A recent report from the National Audit Office stated that the Royal Navy withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates because of concerns about unaffordability, however, it has emerged that work on the project is continuing.

The November 2022 report of the National Audit Office on The Equipment Plan 2022-2032 stated that in July 2022 “Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS [Multi-Role Support Ships] because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher”.

Addressing the above, John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked via Parliamentary written question:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason Navy Command was concerned about the affordability of the Type 32 frigate programme.”

Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“The Type 32 Frigate programme remains a key part of the future fleet and is currently in the concept phase. Work continues to ensure the programme is affordable in order to deliver the ships the Navy and Marines need.”

What will Type 32 do?

In November 2021, former Royal Navy First Sea Lord Tony Radakin announced that the ship had entered its concept phase. He added that it was too early to define its characteristics, but being a “Type 31 Batch 2” frigate could be an option.

The revised National Shipbuilding Strategy, released in March 2022, suggested that the Type 32 frigates were likely to be “the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems“.

Earlier comments by the UK’s Minister for Defense Procurement, Jeremy Quin, also suggested that the new Type 32 frigate will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the Royal Navy’s capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.

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

50 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Hartley
John Hartley
1 year ago

Part of me thinks, it might be easier to just build another 3 T31. So 8x T26 + 8 T31 = 16 frigates. If (a big if) money was available, then the new 3 should be the air defence Arrowhead with better radar, MK 41 & SM6.

Jim
Jim
1 year ago

Silly me I though the T26 has also been designed around hosting autonomous vehicles as well.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
1 year ago

So they have a CPO/ WO and and a Lt who are between drafts or medically downgraded, sat at a desk spit balling ideas…

or am I being to cynical…

DP
DP
1 year ago

Well more recent governments seem to have finally addressed some of the shortcomings in our fleet but the worry is, with the T32 unlikely to see the light of day until the next decade, it will be a prime target to kick down the road, will it not? From what I’ve read on here (I’m no expert) I’d like to see a scheme where they adopt a ‘quiet-hull/quiet engines’ as it seems the T32 maybe ‘multi-role’ but also a host for UUVs for sub-hunting so an anti-sub hull with fixed pitch propellers would be a must. So something like, dare… Read more »

Bulkhead
Bulkhead
1 year ago

Ummmmm😎

David Steeper
David Steeper
1 year ago

At least the program is still alive even if not kicking. A batch 2 Type 22 must be the decision if it goes ahead at all. They seem to be waiting like many others for the update to the I.R. and new budgets for the MoD. Last I read it’s January but before that it was Nov or early Dec so don’t hold your breath. I just wish the CGS would stop the pity party. Not going to get into it. Francis Tusa on twitter has done a far better job than I could ever do. If there’s concern in… Read more »

Pete
Pete
1 year ago

Presumably working out the purpose and mission scope of the vessel and in what capacities would be a great place to start that then allows consideration to alternate technologies, synergies and solutions etc, then allowing considerations to their relative costs and therefore affordability.

Or is it simply a case of heres a bung of cash…go buy yourself something nice. 🤔

Matt
Matt
1 year ago

I was under the impression that ‘part’ of the type 32 frigate was to be a platform for autonomous systems. Which to my mind meant the autonomous mine countermeasures being developed to replace the Hunt and Sandown class vessels. So if Type 32 is ‘paused’ I would imagine our remaining MCMVs will be kept in service a little while longer. Or.. instead of it being gapped because there’s no near-like-for-like replacement of the Hunts/Sandowns – it’s ‘capability’ will still exist, but just be transferred to aerial/land based delivery instead. So we still retain the MCM capability, it’s just not delivered… Read more »

NorthernAlly
NorthernAlly
1 year ago

So has MRSS scrapped then? What’s going to replace the bays, albions, argus ect ect? We must be ine if the only nations that is still reducing our defence budget even though we are in everything but name a proxy war with Russia?

