The Type 32 Frigate programme concept phase began in September 2022, and the first vessel is hoped to enter serviceĀ in 2032.
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 8 December 2022 to Question 102771 on Type 32 Frigates: Procurement, when his Department plans to complete the concept phase of the Type 32 Frigate programme.”
And also:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the (a) in service and (b) out of service dates are for the (i) Type 23 frigate programme, (ii) Type 26 frigate programme, (iii) Type 32 frigate programme, (iv) Type 45 destroyer programme and (v) Type 83 destroyer programme.”
Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“On current plans, the last Type 23 frigate will transition out of service in 2035 while all ships of the Type 26 Class are expected to enter service between 2028 and 2035. Current planning assumptions are for the Type 32 frigates to enter service over a period of three years commencing in 2032.
It is expected that the last Type 45 destroyer will transition out of service in 2038. The Future Air Dominance System, which is still at the programme pre-concept phase, but is likely to include the Type 83, will replace the Type 45 in line with its out of service dates.”
He also added:
“The Type 32 Frigate programme concept phase began in September 2022. The concept phase will end once the requirements for the platform have been finalised, and once overall programme funding has been confirmed.”
Despite funding concerns Type 32 Frigate is still planned
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, with reference to page 20 of the NAO report on the Equipment Plan 2022 to 2032, HC 907, published on 29 November, 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 then 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.
āCurrent planning assumptions are for the Type 32 frigates to enter service over a period of three years commencing in 2032.ā
Okay, who in the MOD is playing the idiot? The T26 will take the career span of a naval officer to get to completion. How can they claim āa period of three yearsā? We all know that’s a pipe dream.
Probably because they won’t be starting from scratch with an all new design.
Hi Ian,
I took that to mean that the ships will be delivered over a three year period, but they could still take 4 or 5 years to build. However, if they are going to get built and delivered in that timeframe then the RN is going to have to move damn quick and get the requirements sorted.
I reckon they have 18 months absolute maximum for the Concept Phase (from September). I also suspect that they’ll have to accept a design based on something that is already out there otherwise there will be significant time risks around the detailed design phase.
It should be possible to design and build the a lead General Purpose frigate in 10 years. The T31 class is a big improvement in terms of time taken to get into production, the T32 could represent the next step forward – if successful..!
Cheers CR
ā I also suspect that theyāll have to accept a design based on something that is already out thereā
Thatāll be a T31 B2 which is no bad thing if it comes to a fatter spec with a VLS system.
I guess what went wrong was it got too gold plated. Pure speculation but Iād bet it got a VLS and a big gun (plus other bits) that together blew out the budget.
Hi SB,
Sounds about right – concept phase is the golden opportunity for people to play fantasy frigates, tanks or aeroplanes…
The good news is they appear to have been reined in. One possible reading of the situation / news is that the project may have been stopped briefly and reset back within cost / time limits. The mission payload for the platform could potentially be provided / paid for via the PODS programme. Just a thought.
Cheers CR
I think that is right.
It is more important for RN to get more big fightable platforms than argue about the level of armament.
There is a general acceptance that RN surface combatant fleet has got too small and that more frigates are needed.
This is a bit like T23 – started as a very cut down frigate and ended up quite potent. These are better as they have growth margin aplenty.
Hi SB,
Growth margin is one of the secrets of a successful warship. Compare the Queen Elizabeth class battleships with the younger Revenge class… HMS Warspite brilliant ship. In the modern world the AB class have been hugely successful and important class for the USN.
Hopefully the RN will learn to spirally develop the capabilities of both the T31 and T32 rather like the RAF has done with the Typhoon. I am actually quite impressed with the growth in capability for the RAF’s Typhoon fleet. If something similar could be achieve with the frigates the RN would have some very impressive force multiplying GP ships well into the 2060’s (hmm I suddenly feel rather old…)
Cheers CR
Will RN attempt to minimize acoustic emissions from T-32? Could prove to be a critical feature in the 2030s. š¤
I am guessing no as they already spend a fortune on acoustic minimisation for T26. T32 is suppose to be the mine sweeper replacement operating UUVās. Iām guessing it will be diesel electric much the same as T31. Although T31 did offer acoustic reduction as an option but the MOD did not take it.
Hmmm…believe you may be correct. Hope that doesn’t prove to be a penny wise but pound foolish decision. Operational environment may become decidedly more potentially lethal next decade, especially w/in SCS. š¤š¤
I though Type 32 was about expanding the frigate/destroyer fleet from 19 to 24 ships and growing the navy.
Or was that just another Boris lie?
And if optimised for operating and launching SuUV/ UUV they could be used deploy a tail or tails many miles from the mother ship reducing the self generated noise issue.
Hi Jim,
The propulsion system is CODAD, COmbined Diesel And Diesel. A typical drive train for CODAD is two diesels per shaft, clutches and gearboxes hence all the talk about noisy propulsion system… For cruise you would only attach one diesel per shaft and two for high speeds.
Cheers CR
Hi FormerUSAF,
It depends on how much acoustic isolation is applied to the basic design. I would be surprised if there was nothing at all i.e. civilian standard engine and gearbox mountings etc..
However, if the RN gets it’s act together with autonomous systems then the frigate could fight the ASW battle at range by deploying the UUV and backing off. It could also use UAV’s to deploy sono buoy barriers at range as well. Any contact could be engaged with a fairly simple UAV torpedo truck. I would still like to see a hull mounted sonar if only to detect in coming torpedoes to enable the deployment of counter measures.
Such an approach used as a force multiplier with the T26 would provide quality and quantity to RN ASW operations – and don’t they need it!
