Babcock has announced its plans for the Type 32 frigates, which could see the vessels operated with crews as small as 50 sailors.

In a detailed discussion with The Telegraph, John Howie, Babcock’s Chief of Corporate Affairs, shed light on the potential that recent technological advancements hold for reducing the necessary crew size on naval ships.

“People talk about a Type 32 frigate – we like to refer to it as Type 31 batch two. We’re doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two,” Howie explained.

By significantly reducing the crew size from the current requirement of approximately 105 sailors on the Type 31 frigates, Babcock seems to be recognising that the Royal Navy can no longer jam ships full of people and that recruitment is an issue.

Figures show Royal Navy not meeting recruitment targets

Howie also noted the possibility of further reducing the crew numbers below 50, although he acknowledged the importance of maintaining safety and operational integrity.

Details emerge on new Type 32 Frigate, to sail in 2032

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

190 COMMENTS

    • The type 32 is designed to primarily replace the Hunt Class. The Hunts have a crew of 13 so having 50 is not necessarily an issue.

      Damage control is frequently sighted as a reason to have more bodies onboard. However more bodies mean more people in the way if the ship gets hit. Just look at tankers and cargo ships when they get hit by a missile. The crew barely notices most of the time.

      It’s always possible just to abandon the ship if it can’t be saved. Also steel is cheap and air is free. These ships can be built to accommodate larger crews in a time of war.

      If there is an issue it’s likely to be something like the LCS which also had a crew of around 50. Crews frequently reported being over worked, however US crews are use to having many many more bodies around so that might also be a factor.

      • Mate, seriously, Type 32 has no design, there has never been any statement saying that It will replace the Hunts and the tanker comment is ridiculous.

        • Both Babcock and BAE have released designs for T32. MOD has already said it will perform roles including MCM, and will operate with the LSGs.

          • No, They have indeed released their own designs but as I said, No actual T32 Design exists…. MCM is just one part of the envisaged T32 design and If you are telling me these ships are being built to replace the Hunts then OK but I’d like to see the evidence.

          • The only two real contenders have released their designs…

            If MCM is one of their roles, as the MOD have already said it is, then these ships will part replace the Hunts.

          • “Part” being the key word….. They are not, as Jim Stated, the replacement for the Hunts….. and actually, there are other Autonomous Vehicles than MCM’s…… Maybe I’m just on the wrong site to be talking so clearly and offering honest and accurate Information, ?

          • What honest and accurate information have you offered? You think too highly of yourself.

            The Hunts are MCMV. One of the T32s roles will be MCM according to the MOD.

            Therefore the T32s are replacing the Hunts. They can also replace other vessels, or have other roles at the same time.

          • Just facts about there being no design and that T32 is not a direct replacement for the Hunts… if it ever even gets built at all.
            As for your other comment, you are entitled to your opinion.

          • It entered the concept phase 2 years ago, and both contenders have designs.

            One of its main roles is to operate with the LSGs, MCM being part of that.

            Given the Hunts currently cover that role, it is correct that they are replacing the Hunts. Of course its primary role isn’t to replace the Hunts, so is that what you’re disputing, Jims choice of words?

          • in November 2021 MoD funded a concept phase for the T32, but concept is not a set of detailed designs. The funding for the concept phase runs out this year so the next government will need to make a decsion to proceed or cancel the T32 program. Tories have kicked it into Labour court, and off course when its cancelled they can call it out as a cut when they’re in opposition.

            The NAO’s report on the Ministry of Defence’s Equipment Plan for 2023-2033 highlighted that new Royal Navy shipbuilding projects included the Type 32 frigate.

          • well they are not really replacing the hunts and they are replacing the hunts, all at the same time…the hunts are being replaced by portable capabilities that can be places in any random hull or air/road/rail lifted to a port to operate…but deletion of the mine warfare hulls will free up resources to allow the T32…that may along with many other RNs vessels operate the new portable mine warfare capabilities…..so they are and they are not replacing the hunts..sort of depending on your point of view.

          • I always agree and disagree all at the same times for most things…I’m cursed with seeing lots of sides at the same time…which is confusing for me before I start arguing.

          • The civil service will never allow that, nor will the government, they are set to hand us all over to Putin as soon as they can. Defence is so run down and yesterdays comments from those in charge prove it’s deliberate

          • It’s well known that the easiest way to cripple a military is to have quotas for the recruits and stop the input of new equipment, this has been true for decades that’s why our entire forces couldn’t defend the Isle of White from the Mongolian navy

        • There has been plenty announcements on the T32 and its intended role. Providing MCM in a contested environment is its principal fleet role and the crews and budget to make it possible are coming from the retirement of the MCM fleet.

          • Well please post links then…. please post the one that says these ships are to replace the Hunts…. please also post the link and a transcript of the conversation you had with Rachel Reeves over your intimate Dinner….. You have yet to clarify what she chose to tell you regarding these otherwise secret defence discussions.
            It’s one thing typing stuff here willy nilly but another thing entirely when you just make stuff up with no solid evidence to back it up.

          • Mate, there is currently no such vessel, as the RN haven’t issued a formal requirement for one. No requirement equates to no vessel. The rest is just speculation and GCI renderings.
            The concept study is just that, a study to gain information. Nothing will be decided until the RN issues such a requirement.

          • No…. the last mention of these, so far fictitious vessels was for “Up To” 5 vessels…. This has changed from “5 Vessels” and echos the T31 talk originally mentioning “At Least” 5 vessels…… .
            What’s the new Carrier in Portsmouth mate ? came in about 6pm ish yesterday……… can’t make her out yet.

          • It’s Garibaldi Mate, there is a LSD outside too…. and HMS QE’s engine/s were fired up earlier, she might be on her way soon.

          • Morning Frank. Just looked & from the small size & masts I think she’s the The Italian aircraft carrier ITS Giuseppe Garibaldi (C 551). 10,000t standard displacement.
            Defences fitted include Selina SAM & Dardo 40mm incidently, both far more capable/ranged than the Phalanx on the QE & SFA currently on the POW. Plus the Italians have a larger escort fleet than us.

            I see the Whidebey class USS Gunston Hall LSD-44 LPD has sailed too.

          • Looks like my first post was lost/deleted.

            She looks like the Italian LHD/ligh carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi,
            10,000t standard diisplacement from the mast/stern configuration. She has Dardo 40mm, Selina SAMs c.f just the sorter ranged Phalanx on the QE & currently just machine guns on the POW.
            The Italians are due to complete a much larger c38,000t CVA Trieste this year.
            I see too that the Whidebey LPD USS Guston had departed.

