little else, and an obsolete Sea Cat launcher that when the ship entered service couldn’t do anything but make noise at the fast jets bombing the ship. They were too lightly built and tightly packed to survive damage or be fitted with much in the way of improvements.

          The T31 has an excellent gun armament, both for its role and for missile defence, and a small volume of a brand new air defence missile. Its a big ship designed to a high standard, with plenty of margin for fitting every upgrade you could think of.

          The lesson of the Falklands wasn’t that every ship needed to be a battleship, it was that every ship needed to be fit for purpose. The T21 wasn’t fit for combat, with obsolete or ineffective armament; the T31 has modern and effective armament, not in huge volumes but the ship can actually be upgraded if needed.

          • Spot on.

            That was **exactly** the conclusion we came to.

            Don’t keep obsolete stuff as a fig leaf: focus effort on stuff that works.

          • Not sure that lesson has been fully learnt. We have harpoon which even the RN admits is now obsolete against modern ships and their air defence.

          • Back in the day….
            On all ships not just T21 , Mk8 4.5 did a lot more than NGS.
            It had an AA capability and AA shoots where regularly practised. TTBs where a common sight during shoots against towed targets.
            The gun also shot Star Shell, had good capability in a surface shoots and could also fire chaff Charlie as long range distraction blooms.

            The sea cat missile itself was an issue. However the Radar 912 tracker and TVB system was very good. Of all the sea cat systems that the RN had, dustbin directors to radar direction, the fit on the T21 was very good and the best iteration….just a pity that the missile was rubbish!

            As for having ineffective armament I disagree. Radar 992 was the same medium surface search/ airsearch as fitted to T42 and T22 (as radar 968…same radar below deck…different radome).
            Sonar 184 was the same as T42 and some of the Leanders.
            Exocet was fitted to improve Surface warfare.
            EW was the same as T42 and T22.
            STWS was fitted and the carried Lynx.

            Crowded on board …yes but no more than a Leander or a T42 accommodation.

            Structurally A major issue was the extensive use of ally bulkheads internally. In a fire and without boundary cooling the bulkhead would fail at a far lower temp than a comparable steel bulkhead.

            But they were fast…really fast…Take into manual comntrol or disengage the governors from the Oly’s and something approaching 40 nts was possible…A T21 trick and photo opp was to tow someone behind them on a waterski

          • Good argument, well put Callum. We have the makings of a respectable fleet of ships for the many varied roles there are now and given the tight purse strings concerned. Some of the classes of ship have great kit integrated (or pending) but, where it isn’t, it sounds like there’s scope/capacity to house additional across the fleet in future, if and when needed. In doing so I guess we have the makings of ‘surge’ capacity. My only concern would be, if ever needed, the time it would take to integrate it and train the crews but, yes, also like your argument about the T21s v T31s. The 31s are better equipped to defend themselves than the 21s, I just wonder if there’s a blue-print somewhere that shows what might be akin to the Navy Lookout’s different River class 2 ideas.

          • just out of curiosity does it reduce fire risks if u have less missiles? ya know like in tanks how less ammo means lesser chance of the enemy hitting the ammo and exploding.

          • Ordnance isn’t my area of expertise, but yes, having fewer missiles does reduce the risk aboard ship, although not significantly

          • Doesn’t really matter. Magazines have soft patch blow off plates to vent a detonation in the mag, fixed firefighting auto sprays that work on heat, smoke and temp , firemain fed from 2 or 3 independent sources sometimes with one independent of fire pumps(stored water under pressure in a hoofing big tank) armoured bulkheads… They are some of the most protected and safest spaces on a ship…

        • Not having any AEW leaves you having to use escorts as radar pickets, which is a dangerous job. I believe by the time Illustrious reached the Falklands she carried Sea Kings hastily modified for AEW. A bit late by then though.

      • Thanks for the reply, not as bad as what people make out for what they are then! Good to hear they can enter contested waters and be of some use.