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
1 year ago

It seems that the NAO has gone rogue, someone should rein them in, instead of having an objective constructive role they seem to be some sort of anti MOD cheerleader. Publishing things that are simply not true is clearly not acceptable for a public auditing body.

Jonathan
Jonathan
1 year ago

I wonder what this will mean for the timing of this program.

NorthernAlly
NorthernAlly
1 year ago

Hopefully when inflation is under control and the economy starts to grow again everything will be re-evaluated

expat
expat
1 year ago

Looks like this is money already spent on conceptual designs so may as well left those contracts play out but given the financial situation its unlikely to go beyond a concept. Unless yards actually get export orders they need to switch to build off and on shore wind turbines as that’s where money will be spent. Not so worried about shipbuilding as there’s some order placed and hopefully the government has made them difficult to cancel but military aerospace will see some difficult funding decisions needed in 2025.

Last edited 1 year ago by expat
Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago

Bit confusing this, it’s too early to define the platforms characteristics, but surely you need to have an idea of what you want before getting concepts.. suppose this is why MOD projects are so poor at delivery. for me we should take the following approach. look at what’s available across all sectors now look at future trends and gain insight from active militaries take the best parts from the above and merge into a set of requirements to build best in class (prioritising via cabability weighting) ask ourselves why countries with far smaller defence budgets are able to produce excellent… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
1 year ago

Tony Radakin announced that the ship had entered its concept phase. He added that it was too early to define its characteristics, but being a “Type 31 Batch 2” frigate could be an option.”

Is probably the most salient comment.

It is also the most likely outcome – a tweaked T31. Which would make a lot of sense as it would keep the training and manning, commonality and stores issues to a minimum.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
1 year ago

If T32 may be a Batch 2 T31, then surely they should cost little more than the £250m unit price of T31, and thus quite affordable. I do realise of course that there are Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs for the T32 programme.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
1 year ago

At least the navy appear to be putting the point across that within the current budget projections there is no money to purchase type 32 and Multirole MRSS ships. That passes it to the government to sort out funding if it wants the navy to have those ships. The best move the government could make is to take the nuclear deterrent from being funded by the navy and leave those funds for the actual useful ships for the navy.

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
1 year ago

Can we be sure the Minister isn’t just wrong?

RobW
RobW
1 year ago

As is the intention to grow the A400M fleet. The issue is that funding hasn’t been allocated to either project so they’ll be subject to the integrated review and a funding settlement. Neither has been scrapped yet. Fingers crossed!

SteveP
SteveP
1 year ago

To me the RN’s biggest challenge is it’s ongoing loss of ship based ASW sensor and noise management capability at a time when the submarine threat is increasing and has expanded to include threats to undersea assets such as pipelines and cables. We’ve gone from 12 AAW destroyers with moderate ASW capabilities to six with poor to non-existent capabilities (if the reports of their sonars being unmanned are true). We’re moving from 8 excellent ASW frigates with a towed array and 5 with a very good hull mounted sonar to 8 excellent ASW frigates and 5 GP’s with no sonars… Read more »

Last edited 1 year ago by SteveP
Andrew D
Andrew D
1 year ago

There’s hope 🤔

Andrew
Andrew
1 year ago

Both the T26 and 31 come with modular mission bays. So instead of designing a whole new class could we not simply build more of what we’re already building and insert antonymous / drone specific modules? I’m no expert on the matter so there is probably a good reason why this can’t happen but both classes were advertised as being somewhat future-proofed with the modules.

andy reeves
andy reeves
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew

type 32??? if we do go ahead with the concept, i’d like to see a design that can be produced quickly and in numbers that will boost the fleet numbers. maybe something along the lines of a simplified batch 2 t21.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago

Good news that it hasn’t been shelved completely. Two things sprung out for me. 1) “deliver the ships the Navy and Marines need”; 2) “Type 31Batch 2”. Also they are clearly still looking to exploit the PODS concept so a mission bay is definately going to be a feature, my guess they will be looking for something at least as big as the T31 quite possibly larger or revised to enable more or larger (2x 20ft to create a capability) PODS to be fitted. The fact that the Marines are explicitly mentioned suggests that they are looking at a litoral… Read more »