          • Yes it’s Garibaldi… I saw her number very clearly but the coverage of her docking was stopped soon after she was next to Warriors Stern.

          • No, not yet there hasn’t. There is lots of talk, and we may well eventually get ‘5 T32s’, but as of this minute, it’s all just talk.

          • Exactly what i have been saying…. but some posters are acting like they have been designed and their missions defined already.

          • Let’s hope the next government affirms the commitment, otherwise it’ll end up being just an empty promise/gesture from bluffer Bozo. The UK needs those 5 escorts.

          • M&M’s? Lol. No worries Andy, when my fat fingers & addled brain are near a keyboard anything can happen!

          • Certainly wont be called after ‘Hunts’ will they? ‘Resorts’ maybe. I’d like Battle class but its probably too warlike for todays sensibilities and wokeness.

        • Realistically the type 32 is always only ever going to be an adaptation of the type 31 programme surely- for all the obvious reasons of logistics, repair, spare parts, training crews etc etc.

        • Andy, the RN should tag on 5 more type 31- likely the most efficient option, That being said an incoming Labour government…. hhm.

          • Try 30 more and you will be close plus add another 10 shall we call the Churchill class which are qe with the nuclear plants they should always have had, and at least another 20 of the illustrious class also with nuclear … And multiply the army by 10, the tanks by 50 and the air force by at least 20 including tar2 and harriers. Then we will be back to a point where we can defend ourselves against small outfits like Iran and we can grow to the size we need to be to defend against Russia or china. Finally we need to grow some balls and actually get involved in Ukraine before it’s too late.

          • Dave, I completely understand the desire to improve the armed forces, but I recommend toning down the hyperbole.
            Your “basic requirement” would effectively cripple Britain. Yes, a lot of social spending is waste but this would suck that budget up in an instant.
            Also, TSR2, while an excellent idea in the 60s, would be effectively toast against Ukraine-style air defence warfare. No stealth is more of a burden now than speed ever was and raised radar like Giraffe alongside AEW makes low-flying less of the complete advantage of surprise it was. I suppose the modern equivalent will be loaded-up Tempest at low level.
            Similarly, Harrier is very limited in a modern environment. Yes, you have said that they’ve shot down Houthi drones but that doesn’t mean they could hold their own against modern Chinese fighters well within their range, a situation in which the harrier wouldn’t last a minute. We have a better replacement for Harrier; it’s called F35B and the only real issues with that are a lack of mass because we haven’t bought enough.

          • I just want people to understand just how far below able to defend us we have pushed the armed forces – its disgusting and shocking. I understand TSR2 was designed prior to stealth but it looks like it wouldnt take a huge amount to get some of the stealth features right on it, flat surfaces for a starting point.

          • Telling people that they need to use most of the govt budget to fund “basic” armed forces when nothing of the sort is true is more likely to cause “oh, in that case, we won’t have an army” than actual progress. I’m not arguing against more military spending, just your slightly unorthodox methods of advocating it.

          • We dont have an army, we have a few people with guns who dont have bullets anyway and in the most part havent fired more than twice in their life. When I was last in the territorials all we did was clean the guns and march round ad fired half a dozen rounds a year, not really any point in that. We have destroyed the armed forces year on year whether Labour or Conservative, its time to either let putin rule in London or sort our selves out. Personally I wouldnt want putin to rule but unless we sort out the bloody mess both our major parties and the civil service have made we will be.

        • The vessel you described can do none of the jobs which the Frigates can and will only be taking resources away from more important areas.

        • Looking at what non state actors are capable of doing in the Red Sea its difficult to see R2 as a GP much less an ASW frigate. But could a R2 launch an Apollo MCM drone?

      • Adding a TAS to a ship that small would be a tight fit and immense strain on the Hull. It would be or little use without proper help and drone facilities which means a hanger, fuel, and numerous other systems. The Thai navy doesn’t sail far. The sensor and CMS fit would be more complex the more weapons go on. It would mean a cramped ship with little upgrade room.

      • A towed array would work great on a diesel powered ship with no acoustic dampening.

        Great suggestion

        Also ship mounted torpedo launchers are a really good way to hunt submarines

        Like hunting elephant guns with elephants.

      • Roll Royce presented an option for commericial vessels to have no crew at all.

        Companies like RR now tell airlines they have a problem with an engine whilst the planes in the air. So logically you could offboard some aspects if you have connectivity. Is that good idea for a warship, who knows.

        • But that relies on RR have a service depot at the relevant location so the plane can be rotated through…..

          In the midst of a conflict message appears on captain’s console ‘new fuel injectors are required – power limited to 40% return to base ASAP’

          Sometimes people with spanners are very useful.

          • With commercial jet most of the issues fed back to RR are minor and either deferred to the next check or repair/replaced on the tarmac at turn around.

            It remain to seen how useful this is for the military but I’d say there’s some use.

          • But not a lot of use if your radar/Sea Ceptor system goes down and you need a bloke with a soldering iron *now*…..before the next attack comes in.

          • I agree.

            You could create a more redundancy which of course has cost. Does that cost less than more crew, I don’t know. But take military aircraft where if you flight control system is hit there’s redundancies build in, as you’ll never have a bloke with spanners or a soldering iron sat next to you and almost no time erect a repair. Commercial aircraft did away with flight engineers some time ago as the systems improved.

            Another area to look at is being able hot swap elements of a system,which is far less time consuming than repairing and you don’t need detailed knowledge of the entire system. This would extend the commercial aircraft line replacement units. But you still need people just less of them.

            Hopefully Babcock is doing the work to establish what’s feasible. What redundancies would be cost effective, what elements of a system can be easily swapped by multi skilled engineers.

            There is a plus side, right now if you rely on bloke with spanners you accepting some system down time, essentially out the fight. Redundancies for instance would remove that vulnerability.

            But on the flip side your going to still have some scenarios where you need crew to do repairs.

            There one further possibility you have a autonomous vessels but they are employed in a loyal escort role. The ability to repair lies within the group or flotilla. Again pros and cons, you need to deploy a repair team or individual to a damaged vessel and in various sea states. But you have a more sacrificial vessel, it won’t be the first time in naval warfare where vessels are sacrificed to protect other assets.

            I don’t think deploying autonomous vessels individually is a good idea, we’ve already see Iran and China fish out USN autonomous vessels. So perhaps take a lesson from Tempest and look at optionally manned.

            I can think of dozens of reasons why it is a good idea, dozens why its a bad idea. But ultimately it needs proper analysis.

