Despite earlier rumours that the class is set to be cancelled, the UK Government have insisted that “the Type 32 Frigate programme remains a key part of the future fleet”.
According to a statement from Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, the type will remain but changes will be made to make the vessel more affordable.
“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.”
It appears likely that a new bespoke vessel is increasingly unaffordable, my money is on a second batch of Type 31 Frigates rather than a new design, but that’s just my personal opinion.
What did the rumours say?
It was reported that the anticipated multibillion-pound investment in the long-term future of Scotland’s shipbuilding industry, in the form of the Type 32 Frigate, may be eliminated or reduced in the upcoming defence review by Rishi Sunak.
This follows the announcement two years ago by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson of plans to construct five new Type 32 frigates with the aim of establishing Britain as the leading naval power in Europe.
However, the project has encountered difficulties and has put a significant number of employment opportunities at risk. According to the report, insiders at the Ministry of Defence say that it is unlikely that the ships will be included in the defence review this spring as Chancellor Jeremy Hunt works to reconcile the country’s finances.
Will Type 32 be scrapped?
Officially, the current line is that they’ll be a “key part of the fleet” but I don’t have a crystal ball. The recent rumours mention above add to a recent report from the National Audit Office that stated that the Royal Navy withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates because of concerns about unaffordability, however, officially it is claimed that work on the project is continuing.
The November 2022 report of the National Audit Office on The Equipment Plan 2022-2032 stated that in July 2022 “Navy Command withdrew its plans for Type 32 frigates and MRSS [Multi-Role Support Ships] because of concerns about unaffordability. The revised costing profile is likely to be significantly higher”.
Addressing the above, John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked via Parliamentary written question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to page 20 of the NAO report on the Equipment Plan 2022 to 2032, HC 907, published on 29 November, for what reason Navy Command was concerned about the affordability of the Type 32 frigate programme.”
Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“The Type 32 Frigate programme remains a key part of the future fleet and is currently in the concept phase. Work continues to ensure the programme is affordable in order to deliver the ships the Navy and Marines need.”
If they do go ahead, they’ll enter service in 2032. If they don’t (or if no ships at all are ordered for this timeframe), say goodbye to a chunk of the UK shipbuilding industry.
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 Defence 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.
Hope the RN is not going to have a “catch 32” problem here… Lol. 😆 Carry On 🇬🇧 🛳 building.
It’s the weekend…
Would Arrowhead 120 be more affordable?
They just need an up-gunned batch 2 type 31. Job done. Could stretch the hull out to provide a larger mission bay for launch and recover of UAVs, USVs, ASSVs
Something able to carry lots of PODS whilst having NSM, Sea ceptor, Merlin/ Wildcat and a medium calibre gun + 2 or more 40mm Bofors.
Could we fit a navalised MLRS?
Morning MrB. Per my reply to gh, I see the T31/T32 in a more nuanced way. A T31 based T32 needs a significantly modified superstructure but the armament might be fine as is; maybe add NSM. Its the T31 that I would up-arm a bit.
That’s my take I would think based on thinking over the next few years regarding remote systems it’s the superstructure that would most be implicated unless you are contemplating a well deck and/or cat style hull form which let’s be honest even if it were deemed more suitable just isn’t going to happen certainly the latter. While certainly there will be costs, engineering factors and ultimately limitations to what can be done I can’t visualise what changes you need for operating of likely drone and remote vehicle concepts would create insurmountable barriers there. Clean sheet thinking might theoretically be more… Read more »
Hi Spy. Everything that is happening in warfare at the moment suggests a move to unmanned kit. The RN need to get into this space quickly and decisively. Failure is not really an option & time is short.