        • There will always be naysayers who think anything to do with the military is just a game of Top Trumps where the side with the biggest XYZ wins.

          The T31 is as fit for purpose as the old battlecruisers; as long as the higher-ups remember that a big light frigate is not the same as destroyer, they’ll serve the RN well.

      • I would also point out that we don’t yet know what is likely to go into the mission bay. The RN is pushing a head with UAV’s (Uncrewed Autonomous Vehicles) that include submersibles, surface and aerial systems.

        The new MCM capability developed with France we already know about and is on order, but the RN has also just ordered a large submersible tech demonstrator for an autonomous ASW platform and there is a small(ish) aerial vehicle under development sized to be able to carry the new proposed light weight torpedo. Martlet and Sea Viper would also likely be possible for carriage on autonmous vehicles as well.

        Lots of potential in the T31 mission bay in addition to potential upgrades to the ship themselves.

        Cheers CR

      • Does anyone have a good idea of the crewing needs of the Type 31s? I remember seeing figures of a little over 100, perhaps in the RFI but has that been amended/refined as development has progressed?

        If a Type 23 has a crew of around 200, the reduction should help both in terms of running costs and personnel availability (I would assume).

        • The Inspiration class is supposed to have about 90ish personel on board (80-100 is listed) with space for up to 160 including embarked Marines. One of the big things the RN wants is for the City and Inspiration classes to bring manning per ship down compared to the old Duke class Firgates.

          • I think the T23 originally had around 170, this was then increased to around 200, it was still a lot less than the T22’s and 42’s at the time. It felt a bit undermanned coming from a T22 and we seemed to be in defence watches (1 in 2 watchkeeping) most of the time at sea just to ensure enough manpower was closed up.

            The T31 obviously has a lot less for a larger ship, I suppose the only issue really though would be availability for firefighting/damage control whilst simultaneously fighting the ship, or dealing with problems onboard whilst half the crew are ashore assisting with disaster relief, but I guess the newer automation will help with that.

          • In fairness… why would have the crew be on shore doing HADR during active combat operations? XD
            (I also suspect that since the Inspiration’s can carry 2x the personel as their alloted crew, if they’re doing HADR or similar offboard activities they’ll embark extra personel).

          • Yeah that was supposed to be one or the other 😀 although ships are tested for any scenario in training, I spent some time at FOST, worked at the Distex Site and remember whilst ships crews were ashore the nice wreckers would sneak onboard and create some sort of havoc for the remaining crew to deal with, happy days!

          • Oh the joys of FOST!
            Distexing ashore be that Portland or latterly Devonport.
            Helo flying from the deck doing Vertreps.
            Ops room manned.
            Wreckers causing havoc
            And just for extra fun and in latter years when it became “a thing”managing Force Protection of the vessel.

          • It was definitely better to be working with FOST, days were long and busy though, I did my PO’s board there, I asked the Wreckers if I could go with them on a few seriels to gain experience in Firefighting/Damage Control (I was a Comms Rating!) they said no probs, put me in the white overalls and I ended up assessing a small fire myself, passsed the board easily after that!

          • T23 steaming and duty watch had you wearing many hats.
            I to came from T22 ( B1 and B2) to T23 and it was a culture shock!
            Automation can only do so much. You still need feet in bats to fight fires, ras, fly and man weapons and the ops room.
            Look at the US LCS …they are going through the same issues that the T23 originally had with the discovery that more manpower is needed onboard.

          • They should re-active some Oliver Hazard Perry’s (even with their odd main gun emplacement), think they still have them in reserve somewhere, seemed like well built ships considering the battering one of them had in the Iran/Iraq war

          • Yes.
            I would imagine if it’s looking out for pirates and smugglers then it would have at least a platoon if marines embarked for such patrols. (?)

        • The Danish Iver Huidfeldt have about 120 personnel on board, operating much more sophisticated equipment than the T31.