Cheers CR
You also need hull mounted sonar in the littoral if you want to avoid mines, which have had a recent resurgence of interest.
I bet youāre right, after all the original point of the the T32 statement was a basic escort as a capability tug. So I suspect they got all excited and added to much to the T31 design instead of optimising for autonomous capabilitiesā¦the T31 as is will make a great capability tug with all that extra space and mission bayā¦so Iām betting the T32 will end up a later batch of the T31 that has some specific design changes to better support the specific developing autonomous capabilities that the RN are after.
I still think they meant to announce a 2nd batch of Type31 Frigates in the first place, but due to a typo the government are too embarrassed to own up to they put Type 32 on the announcement.
It’s doable over three years with five ships started annually. If the first in class takes an extra year and both the first and second are delivered at nearly the same time, and the other three in yearly intervals, that would take a little over three years.
If it’s built in Rosyth as a follow on, first steel will be cut on the last Type 31 around the end of 2025. If first steel is cut on the Type 32 maybe early to mid 2027, we’d expect it in service about 2033 if it followed the T31 scheduling. So 2032 given a fair wind and the absence of Covid is possible.
It’s another tight schedule though, and if Babcock are talking this way it bodes well for an on time delivery of Type 31. I’m more worried about it getting out of concept phase, through initial design phase and into contract and detail design in time. Contracts signed in 2025? Can DE&S do that?
I suspect from that you could interpret it that the T32 is going to be a later batch iteration of the T31 with changes that will allow better management of autonomous systems. Building and bringing into service a second batch of T31 with some modifications around the mission bay and hanger will be a lot quicker than bringing into service a whole new hull typeā¦which would likely be an utter pipe dream in the time frame give.
Perhaps an IH/Absalon hybrid? Both these are based off the same basic hull, as is T31. The Absalon is too slow, but something similar at the 28-30kns mark?
To be honest we say the Absalon is two slow but actually if the RN are looking for an escort to do autonomous vehicle mother ship work and work with the amphibious groups slower may be less of an issue after all an Albion will only be trotting along at 18 knots at the mostā¦so a 24knots full speed may be okā¦..it would create a cheaper ship.
I think the smart thing to do would be to go down the same route we took for the T31, but this time using the Absalon-class as the base design.
Why would you suggest that? The Iver Huitfeldt was based on the Absalon and one presumes built further upon its qualities and improved upon cost efficiencies learned from building them, and is pretty much identical in size. What (older) innate qualities of the Absalon class would be better than its newer sisters, the hull is little changed. Anyway whatever itās based on the T32 (if on any existing design) would undergo substantial redesign to suit the RN but I just canāt see how basing it on an older if similar design to that used for the T31 would offer any advantages just more cost and complexities for no obvious benefit surely, than basing it on the T31 itself.
You know the Absalon class is the base design for the type 31 hull right?
Perhaps we reintegrate the flex deck into T32 and that in essence gives us a huitfeldt v2.
Damen crossover is another benchmark product that should be reviewed.
For T32 I would like to see us move to a smaller ship and for us to build 5 batches over 25 years with each batch evolving as required.
These should eventually replace all the Rivers and MCM assets (which have already seen massive reductions in last 10 years).
Itās entirely feasible that T32, T26 (ASW & AAW) and MRSS could form the backbone of the RN over time and provide a real step change in capability if successful.
How about ST’s Vanguard 130 design? Looks quite decent.
To match the timeframe, you need a T31 based design. You have a build team which by then should be able to knock them out like sausages. There will be three existing designs to work from – Absalon/IH/T31 (4 if you count A140). Damen will design you anything provided you pay the bill (this is not to be taken as a negative). Designing & building are two different things, each with their own costs.
T23 is in the 4,900-5,000t class. T31 is 5,700t but really A140 is 6,000t plus. RAN & RNZN will tell you 4,500t is the minimum (due to maxed out 3,600t frigates). All the majors in the western world (really should be called NATO + world) are mainly building 6,000t+ war fighting frigates.
I agree, probably an updated huitfeldt with the absalons flex deck reintegrated would be the cost effective choice.
These ships are already unaffordable according to the NAO aswell as the MRSS ships. Something will need to change if these are to go a head.
Simple planning and funding the plan as required is the obvious solution.
We need a high end frigate/destroyer every 2 years roughly.
A low end frigate/patrol ship every 1.5 years.
So 30 years gets u 15 high end ships and 20 lower end type 31/32/OPV
Simple and fund accordingly to what is needed. This should be treated as a minimum.
This same principle should be worked out for all other ships/subs needed.
If 15 amphibious /survey/tankers etc vessels are needed thatās 1 every 2 years.
Repeat for submarines. 10-11 attack subs and 4 SSBNs.
This lets industry plan and funding be secured, manning planned, land resources needed etc etc.
Iām a bit concerned about the type 45 replacement timescales. Zero time for a delay or issues.
I think the problem with budgeting for Type 32 was someone on the team adding lots of shiny (and expensive) bells and whistles to the spec. Which are now in the process of being removed. On Type 45 replacement of all the RN programmes that’s the one that can safely be moved to the right. Thanks to its ‘issues’ usage and therefore wear and tear will be much less than planned.
I can see T45 being extended.
Other than PiP they are much liked big ships with good accommodation and facilities.
I think they could be extended especially as so far they have had pretty relaxed service careers and not been trashed by sea miles unlike type 23s. Type 83 roll out really has to be seen as a less urgent task. Although as long as it comes into service at 10-12000 tons and is heavily armed then we might need them around the 2038 timeframe mentioned.
