A recent report from the National Audit Office stated that the Royal Navy withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates because of concerns about unaffordability, however, it has emerged that work on the project is continuing.
The November 2022 report of the National Audit Office on The Equipment Plan 2022-2032 stated that in July 2022 “Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS [Multi-Role Support Ships] because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher”.
Addressing the above, John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked via Parliamentary written question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason Navy Command was concerned about the affordability of the Type 32 frigate programme.”
Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The Type 32 Frigate programme remains a key part of the future fleet and is currently in the concept phase. Work continues to ensure the programme is affordable in order to deliver the ships the Navy and Marines need.”
What will Type 32 do?
In November 2021, former Royal Navy First Sea Lord Tony Radakin announced that the ship had entered its concept phase. He added that it was too early to define its characteristics, but being a “Type 31 Batch 2” frigate could be an option.
The revised National Shipbuilding Strategy, released in March 2022, suggested that the Type 32 frigates were likely to be “the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems“.
Earlier comments by the UK’s Minister for Defense Procurement, Jeremy Quin, also suggested that the new Type 32 frigate will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the Royal Navy’s capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.
Part of me thinks, it might be easier to just build another 3 T31. So 8x T26 + 8 T31 = 16 frigates. If (a big if) money was available, then the new 3 should be the air defence Arrowhead with better radar, MK 41 & SM6.
Silly me I though the T26 has also been designed around hosting autonomous vehicles as well.
So they have a CPO/ WO and and a Lt who are between drafts or medically downgraded, sat at a desk spit balling ideas…
or am I being to cynical…
Well more recent governments seem to have finally addressed some of the shortcomings in our fleet but the worry is, with the T32 unlikely to see the light of day until the next decade, it will be a prime target to kick down the road, will it not? From what I’ve read on here (I’m no expert) I’d like to see a scheme where they adopt a ‘quiet-hull/quiet engines’ as it seems the T32 maybe ‘multi-role’ but also a host for UUVs for sub-hunting so an anti-sub hull with fixed pitch propellers would be a must. So something like, dare I say it, the T26 hull but with a design above the waterline that is flexible and adaptable for mission bays and ‘containerised’ systems that maintains a stealth outer. Maybe also finally time to adopt the fixed phased array RADAR antennas of AESA systems, do we think?
Ummmmm😎
At least the program is still alive even if not kicking. A batch 2 Type 22 must be the decision if it goes ahead at all. They seem to be waiting like many others for the update to the I.R. and new budgets for the MoD. Last I read it’s January but before that it was Nov or early Dec so don’t hold your breath. I just wish the CGS would stop the pity party. Not going to get into it. Francis Tusa on twitter has done a far better job than I could ever do. If there’s concern in Govt and civil service about any increase in MoD budget being wasted by the Army the right response would be to admit your mistakes and demonstrate that lessons have been learned.
Presumably working out the purpose and mission scope of the vessel and in what capacities would be a great place to start that then allows consideration to alternate technologies, synergies and solutions etc, then allowing considerations to their relative costs and therefore affordability.
Or is it simply a case of heres a bung of cash…go buy yourself something nice. 🤔
I was under the impression that ‘part’ of the type 32 frigate was to be a platform for autonomous systems. Which to my mind meant the autonomous mine countermeasures being developed to replace the Hunt and Sandown class vessels. So if Type 32 is ‘paused’ I would imagine our remaining MCMVs will be kept in service a little while longer.
Or.. instead of it being gapped because there’s no near-like-for-like replacement of the Hunts/Sandowns – it’s ‘capability’ will still exist, but just be transferred to aerial/land based delivery instead. So we still retain the MCM capability, it’s just not delivered by ship. Which is fine… provided that we can land a plane / drive a truck nearto where the autonomous MCM can be deployed. But then again, what protects the autonomous MCM while it’s performing its duties? Would be nicer to have a frigate patrolling the area, recover the unit and redeploy elsewhere from ship when needed, no? Surely that’s much more subtle than a transport aircraft/trucks and other enablers just to deploy a set of drones.
https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/unmanned-systems-set-to-replace-all-royal-navy-mine-warfare-vessels
“Withdrew its plans for type 32 frigates” This could simply mean that Type 31 will have a second batch. No new design needed, just build “up to 5” more of an existing class (Type 31) and ensure they can deploy and recover the ARCIMS vessels.