      • There’s no “stealth technology” at play. The difference between them is that only the 8 youngest T23s were given the 2087 sonar during refits as a cost-cutting exercise.

        Aside from that, no difference in stealth or acoustic signatures. The T23s were built as a homogeneous class it’s only later refits that created variants.

        • Those are features of the entire class of T23s that they were designed and built with from the start. The older ships weren’t made louder and hotter than the younger ones by not having a new towed array fitted.

        • They are all the same.
          I served on a tail and non- tail T23.
          There is no difference except for some minor layout changes and the tail.
          Some have more modern kit and mods fitted but thats dependent on where they are in the Refit/A&A cycle.

      • I can’t say I totally agree with your above….that said it’s once to have a robust and well informed riposte to the T31 critics, though I also have to say I think they are rather under-gunned (like many of our warships frankly – nod to the OPVs in particular)

        • You can nod to the OPV’s but at the end of the day they are armed the way they are for a reason:
          Maximum sea days and at Sea endurance is traded for not equipping them with any more weapons system than is necessary for their job.
          Yes you only get a 30mm, but you get a ship that can spend over a a month at sea without resupply and with a very small crew, and can spend something along the lines of 240 days a year at sea.
          Upgunning an OPV comprimises those stats.

        • Perhaps obsolete is a tad too strong a word, but with no guided or extended range ammunition and a low fire rate, its not particularly useful for anything except shore bombardment and warning shots

          • It has a base bleed round which gives it “an” extended range over the original round. Still has star shell and its still going to slaughter a boat swarm when it’s fuze high and airbursting above a load of boats.
            The GSA 8 golf all is good for picking out targets day and night with its TV and Thim and ranging them with its laser. Heck it can even track air targets using its visual tracking algorithm… Just a pity you can no longer shoot at them!

      • Nope…
        All T23 are structurally and mechanically the same.
        The only difference is that some did not get a towed array fitted.
        Internally and equipment wise they are the same.

      • We don’t know how many Sea Cepter or AshMs – all speculation from some early renders. Expect to see new heavyweight drones for both logistics and delivering torpedos for self-defence, at least one unmanned surface vessel and rotary UAV as well as Wildcat. They will also get the new interim AShM almost certainly. Have better radar than T26 too.

        • Given that the renders are accurate about everything else, and that the T31 contract specifically prevents late alterations, it’s effectively guaranteed the armament is 12 Sea Ceptors.

          As for everything else, you’re speculating massively on programmes that don’t even exist yet. I haven’t seen anything suggesting the interim AShM is even going on T45, let alone T31.

          • The Intrim-SSGW as the MOD term it is due to be fitted to 5 T23’s when it is purchased (2023/24). When the T23’s are retired the plan is to refit them on T31’s.
            We wait to see what missile system is to be selected.

    • Space to upgrade DJ, but they could easily catch a cold with just a12 Sea Ceptor load out…….

      To me general purpose means getting in danger close to an enemy shore, covering a RM raid, among its other rolls.

      That means enough Sea Ceptor/ Martlet/ small calibre guns and a big enough medium gun.

      Such a ship would need to robustly defend itself and RM Sea Lift, Helos etc operating over the area and have the vital ability to provide accurate gunfire support, miles inland if required, to suppress an enemy response or counter attack.

      Seems bizarre to me that we would be forced to risk one of the few ‘key’ and extremely expensive T26’s to do this job, when it’s really needed out with the main group, providing the ASW and forming part of the point air defence umbrella.

      As things stand, it would be the only asset with a .5″ Gun and sufficient Sea Ceptors to go forward with a raiding force and protect against an armed, ‘near pier’ opponent.

      If the Royal Marines are going to to turn the clock back to concentrate on Company sized raids, then we best provide the escort ‘teeth’ to properly cover their backs!

      I hope they will at least one day receive 32 Sea Ceptors, to at least match the defensive punch of their predecessors.

      A 5″ gun would be sensible…….