Type 83 if built in decent numbers 10 to 12 hulls could deliver a return to real fighting power. The MoD / HMG need to learn from mistakes of type 45 programme and not allow just 6 hulls to be built. Quantity has a quality of its own
To be honest the T83 programme is going to be a very ambitious thing. Otherwise why call it a T83, thatās sort of setting the programme expectation as a ASW/AAW large platform, If it was just replacing the AAW T45 then a T4x would have been the ambition.
So I agree as I think this is going to be a long drawn out programme that may take forever and be expensive. Iām also betting that they will be looking at this to become the single high end escort for the RN that in the end replaces both the T45 but also the T26 In a 20 to 35 year timeframe. As thatās a money saver..the present programme that will see the RN having 4-5 different escort types for a time is bucking the trend a bit for the RN who seemed to like (afford) only two escort typesā¦so maybe moving from a AAW, ASW, lower end GP fleet mix to a single high end single low end May just have some appeal. But it would also not surprise me if they did not run the T26 into a third batch with high end AAW and call it T83.
You have good arguments and ones I wouldn’t disagree with but the problems to overcome would not be minor. An AAW ship will have to accomodate a very large radar at a considerable height. That will affect hull size and even shape. An ASW ship will need a hull shape optimised to reduce acoustic signature. Satisfying both requirements might be possible but would certainly be difficult. The RAN’s Hunter class illustrate some of the problems.
Indeed, itās likely to be a very long programme and probably a pretty big hull. If you take an AB as the best example itās going to have to be a 9500 ton vessel.
So with budgets and a need to have good modern hulls, to be honest it would not surprise me if the RN went for more hulls in the water over complete excellence. After all they did say the Type 83 would be part of an air defence system. It makes me wonder if they are thinking about making the T83 a third batch of type 26 hulls with enhanced AAW, as specific carrier group escorts ( as the T82 was to be). After all If itās primary role is to be a carrier group escort then then there will be organic AEW asset that will always have a massive radar horizon compared to any AAW ship so a very high up array with a larger radar horizon is less of an issue and you can have your radar array Lower. Also The development and deployment of CAMM has meant that all the ASW and GP escorts now have a resonance/good short range area defence capability that can extend any AAW integrated air defence system, where as when the type 45s were designed the air defence capability of other escorts was pure point defence so the type 45 was it.
So I think we will either have a T83 with small number of very high end AB style carrier escorts with a wider escort fleet more focused on do a bit of everything GP frigates or a numerous T83 based on a batch 3 T26.
It also illustrates that if you can solve the problems, itās doable. If the Hunter class works, then it clearly shows a that a T26 based T83 can work. Itās not hard to convert a Hunter to a T83. Get rid of the multi mission bay & replace with VLS & the basics are done. Destroyer class CMS & radar is standard on Hunter class. Whether this was the best use of government money is a different question.
Sorry – T82, not T83.
Sorry again – T83. Right first time.
Experience is that very expensive, all singing all dancing classes, get cancelled.
Also ASW and AAW are fundamentally different requirements.
If you start building 12kt ships you donāt get very many of them.
Do we really need more than six AAW destroyers? What for? Their umbrella needs to be over something.
T42 was a GP destroyer focussing on AAW.
What we need are more GP and ASW frigates in that sense T26B3 and T31B2 make perfect sense.
Indeed, I was a bit surprised when they announced the concept phase for a new T8x as it does rather lead down the rabbit hole of very large very expensive dual AAW/ASW ships. Youāre also right how many high value targets are the RN going to have floating around at any one time and GP frigates are now very able to provide short range area defence to extend the AAW envelopes down a threat axis or protect lower value targets ( which they were not capable of doing when type 42 was developed, which I suppose is why we needed 12 of the things, a type 12A, 21, 22 etc could not really defend themselves from air attack let alone what they were escorting).
I do therefore wonder if the whole plan in someoneās head was therefore to develop the type 26 into a platform that could provide reasonable wider area defence capability and call it job done. After all if itās just one part of an integrated AAW system with AEW aircraft, F35B, drones and GP frigates with reasonable Air defence capabilities it does not need to be the finely tuned finest air defence platform in the world ( using the theory that an integrated air defence system as the whole of a lot of reasonable capabilities linked are better that one exquisite capability).
It would make sense from the RN and using what money they have to get the platforms they need keeping both the T26 and T31 production lines open for a longer time and just having later batches focused on the T83 requirement and type 32 requirements. If they had four types sharing 2 common hulls and machine spaces etc it would also make training, manning and logistics more sensible that having four new hull types and a couple of legacy hull types still hanging around ( the mid 30s could see The RN operate five ( or even 6) different escort hullsā¦thatās going back to the 70s).
There is the old issue of design capability if your not creating new hulls, but that can be solved by HMG funding development and design capabilities in the dry years that can be focused on a more RD type approach ( designing ships to develop knowledge base, not just because there is an immediate requirement).
T22 could defend itself very well.
it had a really good pulse Doppler radar that was much better than the reheated WW2 sets that T42 had on launch.
It wasnāt until Exeter that T42 had a decent radar.
True but there were lots of frigates still in service that had really piss poor air defence, SeaCat was a standing joke and the T22 could only provide cover to another vessel if it was really intimate and that created issues of its own, as was seen when they tried very hard to protect the T42s in the Falklands, the fact an AAW destroyer needed to be protected from air threats by an ASW frigate was interesting and showed the issue RN/UK ship design had in that period ( batch 1 T22 and T42 had some interesting issues). Before and after that it produced some great ships, but that was a low ( not saying the T22 was not a great ASW shipā¦but no medium gunā¦..really)
The T22 Corporate issue was more that T42 got in the way in one case and in the other the Sea Wolf computer crashed.