i agree if the type 32 ( or type 31 batch 2) is focused on autonomous systems and being mother to those systems then its focus around armament should probably be self defence and local sea control using autonomous systems. So the organic armaments of the T31 would work we for a type 32…maxing space for those surface, sup surface and air autonomous systems. .I think the original type 31s could and should become focused surface strike vessels. After all we don’t need them as escorts for key assets as we have top end AAW and ASW escorts for that.… Read more »
It’s far from clear whether the T32 is best solution to act as a mothership for autonomous systems – above, on or underwater. Buying or leasing more second-hand ships on the commercial spot market that can be cheaply converted may offer better value and quicker availability. Making T32 a T31 Batch 2 seems to make a lot of sense. It will keep the Babcock Rosyth shipyard busy well in to the 2030’s, provide a decent sized (up to 10) class of patrol frigates for worldwide deployment, and allows the high-end T23/26’s and 45/83’s to be focused on carrier escort duties, the vital towed array… Read more »
I’m inclined to agree, a new class of what may be called drone carriers is what’s needed and there are plenty of COTS solutions that can be painted gray and also used for patrol and humanitarian work. Black Swan remains the best solution I have seen to date on this.
True but I suppose it depends on what level of threat environment they are looking at operating in. It seems to me that they are after a patrol frigate that’s also a mother ship, to support potentially operations that include a level of risk that requires a warship. Which the T31 hull could do as its a large hull and a modest defensive orientated weapon fit ( a patrol frigate weapon fit) would allow plenty of space for autonomous systems. The T31 as is has a big old flight deck, hanger as well as space for marines and a mission… Read more »
Stretching hulls is not so simple – you get to a point where it is a new or highly compromised design.
Marginal increases in length can be OK but for even small increases the hogging forces in crease dramatically and that is where shock testing requirement take over.
It’s quite a long hull already at just shy of 139 meters. The Absalon hull has a length of 137 meters ( beam of 19.5m) this was stretched in the Iver Huitfeldt to 138.7 meters ( no change to hull otherwise) and that stretched length was kept for the Type 31, So I suspect they have already used their margins up before hogging becomes an issue
And the Indonesian T31s builds are I believe I read somewhere that they are another 7m longer and have additional vls cells!
7meters that would make a huge increase over over the original hull adding almost 10 meters….
There’s a photo illustration of it somewhere…I’m looking for it.
this is the link to the image:
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fukdefenceforum.net%2Fviewtopic.php%3Ft%3D449%26start%3D7600&psig=AOvVaw2_m8w7vMVNXOsImXH9p0iC&ust=1674543810692000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CA0QjhxqFwoTCOit5_2P3fwCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAK
It’s interesting, that’s a beast of a ship. I wonder if they sacrificed some of the RN naval standards along the way. RN stability and navel build standards go way beyond most other navy’s.
I’d wonder if all of those VLS cells would have anything in them?
The Indonesians are not that flush with cash….and it costs a lot to keep lots of missiles fully maintained….
Hi SB, Indonesia must have a few spare dollars as they’ve ordered 6 ASW FREMMs too. That’s quite a substantial investment. I believe they come with Asters. Not sure what their extended T31s will contain but wouldn’t think they’d be “cannistered with fresh air”! Might even be Mica or CAMM-ER or even more Asters considering their supply relationships. The UK could go for a 2-3 more AAW T31s to bolster the fleet and its LRGs while the T45s get their Aster-CAMM upgrades and pre-T83.
It is all very odd.
The fleet hardly sails due to their inability to afford fuel.
Yet they are running around buying warships all over the place.
What they really want or need the kind of navy they are building for is a bit of a mystery.
That said, a lot of it is scrapheap challenge stuff. They have a lot of accidents.
Indonesia, PNG, Philippines, Brunei, all are buffer Island states to Australia’s north that should all help to channel, filter, even prevent ship and sub traffic from potential adversaries. Won’t mention names. There’s the big issue of Chinese encroachment in the South China seas as well as further south with their fishing fleets.
Whilst I get all that I still don’t understand what they need T31 and the other six they have ordered for.
T31 is a big endurance blue water ship…….they don’t need blue water?