      • To me general purpose is anti-piracy, escorting shipping, light disaster relief and anti-narcotics.
        My biggest issue with T31 is the lack of anti-shipping weapons. It doesn’t have to be great but a cheap and effective bolt on weapon to deal with low and medium threats.

        • But why intigrate Harpoon if it’s going out of service before the Inspiration Class enters service? Given the Dauntless’s use of cannister launched Anti-Shipping Missiles, the RN is going to have to procure a missile that can be launched from a stand alone cannister, at which point it can easily be fitted to the Inspiration Class (which is still FFBNW Cannister launced Anti-Ship missiles next to it’s Sea Ceptor Farm).

          • I never advocated Harpoon, just that the T31 should have some kind of anti-shipping missile which obviously would have to be canister launched.. The RN should be moving away from it as quickly as they can.

          • If you want an Anti-Shipping missile on a ship in the Royal Navy today, you are advocating Harpoon, whether you are deliberately advocating that or not, it is the only Anti-Ship missile currently in service with the RN, and no replacment has been selected.

          • @Dern is correct WRT current RN ASM . It’s replacement is slated as FC/ASM (Perseus) which is due in the early 30’s. To span the gap between now and it’s introduction, the UK plans to procure ‘Intrim SSGW’ by 2023. I believe that they will be canister type missile, to be fitted on 5 of the T23s, carried over to the T31s when the T23s retire.

          • Hi Deep32, there seems to be Sea Spear or Sean Brimstone type As missiles being developed. They appeared on the Venator 110 concept in a 8-10 module. Might be pretty useful for our to 10-20km to complement the 57/40mm guns? And British made!

          • Morning mate. I believe what you are referring to is as you say Sea Spear. A privately funded study/offering by MBDA based on Brimstone. Unfortunately I don’t think anyone took it up, but agree with you, would have provided a useful addition to T31 fit particularly in its constabulary role in the gulf against FAIC type scenario.
            As ever, money or the lack of it talks, and it is v doubtful we will get anything other than Interim AShM from the T23s.

          • Sorry, went slightly off track, MBDA offered both Brimstone and Spear 3 for naval use, with Sea Spear being the larger longer range system.

          • If they keep developing Sea Spear 3,4,5… by making it longer range, faster and with heavier warhead we might end up having a home grown Interim ASM!

          • Hi mate, I think you might be confusing Spear 3 with what the Interim AShM is.
            SPEAR is a MOD munitions programme that delivers smart bombs/missiles into the military.
            SPEAR Cap 1 delivered the Paceway MK4 smart bomb, S Cap 2 delevered Brimstone, while Spear Cap 5 will provide the replacement for Harpoon and Storm Shadow. The Intrim AShM is a stop gap off the shelf system to give the RN a AShM until Spear Cap 5
            arrives. It will be a canister launched missile system that is already in production.

        • The problem is you don’t need air defense or 3 main guns for police work. General purpose needs to be able to fight in a war. Escorting shipping in a war situation needs a war to counter subs, as they would be the most likely threat.

      • You talk about assaulting an enemy shore close in, but on the other hand talk about a 5″ gun that fires from miles away.

        What is it with people that want to relive D-Day? Assaulting an opposed enemy shore line is tantamount to murder. That’s not want we do. Marines are tasked to support NATO and linked to say Norway and the Baltic states , allies.

        Raiding is against non peer enemies and I would suggest stealth, stealth as in covert, under cover, quiet in the dark. It involves recapturing large merchant ships. Not blasting away with 5″ guns waking up every enemy beach sentry from miles away. Although to be fair, blasting away 50 miles away as a diversion may make sense.

        • Said this before, but if a UK Battlegroup is going up against a “Near Peer” opponent the Inspirations’s will probably be covering “other” taskings to free up Cities to go to the “hot zone.”
          If a Inspiration is covering a Raiding party it probably isn’t going to be in a high priority region.