As Iāve written before the problem was you could only fit on weapons system on a 5kt ship because of the space the computers and radar took up. Each system needed its own radar and computer room.
Even trying to run father-of-goalkeeper off the radars as well as Sea Wolf didnāt work.
Also given the physical and electronic limitations of the missiles it wasnāt possible to have A15/30 type mixes in Sea Dart.
Sea Ceptor is really like a massively improved Sea Wolf / Sea Dart combo on its own. A30 is at a totally different level.
So T45 being able to have three really good missile types on board (Sea Ceptor, A15/30, InNStrike) isnāt comparable.
Depends what the MOD budget is at the time!
Indeed. This is reaching the realms of fantasy. Whatever government is in power for the next decade or so is not going to prioritize defence. There are quite simply no votes in it.
Unaffordable and yet Ā£36 billion spent on business energy levy relief in 6 months to April 2023. Some Ā£80 billion on quantitative easing due to Truss/ Kwartang utter stupidity in 4 weeks by BoE. Needed to prop up the pound/ exchange.
Ā£44 billion spent on useless PE contracts due to cv19 folly and don’t get me started on the utterly useless UK track and trace system developed by Dominic Cummings sister’s company.
So you see money does seem to be available if it is politically expedient to do so. The defence of the realm should have a higher priority for spending then all the issues outlined above.
When are we getting the national public inquiry over the COVID fiasco and HMGs piss poor performance in this area.
And you would have rather the government sat on its hands at the start of the pandemic and did nothing when very little information was available to anyone?
Any company records showing D Cummings has any actual link the company paid for track and trace?
Have to disagree with the track and trace as it was a means to warn people. How the people react to their phone buzzing a warning to them.. well that was up to them!
So it “helped \ and still helps” motivate people to go to the testing centers and therefore become part of the recorded statistics
Check your biased news sources, There is an Alice Cummings listed as a company director at Idox PLC, but she is not Dominic Cummingsā sister and her company is not involved in the track and trace app. As for the list of gripes regarding spend, nothing to do with type32.
That Ā£36bn spent on business energy relief prevented whole swathes of UK manufacturing industry from going bust.
Quite
and now energy prices are falling so that particular policy worked and has saved 1000ās of good jobs and good companies that couldnāt cope with an unforeseen and unforeseeable event.
It isnāt these ships itās the actual budget. Ultimately if we want to maintain or grow the RN to what is considered a reasonable size, then we will need to fund these ships, both of which are value propositions.
To me the RNās biggest challenge is itās 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.
Weāve 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).
Weāre 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 T31 GPās with no sonars and diesel running gear which arenāt 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 itās not going to be a good ASW platform even if you fit sonars.
Iād rather see us build a lower cost T26 without the Mk41, mission bay and with fewer SAMās or design a new 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.
T26 is a specialist ASW Frigate. The GP version of the T26 was dropped on cost grounds. Even a watered down T26 was still very expensive, hence the T31. Overall, T26 and T31 will deliver a big increase in capability over ASW T23 and GP T23.
How can 5 GP frigates with diesel only propulsion and no sonar deliver a big increase in ASW capability over 5 GP frigates that are quietened for ASW operations and also have one of the best hull mounted sonars in the world?
I didn’t say ASW capability did I. I said, overall capability. That’s everything. And T31 will have considerable growth potential to add additional kit and weapons if we need too. T26 will fulfill the ASW role. That’s what it’s designed for.
But SteveP was specifically discussing ASW.
Which is 8 x T23 being replaced by 8 x T26 which are much betterā¦.?
In a few roles the type 31 might be better but even the general purpose 23 are great ships across a broad range of capabilities.
Underwater/sonar 23 wins.
Sea ceptor load 23 wins.
Guns is difficult one as 4.5 inch vs 57mm and 2 40mm. Depends on tasks.
ECM hard to get exact information but 23 is top class.
Operating cost probably 31 wins.
Type 31 is better than no replacement ships.
I really hope the 31 will beefed up a bit once in service. Not having any under water detection is a massive issue. If itās a gulf patrol ship what about all the small Iran subs? The guns should be useful against smaller boats if the situational awareness is up to scratch and the guns can target quickly enough.
Lack of anti air missiles is a concern. If itās only 12-24 to sink it an enemy only needs 25 missiles.
T26 is actually quite inexpensive for what it is (batch 2 under Ā£900m ea.) and cost will come down further the more are ordered, AAW capabilities need to be added and that solves the T45 replacement requirement. It is similar in size to T45 and has more VLS, reduce the flight deck from chinook to merlin size and insert more VLS n the centre and you have a very capable warship.
It’s interesting that the Danish Navy uses their Absalon’s for ASW with a towed and hull mounted sonar, with the Iver Huitfeldt class having the latter for a secondary ASW role and both are equipped with diesel engines.
T31 could never matched the ASW orientated T26 but does this not suggest that as they will utilise the same basic hull design and propulsion that they may not be completely useless in this field if sonars were fitted?
Well its diesel propulsion that makes the T23 one of the best and quietest ASW ships afloat so whats with the power plant. All these days are raft mounted anyway. It would have been a positive move to move the ASW fit from the GP T23’s to the T31’s, there is space and it would be a positive move as the kit is there only the installation to consider.
GP T23 donāt have tails??
Do you mean hull mount sonar??