Why that load out if missiles?
8 canister launched + Sea Ceptor is more than enough. They don’t have a CSG?
Sorry SB, I don’t have any answers for this, just a guess that Indonesia must perceive a certain level of threat now or coming and wanting more interoperability with Western forces or, just good sales pitches from Italy and the UK! The French are here in the neighbourhood too.
China……
They struggle to have fuel so I’d have to wonder about munitions and servicing….
Some positive news. Thales completes TACTICOS CMS shipset for first Type 31 frigate23 JANUARY 2023 “Thales Nederland has completed production of the first TACTICOS combat management system (CMS) shipset for the first of the UK Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Inspiration (Type 31)-class general-purpose frigates. Under a contract awarded in November 2019, UK shipbuilder Babcock, leading the ‘Team 31′ consortium, will deliver five Type 31 ships for the RN. The class is based on the Arrowhead 140 design – an evolution of the Royal Danish Navy’s Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates, which were designed by OMT and adapted for UK requirements by Babcock and… Read more »
Would probably be cheaper to have a modified T31 then a entirely new ship design. Plus even I would emit that while T31 is a frigate, T120 is not
Tend to agree. If the focus of the T32 is launching and recovering unmanned vehicles I would say what they need to do is put the T26 mission bay on the T31 to create T32, and its job done.
Meanwhile, back at ranch, put some Mk46 VLS on all the T31s.
yes, with maybe improvements on some of T26 multi mission bay flaws , like not having dual hanger access and increase in size
There are existing MCM/ASW and several CGI T31 type designs showing on the A140 ships website so adapting to a new role/weapon mix should be quite easy with this design
Nice web site, Love it! Like customising a new car.
Seriously though, I’m no expert but I’ll bet there’s more to it, otherwise you could just use the crane on a batch 2 River. I think that T26 mission bay is a pretty fancy piece of kit…wasn’t it designed by RR?
Yh, like most of the T26 design it is very neice but overprised by delay after delay
The fancy crane launch system was designed by Rolls Royce Canada yes.
I’m no expert here either. Someone else here will know.
As ever you need to distinguish a CGI from a matured and derisked design.
That said some additional work was clearly done for the two export versions already signed up.
Morning SB, the base hull/substructure design, mechanicals and electrical should be mature enough by now, plus the original IH has history being in service with the Danish navy. I’d be surprised if the various A140 CGI variants hadn’t already been thought through and are not just fanciful, though personally I think there’s way too many!! It’s obviously a very adaptable and capable design and can hold a large quantity and variety of gear and weaponry. As always we hope the RN can get a few more!
I quite like the Triumph Bonneville myself, Great retro bike but yes certainly no frigate.
This is going to end up like the River class procurement, order 2 here then another 2 there of a batch 2 type 31
yh hopefully with the same drastic improvements that batch 2 had over batch 1 , and in 5’s ( for the rivers batch 1, 3 but then gov added 1 on and batch 2, 3 but then gov added 2 on and T31, with 5 ordered then T32, 5 in plan)
One possibility could be a stretched Type 31 and utilising the additional space for drone capacity and other future advanced systems. The retention of Type 31 basic design and construction would speed up the R&D process, which in turn could allow for an earlier ISD.
I would go with Type 31 basic hull. Sadly, short term finances always seem to cripple long term projects, however essential. Ask countries like Ukraine – defence is the most important part of National government. Health, Social Services and Education can’t exist if you are under attack – and the best way of protecting from attack is the old ‘Walk softly but carry a big stick’ adage. By the way, I’m not saying that Health, etc aren’t important! I’m saying that, at a push, they can all exist on a local basis without National Government – but you can’t defend… Read more »
Some people would (indeed have over the years) be disgusted at such talk but anyone, certainly in an environment now where a dictator has to all intents and purposes declared war on the West and Europe as the war zone, with half a brain and remotest of insight would see the inevitable sense in it. Russia is calling us all Nazis, that Russia won WW2 against Nazi Europe building up national hatred on a massive scale, this is and always has been an almost spiritual war against us all and Ukraine was to be but the initial skirmish to improve… Read more »
That hull has already been stretched once, the original Absalon hull was 137meters they type 31 hull ( and IV) are 138.7 meters…
So, stretch um a bit more is what I say.