      • If they wake up to that & instead of dropping explosives/targetting upperworks, use UAVs primarily as torpoedo carriers that hole the ship below the waterline, them big merchants & tankers will be far more affected.

      • Sounds like you are trying to rebuild the Rivers as Corvettes, probably something they were never designed to be.

        Bolting on extra weapons systems is one thing, but you would probably have to upgrade the radars/sensors, upgrade the CMS targeting and tracking systems plus alter the internal structure for more ammunition stowage.

        • Navy Lookout did a post a couple of years ago looking at uparming Batch 2 Rivers up to “Corvette”.But conclusion was it just made them more vulnerable by putting them in harms way as if they were a proper warship…As we all know the RN simply needs more escorts.The Type 31 may well be the new workhorse for next 20 years but only 5!!5 hulls means 2.5 or 3 available most of the time…Navy needs 10xT31 with max MK41 capacity as will fit.The T32 will end up as a 3 ship off the shelf MCMV vessel (if at all.)The PIP’d T45s will have to hang around 10 years longer than planned but they have sea time in hand methinks due to their ongoing troubles.8xT26s probably in the bag but 2030s for the full fleet?And T83??Need 10?What do we estimate?£1.5Bn per hull, so we get 3?Better to rejig the 26 hull and fit 100VLS,point defence guns and lily pad helo deck for a 20 LMM shot Wildcat to defend against swarm.Glorified arsenal ship but small crews,minimal sensors so they go out with a 26 or 31and with a carrier probably.Four years on our own with Russia and China looming when Trump wins….

    • Damage control and crew burnout would certainly be important factors to consider, but there are still strong arguments for it.

      Ultimately, a frigate that can operate with a minimum crew of 50 but be augmented with extra manpower in a crisis is a better situation to have than a frigate that needs 200 men and is forced to sail with fewer.

    • The US has come up with an even better idea 😂

      “WEST 2024 — The head of US Pacific Fleet today said his command plans to establish its second operational unmanned surface vessel squadron in May, though he kept tight-lipped about what “exquisite capabilities” might be available to the unit.”

      https://

      breakingdefense.com/2024/02/us-pacific-fleet-to-stand-up-second-unmanned-surface-vessel-squadron-this-year/?utm_medium=email&_hsmi=294237860&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_kdzDLPn4fK-hyjN93igR1Thir0Jw4haDp5l_pRvES-3sSHRS-zsRx9zdwjctqRt-pU3P6Bm_1hYxdr9AjO2iEswtvhg&utm_content=294237860&utm_source=hs_email

  2. In the merchant Navy we have 20-30 persons on much bigger ships, but on a warship 50 does not feel enough. Maintenance and rest is an issue with such small numbers and we aren’t being attacked or operating missiles. Suppose.it.depends what these ships will be used for and what environments. 50 seems to few for a high risk area.

    • The B2 Rivers have crews of about 70, but fewer than 50 are on board at any one time. The rest are flown home for a few weeks rest. The Echos used to do the same. It’s apparently more popular than eight month deployments. If you need a core crew of fifty, it should be possible to do the same trick, giving the increased number of sea days normally associated with dual crewing, but when it all hits the fan, you have twenty five extra sailors you can add at short notice.

    • Yes I would like to know more about how they come to that figure. If it’s around 50 to 60 as a peace time contingent to fully operate the ship but with the ability to add numbers to augment those numbers if and when threat increases I can get it. It means you can get bodies in as and when required from elsewhere focused on the trouble spots and potentially better exploit the total crew numbers available at any given time while under normal circumstances or places less hostile be able to have more ships at sea in various places at any given time. Of course it’s not ideal and what is a benign assignment might not be with little warning but I guess better that than having unmanned ships stick in port as long as these more spartanly manned ships still retain the capacity through automation to be fundamentally effective in most if not all circumstances especially if it avoids ships not designed for such modest crews being undermanned and unable ill equipped to cope in a conflict scenario.

      • The Danish have given figures for the Iver Huitfeldts. Just taking from A to B not far without operational intent: a core crew of 10-12. 117-120 for full operations, including damage control, with maybe half the crew needed for operational level 2. This doesn’t include flight crew, doctors, lawyers, marines etc.

        Given that the IHs have more equipment than Type 31s, John Howie’s 105 is probably based on the same maths. And I’m guessing that the 50 is a target for the same thing: full fighting operations, including damage control, but excluding flight crew, doctors, marines, etc.

    • I think the point from Babcock was to demonstrate through tech just how lean the crew could be. There was never any intention of actually crewing to this level.

  3. Surely not, I read in the comment section here yesterday how s**t Scottish ship yards were. How could they possible build a world class product then make it even better if they are so terrible. Makes no sense to me. 😀

    • Think I would still go with a Batch 2 Type 31 numbering 3 in total. So the RN would have 6 Type 45’s, 8 Type 26 plus 8 Type 31’s. Total (22) Much further down the line I would have 8 of the currently called Type 83’s to replace the Type 45’s. So the RN would have around (24) Destroyers and Frigates. Guess I’m just trying to be realistic with the numbers, not get too carried away. I know this would take a long time – well into the 2040’s..

      • Seems entirely sensible to me…. The only way numbers will grow is keeping ship classes to a minimum and keeping the cheapest option in production a bit longer…

    • Well they didn’t nor were they supposed to, it’s a budget Frigate designed to a lower cost point than the T26 to make up the numbers. By using the IH which is by its nature a very flexible design (original concept courtesy of BAe) they saved most of the design costs.
      Then to get it down to the lowest possible price Babcock designers degraded just about everything the IH has except the basic hull configuration and power plant.
      Apart from not using GT’s and opting for just CODAD the IH is a pretty high end warship APAR & SMART L radars, SM2 and ESSM ASM, 2 twin ASW torpedo tubes, Harpoon, twin 76mm guns etc etc.

  4. Do I get the feeling that we are headed in the direction of the
    ” Future Black Swan Sloop of War” concept that was mooted a while back?

      • I’ve lost the link to the original paper but from memory the concept was rather than having a small fleet of expensive singleton vessels you would have a larger number of ‘sloops’, each of similar size to batch 2 Rivers. These would be platforms for autonomous vehicles. Simplistically the River 2 crane could launch USV and UUV. Add a Wilcat with Martlet and Sea Venom and some containerised Sea Ceptors and you have assembled a lego frigate capability as and when needed. As drone capability gets more sophisticated the capability increases but you don’t have to build new or refit the platforms so often.
        Since those ideas though as we see in the Red Sea things have moved on. It’s looking now like a T31 with 32 or 48 Ceptors , NSM and a helo is a ‘minimum spec’.

