At Babcock’s yard in Rosyth, work is now under way on several Type 31 frigates at the same time. The lead ship, HMS Venturer, was launched in June 2025 and is being fitted out, the second, HMS Active, was floated off in March, and the remaining three of the five are taking shape behind them.

The Type 31, formally the Inspiration class, has drawn relatively little public attention, and the ship was always intended as a steady, practical addition to a fleet that is short of hulls.

The design itself is a deliberately cautious choice, because the ship is based on Babcock’s Arrowhead 140, which grew out of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class and has been in service at sea for well over a decade, so the Navy is buying a hull that is already understood and proven, which lowers the risk that has dogged some recent British programmes. At close to 140 metres and around 5,700 tonnes the Type 31 is a large frigate, and it has been designed to run with a core crew of only about a hundred, with space for around 190 once specialists and aircrew are embarked.

A large hull worked by a small crew leaves a good deal of room and weight to spare, and on a warship meant to serve for thirty years that spare capacity matters, because it has to be able to take on equipment and whole roles that no one has foreseen. The Type 31 has a sizeable mission bay that holds payloads in standard shipping containers, a flight deck and hangar for a Merlin or Wildcat, and boat bays built for uncrewed craft as well as ordinary sea boats, so a single ship can be fitted out for anti-submarine work, mine clearance, maritime security or disaster relief and then changed over again when the job changes.

On commissioning the ships will carry a fairly light armament for their size, with a 57mm Bofors gun, two 40mm guns and the Sea Ceptor air defence system, and that has drawn criticism from some observers. The Navy’s answer rests on the same spare capacity, because the design was always meant to be filled out later, and a planned capability insertion will add a 32-cell Mark 41 launcher able to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, if ordered, taking a general purpose frigate to something considerably more potent over the life of the ship.

That same flexibility is why the Type 31 fits the direction the Navy is now taking. The First Sea Lord, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, has put a so-called Hybrid Navy at the centre of his plans, a dispersed and digitally linked force in which crewed warships work with drones and uncrewed vessels, allowing the fleet to cover more sea without manning more ships.

The force such a navy needs is already being assembled, because through an initiative it calls ARMOR Force, Babcock has teamed with the American shipbuilder HII to bring its ROMULUS family of AI-enabled uncrewed surface vessels into British service, and the firm has put ROMULUS forward as the basis for the Royal Navy’s first autonomous escort, with the aim of having one in testing around 2027. The vessels run on a mature autonomy system that HII already uses across American and allied programmes, and HII has expanded a site at Portchester in Hampshire to support them. A crewed frigate with the room, the deck space and the boat bays to act as a command ship for vessels like these is the kind of ship the plan needs, and the Type 31 was built with that in mind.

The thinking behind all this was set out in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review and owes a great deal to what Ukraine has done to the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, where cheap uncrewed boats have inflicted serious damage on a much larger navy. The role in mind runs from hunting submarines to standing watch in the North Atlantic and the High North.

Other navies have been buying the design, which is some measure of its quality. Sold for export as the Arrowhead 140, it has been picked by Poland for its Miecznik programme and by Indonesia, where the first locally built ship took to the water in December 2025. Denmark is considering an order put at around a billion pounds, Sweden has shown interest, and the United States has taken a licence. Babcock’s marine chief, Sir Nick Hine, talks of getting to “31 by 31”, roughly 31 of the ships built or ordered around the world by 2031, and each sale spreads the development cost, sustains several thousand skilled jobs at Rosyth, and leaves friendly navies operating a common hull that is easier to work alongside at sea.

The cost of the programme is widely misread, it should be noted that the figure of about £250m a ship, or £1.25bn for the five, pays for the bare platform, because the radar, combat system and weapons are funded separately by the Ministry of Defence as government furnished equipment, so the real cost of each ship is higher once that kit and the supporting shore facilities are counted, which is simply how the Ministry chooses to split the budget for a warship and not a sign of a hidden overspend.

Costs have risen during the build as well, with ministers acknowledging an extra £40m from the pandemic and supply problems, Babcock taking a £90m loss on the contract in 2024, and the company booking a further £140m charge this May for higher than expected rework and for work done out of sequence on the first ships. Much of that rework came from changing the design to build in the later upgrades, the ships further down the line have been far less affected, and figures of this kind are normal for the first vessels of a new class, so the red delivery confidence rating the programme carries reflects a demanding early stage of build and not a project that has gone wrong.