Yes but then you put longitudinal stress on the hull with increased hogging and sagging forces on the keal. So your then essentially looking at a whole new hull design process. Forces on hulls are possibly the most dynamic seen in any engineering problem and you therefore cannot just go adding length to a hull design without very significant redesign. Ships sink or fall apart because of hogging and sagging forces. The whole point of T31 was its low risk cheapness of taking a proven hull design…add more length and its no longer a de risked proven hull design it… Read more »
I’ve suffered from sagging forces myself, comes with age Jonathan. You obviously know a lot more than me in terms of ship hull dynamics, but the adoption of Type 31 main architecture and general services systems and some weaponry might reduce R&D time even if the stretched hull needed a reconfiguration. I do remember some Type 42s requiring hull bracing as they got older. I wonder if past Batch 2 Type 22 frigates and Type 42 destroyers needed redesigned hulls?
Type 32 or more/better equipped Type 31 is a must. However to have this by early 2030s, then actual funds need to be allocated.
So, the national Naval ship building programme is winding down already. How unsurprising is that news?
Not very surprising. It’s a great plan for ship building but it was expected the MOD will pay for it all.
If someone could do the maths on what spending the money building different classes of ships actually costs versus how much it brings back in tax take, wages spent etc i think the results would be surprising favourable for the uk economy.
This then can be presented to the treasury as an investment. Also business dept, trade dept should be throwing in some funds along with the MOD.
You forgot to mention the exports that have been sold – however, all revenue goes to HMG and is not hypothecated!
Should export revenues be returned to MoD?
This is an important point. The cost benefit analysis is incomplete. There is also the expansion of the national skills base and other less obvious benefits that accrue – apprenticeships and social advance.
You are of course absolutely right Spanker. There is a cost for doing sweet FA! As a nation we are either a serious player or nothing and nothing costs quite as much as doing nothing. I read lots of sage comments here on weapons and various configurations and capacities, but very little about the economics of our defence planning. As the late Alan Clark once said in a wireless interview, the Treasury wouldn’t even pay for the police if they could find a way to avoid it. News today that there have been fraudulent claims of about 8.5 billion GBP… Read more »
That’s interesting. I wonder how it is done because if they have a foreign bank and they live in one of the 100 countries that HMRC have a reciprocal tax agreement with, then BAE Systems algorithm that trawls those countries databases should have picked it up. It only cost towards a Bn to write…
T31 batch 2, increase the frigate fleet by another 3 ships. Then buy commercial ships to convert for drone operations. If drone systems are all palletised then they can still operate from the T31 and T26 too. The dedicated drone ships will just be able to operate more of them. I don’t get the need to spend resources on a whole new class of frigate.
Agreed.
I’m not going to say that’s the best option as I’m still not sure what the ships are actually meant to do. A frigate is different to a ship built to host autonomous systems. Is the type 32 still the replacement for the MCM mine ships? To launch and operate the smaller drone boats, seafox etc. Sounds like they want a frigate on the front and a warehouse with cranes on the back. I need to look at future navy plans. So far I see the type 45/23/26 are mostly for carrier/task group roles and some solo duties. The 31… Read more »
Was the Type32 ever the replacement for MCM or was that just a conclusion reached on this forum because the description of the Type 32 include being a mothership. This could be for a range of unmanned systems as yet not known
There I think you have it.
But I also think the confusion was propagated by those designing it and briefing on it!
Agree.
MV IslandCrown is the model for replacing MCM squadrons. 4000 ton mothership operating USV, ASSVs etc. Stand off capability. No risk to crew.