Fuel for thought I guess, but either way I’m interested to see where this goes. BAE systems had a nice looking concept for the Adaptable Strike Frigate, but again that would be another new vessel type to contend with.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-bae-systems-adaptable-strike-frigate-concept/
What do you think? Cause for concern? Or just a pivot to something else?
Cheers M@
So has MRSS scrapped then? What’s going to replace the bays, albions, argus ect ect? We must be ine if the only nations that is still reducing our defence budget even though we are in everything but name a proxy war with Russia?
It seems that the NAO has gone rogue, someone should rein them in, instead of having an objective constructive role they seem to be some sort of anti MOD cheerleader. Publishing things that are simply not true is clearly not acceptable for a public auditing body.
I wonder what this will mean for the timing of this program.
Hopefully when inflation is under control and the economy starts to grow again everything will be re-evaluated
Looks like this is money already spent on conceptual designs so may as well left those contracts play out but given the financial situation its unlikely to go beyond a concept. Unless yards actually get export orders they need to switch to build off and on shore wind turbines as that’s where money will be spent. Not so worried about shipbuilding as there’s some order placed and hopefully the government has made them difficult to cancel but military aerospace will see some difficult funding decisions needed in 2025.
Bit confusing this, it’s too early to define the platforms characteristics, but surely you need to have an idea of what you want before getting concepts..
suppose this is why MOD projects are so poor at delivery.
for me we should take the following approach.
lets stop trying to compete with the US and start taking a look at why the nordics in particular are able to have a viable national manufacturing capability on a fraction of the UKs defence budget.
we are great at concepts (Taranis / FRES anyone) and rubbish at delivery… seems T32 and MRSS are following a failed pattern of starting before we have agreed what we need/want and whether it’s achievable or value add.
perhaps this is a harsh assessment, but when measured against all the nordics, we would seem to lack clarity in purpose and strategy.
“Tony Radakin announced that the ship had entered its concept phase. He added that it was too early to define its characteristics, but being a “Type 31 Batch 2” frigate could be an option.”
Is probably the most salient comment.
It is also the most likely outcome – a tweaked T31. Which would make a lot of sense as it would keep the training and manning, commonality and stores issues to a minimum.
If T32 may be a Batch 2 T31, then surely they should cost little more than the £250m unit price of T31, and thus quite affordable. I do realise of course that there are Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs for the T32 programme.
At least the navy appear to be putting the point across that within the current budget projections there is no money to purchase type 32 and Multirole MRSS ships. That passes it to the government to sort out funding if it wants the navy to have those ships. The best move the government could make is to take the nuclear deterrent from being funded by the navy and leave those funds for the actual useful ships for the navy.
Can we be sure the Minister isn’t just wrong?
As is the intention to grow the A400M fleet. The issue is that funding hasn’t been allocated to either project so they’ll be subject to the integrated review and a funding settlement. Neither has been scrapped yet. Fingers crossed!
To me the RN’s biggest challenge is it’s ongoing loss of ship based ASW sensor and noise management capability at a time when the submarine threat is increasing and has expanded to include threats to undersea assets such as pipelines and cables.
We’ve gone from 12 AAW destroyers with moderate ASW capabilities to six with poor to non-existent capabilities (if the reports of their sonars being unmanned are true).
We’re moving from 8 excellent ASW frigates with a towed array and 5 with a very good hull mounted sonar to 8 excellent ASW frigates and 5 GP’s with no sonars and diesel running gear which aren’t suited to ASW operations.
T26 is going to be one of the best ASW frigates in the world but 60% of our surface fleet is going to have no or next to no ASW sensor capability. If T32 is another diesel design then it’s not going to be a good ASW platform even if you fit sonars.
I’d rather see us build a lower cost T26 without the Mk41, mission bay and with fewer SAM’s or drsigb a new design specialised ASW frigate. These vessels would operate as part of task forces which would release the full capability T26 for independent operations which they are very well equipped for with their strong AAW and (eventually) ASuW/land attack fit.