    • Yes indeed; thought provoking 40mm armament on the Type 14. I think the Black Swan idea was meant to prompt discussion about falling fleet numbers, increasing cost of ships, global presence, recruitment, developing drone technology etc. Seems to me that the concept work is bearing fruit as River 2 and T31 rather than a single new vessel type. That said, if you can get the crew down to 50 is it not feasible to replace batch 1 Rivers and Echo / Enterprise with a dozen T32 based on the Arrowhead 120 or 140 hull?

    • Yet negligable AA/sam(Sea Cat was nearly useless), limited surface capability(just a twin 4.5″-no AShMs), zero anti missile defence. Good at shore bombardment & ASW.

      But with todays systems, so long as they’re fitted (ie not left out entirwly or FFBNW) those limitations could be resloved. Size wise, while we could cram everything into a small hull like the Rothesays/Leanders, it’s far better to use larger hulls to provide space for upgrades, more fuel, & better living space for our precious crews, plus better survivability.

  5. The Leander’s at @2500 tons, used to have @250 Crew….. The T23’s at @ 5000 tons have a crew of around 185. The T26’s @ 7000 tons have a crew of @180…… a 5500 ton T32 with 50 crew seems a bit of a stretch.

    • Tonnage doesn’t automatically equate to crew. Though I think the idea of the few may need more in depth analysis as to what the ship is expected to achieve

      • I wasn’t actually Implying that…. I was just giving statistics for people to see the figures and the relative differences.

        • Then why did you draw a conclusion after listing the statistics?

          “a 5500 ton T32 with 50 crew seems a bit of a stretch.”

          And why miss out

          Mary Rose :
          displacement 500 tons
          Crew 230 plus up to 500 soldiers?

          • Because that’s my opinion based on current crew levels ….. 50 seems to be a tad optimistic…. Once again, I was giving comparisons based upon decades of Ship development which you seem to prefer to ignore. Crew size has been an issue and a design consideration for decades… I merely posted some facts and figures…. If you prefer to choose a silly argument, that’s fine… I’m sure your Mary Rose example is very apt.

          • I’m perfectly happy with your opinion, however when someone else queried you you replied

            “I wasn’t actually Implying that…. I was just giving statistics for people to see the figures and the relative differences.”

            However you most certainly did imply that the figure of 50 was unreasonable based on the statistics that you posted because you EXPLICITLY stated that you did

            ““a 5500 ton T32 with 50 crew seems a bit of a stretch.””

            Obviously my Mary Rose comment was not an example of arithmetic progression between toonage and manpower, rather it was showing the obvious disparity between technology and manning levels.

            Whilst absurd of course, so is the idea that Leander crew numbers, a 1960s ship, and tonnage can be compared to those of a 21st century ship that is a gap of 60 years!!

          • You obviously prefer to argue rather that actually see why I wrote about the evolution of Ships and Crew Numbers and you choose to totally ignore the size of crew the current T31 is designed to have…. All I can assume is that you are rather selective in your desire to make an argument out of thin air…..
            The T32 proposal, as the article says quite clearly, has a T31 as it’s base design, these ships are designed to have a crew of @120…. My opinion is that reducing this figure to 50 is a bit of a Stretch……. What is the problem you seem to have with that…. ?

    • I have explained that the Size of ship and the size of crew was just information for people to see the evolution…. It appears that this has been ignored and turned into some sort of contest……

    • They all had a mix of steam / diesel, then gas/diesel and associated machinery. Type 31 just had diesel engines which probably simplified it. VLS silos reduce the need to handle weapons, and even torpedos could be fitted in a shipping container. AI will reduce the number of consoles needed. The issue might be when 30mm cannon fire from aircraft or speedboats makes lots of holes in the Hull that need plugging.

      • All true…. no argument from me whatsoever mate……. My comment seems to have been totally misunderstood though…… A T31has a crew requirement of @120…. quite how a B2 T32 option could get it down to 50 is beyond my thinking….. but a few other posters have ignored that and chosen to create arguments……. It’s par for the coarse though.

        • Sorry David. AI is years away from being that sophisticated. I work in development of a few AI ‘brains’, working on several MOD projects. AI is years away from being as useful as people think it is/will be.

          You can programme in every known aeroplane in existence. The AI will be able to recognise it, classify and catigorise it, even offer a solution with help from its point-cloud data. But it will not be capable of doing an auto-shoot because you must have the human user making decisions at the end of the day. That slows everything. At no point has any MOD project been spec’d for the AI to be generative or have deep discriminative automation. Your coding team would need to be enlarged and enhanced to develop such brains. A human operator is required at all times, therefore AI will not have the same impact on a British warship as it would in a QA dept where you can have a system with deep discriminative ML. The UK has fallen behind so much in the past 18 months, thanks to HMG underfunding. The talent will go where it is offered the most money.

      • As I understand it though the crew size was not the issue, rather design and build quality faults are the primary driver for their task unworthyness.

        • LCS are being abandoned because they are weakly armed and expensive to operate.
          But the crew size is also a problem , they never operate with intended crew size. Currently is around 100 with helicopter crew.

  7. Is the bigger story here not that Babcock are planning a Flight II of the Type 31s, effectively confirming the Type 32? This seems like major news to me being overlooked

    • More like trying to make the option more attractive for the Navy to go for it. Too few crew available and cost are the issues rn.

    • They are offering it as an option…… at the moment, nothing is actually being planned and we still know zilch about what they might be, other than the description “Platforms for autonomous vehicles” …….. anything I read here is just someones assumption of what they might be…..

    • Perhaps it’s a signal that Babcock think T32 might be coming out of Concept soon and they want to get a few extra thoughts in to influence the requirements.

      Last year an admiral (can’t remember which) told the Defence Select Committee than Concept was being delayed for T32 to see how well Tacticos integrated into the T31. I have no idea why that was supposed to be important, but perhaps this is part of a series of gentle nudges leading to that point. I’d have thought CMS wouldn’t be integrated until part of the Venturer’s fit out, but perhaps there’s a stone frigate thing happening.

  8. Cutting type 32 crew numbers to 50 means there is a good chance they might actually get built. This is the kind of argument you can win with the treasury. Right now the treasury will just tell the RN you can’t have any more surface combatants because you can’t free them.

    The USN is now operating a fleet of ocean going vessels with zero crews so 50 in that context seems like plenty.