If the hull mounted sonar’s and NSM can be moved across from the T23’s and they get at least 24 Sea Ceptor silo’s (but preferably 32) then the T31’s will begin to look like decent well rounded frigates!
Don’t forget the T-31s have been confirmed as getting their full allocation of Mk-41 VLS tubes meaning that even if you only quad pack Sea Ceptor in half of them you still get 64 of them and sixteen strike missiles to boot. That is significantly more than the T-23 on her best day.
Iām really hoping we just go with a type 31 batch 2. Last thing we need is another design with just 5 in the class.
Itās also vital we keep Babcock in the game to rival BAE.
A batch 2 version of the T31 would presumably keep costs down and could be built pretty quickly. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
If the MoD comes good and manages to introduce 5 MCM support vessels then hopefully T32 can be more of a frigate rather than purely a mother-ship for UUV’s.
Listening to various bits of RN talk I think the idea is for the T31s to act as ‘patrol frigates’ replacing some River B2s and T23s on overseas postings (Gulf, Med, Indo-Pac), with some RB2s coming home to replace the B1s when they are paid off. The T32 will focus on supporting the Littoral Response Groups and defending UK home waters – for both of those tasks they will need to flex between MCM, ASW and land precision strike, in addition to providing defence against air and surface threats.
I suspect the MOD will task the type 31/2 with a secondary role as MCM mother vessel, to cut the cost of dedicated MCM vessels,
That would be folly and a significant cut in RN hulls. See my post above
Whilst I agree with your point(Quantity has a quality of its own), past MOD behaviour to do more with less is likely to continue to continue. Do also refer to the final paragraphs in the editorial piece “Earlier comments by the then 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 Navyās capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures”
āTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 20 of the NAO report on the Equipment Plan 2022 to 2032, HC 907, published on 29 November, for what reason Navy Command was concerned about the affordability of the Type 32 frigate programme.ā
Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
āThe 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.ā
The (non)-answer betrays a high degree of arrogance. In short, it’s none of your business. … It’s not the business of Parliament (even though it votes the funding for the MoD) to know why the Navy Command was concerned about the affordability of the Type 32 programme. The same people who declare that “it’s none of your business” are the ones who rarely deliver major capabilities on time or on budget.
I think the informative part is ‘Work continues to ensure the programme is affordable’ Translation. The design team or someone on it has been adding capabilities the budget can’t fund.
Do you do simultaneous translation from Hansardese into English full time or is it a hobby? I enquire only for informationā¦..
I have a sad life but thankfully not that sad !
Does the 2038 out of service date for the Type 45 make sense?
The Sea Ceptor upgrade is scheduled to come into service from 2026-2032. If the ships go out of service 2035-2038 then that puts the last ships to get the upgrade going out of service just 6 years after completing a presumably costly improvement.
The Type 83 is unfunded in the 10-year equipment plan as it’s ‘concept’ but the overall plan is already under huge pressure, but to deliver Type 83 by 2035-2038 we’ll need serious investment before 2032 on design and build.
None of that makes any sense at all.
The 2010 Defence Review said that 13 Type 26 would start entering service in the early 2020s. Neither the number of ships, nor the date of service entry, nor the projected costs for that matter, turned out to be accurate. It is likely the same for Type 32 (if it is ever even built) or Type 83.
Yes. I suspect Type 32 is just a place holder for the “next frigate”.
Lots of it will depend how tech evolves: Drones, AI.
And also political/cultural change.
I agree.
Because that isnāt what will happen.
The issue is that if RN says slide to the right any budget urgency in developing T83 is lost.
So you end up saying things that are obviously not true and donāt make sense because of that overall driverā¦.
Which ever way u look at the plan and funding it doesnāt match up. If the uk wants a navy even the size of today fleet funding needs to go up or aspirations need to go down.
To have a nuclear deterrent and nuclear SSNs aswell as a full blue water surface fleet is not possible in the current funding. Without funding more cuts will have to come.
The plan makes sense, but the budget doesn’t. On the bright side the ten-year plan published last month is better than the year before’s, with the end-of-decade black hole being partly filled.
I misread it as the type 31 and almost shit a brick!! That’s actually optimistic good news though
The last t23s go out of service only a few years before t45 goes? Wow.
T45 will get extended, surely..
T45 must have a serious issue for 2038 date to happen But then what to make of the CAMM upgrade. None of this make sense.
2038 is just a standard MOD placeholder it is 25 years after the last T45s commissioned in 2013.
They will start building T83 on the Clyde in 2035 after the T26s.
And just 24 CAMM in the upgrade. Asters, all good, tick! But why not go with 1-2 MK41s and quad pack CAMM for 32 and some other goodies and Bob’s your uncle (and he is)! Lol.
The basic CAMM cold launcher is cheap and easy the MK41 less so. So unless your going to put something meaningful in the MK41 launchers such as strike missiles or at least make the world think youāve got strike missiles in it, you may as well go for the cheap cold launchers.
Or the stand alone ExLS which is also quad packable with CAMM & while mk41 compatible, is restricted to small missiles & way cheaper than heavy duty mk41 (but more expensive than space wasting cheap alternatives).
Although you have to remember that on a large hull like a T45 with a massive great radar high above the waterlineā¦.space may not be the issue at all, instead the limiting factor may be weight and stability issues by messing with the metacentric hightā¦.to much weight high up is the biggest problem for things like warships ( and fishing boats) as they like to put mass high up. So the cheap cheerful and light cold launchers may have lots of stability benefits over a heavy silo.