Jonno
Jonno
1 year ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

It concerns me only Russia and China have ocean going conventional Submarines. That could allow them to out build us underwater for Battle of Atlantic 3.

andy reeves
andy reeves
1 year ago
Reply to  Jonno

actually there are numerous nations with conventionally powered submarines, china,north korea, india,sweden to name just a few

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
1 year ago

Good news

Cheers CR

Last edited 1 year ago by ChariotRider
Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
1 year ago

RN withdrew and Government puts back!?. That’s a new one and very welcome.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
1 year ago

Let’s hope the project still comes off. Think the RN will just have to be a little patient when funds are looking better. It was always going to be post 2030 anyway.

Richard
Richard
1 year ago

Well I hope this is indeed the case. All of the ships outlined in the IR are of great importance. Not being an economist I don’t understand the complexities of finding when it comes to projects like this, but surely, if work is to be done i the UK on all of these vessels, the dividends that will come from the manufacturing etc far outweigh the cost outlay that will go into them i the first place? I would hazard a guess that the legacy claim of having people to man them etc is the the ‘real’ lifetime cost is… Read more »

criss whicker
criss whicker
1 year ago

the sooner they get built the better.
we surely need more ships.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 year ago
Reply to  criss whicker

Agree, why not six instead of five? For an incremental and affordable increase in the fleet size. And an extra 1-2 T26s in the fleet, now a bargain at £800m each.
I wonder if the frigate sketch above is an actual outline of a T31 variant or an BAE Adaptable Frigate or something else? The forward weapons area looks a bit messy but kind of suggesting CAMM and MK41s.
Hope that some frigates other than the T26s will get kitted out withe the 5″. Anyway it’s nice seeing the T45s getting upgraded and the T26/T31s coming along.

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

and two for NZ please!🙏

Deep32
Deep32
1 year ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Would you not be better with say two T31’s, fitted out to your own requirements, tagged on to the end of our 5 ship order?

Klonkie
Klonkie
1 year ago
Reply to  Deep32

That this a splendid idea Deep 32

Ron
Ron
1 year ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Quentin, I agree with your comments about extra T26s and possibly 6 T32s. In fact I would go as far as saying we would need to build an extra 4 T26s possibly a AAW version. My reasoning is as follows. The T45s will have completed their upgrades to its SAMPSON radar, Sea Ceptor etc by 2030 giving them another tens years of life. The last T26 will be leaving the build yard in about 2031-32 and heading off for the fitting out yard. As the last T26 is expected to be handed over to the fleet in 2034. So that… Read more »

Jon
Jon
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

Where do you get the 2038 date for the T83? Didn’t the NAO talk about money needing to be spent before 2031, which implies they imagined a much earlier schedule?

Ron
Ron
1 year ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, 2038 for first steel cut is a calculation from me. The time line is conception, alterations to conceptions, concept acceptance, prefered bidders, detailed plans, acceptance of detailed plan, final alterations, contract negotiations, orders placed for advanced equipment, radars gear boxes etc, then first steel cut. As we are at the stage of not knowing as yet what we want the T83 to do then no conception can be put forward. I do hope that the first steel to be cut would be 2036. I expect that the money NAO is talking about that needs to be spent before… Read more »

Ron
Ron
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

Wolf, That was the plan but somehow I don’t think it will happen. The reasons are 1. the T45s would have just completed a weapons upgrade, (Aster 30 Block 1/1NT, Sea Ceptor). All upgrades to be completed by 2032. 2. The hulls have not been used as much as they could have been due to powerplant issues. Some of the T45s have been laid up for several years, the PIP thus far takes about two years. So the ships have about 4-5 years less sea time than would have been if fully operational. 3. Upgrades to SAMPSON would have just… Read more »