      • True but surely a frigate is just a floating platform for missiles and sensors.

        Autonomous ships fall down because with no people onboard anyone can jump onboard and claim salvage plus s**t breaks all the time and you need people to fix it.

    • Any autonomous Ship still requires humans to build, maintain and operate them…. Sea Hunter and Sea Hawk are hardly Frigate sized at 140 tons…..

      • Yes I agree, my point is if you can run vessels with zero crew onboard then we should not necessarily think 50 people is too few.

        • But you are missing My Point…… This T32 proposal in the article says that it’s a B2 Version of the 120 person crewed T31….. the very fact that 70 crew less would be needed is the hard bit to swallow…… Do you not agree ?

          • Yes potentially however they may significantly increase automation which would offset this. I can’t image Babcock just. Saying here is a T32 it’s just a type 31 with 60 less beds.

            We already use massive amounts of automation on warships which is why a 7,000 (t) vessel now has a crew of 200 when it use to have a crew of 700 in WW2.

            I would rather they push automation and get more ships than taking the approach of the US and have less ships with more crew onboard.

            Junior ratings take a year or two to train, warships take decades to build.

            As long as the ships have more space to accommodate extra crew I’m ok with this.

          • Maybe the Galley crew could be replaced by Vending machines and washing up got rid of by having Paper plates.

          • The technology isn’t what you think it is Jim. HMG will not invest the money you need if you want to have your own sovereign systems work 100% right, 100% of the time. One bug in any particular system requires several people to hunt through the code. Do you honestly believe the RN is going to pay for 5 coders to be working on every ship so they can automate it? The answer is no. Not at £80k+ (for an average coder). I know, we have over 70 PhDs and a lot more with lesser degrees working on various projects and differing ‘use cases’. I suspect not one of them would consider going to sea in the RN as part of the crew. You should see their complaints when they have to be on board for a few days running trials.

            You have to have analogues and you have to have humans to turn that valve or press that trigger when something knocks the vulnerable system over. Full automation of a large warship is a few decades away.

  9. Surely the only point is can the ship be effectively manned including ‘redundancy/backup/contingency’ resources and do ALL of the job it is required/specc’d/expected to do withiin the constraints of that crew.
    If so fine- if not then not.
    Suggesting reducing the crew totals to meet recruitment shortfalls is so counter intuitive, not to mention puts both an expensive ship and irreplacable crew members at risk.
    Ridiculous stand-point tbh.

  10. This taken from the Telegraph this morning 14/02/2023 11:23 hrs !

    Britain no longer has a military
    Recruitment processes are under assault from faceless, woke people. We are now resorting to desperate – and dangerous – measures.
    ————————————————————————–

    Not something i ever wanted to see happen in this country. Someone needs to step up and put the UK Armed Services back on track, the Govenment have become too comfortable ! Wasting funds on useless luxurys e.g HS2, cutting budget’s and fully trained service men and women, to be replaced by the need to train fresh recruits at no doubt a premium cost, funds that could be used to replace equiptment and rebuild mititary structure.

    Maybe they should replace French and German language classes in school’s/Education for Chinese and Russian, our govenment are going to get us all in one very big mess, or maybe we are already in it up to our necks !

    Put bluntly ! Our Govenment Brexit, cuts to service men/women, military equiptment and employment of civi recruitment companys for military personnel has turned the UK into a Minnow in a pond full of Pike 🤬

    Hope without action is futile ! I can only speak up and say what i see, the power is in the hands of those who value common sence over stupidity. I wish they would Fix it ! Before it can no longer be repaired.

    • Yes what a brilliant suggestion we should divert money from the transport budget to the defence budget because UK infrastructure is already amazing and needs no more spending. Our roads, airports and railways have ample capacity for the next century. 😀

      • Isn’t the plan to stop people flying, London Major would like to enforce people flying every three years. Roads, should get alot quieter, Birmingham council for instance is activiely reducing car parks to stop people using their cars to enter the city. And trains are underutilised since Covid many WFH and WFH will become law in the next 2 years. And of course the 15 minutes city 😀

        So actually there’s should be money to spare to build up defence. 😀

        Funny thing is we built roads, railways and airports when we had 20-30 million less people and had defence budget of well over the current 2%. Now we have, what 70m, we can’t afford anything. Go figure!!!

        

        • Flying every three years is unworkable, but certainly internal flights should be minimized. France is at the point now where they are banning flights within France (well, there’s an asterisk because you can still fly to Reunion) because their rail network is so good that you can just catch the TGV instead.

          The reason why building something like HS2 is so expensive is mostly down to NIMBYism (which requires a lot of extra planning, consultations and then, usually, the most expensive solution to make NIMBY’s happy, eg burying massive lengths of track in cut and cover tunnels so that the locals don’t have to see the trains go by), but our lack of engineering practice (you build something once a generation it costs more as you have to rebuild the skills and kit) and government delays (if I budget 15billion for something the government delays it 10 years and inflation hits it will automatically cost more just from inflation, before you factor in the cost of keeping staff on etc for longer) have also played their parts.

          As for roads: we have too many vehicles on the roads. Cars are hugely destructive to road surfaces, so the more people are driving the more money we have to spend fixing the potholes their cars create.

          • To be fair, it’s more about car weight and numbers in general rather than electric and green specifically. A electric FIAT 500 might weigh more than a ICE FIAT 500, but both weigh double the original FIAT 500, and both are significantly lighter than a Range Rover Sport.

            You don’t see very many 500kg cars on the road anymore period.

          • Although electric cars are heavier than their petrol counterparts I agree with you regards the general Increase in car size- ironic when you think that engine bays are no longer needed.
            I have thought this is madness for some while & have absolutely no idea why this is not mentioned and addresses
            I talked to a woman at work who said it provided better protection for her kids (which logically doesn’t make sense as you will be hit by something big as well, but did re-enforce my perception of her general paranioa) ) & an Indian guy who stated that in his experience it is fuelled (no pun inteded) by Indian women thse days who like to drive something big as a status symbol- and a manager mate who loved to have a range rover as ‘it showed you up there big and proud on the road’.
            All of which are anecdotal of course but in general I believe is symptomatic of the ‘billy big bolox’ effect both in cars and society in general that is manifest in modern society.