The lead ship is expected in service towards the end of the decade, and the rest of the class should follow in the early 2030s.

The Royal Navy is getting a large and adaptable frigate built on a proven hull, with the space and power to grow into a much more heavily armed warship and to serve as the crewed hub of the uncrewed force the fleet is now assembling. It arrives at a time when the Type 23s are ageing and there are too few escorts to go round, so hulls that can be delivered in numbers and turned to many different tasks are worth a great deal.

With allied navies choosing the same design and the wider hybrid fleet taking shape around it, the Type 31 stands as a sensible and well-judged answer to the demands the Navy actually faces in the years ahead.

George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison

23 COMMENTS

  1. The MoD seems to be going quiet on the MRSS concept now, I wonder if that could see the T32 concept reborn. Babcock seems to have the best T32 design by basically putting a boat handling stern dock ramp on it and increasing the flexible mission bay while putting 16 mk41 on the bow.

    Definitely seems the kind of ship we need in the modern age, bake to deploy a range of drones for MCM and ASW work while providing protection for them from air attack.

    • I think you must be referring to the Babcock MNP AH140 variant by the sound of it? Looks very useful and could be design ready to go if a decision was given. Like to see a non deck piercing CAMM farm added atop the mission bay though along with the NSM.
      As an aside, wondering if all the CAMM tubes off the decommissioned T23s could be recycled and refurbished for use? 5 T23 ships x 32 = 160 tubes.That’s a lot, and probably save a fair few quid. Could potentially reuse on T45, T26 and T31s.

      • I thought the CAMM farms on the T23’s can’t be reused due to their angled arrangement? It would be cheaper to buy in the 6x cell formation like on T26 and have a mushroom-farm of 24-48 above the A140 MNP mission bay. keeping the B mount position for 16 Mk41 and still having space for NSM.

        • The 6 cell modules don’t seem to be the choice for the Type 26 anymore.

          The Royal Navy website says that they’ll have 12 cells that hold 4 CAMM each. Which is interesting given that everything we’ve seen is 8 modules of 6 cells, there’s been no announcement of a change either, just the RN website saying differently.

          As it is, the 6 cell modules are incredibly undense, 24 of them takes up the same space as 20 mk.41 which could hold 80 CAMM

          • The RN’s website also says that the mk41 is there to fire the Standard Series, it isn’t very accurate.

          • Sound like the RN doesn’t knows what it’s getting 😂, 12 cells would make sense if ExLS was being fitted but i understood we left this at a dead end? Who knows?! Should just standardise on Mk41 in all honesty.

  2. The final juggling for the defence investment plan seems to be taking place.. there are some signs f35A is out and the money for net zero will be fed into defence to plug the gap.

    As Jim says we have not heard much around MRSS or T32.. this will be the very interesting bit.. the rest of the RN is essentially now locked in stone but these are the two concept level only programmes that can be fully adapted to the new autonomous navy concepts that are developing..

    • If the F35A is out do you think the 12 will go back to being F35Bs? Or, just no more of either for now?
      Aren’t they going to need some more actual manned ships to control the significant increased masse of drones?

      • I’d suggest that they think around 60 F35 is enough, so they won’t buy extra, just 12B.
        So another sneaky cut.
        HMG are masters at announcing something to fanfare then quietly modifying it.
        If they do buy the full 27, good.
        The A purchase was to make a saving from the very beginning, the nuclear role a convenient figleaf.

        • To be honest I would much rather they spend that money for 12 F35As on something that could up the numbers of typhoons or support more AEW or provide a long range ( 500km) strategic strike weapon for the carrier based f35Bs we have..

          As an example, Im not sure how much it would be to keep the 30 odd FGR4 tranche1s in the air as air defence aircraft, but I bet it’s no where near the cost of 12 f35As

          • I’d take that as well, to be fair.
            I’d also take it if the money went on more Atlas and Merlin, E7s, P8s, a few k extra troops for the Army to form additional CS CSS, all sorts.
            I thought the Tranche 1s had already gone.