JamesF
JamesF
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

T83 destroyer is also in the concept phase. I expect the OSD for T45 will be put back after PIP and the presently underway armament upgrades (Aster Block 1NT, NSM and Sea Ceptor), but T83 will go ahead too.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

Believe conceptual design contract/activity for a putative T-32 class may be a relatively low cost place holding exercise to preserve future options for RN, by maintaining a baseline core contingent of project technical and managerial personnel. 🤔

Ron
Ron
1 year ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

True, BAE is looking at about £300 million per ship for their T32 concept, cost of the weapons fit is extra. However, HM Government said that the T32 is to be built in Rosyth which is Babcock. Babcock will have the same issue, all T31s are to be completed and handed over to the fleet by 2027-28. That means the T32 contract needs to be sorted by 2025, to have a continuation of build

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 year ago
Reply to  Ron

As T32 will not come on that time frame, we need “something” to be built in Rosyth.

How about MHC LSVs? 4 hulls are planned.

No need to be it an escort. “2 Escort builder” idea is just impossible and we shall just forget it.

One escort builder at Clyde, and another builder making RN/RFA ships, sometimes including “low-end escorts” (like T3X series) is the most we can hope.

Last edited 1 year ago by donald_of_tokyo
Grant
Grant
1 year ago

A waste of money and resources designing a new class. Just buy 5 more T26s.

Pacman27
Pacman27
1 year ago
Reply to  Grant

I agree, T26 cab be easily upgraded for the AAW role with a bit of fwd thinking. Add updated radars, inc s1850 from T45 if needed with 48-96 quad pack VLS midship instead of single cells, reduce flight deck to merlin size to fit these in (why do we need a chinook to land on an escort when carriers and RFA ships will be around). it’s a big ship already and the money we save in getting 8 more T26 will far outweigh any negatives. Currently at £840m per ship for batch 2 of T26, we should be asking what… Read more »

Grant
Grant
1 year ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Exactly. The R&D costs will have been fully paid so the per ship cost should only decrease, where as the R&D for a new type of frigate will have to be paid for across a smaller number of less capable units. More T26s would represent far better value for money. The other point is what will the T31/32s be used for. One or two Patrolling in the gulf, maybe one more as WIGS (but that’s probably better done by RFAs anyway). Whereas T26s will be needed in the North Atlantic, to escort the CSG and LSG, and escort other NATO… Read more »

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 year ago

It’s not only money. Without additional crew, “more escorts” will be just moored on port, or kept in extended readiness. There is zero need to hurry on T32.

Paul Bestwick
Paul Bestwick
1 year ago

Other than to maintain the industrial capacity to build warships. The Type 32 I believe is meant to be a reward for Babcock in getting the T-31 done. The RN now has two suppliers of Frigates and two successful export designs. The National shipbuilding Strategy Refresh document contains an interesting timeline on page 19.. It shows T-31 inservice around 2027, T-32 around 3031 and then a class (unamed) that implies that it is intended to replace replaces both classes eventually. It has a decision point around 2033 with an in service date of 2036 every 5 years after. This might… Read more »

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Bestwick

I understand the “National shipbuilding Strategy Refresh” has simply been deemed to be un-affordable. We will see another “refresh” in due course. Zero surprise. T23 was originally meant to service only 18 years and then replaced. At last, they served twice as planned. HMS Ocean was also designed with 15 years short life, but many here said “why not use her more” when she was sold to Brazil when was 20 years old. Money and man-power are the reasons. It is just history repeats. Zero surprise. I remember Babcock said that the “Frigate factory hall” is NOT only for frigate.… Read more »

Tim
Tim
1 year ago

What we need is a long term committment to build one escort ship every 2 years to keep the fleet at 24 ships. This keeps the yards working and keeps the average age of the fleet in check. We are running our T23s on for a long time and very soon we will have quite a lot of brand new ships with less yard work beyond that. Also our T45s are only just about to get good with fixed engines, CAAMs and NSMs but they have spent half their life without. It would be nice if these new ships come… Read more »