          • The “better protection for the kids” is the Nuclear Proliferation theory of Car design: You need a bigger car to protect your kids if you get into an accident, but then everyone needs a bigger car to protect their kids and you all end up back where you started, but with more mass (and often a higher centre of gravity so easier to crash in the first place). It’s also much more dangerous for everyone outside a car.
            An old VW Beetle might be stopped by a lampost but a modern SUV will go through the lamp post (which is probably designed to break away to avoid killing a driver (especially if you’re in the US)) and continue into the family waiting to cross the road. So why would you ever risk walking your kids to school? Get them into the SUV where they are safe…from all the other SUV drivers.

            And yes, there is a billy big bolox effect for sure! I mean Range Rovers in particular are designed to be a bit of a Status piece.
            Edit: I think part of the solution is what Paris is doing, where they charge you more depending on how big your car is. Want to park an SUV in the city? Have fun paying 10x as much for parking.

          • Haha! Range Rivers as a status piece. How very true. I’ve commented on that thought before to my work colleagues when we see the station car park. LR after LR, like bloody tanks unable to get into the parking bays properly.
            Typical “yummy mummy” vehicles.

        • Trains being under used since COVID is a myth. Rail passenger numbers are right back up. The UK a needs more infrastructure it’s the main thing holding us back relative to our competitors.

          • “trains are underutilised”? I will be remember those words @Expat the next time I am standing on the London-Birmingham or Manchester-Birmingham train. Trains may be underutilised off-peak or on local services, but not the main Inter-City trains I catch all week.

          • Same, I’m often faced with a packed train that’s standing room only, even on off peak services. Capacity needs to increase, but we keep cancelling all projects that would enable it.

            Or we funnel money that should go into improvements back to share holders.

    • Its not all doom and gloom the Civil Service part of the MoD, paid for out of MoD budget has recruited an extra 4000 people since 2016 😀

      And of course the government in waiting, Labour, are renouned for cutting waste in the civil service 😀.

      It won’t be long before there’s more MoD civil servants than frontline serving personel. But I guess they need all these civil servants to police the diversity rules, run divesity training etc 😀

      • Absolutely …I noticed Staffs police recently advertised a vacancy diversity manager and a diversity team leader …If I recall correctly I think the wages would have paid for 4 constables…still I’m sure its needed and value for money….

        • £51-£58K is a lot of money, but a constable after training gets about £30K, so it wouldn’t pay for two newly trained constables, nevermind four.

          • The diversity manager was advertised a lot more than that and the Team leader was far more than a constable…I knew as traininG constables got 22-25k and the two combined did make 4 – and with 30k it was still more than 3.

            So my point still stands 2 ‘diversity resources’ or 3-4 constables- which is more inmportant in ‘the fight against crime’ ..as you dont see many ‘on the beat’ these days -of ANY creed or colour- we all know the answer.

            As for Police Commisioners who all state they want to address the root cause of crime whilst taking dispraportinately large chunks of the budget for themeselves- Jobs for the boys .simple as.

            If you feel thats good value for money then – carry on constable.

      • Work is done by civil servants, by external consultants, by active military or it isn’t done at all. Of these the cheapest option is not doing the work: but then we all complain. Of the other three options, civil servants are paid by far the least. Cut them and the failover is external consultants.

        Did you know that RFA sailors are counted in the numbers of civil servants? I didn’t until I read it in the Thin Pinstriped Line.

        • Sorry civil servants aren’t the cheapest option. The total cost of the civil service when you add in the sick pay, pensions, etc. Its astronomical.When someone retires at 55 the state will be supporting them until they’re what 85.

          Not only that the botched contracts negotiated by the civil servants are costing a fortune. The reason why private contractors can pull the MoDs pants down is because the civil servants haven’t done their job. Why because they have complete disregard for where the money comes from.

    • HS2 is not a useless luxury, one of its main intentions is to free up capacity on existing lines so that more freight can go by rail, hence taking some pressure and pollution off the roads.

      • I stand corrected, but the delays and costs are way too high for HS2, well over budget ! Also removing freight from the roads is going to have a big knock on effect for HGV drivers, its a case of wait and see as things progress.
        These changes will be good,but at what cost to working people ? And the Market place.

        • I agree with you on those points, a lot of projects these days go over budget and are late, but I am a big advocate of investing in rail infrastructure. IMHO, we can learn a lot from France and other European countries.

          • In my 60 years now, I can honestly say I’ve been on a Train less than ten times….. have no reason to change that.

          • Yeah, some of the longer-distance trains in the UK have improved recently, but they are still expensive.

            I like traveling in Europe you go further for your money and usually in non-cramped conditions, as I said we should be learning from them.

  11. Hi All. For comparison purposes and yes, the numbers are slightly different, the Singapore Navy’s Formidable class frigates (3,200 tonnes) are running a crew of 72. This excludes air detachment numbers. I’m not sure whether Babcock and the Navy will end up at the 50 number but it would appear with automation that crew sizes can and will be reduced significantly. But…that’s a lot of warship for 50-70 crew to keep clean and in running shape!

    • Mate….. don’t even go there….. I tried earlier but all I got was a bunch of mis guided remarks and some rubbish about the Mary Rose…… 🙄

    • Having more sailors is better, but our government is putting more effort into penny pinching and can’t get them anyway.

      I think we will soon see smaller crew sizes and more contracts to private companies for maintenance with expected quick turn arounds to get the ship back to sea again. Basically, the crew will do the sailing and the maintenance will be done on shore.

      This is being suggested because Babcock are trying to sell something to the Government knowing that it doesn’t include the air crew and that specification creep will add more after contracts are signed anyway. Babcock will also be hoping for the support contracts that follow, and whilst I’m here I predict the helicopter will be FFBNW which also saves cost.

  12. Fifty is same number the Dutch were looking at for their future destroyers, so with increasing automation, why not? There’s no reason why a core crew of fifty couldn’t also be augmented along with changes to the mission. Flight crew are often counted as extras, and so it might be with drone handlers. Perhaps sonar crew could be shared between a small networked flotilla, almost like having a command ship. The point is they want to try something new that’s pointing in the right direction and it should be applauded.

    These numbers are always an aspiration anyway. Consider a comment that Howie makes in the interview…”If you take HMS Queen Elizabeth, she was designed with a core crew of about 750. But on the old carriers it was a couple of thousand.” However, this isn’t what was said in the press at the time. QNLZ was supposed to have been designed with a core crew of 650, but on trying it out, that didn’t work. So they tried it with 700. Then 750. By Westlant 19, the press was saying 800. Now we read the core crew figure has stabilised at 780.

    If these new frigates are designed to work with 50 people and the Navy think it’s dangerous, they’ll up it to 60 or 65. It’s still a lot better than 105. Bravo Babcock! And to add to the comment that it might help persuade the Treasury to get them built, it might even help persuade the Treasury that we should build a B3 and sell off 12 year-old B1s. And once you get into that mindset, who knows where it might lead?