          • Most have been broken down for spare parts now. Only the 4 in the Falklands remain in active service. I think it would be surprising how expensive it would be to keep those 30 T1s in service and even to give them a limited upgrade. Maintaining them became a real pain for the RAF as they were very different aircraft from the T2/3s. Very much a fleet within a fleet. Different logistics chain, different way of operating them for the pilot’s.

    • Perhaps someone in No 10 has switched the lights on….’why didn’t we think of this before’. As regards F-35A both 24 or zero make more sense than one squadron of 12. Maybe more Typhoons are in the offing? …keep Warton busy especially if GCAP is pushed back: the unions would be pleased. Transferring budget from net zero zealotry to defence is a no-brainer, especially if the North Sea ‘transition’ is slowed down: jobs are currently being destroyed faster than net zero jobs are being created. Redefining MRSS as a capability rather than a single hull legitimises the notion of an expeditionary capability made up of 3 frigates + 3 two spot Enforcers or Bays. Jim’s concept of T32 would be the lowest raiding rung on the escalation ladder. T32 would be more affordable and give Babcock more certainty. Also, a multi-purpose T32 might be a more attractive sales proposition to countries with small navies like NZ versus frigates like the Mogami or FDI.

      • Agreed. If we sre going to have the “A” version then let’s have the whole 27 on order and dedicate the “B” version for the carriers, maybe not exclusively, but with the RN having priority. I read this morning that a Japanese team are in the UK to push for the next allocation for Tempest which has also been waiting for the mysterious DIP.

  3. Agreed with everything being said here , steel is cheap and air is free etc etc but before we start talking T32 let’s just keep the line rolling as is but with 32 MK41 and NSM from the offset not as ever FFNW. Three more T31 to make a class of eight in line with T26 would suit me fine but if we are going to do a Batch 2 or T32 whatever and have concerns that MRSS may never happen then maybe we should follow the Danes ( again!) and maybe take a look at a modified Absalom class design?

    • Steel is only cheap if you buy Chinese. UK steel or Steel from Sweden is relatively expensive because it is a better grade which is required for UK warships. You could buy cheaper steel but you would increase the dead wight of the vessel as gauging would have to increase.

    • Couple of thoughts. I think the RN would like to eventually get at least of the ‘proper’ 3x 20,000 ton MRSS armed LPDs. So that means 3xT32 ( or T31) would be a stop gap. Interesting to think about what would be the role(s) of 3 additional Arrowhead 140s. Option 1 is they could be just basic patrol frigates to replace the batch 2 Rivers which will come home when the batch 1 Rivers go out of service. Option 2 is they could be full fat GP frigates with lots of Mk41, CAMM-MR, better radar and a TSA. Option 3 is they could be given a slipway for launching USVs and/or UUVs. Option 4 is they could get a slipway, a vehicle deck, a side door and Mexflote i.e. an Absalon clone.
      I think option 2 or possibly 3 are favourite. Enable them to launch and recover Atlantic Bastion USVs but with a big hangar you might also be able to deliver and support a a useful sized RM raiding party when deployed elsewhere. Beyond raiding I would add an Enforcer / Bay to the protecting frigate and that combo would be the expeditionary capability until we can afford MRSS.

  4. It’s interesting to contrast how the RN has taken the Danish Iver Huitfeldt and adapted it into the Type 31, against how the USN took the Italian FREMM for adaption to the Constellation…

    • While the spec may have been genuine and the amount of work under estimated , i would not be surprised if there was not an element of “not invented here” and “lets thow a spanner in the works” to ensure the bosses dont get too cosy about foriegn designs.

    • Good spot. I thought Sweden went for FDI. The US taking a T31 licence would be shock move versus the Legend cutter. T31 could compete for Pacific endurance and has a lot more growth potential.

  5. Slightly out of left field – Babcock have only one available dry dock for the T31/32 for fitting out.
    Active is already sitting waiting (and others are likely to follow?).
    Could Babcock use the unused dock at Scotston for fitting out if it is too small for T26?

    • Doubtful, Company Politics, where would you get the Labour, Money, and the fact it is probably too small for the Type 31 too.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here