How many island crowns are replacing the numerous MCM fleet? I not yet seen this island crown ships, hopefully get time to look in a bit.
I’m sure it was mentioned somewhere that the type 32 was to act as a nothing ship for autonomous systems including mine warfare. Will need to go back to the press releases at the time
From a quick read Jeremy Quin stated:
‘Further work is required to develop the operational concept however it is envisioned that Type 32 will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the navy’s capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures
So long as there is some replacement for the large fleet of MCM in the Royal Navy and the replacement can deliver what the current fleet does that’s the important thing.
It is possible that mine hunting drones will make dedicated MCM vessels obsolete. Maybe the type 32 will be a proof of concept for this.
I see the use of T32 as the MCM motherships as a potential diabolical political trick that might lurk behind all of this. If the T32s are indeed planned to be the complete replacement for the Hunts & Sandowns then the government can potentially try to sneakily double count them. Claim that with 8 x T26 + 5 x T31 + say 5 x T32 the frigate fleet has been increased from 12 (or 13 depending on when you count from) up to 18, which I suppose would technically be true, but fail to mention that this enlarged frigate fleet… Read more »
The unmanned systems replace the Hunts and Sandowns. No direct replacements are intended, that’s been clear for sometime.
Yes, but there needs to be a mothership to host those unmanned systems and if a frigate is deployed to host unmanned systems, doing a job that otherwise would be done by the current Hunt/Sandown fleet, then that frigate isn’t available for other taskings. So yes, more frigates (we hope), but at the same time more tasks that those frigates are required to perform.
As pointed out in other comments we are buying a commercial vessel to be converted into a mothership
Isn’t there still a concern if it is “a” commercial vessel? With 6 Hunts and until quite recently 7 Sandowns in service I assume that gives the option to be conducting multiple MCM operations in different locations simultaneously. Are we in danger of walking into another “however good, one vessel can’t be in two places at once” debate? What would be the appropriate number of motherships to retain a similar MCM capacity to that of the Hunt/Sandown fleets as of a couple of years ago before vessels, particularly Sandowns, started getting decommissioned?
MCH block2 program includes 1 OSV and (up to) 4 LSVs (logistic support vessels), in addition to 6 USV-MCM systems. Note MCH blk1 is delivering 6 USV-MCM systems (3 sweep and 3 hunt).
Looks like many here is unaware of the “4 LSVs”. It is clearly written in the 2023-2032 equipment plan.
Are these not the small work boats that accompany the unmanned systems
No one knows yet. But their name “Logistic Support” means it shall be a bit larger hull, I guess.
I think that is a very logical idea. Was checking out the two specialist commercial vessels being bought for the RFA and was thinking how a lot of their design is preferable for undersea operations (quite logically) than what has been a long gradually perfected frigate design that would in reality have these sort of additional capabilities grafted onto it. First the helicopter deck and more recently the mission bay are the two developments that have pushed that basic design towards handling drones of various sorts within that otherwise arguably compromised design for that specific job. If it were a… Read more »
This is what happens when a treasurer becomes prime minister. Our society encourages number minded people to think they know everything. Instead of seeing the big picture, why we’re making the ships to begin with, you just end up with them applying their small-picture views onto everything, a super-treasurer.
Perhaps he can apply his knowledge of getting sack loads of cash in his own life to the country.
If only there was some mega rich country we could marry.
Been saying this for weeks, misinterpretation of the Type 32 funding proposal being turned down and told to be reworked to be more affordable. It didnt mean the class was straight up cancelled.
I think the original T31 proposals were also rejected by MoD.
yes. T31 and FSS and the NSM compitions all went on and off then on again. now we have all of those
Yes and yes…
I have also noticed that when a defence review, statement, budget worries happen there are a lot of negative headlines.
Carrier getting sold, amphibious ships scrapped, marines disbanded, tanks all going etc etc.
Its a British tradition, during a spending review the three service branches all brief against each other in the press.