    • What the treasury will do is to tell the MOD to reduce the navies headcount to reflect the smaller crew requirements. This will maintain the pressure on those that remain and continue the outflow of experienced personnel.
      This story about reducing crew sizes has gone on for decades and it makes senses until the Treasury and MOD gets hold of it.
      Do we think the Navy is in a better position now than 25 years ago when we had bigger crewed ships.

      • The navy is way better than it was 25 years ago,

        T42 and T21 were an embarrassment.

        CVS was pretty useless for most tasks

        Loads of SSN’s not a single one could launch a land attack missile.

        Fearless class LPD going around well past their sell by date

        I’ll take what we have now any day of the week.

        As for reducing head count, we use to need 1500 men in a battle cruiser to keep 8 guns firing. Now 100+ on a destroyer with VLS could sink an entire battle cruiser fleet without breaking a sweat.

        This is a process we should welcome pm doing more with less is what economic growth is all about.

        • The relative effectiveness of vessels in service 25 years or 100 years apart means nothing to the point being discussed.
          But undoubtedly the relative strength of our navy compared to peers has sadly like the rest of our military declined.
          We had 12 SSNs in 1999 and for interest that was the year the U.K. fired its first cruise missiles on Kosovo.
          Progress would be U.K. defence requirements being made by those who should be doing so and not HM Treasury.

  13. And there’s the rub, I would personally rather see a nice simple continuation of the T31 line and up arm them all to the gunnels…

    Any clean sheet, highly autonomous design will be extremely expensive and invariably late.

    T31 is in my opinion getting on the low side re crewing as it is, will 100 odd personnel on board be enough to operate the ship at full tilt in the 24/7 environment of an active war zone???

    Let’s not rock the boat, if money is forthcoming, build 4 more T26 and 5 more T31.

      • I disagree Hugo, if money is not forthcoming, then the current financial priority appears to be tilting in the direction of up-arming, NSM, procurement of Mk41 for the T31 by example.

        We will see what Labours position is re Defence, they are keeping things close to their chest, but one of the ( potentially only) good things of a second Trump administration, will be an absolute insistence on 2.5 – 3% GDP on defence to be a NATO member.

        If that happens then Starmers hand will be forced and he will have to allocate the extra money.

        • Yes but how does that guarantee a future frigate will be armed the same. They wanted 13 Frigates minimum that could actually contribute to a fight, after that it’s all hopeful extras, cost saving could certainly be made in armament.

  14. The T32 project is going nowhere unless the RN’s ship building programme gets an extra few billion in the budget. The cheapest “frigate” type option is surely a modestly improved T31B2 at £400-500m a unit. The multi-role concept designs being bandied about by BAE and Babcock don’t seem to be costed, but will inevitably be more expensive. If little or no no extra money, maybe a Batch 3 River class, de-facto replacing the aging Batch 1s? Ideally slightly enlarged to improve their sea worthiness and crew comfort in the vast expenses of the Indo-Pacific oceans. The extra space could be used for a UAV hanger. Perhaps £150m each, assuming no hidden subsidy in return for BAE Systems keeping its Clyde shipyards open?

    • There is too much at stake keeping Scotland on side to risk not keeping the two yards busy especially for Labour. I think that means they must run with Babcock and BAE keeping both busy.

  16. So looks like T32 is a B2 T31 from the pics, a sensible move, even more sensible if they do get built & the escort fleet rises to 24.The number will be just 13 by next year, disgraceful.

    However, just 50 crew seems hopelessly inadequate to repair battle damage & save the ship when said damage probably takes a toll on the crew, reducing damage control & repairs substantially further.

    Will we never learn? The great, once mighty RN with too few ships, too few sailors, capability gaps in a malaise of our own HMG making in extremely dangerous times, enabling our enemies.

  17. What’s both needed and the lowest risk option is a T31 batch 2 with relatively minor modifications.

    The Red Sea right now shows we need more platforms with a decent array of medium calibre guns and plenty of Sea Ceptor to be forward based and/or rotate on these lower intensity ops and allow T26/T45 to focus on filling out the CSG and fulfilling other high end tasks like protecting CASD.

    The idea of having just 50 crew though is fanciful. Most ships can be lean manned to function in a benign environment, but such a low number takes no account of the need for damage limitation and other functions that make a warship robust and survivable.

  18. Can someone explain what the proposed 50 crew members would be doing on a fully automated warship the size of a small frigate ? Assuming that they would work on a rotational basis whilst at sea, what would be their daily functions ? Can 50 crew members possibly work efficiently ?

  19. That’s a small crew size. I guess that is one way to increase RN crew happiness with a crew of just 50 they should all be able to have their own small room. Not sure 50 is adequate for high intensity operations, manning watches or providing damage control parties but I guess that is a secondary concern when the RN is short manned and has a recruitment and retention problem.
    The RN needs the type 32 ordering, now, before the general election and contracts signed in blood with such prohibitive cancellation clauses that the ships cannot be considered for cancellation.
    I’d personally like to see a follow on order for a few more type 26’s as unit price is now reduced, another batch of type 31s and the type 32s- but I live in hope.

  20. A major problem with reducing crew size via automation and technology is that the balance increasingly becomes biased towards well qualified and highly experienced PO’s and CPO’s. Little or no room for junior rates on their first draft who will be the PO’s of ten years time. A short term fix with a built-in manning crisis down the line.

    • That is a good point but i am not sure it will be like that. Can cleaning be done by robots? fixing stuff? food prep? etc etc…

  21. Would you believe that I was involved in the YARD Ltd proposal for a 50 man frigate in 1987. Keith Figg was the naval architect and I was responsible for the way that it would successfully operate worldwide. If you want answers, you are going to have to be quick as I am suffering from Prostate cancer stage 4 which is terminal. However, I would be delighted to talk to anybody as I could see even then that recruitment was going to be a major issue. BAE Systems should have some records of it as they gradually took over the companies for whom I worked.

  22. The USN had a great idea.

    Build a ship around a crew of 50ish. And behold the LCS, which are sold off as fast as they can be built.

    Build a ship around a mission, crew it to fulfil the mission.

  23. Just for interest… the Italian Carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi is now tied up in Portsmouth where POW was and the Landing ship Dock L9892 is or was sat outside…. Wonder if we’ll see some Harriers landing on POW ?