There’s hope 🤔
Both the T26 and 31 come with modular mission bays. So instead of designing a whole new class could we not simply build more of what we’re already building and insert antonymous / drone specific modules? I’m no expert on the matter so there is probably a good reason why this can’t happen but both classes were advertised as being somewhat future-proofed with the modules.
type 32??? if we do go ahead with the concept, i’d like to see a design that can be produced quickly and in numbers that will boost the fleet numbers. maybe something along the lines of a simplified batch 2 t21.
Good news that it hasn’t been shelved completely.
Two things sprung out for me.
1) “deliver the ships the Navy and Marines need”;
2) “Type 31Batch 2”.
Also they are clearly still looking to exploit the PODS concept so a mission bay is definately going to be a feature, my guess they will be looking for something at least as big as the T31 quite possibly larger or revised to enable more or larger (2x 20ft to create a capability) PODS to be fitted.
The fact that the Marines are explicitly mentioned suggests that they are looking at a litoral raiding or support role to be included as an option. Whilst I agree that this is desireable I would hope that they consider the need for the ocean escort role. NATO has a huge ocean to worry about and frankly I just don’t think there are enough escorts or submarines in NATO to protect the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOC’s) and do all the other stuff they are planning to do concurrently.
If the war in Ukraine has taught is anything it is that wars in Europe can still drag on… so a 3rd Battle of the Atlantic is not impossible and should be figuring in the planning assumptions by now.
So if costs are still an issue why not go for a T31 Batch 2 with a revised mission bay if needed or possible. Keep as much of the rest of the ship as possible unchanged particularly the propulsion system and the forward sections (from the main mast forward, say) to maximise commonality with the Batch 1 T31.
Basically, the bigger the changes to more it will cost but if the mission requirements are evolving you will want to buy a ship that will meet the evolving needs. A new set of compromises… but if they want to keep the costs in check I think they will need to go with the existing baseline GP frigate to a greater or lesser extent (a greater extent given that the 3% GDP on defence appears to have been dropped).
Cheers CR
It concerns me only Russia and China have ocean going conventional Submarines. That could allow them to out build us underwater for Battle of Atlantic 3.
actually there are numerous nations with conventionally powered submarines, china,north korea, india,sweden to name just a few
Good news
Cheers CR
RN withdrew and Government puts back!?. That’s a new one and very welcome.
Let’s hope the project still comes off. Think the RN will just have to be a little patient when funds are looking better. It was always going to be post 2030 anyway.
Well I hope this is indeed the case. All of the ships outlined in the IR are of great importance. Not being an economist I don’t understand the complexities of finding when it comes to projects like this, but surely, if work is to be done i the UK on all of these vessels, the dividends that will come from the manufacturing etc far outweigh the cost outlay that will go into them i the first place?
I would hazard a guess that the legacy claim of having people to man them etc is the the ‘real’ lifetime cost is nowhere near as relevant as it was in the past due to the high level of automation that these ships will undoubtedly have.
FCF definitely needs its bite of the cherry here as their effect in the littoral et all very important to how the Navy plans to operate. It is no longer a case of the Navy having lots of independent branches, all need to work together to allow the other freedom of operation in all realms.
The discussion at the point we are now at should be ensuring the ship-to-shore connectors are fit for purpose, what light, fast vehicle capability with support weapons are desired and how the current supporting arms such as 29 Cdo are going to be doing. If we now go back to having to cross everything and cut things to even have a chance to get the shipping needed for things to even be possible, then we are well and truly in the shiesen!
the sooner they get built the better.
we surely need more ships.
Agree, why not six instead of five? For an incremental and affordable increase in the fleet size. And an extra 1-2 T26s in the fleet, now a bargain at £800m each.
I wonder if the frigate sketch above is an actual outline of a T31 variant or an BAE Adaptable Frigate or something else? The forward weapons area looks a bit messy but kind of suggesting CAMM and MK41s.
Hope that some frigates other than the T26s will get kitted out withe the 5″. Anyway it’s nice seeing the T45s getting upgraded and the T26/T31s coming along.
and two for NZ please!🙏
Would you not be better with say two T31’s, fitted out to your own requirements, tagged on to the end of our 5 ship order?