    • You want to aspire to only having 3 and not 5 then? Have 3 that cannot be available when you want something which have more weapons that you don’t need?

  6. Inspiration class…Hmmmm…Not sure about that

    I am guessing that my inspirational names would not have fitted on the nameplate midships!

    HMS Train Hard Fight Easy
    HMS Make the other lot die for their country not us
    HMS Reign fire and fury down on your enemies

    • I’m just glad they didn’t draw their ‘inspiration’ from those wanky posters that club swingers hang all over the gym.

    • Lol, well I like your thinking but not sure it’s PC enough !!! Personally, I think it’s more about the Historical actions undertaken by their namesakes…. much Inspiration to draw upon.

    • I agree Gunbuster, ‘Inspiration Class’, getting dangerously close to Woke! Though nothing wrong with those proud names selected.

      I wonder if Joe public will be invited to name the Type 32 class?

      Diversity Class perhaps? You won’t be able to refer to a warship as ‘her’ either, it will be
      ‘they’ or ‘we’.

      All named after winners of BBC’s drag race competition perhaps😂

    • The military versions of the names that Space X and Rocket Lab love to use. In light of that I suspect something like Bloody Hell full speed astern might be a good name for when they get to within shooting range of a Chinese Frigate.

  7. At some appropriate time (and a worthy vessel), the name ‘Hood’ should be applied to a future RN combat ship. We should not be afraid to resurrect her name as it would be a current and ever-present reminder of a great crew and ship, that would live on in the decades to come.

    • Agreed, maybe the T32s could have the names, Hood, Howe, Rodney, Nelson and ? Collingwood or Tovey. All fighting Admirals, we have Duncan which will also have his most famous battle Camperdown. We also have Anson as a SSN so an Admiral class would be good, if not that we could also have a Commonwealth class. To be honest we have a list of names for the T32s/T83s and if the MRSS are to be RN ships and not RFA we could reserect more.

      • Yes its no exactly like PoW or indeed QE had an inspired or overwhelmingly successful career in their different ways.

        • spyintheskyuk, the name Prince of Wales has been used for seven ships in the RN, the first was in 1763 renamed from HMS Hibernia a third rate, then there was a second rate from 1794, then a transport, after that a sloop of the Bombay Marine (the navy of the East India Company, later formed into the Indian Navy), then a first rate 121 gun screw ship, a pre-Dreadnought followed and then the WW2 battleship. So there is a long history of this name in the RN. I agree that the name Queen Elizabeth has only been used by the 1913 superdreadnought but she did see a very active life in both world wars.

      • I think to resurrect the name Hood would allow it to be seen once again on the high seas and, not consigned to the dark waters of the Denmark Stright. The name needs to be alive again and a constant reminder of the brave men and women who went before in the Mighty Hood.

        • As such it ought to be a missile sub. Certainly a powerful ship. Another carrier, or a T83. The T83s are going to be interesting and large ships.

          As for T32… I would le to see Shannon and Chesapeake! And throw in some good fictional names, Surprise, Hotspur, Lydia.

          But generally for fighting ships I would have gone, class by class, down the list of ships at Trafalgar, starting with Trafalgar of course. And Nelson. Then onto any left at the Nile. I cannot imagine us not having a HMS Temeraire.

  8. whilst this is good news – think I have spotted a major problem in ben Wallaces speach this morning.

    He has stated that the UK is doubling its shipbuilding spend to £1.7bn pa. over the lifetime of this parliament. My view on this is that this is about 35% of the required funding the RN needs annually to replace its current (historically low) fleet.

    Using HMG’s own figures the cost of successor is down as £30bn – so that is at least £1bn every single year of the 30 year plan, but given they are all due in the next 10 years HMG has no money at all for anything else.

    An SSN costs £1.42 bn, T26 costs £1.26bn each

    The figures just don’t add up I am afraid.