      • Trieste should be entering service in the next few months, and replacing Garibaldi soon so yeah.Not sure how quickly the Harriers will go though since Italy’s F-35B fleet is still very small.

        • I like the Trieste, it’s interesting she has twin Islands and the ramp like the QE’s and an 800ft deck… max aircraft load of 34 mixed and she also has VLS and 6 x 76mm and 25mm guns, two lifts and the RR MT30 GT’s….. I’m actually thinking this design is in many ways better than the QE’s…..

          • Some of those stat’s are a bit questionable though. Isn’t she fitted for but not with VLS. The Airwing complement of 34 is very dubious as well, between her relatively small crew, displacement, the fact she’s and LHD with a vehicle park, I think that she can carry 34 Aircraft in the same way Queen Elizabeth can theoretically carry 72: Sure they physically can be made to fit, but you’re not going to generate combat sorties with them.

            The more realistic number for her is 12 aircraft for combat operations, with Cavour carrying closer to 20.

            Just quickly to highlight the size difference between the three ships:
            Cavour:
            Displacement: 27,000t
            Deck Length: 230m
            Deck Area: 7,800m2
            Hangar Area: 2,700m2

            Trieste:
            Displacement: 38,000t
            Deck Length: 230m
            Deck Area: 8,200m2
            Hangar Area: 2,600m2

            Queen Elizabeth
            Displacement 65,000t
            Deck Length: 280m
            Deck Area: 19,600m2
            Hangar Area: 5,400m2

            That’s not to knock Trieste, I think it’s a very good LHD design, and certainly better than some other Nations LHD’s out there (cough Canberra cough), but there’s no way she’s embarking a similar combat air-group to a QE.

          • Yes all true, I’m just going by the Stats though…. but at least they show certain designed capabilities sadly missing from the QE’s…. and so far after 7 years of service, just 8 F35B’s of ours have been embarked ….. 72 (total Aircraft of all types) as you say are theoretical just like the Trieste’s 34 but we have two QE’s and that does make me wonder and admire the Trieste’s design…… I’m sure I’ll get put right though….. 🙄

          • Well I’d point out that we’ve embarked 8 F-35B’s and Italy only has 5 F-35B’s in total at the moment, let alone embarked.

          • I’m very aware of that mate…. but at least they didn’t Gap the capability…. We ordered decades ago two QE’s with the capability and designed requirement to embark at least 38 F35B’s yet so far after 7 years, 8 is all we have managed….. could have just had a single Invincible really…. ?

          • We have 32. So 8 is a choice not a “all we can manage.”
            I reiterate, Italy has 5, total.

            And yes we could have kept an Invincible… what would you have cut for an Aircraft carrier without aircraft? A Frigate or Two?

          • The Carriers cost £7 Billion ….. only one has managed to carry 8 F35’s so far in 7 years…. Rather have kept the Ark Royal and used the £7 billion in other places.

      • it was a nice surprise to see her on the Web Cam through all the rain…. but i played it back and found a cracking still side on….

      • But till then and bearing in mind this exercise’s purpose, It wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility that a few Harriers might get a chance to Cross Deck….. same if an American Wasp class was being sent.

      • Morning, yes a bit of each to be fair…….BTW, I spotted QE Smoke @ 8.30 this morning, I’m guessing she’ll be leaving for Rosyth soon…..

      • Oh and another thing…. I was sat beside a low loader earlier and it had the new Apollo Autonomous Mine clearance boat on the back….. It was passing through Yeovil…. heading in a northerly direction.

  24. A crew of 50, what a joke. A leander had 260, a type 21 170 and a type 22 had 260. I served on all 3 types, one of which was sunk in 82 in the Falklands war. We needed every possible hand we could get to try and keep us afloat and we were fighting a losing battle. 50 crew may keep the systems and weapons platforms operational but who’s left to fight fires or plug holes. After the officers, WOs, CPOs are out of the equation that just leaves around 20 bodies to do everything else. 50 crew, 😂😂😂😂

  25. Compared with the Leander class ( crew@ 260) the T31s will already be lean manned. The future French FDI frigate is smaller than T31 but has a more comprehensive weapons array. The crews are planned to be @ 110.
    Even smaller simple vessels like River 2 have a complement of up to 45.
    It would be interesting to see exactly what current roles could be eliminated. Weapons operation is already highly automated, diesel propulsion lean manned.
    Interesting that QE was supposed to have a crew of 600 (matching the Invincibles)but experience has pushed this up to 780.

  26. The reference to ‘Type 31 Batch 2’ is interesting – Does that suggest they’ve decided to use the Arrowhead hull as a basis for T32?

    Not a bad thing, I’d have thought – If we can keep as much commonality as possible, its going to reduce purchase and maintenance costs.

  28. Starting slightly off topic… So the varying types of Frigate are the 23, 26, 31, 32… then the type 45 Destroyer, the 48, 52, 56… Is it not time to stop all the different Frigate types? Why not start with a one ‘type’ build that fits all? Well lets face it, the cunning plan from Babcock to do away with human crews, will save an absolute fortune in operational costs.

     

    So for the 2040’s we have the ‘Ethos Class’. The Ethos will have a crew of 50 humans. It will be able to track, hunt, stalk and then eliminates it’s prey, using an excitingly diverse array of weapon systems, in a non-aggressive manner.

     

    The 2050’s will see the introduction of the ‘Enforcer Class’. The Enforcer will have a crew of 20 human ‘overseers’, who’s role will be to keep the ship neat and tidy, whilst providing a ‘biological’ assessment of the Enforcers capabilities…

  29. There are a number of issues with this. Firstly CBRNDC and ensuring the ship could survive a fire/flood. Secondly who is cleaning and maintaining this ship? From experience all with small crews are generally fitted with more technical systems which means more maintenace.

  30. Good, from what was reported yesterday i guess they will need toilets, showers and sleeping accommodation for women, men that think they are women, people that think they are kangaroos, some who think they are martian, some who want to be trees, but no hetrosexual white males who want to sign up to defend out country

  31. Harbour stations RAS(s) stores ,FF and DC a Frigate with a Crew of Fifty but the size of a Frigate with 150/200 crew .Have Babcock created Avitars for each member of the crew too increase to 100 ?

  32. I personally don’t think a crew of 50 is feasible on a batch 2 type 31. You have to think of safety above all else, watchkeeping etc… It is vitally important to have a crew that is well looked after and not to have to work longer and harder because there aren’t enough bodies onboard. I don’t see how increasing automation is going to change that. 105 on the Inspiration Class is already a bare minimum in my book.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here