That this a splendid idea Deep 32
Quentin, I agree with your comments about extra T26s and possibly 6 T32s. In fact I would go as far as saying we would need to build an extra 4 T26s possibly a AAW version. My reasoning is as follows. The T45s will have completed their upgrades to its SAMPSON radar, Sea Ceptor etc by 2030 giving them another tens years of life. The last T26 will be leaving the build yard in about 2031-32 and heading off for the fitting out yard. As the last T26 is expected to be handed over to the fleet in 2034. So that would mean the first steel cut for the T83s in about 2033-34 to have them ready by 2040. However, it does look like the T83 will have the first steel cut by about 2038. Thats only a five year diffrence but that is a build gap for BAE of about five years as for the last years of the T26 program there will be only one ship under construction. This means a reduced work force and by 2032-33 only a cadre work force. As far as I am aware we have not even started yet to design and develop the new radars for the T83 or settled on what they are meant to do.
By ordering a Batch III possibly with an improved radar suite (SAMPSON variant), remove the forward Sea Ceptors and replace with one possibly two blocks of Mk41s tactical length vls tubes for Sea Ceptor ER quad packed and flagship communications we could have four T26 squadrons of three ships (one Batch III plus two Batch I/II). This would keep the work force functioning whilst we sort out the T83 design as I do not expect to see them ready for production until 2038. The T83 is not even at concept stage yet.
So if we are not carefull we will end up in the same situation as we did with the T45- T26 build the one stops, no follow on by something anything above market price as a stop gap, find and train people and then start a new complex warship build. One saving grace is that the supply chain for complex bits of kit such as gear boxes might be in a better situation is due to the supply chain for the T26 variants overseas build.
As for the T32 well thats quite simple really either a Batch II T31 or a modernised AbSalon. Which afterall is a half sister to the T31.
Where do you get the 2038 date for the T83? Didn’t the NAO talk about money needing to be spent before 2031, which implies they imagined a much earlier schedule?
Hi Jon, 2038 for first steel cut is a calculation from me. The time line is conception, alterations to conceptions, concept acceptance, prefered bidders, detailed plans, acceptance of detailed plan, final alterations, contract negotiations, orders placed for advanced equipment, radars gear boxes etc, then first steel cut. As we are at the stage of not knowing as yet what we want the T83 to do then no conception can be put forward. I do hope that the first steel to be cut would be 2036. I expect that the money NAO is talking about that needs to be spent before 2031 is for the concepts, ships plans and development of radar suites etc. It starts with simple things such as will the T83 have a fixed array or a rotating array, UK built and designed or of the shelf. Will they have the MT 30 or something new as these ships will be operating until about 2065-70. So it will take about ten years until the contract stage, which will also take a couple of years to sort out then the tooling up ( writing programs for machines) etc.
Wolf, That was the plan but somehow I don’t think it will happen. The reasons are 1. the T45s would have just completed a weapons upgrade, (Aster 30 Block 1/1NT, Sea Ceptor). All upgrades to be completed by 2032. 2. The hulls have not been used as much as they could have been due to powerplant issues. Some of the T45s have been laid up for several years, the PIP thus far takes about two years. So the ships have about 4-5 years less sea time than would have been if fully operational. 3. Upgrades to SAMPSON would have just been completed.
You can be sure of one thing, the Treasury, if HMT can find a way on not spending on defence be sure that they will, and six T83s will cost about £9 billion to build and fit out.
It looks to me as if the T45 will be used as a test bed for new equipment and missiles. So I hope that we can get the first of the new T83s to the fleet by 2045 then one every 18 months after that. In some ways that would make sense as we would have got the most out of the class and would have tested new equipment. Also seven years from start of construction of the T83 to joining the fleet with a first of class testing period also makes sense. However, it still means that there will be a build gap of 4-5 years from the last T26 leaving the build yard to the first T83 being started.
T83 destroyer is also in the concept phase. I expect the OSD for T45 will be put back after PIP and the presently underway armament upgrades (Aster Block 1NT, NSM and Sea Ceptor), but T83 will go ahead too.