    • Pacman27, I understand what you are saying but from my understanding the £30 billion +£10 billion contingency is over the lifetime of the programme and already taken into account for the Dreadnought class SSBN. So I expect that the £1.7 billion pa mentioned for shipbuilding is above that of the SSBN construction.

      • Hi Ron,

        sadly, the MOD and its ministers seem to be very loose with the facts and all I am doing is using their own data to debunk this latest bit of attempted PR.

        we cannot assume that the £1.7bn is twice the submarine programme, itself probably £1.7bn annually over a 30 year period, if published figures are to be believed.

        ultimately one thing the MOD needs urgently is some accuracy, transparency and ownership that has consequences attached.

        this isn’t just my view – I believe the NAO would like it too.

        the RN itself is doing wonderfully, as is the RAF, but we really have to look at why we are getting a lot less than other nations for the money we spend.

        personally, I am not convinced we are actually spending what the MOD is stating on defence, having looked at several MOD publications the figures just don’t add up.

          • the stated budget ranges from 34 – 56 bn. – that is a massive spread, all available in MOD documents.

            from the 2019 defence in numbers £38bn (stating £38bn is 2.1% of GDP when it isn’t even close)

            other government documents state close to £56bn so its a really poor state of affairs.

            Also in the 2019 defence in numbers it stats nearly £16bn spent on equipment, so £0.85bn for shipbuilding is nothing short of a national disgrace (50% of £1.7bn as stated yesterday)

            so you can see how things just don’t add up, even in the most simplistic way, no wonder they can’t get anything on time or budget, they are literally clueless.

  9. Apart of one name they sound okay all. However they are not better armed than corvettes. This is not an upgrade for Royal Navy but rather a downgrade of capabilities. The type 23s they are replacing are more capable as platforms even though they have aged. This whole Global Britain fantasy will not be fulfilled by such ships when you face middle powers that have far more potent warships let alone facing global powers and use them as a deterrent

    • Compared with the weapons/ sensor fit of the original Iver Huitfeldt, the Type 31s are woefully under armed. Our ASW capabilities are quite inadequate to tackle the increased Russian
      threat. These frigates will do nothing to remedy that deficiency. It just shows you can’t have a global presence on @ 2% of GDP.,

    • But what exactly is it you want them to do? They are GP frigates which means anti-piracy, merchant ship escort, anti-narcotics. I would rather send a £250million ship to do these things than a £1bn plus high end war ship.

      • I would want them to have ASW capability like the Danish ships they are based on. For the roles you have listed, an OPV should be sufficient. I do appreciate that they are to replace type23s that have lost most of their ASW equipment. I think that downgrading was a mistake as well. With just 8 type 26 to be built some of which will be part of the carrier escort, we may be reduced to just 2 or 3 frigates available for wider ASW duties.
        The cost included in the 10 year equipment plan works out at nearly £400m per vessel. For that money we should expect more.

        • You have to remember the cost of Type 31 which is £250 million per ship. The River Batch 2s cost £136 Millon per ship.

          So for an extra £114 million we get a much larger vessel, a proper main gun, better radar, aircraft hangar and sea ceptor and all of the integration that goes with that.

          The size of the vessels means that if we want to up-arm them at a later date or added a towed sonar we can. We cannot afford another reduction in hulls.

          • Agree on the need for numbers: it is this that has driven the low spec because all the costs have to be paid by 2028/9. I don’t think the £250m per ship is the full cost. The Defence Equipment Plan includes £1.95b up to 2030. Initially, it was expected that a lot of kit would be recycled from Type23 but this now seems much more limited. I’m not sure what makes up the cost difference but the total is more in line with international experience of similar ships.

          • Hopefully the Type 31’s can be delivered for the stated £250 million pricepoint – if the costs creep up to something like £400 million i would think better options should have been considered.

    • It is but how often are class names used to refer to RN ships. i hear Type 45 Type 23 more than Daring class or Duke class.