Certainly. And don’t call him Shirley. ļ»æšļ»æ
2032- that’s a long time to see the RN return to 24 surface warship level pre the 2010 cuts. My principal gripe remains that the RAF will not return to pre 2010 combat strength circa 12 fast jet sqns + 2 RN.
Bravo. Me too mate.
ļ»æšļ»æ
Yes the two things that really matter for an island that has world a wide range of world wide geopolitical commitments.
what would be good is to see 5 front line F35B squadrons ( allowing for a max surge of 4 F35B squadrons on one carrier and 1 spare squadron) as well as the 5 front line typhoon squadrons, QRA and for 11 front line squadrons + 2 OCU squadrons.
cheers for that Jonathan . A point you may able to clarify for me. I see your referenced 5 front line typhoon sqns, I was under the impression the RAF had 7 front line sqns +OCU (including 12 sqn the joint RAF Qatar unit). Do I have this wrong?
Hi Klonkie, officially no the RAF only has 5 front line squadrons, unofficially is sort of has 7 squadrons and a bit squadrons.
so five formal front line squadrons that can be deployed as part of an operation thatās 1,3,6,II (AC) and XI (f), these are the formal front line squadrons that would be deployed.
then 12 is a strange old joint Qatari squadron which is not operational, itās joint training and politically soft power.
29 squadron is the OCU, so training and not deployable
41 squadron is test and evaluation
With the really odd one being IX bomber squadron as this is not a front line squadron as itās the aggressor training squadron, but it also. Supplies the QRA flights, which is really front line, but not classed as a front line squadron as they are not deployable.
So if you tot it all up you actually have 9 squadrons flying Typhoons, but only 5 are classed as front line and deployable. Iām sure if we ended up at war with Russian and needed to defend our airspace all the squadrons would end up in used.
Thanks again for the clarification Jonathan.
Just a side note…When can they start ordering in “sixes” or “nines” and not these “fives”? For rule of three and all that. And just to make the RN a wee bit bit bigger without anybody really noticing. š¬š§ š¦šŗšŗ š
Good to see that the T32 is still moving forward and that the T83 is expected to be on time. I have taken note of many of the comments and in many ways I agree that the T32 should be based on the T31 with a reinstalled flex deck with a port/starb bay/ramp and stern ramp feeding the flex deck. Each of these postions should be able to launch a vessel of 18m x 5m, 25 tons full load. I wish in many ways it would be a Damen Crossover yet due to cost, ease of construction etc a T31 development would be the best choice. As for the time frame I see no issue with it. The T31 should all be delivered to the RN by 2028, the first will be in 2027 due to a prolonged testing period but the other four ships would follow very quickly. That means Babcock could start construction in 2028-29 with the first one to the fleet in 2032.
I am however concerned with the T83. I have seen nothing about radar development which would be the key to the size of the ship. Also I have seen nothing about the tasks that the T83 need to carry out. For example will it have a BMD capability, land attack capability etc. To give anti air, BMD, land attack and anti ship capability you need a ship to have 96 Sylver A50/A70s or 96 Mk41s plus 24 Sea Ceptors plus a twin hanger. This give a ship of abut 11,000tons with 48 Aster 30, 16 Aster BMD, 16 land attack cruise missiles and 16 Anti Ship missiles with 24 Sea Ceptor point defence. Possibly extra space would be needed as well as an extra bridge due to an Admiral and his/her staff being onboard.
To achieve the 2038 timeline the first steel needs to be cut in 2030, however, space will become available with BAE in 2032 for the first T83 steel.
Love the “his/her extra bridge idea”.. š
If the T83 ever falls over they could go for a British version of the Italian DDX, that’s already ready for end this decade not the next. Still it’s nice to see the RN getting replenished with new ships and subs and upgrades to the current.
A comment on T31-mod.
Adding (or re-installing) flex-deck-equivalent top weight will require the main generator to be reduced to 2 diesels, and hence with 20-plus knots top-speed.
Iver Huitfeldt/T31 class’s helicopter flight deck is only ~1m lower than that of Absalon, which must have another deck underneath. This simply means IH/T31-class has a raised main deck, presumably to accommodate 3rd and 4th engine in the hull to achieve 28-plus knots top speed (30 knots in Danish navy standard).
Don
Absalon is already 24knts with just 2 diesels. I donāt see T32 going slower.
What is the most concerning is clear lack of commitment to develop new AAW system for T83, which will surely cost Billions of pounds, and several years.
I am 100% sure that the T45 life will be extended, because after the last T26 delivery of 2036 there are only two years until 2038 and it is simply impossible to deliver 6 AAW escorts within 2 years.
However, anyway Clyde needs something to build after the 8th T26 be delivered around 2035 (to be “in service on 2036”). So, the first T83 hull must be ordered around 2033 at least = within 10 years from now. Concept design needs 2-3 years, detail design 2-3 years, and “developing new AAW system” needs at least several years.
And, we all know T83 development is not funded now within 2023-2032.
I think, before spending big money on T32, RN need to invest on T83 regardless of T45 life extension.
Hi DoT, the Aster family is evolving further and the systems around it so wonāt disappear any tine soon. Also the Anglo-Polish CAMM-EX might be a goer too, maybe even leading to a Mach 4+/hypersonic CAMM. Iād also like to see the Sea based version of Star-Streak rejigged into an ER version and mated to a RAM like launcher. All these giving three tiers of SAM cover.
Error. Type 83 needs to be built in larger numbers than 6. 10-12 is the number of hulls needed.
If its going to be a dual AAW and ASW ship it may end up replacing both the T45 and in time the T26 especially if its first commissioned until the very early 2040s and is still being built in the mid 2040s.