Believe conceptual design contract/activity for a putative T-32 class may be a relatively low cost place holding exercise to preserve future options for RN, by maintaining a baseline core contingent of project technical and managerial personnel. 🤔
True, BAE is looking at about £300 million per ship for their T32 concept, cost of the weapons fit is extra. However, HM Government said that the T32 is to be built in Rosyth which is Babcock. Babcock will have the same issue, all T31s are to be completed and handed over to the fleet by 2027-28. That means the T32 contract needs to be sorted by 2025, to have a continuation of build
As T32 will not come on that time frame, we need “something” to be built in Rosyth.
How about MHC LSVs? 4 hulls are planned.
No need to be it an escort. “2 Escort builder” idea is just impossible and we shall just forget it.
One escort builder at Clyde, and another builder making RN/RFA ships, sometimes including “low-end escorts” (like T3X series) is the most we can hope.
A waste of money and resources designing a new class. Just buy 5 more T26s.
I agree, T26 cab be easily upgraded for the AAW role with a bit of fwd thinking.
Add updated radars, inc s1850 from T45 if needed with 48-96 quad pack VLS midship instead of single cells, reduce flight deck to merlin size to fit these in (why do we need a chinook to land on an escort when carriers and RFA ships will be around).
it’s a big ship already and the money we save in getting 8 more T26 will far outweigh any negatives. Currently at £840m per ship for batch 2 of T26, we should be asking what the price of this batch would be if we added a further 8 and upgraded batch 2 to AAW std.
money saved can go to more T32 which I think will be a corvette sized asset that replaces the rivers, sandowns, echo, and hunt classes over the next 25 years so perhaps 25 of these multi role ships at a drumbeat of 1 pa.
Exactly. The R&D costs will have been fully paid so the per ship cost should only decrease, where as the R&D for a new type of frigate will have to be paid for across a smaller number of less capable units. More T26s would represent far better value for money.
The other point is what will the T31/32s be used for. One or two Patrolling in the gulf, maybe one more as WIGS (but that’s probably better done by RFAs anyway). Whereas T26s will be needed in the North Atlantic, to escort the CSG and LSG, and escort other NATO assets.
It’s not only money. Without additional crew, “more escorts” will be just moored on port, or kept in extended readiness. There is zero need to hurry on T32.
Other than to maintain the industrial capacity to build warships. The Type 32 I believe is meant to be a reward for Babcock in getting the T-31 done. The RN now has two suppliers of Frigates and two successful export designs.
The National shipbuilding Strategy Refresh document contains an interesting timeline on page 19.. It shows T-31 inservice around 2027, T-32 around 3031 and then a class (unamed) that implies that it is intended to replace replaces both classes eventually. It has a decision point around 2033 with an in service date of 2036 every 5 years after. This might be tied to the plan of not doing major refits onT-31, but selling them off before that is required (not sure if this is still the plan). The document is not very clear, but does indicate repeated in service date on the pipeline diagram.
I understand the “National shipbuilding Strategy Refresh” has simply been deemed to be un-affordable. We will see another “refresh” in due course.
Zero surprise. T23 was originally meant to service only 18 years and then replaced. At last, they served twice as planned. HMS Ocean was also designed with 15 years short life, but many here said “why not use her more” when she was sold to Brazil when was 20 years old.
Money and man-power are the reasons. It is just history repeats. Zero surprise.
I remember Babcock said that the “Frigate factory hall” is NOT only for frigate. Offshore rigs, windfarm etc are considered from the beginning. Ships other than escorts will be also a good candidate. I think Babcock must push hard to get MCH-LSV ordered, 4 hulls of them.
Of course, “2nd line of escort building” will stop (at least for a moment). But, that is just natural. UK is not spending double the money of France. France supports only one escort builder, even though they are much successful than UK in “build-export”. Continuous escort building on Rosyth is a pipe dream.
What we need is a long term committment to build one escort ship every 2 years to keep the fleet at 24 ships. This keeps the yards working and keeps the average age of the fleet in check.
We are running our T23s on for a long time and very soon we will have quite a lot of brand new ships with less yard work beyond that.
Also our T45s are only just about to get good with fixed engines, CAAMs and NSMs but they have spent half their life without. It would be nice if these new ships come with instead of FFBNW.