  13. Just linked this to my mate who served on the last Cambeltown. Message back read, “worst run ashore ever, worse than Hull”

  14. This ‘Inspiration’ Class is totally lost on me and will not inspire anybody. I lobbied hard for two years for this class to emulate the old Whitby Class and be named after seaside towns. This would have aided recruitment (an ongoing problem) no end. Only one, Campbeltown, will generate any local affinity but let’s face it the Mull of Kintyre isn’t very populated. The names of Scarborough, Eastbourne, Torquay etc. would have generated massive crowds at open days. As for the under-gunning don’t get me going on that one … the 50s designed Tribal Class make the T31s look like UN peace-keepers.

    • Both ships are built for totally different needs, buyan limited range and radar but we’ll armed, radar needs to be supplemented by land based radar, t31, long range, good radar for global use, weak armed. Buyan will win in black and Baltic seas and east med near Syria, could not complete outside that. Maybe a better comparison would be with project 20380 series?

      • The point I am making is that the type 31 will not be able to get close enough to engage most other surface combatants with just 57mm and 40mm cannon some Anti-ship missiles should be considered.

  16. OK the names of the T31s I can live with, some of the names have a long tradtion. I can also live with the current weapons fit. However, what I would like to know is is the space still available to upgrade the weapons or have they used it for something else. For example the T31 can take a 5in gun but it is equipped with a 57mm gun, thats ok it was a part of the cost deal I can live with it. The 5in gun need a bigger footprint and a full magazine area, the 57mm does not, so have they left the space for the full magazine or have they used this space. It is the same as the midship Sea Ceptor, the T31 is to be equipped with 12 Sea Ceptors, a bit light for a ship of this size but with the cost constraint again I can live with it. However the Iver Huitfeldt class which the T31 is based on has in the same space for upto 32 Mk41s, 24 Mk57s and 16 Harpoons. That is a very heavy weapons fit which if the space has been left free could give the T31s a really heavy punch when money becomes available. So you can see the reasoning behind the question the space is or was available to have a very well equipped surface warship able to deal with anything in a peer to peer situation that we could have in the future to a large escort patrol vessel that could not go into a peer to peer conflict.

    Personally I would like to see if money is available that the T31s do undergo a major weapons upgrade, not as far as the IH class or a T26 but to replace the 57mm with a 76mm, 2x 40mm, 2x 0.5in GAU-19B gattling gun,32 Sea Ceptor, 12 Mk57 vls and 8-16 anti ship missile. Makes the T31s a nice little frigate.The five 57mm mounts could be then allocated to the Batch 2 OPVs along with any spare 30mm mounts from the T45s, combined with two containerised RWUAVs would give the Batch 2s some real punch. Possibly if the S1850M from the T45s are kept upto date, then that could be taken from the T45s when they are replaced and installed on the T31. The first of the T45s are expected to go out of service in 2035, so the investment into the T31 by taking some of the old equipment out of the T45 and placing into the T31 would make sense. Who knows, we might even be able to shoehorn the T45 SAMPSON onto a slightly lower fore mast as long as we keep SAMPSON upto date. Wishful thinking I know but possible yes, some forsight, intent and making the most of limited resources and sometimes accepting that we cannot always have an Aston Martin but we can have a Ford to me makes some sense. I also wonder if or what the new T83 VLS system will be Sylver or MK41/57s. If it is the Mk41s/572 then even here we have the possibility of transfering the Sylvers A50s from the T45s to the T31s. So we have the ship bare boned I know but we can do a lot with her if money is available for new kit, or re-equip her with older stuff from the T45s, or a combination which could improve not only our frigate fleet but also our OPV fleet.

    Some will say but its old equipment, its not the latest design etc, True, then again the best Battleship that the RN ever built was HMS Vanguard a ship that used spare turrets from WW1 Light Battlecruisers. These turrets still arguably holds the record for a ship to ship engagement hit.

  17. I’m sorry this just sounds so utterly comically naff.

    The Inspiration class – good name for a corporate away day

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here