Aster30 Blk2 (if I recall correctly) is virtually a different missile- wider body for more propellant etc, and the previous block upgrades cover sensor, warhead, and flight systems. There’s also further expansion opportunity if we want to go for the strike-length Sylver cells, which may be necessary if we want a proper ABM capability for ICBMS too (need a much bigger booster to reach the ICBM before it deploys MIRVs and becomes impossible to hit all the warheads, from what I understand). In the American system, they have SM-3 (?) for that, which is not only enormous, but very expensive.
I’m not sure we need to be developing an entirely new system, just upgrading the components of it. That’s how AEGIS works too- the comms, radar and missiles are all periodically upgraded with new models.
I suppose the T83 numbering means itās going to be a generic high end general purpose escort that does both high end AAW and high end ASW. After all that was the aim of the T82 and is a function that has worked well for the US with the ABs. The T81 tribal class were the first true dual purpose RN frigates so using the 8x numberings is making it clear is going to be both a AAW and ASW escort.
SteveP
24 days ago
To me the RNās biggest challenge is itās 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.
Weāve 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).
Weāre 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 GPās with no sonars and diesel running gear which arenāt 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 itās not going to be a good ASW platform even if you fit sonars.
Iād rather see us build a lower cost T26 without the Mk41, mission bay and with fewer SAMās 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.
The french FDI seems to be the right answer. Lighter than the FREMM but equiped with the same ASW suite (Captas4 towed sonar etc…)
FDI do not have electric propulsion.
They will have no onboard ASW sensor capability. What they may have offboard in future may be very different.
The elephant in the room is the mine hunting classes of vessels currently in service. What is replacing those. Supposed to be type 32 with autonomous systems in its mission bay. Therefore 5 frigates won’t replace or be an adequate force level even if all 5 assigned to minute counter warfare.
Type 32 is also earmarked for littoral warfare and NGS. So it’s going to be very much in demand. I’d prefer the type 32 enters service as a multi-role warship able to complete multiple tasks such as far East/Asia patrols. Littoral warfare. Close air defence. Surface strike and NGS/ stand off land attack.
Therefore we need a new mine warfare vessel and quickly.
But, there will be 3-4 LSV (Logistic Support Vessel) and an OSV (Offshore Support Vessel) included in the MHC block-2 program. So it is not only T32 which are to cover MCM tasks.
By the way, designing T32 as “a multi-role warship able to complete multiple tasks” is a good idea, I agree (if the money and man-power are there).
If we are serious about enlarging the size of the RN why are we always looking at the same old ideas and options. French design, Italian design, Danish design etc.
Why not take a look at how another island with a Navy is doing things.
if you want a head scratching moment go look at the Japanese Mogami class frigates and ask yourself some questions ?
They authorised a new Frigate concept in 2015, started build in 2018, have 3 in service and will build 22.
Take a look at the spec, how it could be RNād and then the price ($387 million each).
Best bit is that power is provided by RR MT30 and MTU Diesels.
‘how it could be RNād and then the price ($387 million each).’
This is the problem, to build it in UK to RN spec the price will go from 387 to 750 GBP.
I think you may be missing the point of my reply, we just keep on doing the same old, same old every time and get the same old issues.
So why accept a version of the T31/ Absalon by 2032 it will be a 35 year old design !
Everyone seems to think Babcock building at Rosyth gives BAE some real competition but the T31 is based on the Danish Absalon/Huitfeldt design and guess who the original design consultants were ? Yep BAe.
If we want to do better we could look outside the BAe/Babcock box and perhaps shake them up a bit. Ask Mitsubishi to submit a proposal for a RN version of the Mogami class.
it already has a 5ā gun, 2 x Mk41 VLS, space for remote Minesweeping kit and RR CODAG power.
See what they come up with and compare to the alternatives.
Japan isnāt a low wage country, the spec of the Mogami class is very impressive and how they did that on the price is Mmmm interesting.
Are you sure about what that price buys?
Well working out Japanese prices is a wee bit murky, that is the price MHI quoted for the 1st block build in 2018. I havenāt seen any updates to indicate it has gone up, but theyāre tender for 8 Mogamis (4 MHI built plus technology transfer for 4 local builds) works out as 450 million.
But M
MHI carried out the development from concept at their own expense, which makes a difference.
I just think that we have built a great high end modular design in the T26 but to me it looks like Japan may have a similar lo2 3nd vessel.
So why not ask MHI the question ?
Im not missing the point at all, the issue we have is we will only build warships in the UK, which circles back to my point of cost.
If and its a big IF Japan is getting those boats in the water close to that price then its either being done at purely cost prices by the manufacturer or more likely its being subsidised by the state.
Mitsubishi would be on paper a good option and I wont disagree with that, however can you imagine the political response if we contracted out work to Japan for boats, the tinderbox that is Scotland ring any political bells?
Well firstly I am proud to be a Scot, British, a Unionist a European and I live in England
We have designed the T26 to be a flexible, modular design which is being adapted by and built in Canada and Australia for their requirements,
We are happily building the T31 in U.K. based on a U.K./ Danish design adapted to our own requirements.
So why not ask Mitsubishi for a U.K adapted version to be built in the U.K.
The U.K. has a long and mainly happy History of cooperation with Japan in industry.
I live near the Toyota Car Plant and it is a great success, single agreement, unitary approach to industrial relations and build cars some of which are exported back to Japan.
I am just suggesting we take a look at an alternative idea.
The Japanese navy maintained far better numbers than us post 1991. With China & N Korea on their doorstep it’s not a luxury. Bit disappointed in the precious few “details” actually elucidated for the T32, silly me. Glad George is back in the seat. Nobody deserved a break more though than him.
The thing is the Mogami class work for the JSDF, but they are very compromised in areas that the RN require and would not likely work for the RN. They are only 3900 ton vessels which means all those weapons and a 90 person crew means things like range are going to be cut into deeply. Itās also only got a flight deck and hanger for a mid sized medium rotor and there is no way you are fitting a Merlin sized flight deck and hanger in a ship of that size with all those weapon systems.
Japan needs a lot of very punch shorter range vessels, which is why is such a huge frigate/destroyer navy its focus is fighting the peer next door.
Well they are 3,900 std, 5,500 deep load and as for size they are virtually identical to theT23 and with a much smaller crew due to automation.
As for range the JSDF isn’t known to buld ships with short legs due to their operating environment (Pacific). As for sizing it for a Merlin what is the point as we do not have enough Merlins to go round and use Wildcats instead.
āThe Future Air Dominance System, which is still at the programme pre-concept phase, but is likely to include the Type 83, will replace the Type 45 in line with its out of service dates.ā
What do people make of this?
To me, this is saying that theyāre looking at multiple platforms to deliver AAW, of which some will/may be T83. Could we be looking at a Franco-Italian type setup, with a 2 or 3 high-end AAW destroyers for protection of the fleet/CSG, and then several AAW frigates to handle everything else? I donāt think weāll be at the stage, even in the late 2030s, where thereās appetite for an unmanned surface combatant with the AAW mission; potential to shoot down an airliner or something without human intervention might be considered too great.
Impossible unless you sell the Type 26.
At Ā£250m a pop?
https://www.navylookout.com/bae-systems-issues-updated-imagery-of-leander-type-31e-frigate-concept/
Err it lost out to the Babcock T31 design.š¤
Yes, indeed it did. But the received wisdom at the time was that politically it was desired that Babcock should become a viable strategic competitor to BAE. Actually I agree that the Arrowhead 140 was a good choice: an āIKEAā design, cheap to run with lots of growth potential.
But BAE are no dummies when it comes to designing warships. The Leander was smaller but it had an electric drive and a mission bay modelled on that in the T26. If the T32 requirement is for a quiet mother ship for drones it might be a good fit.
Gunbuster makes a good point about that above.
Yeh, fair point. Makes a quiet hull more of a nice to have rather than a must have.
Interesting. Babcock seems have a near certain T31/32 frigate workstream until 2035, whilst BAE Systems is good until 2038 with the T26/T83. Both probably a few years longer assuming the normal delays. That’s a good base workload for the two companies. A couple more export orders (ideally with the hulls being built here) and the economics of UK naval ship building are revolutionised. The Chilean Navy has been hankering after some T31’s for several years already, maybe time to make them a good offer! I can’t see any obvious source for another T26 export order but hopefully I’m missing something.
You’re right the market for a top of the line ASW warship is a lot smaller than for a 31 but think positive who would have predicted the RAN and RCN would have gone for it.
I suspect what we may see is the RN flogging of its T31 hulls at a young age 10-15 years and then ordering replacements. Most nations will no longer buy new hulls from other nations ( insisting they are built at home) but donāt seem to have a problem buying second hand ships.
I’m dubious. The T45 is based on 1990’s technology and design work (Horizon), i.e. 40 years old by the time the first T83 enters service. In all likely likelihood so many components and systems of the T45 design are no longer manufactured, that their replacement and substitution in a Batch 2 will equate to a major redesign. But the key factor is that whilst the T45 hull is large compared to the T42’s, and initially had a lot of margin (volume and weight), that has now all been used up. It’s hard to see the T83’s being less than 10,000t full load and 160m LOA – still significantly smaller than contemporaries being built by other Blue water navies, e.g. USA, China, Japan, South Korea.
I doubt the T32 will ever happen now, contracts for concepts and high level design will roll to completion as its sunk cost but these will not get built. Not one of the main parties is talking defence.
Some interesting comments by RAND on the USN DDX (Tico/AB replacement)
RAND is saying the USN should have specialist AAW ships ( DDX) and leave ASW to other units.(Conny)
So pretty much what the RN is doing now with AAW specialist T45 and ASW specialist T23(Tail)/T26
RAND Comments on DDG(X) Next-Generation U.S. Navy Destroyer – Naval News
This must be a new meaning of the word ‘Details’ that I’d not previously been aware of.
Way back in 2019 before the T31e winner was announced. When the T31e project was really between Babcock’s Arrowhead 140 and BAe/Camel Lairds Cutless (Leander). James Tovey who was a defence secretary stated that if the winner could build the ships on time and to contract, the MoD would explore a further batch of 5 ships.
As we know Babcock’s Arrowhead 140 design won the competition. At the time it was believed that this was partially due its larger size, so had more space for future modifications etc. But what if part of that reason was that the Navy wanted a ship that could also easily employ the new “Pods”, which were going to be various mission modules tailored to specific tasks, such deploying unmanned surface vessels.
The larger Arrowhead design suits this need. Hence, why I am leaning towards the T32 being an evolution of the T31. At some point in the near future the Royal Navy will be operating four different main surface combatants, i.e. The T23, T26, T31 and T45. If the T32 is a different design, then that will be a 5th type of ship, which requires additional training and logistics. In these days of austerity, I don’t believe that is affordable for such a small fleet. However, if the T32 is based on the T31 and once the T23 is out of service. The RN will then have only three types of main surface combatant. Which is much more financially maintainable.