Spot on.
Bean counters will always find a way.
One of the main reasons for the selection of Arrowhead140 was it’s size and flexibility. The other was its (relatively) low cost. Since the RN don’t seem to have finalized what exactly they want from these ships,how do they know they are unaffordable? It is a!most impossible to find out what is going on because of ministerial statements that say nothing and reports from MOD and NAO that are hard to drill down into. A simple list of planned capital expenditure on equipment on a year by year basis would be much clearer. It does seem obvious that T31 batch… Read more »
This is what I have never understood it’s so chicken and egg, most of the testing of drone types is in very early stages while additional technological developments are barely known or assessed as yet, some still likely to come out of the blue even. How can you set out to design a vessel in such a nebulous changing scenario. Geez it’s not like we have been early to drones just now it seems beginning to appreciate they are going to be a major factor but still playing around with what direction it will go in. In all honesty unless… Read more »
Cost escalation happens because some/all of the people involved can’t resisit kite flying. I saw this in a brochure and it looked cool. I saw an exhibit at a conference or a power point at a briefing. My guess is that all that stuff is now being removed from the design. Once that’s done. All being well the project will get the go ahead.
Autonomous boats might be able to tow compact TAS, and the ship could deploy long range undersea surveillance and attack drones. If there was a ” tank deck” like the Type 31s original Danish cousin, add a lift and an MLRS with 500km precision strike missiles could park on the deck and fire Cheaper land attack than . FCASW which could sit in VLS. The ship itself could be as simple or simpler than Type 31. The UK is already looking at Medium range SAM, possibly based on Caam or Caam ER anyway so that’s a natural progression Shipping containers… Read more »
for the F-35b it would have to be a pretty light for vtol, as if you wanna land back on the carriers , for example, with what you took off with then you need to a rolling landing. vtol is only possible when light, STOL is what the F-35 is really best suited for. Short/ arid runway’s and simple carriers. e.g the us marines have a idea of island hoping F-35b’s for pascific ops
I don’t think there is any point in having a frigate F35B compatible – it would cost a fortune.
Harrier could do things like that as a party trick because it was tiny and had a high bypass engine so the jet efflux wasn’t that hot.
The rear nozzles ran at over 650 degrees C, so still pretty dam hot.
I agree it was pretty hot but that isn’t going to need special extra thick steel plate with thermally reflective coatings.
My point was that F35B was hotter and.
I’d always understood that the onboard water injection could be used to vertical takeoff/landing to reduce the efflux temperature.
I’m no pilot and appreciate that you really did fly Harrier, so defer to your experience.
I wasn’t aircrew mate. Water was injected into the combustion chamber to prevent it from overheating and provide a slight increase in thrust for about 90seconds max i think in the hover due to the lack of forward air momentum. Could also be used for take-off in high outside temperatures. But it’s use was strictly monitored. A Harrier/F35Bwouldn’t land on a Frigate or any warship that wasn’t a carrier/LPHD unless it was a life or death situation. And even then the risk to the warship would be to great the pilot would eject into the sea and take his chances.… Read more »
Thanks for the correction: my bad.
I appreciate that there were no support facilities on T42 and T22 but I do recall from Sharky Ward (?) that landings and takeoffs did take place on both types.
There was the famous cargo ship landing too….
Yes, that was a good example of land or end up in the drink. They might have done some trials back in the day, but nothing came of it.
Of course, one Harrier Squadron, 809, deployed from Atlantic Conveyor, thankfully, before she was sunk.
That is very, very true.
But I think the take off and landing spot had some extra plating over it?
USS America Air Department Prepares For F-35B Testing This Fall To prepare for the F-35, which is heavier than the AV-8B Harrier it replaces and produces a lot of heat and downwash when it lands vertically, the back of the flight deck was ripped up, strengthened from underneath and then put back together with a more heat-resistant non-skid coating, America commanding officer Capt. Michael Baze explained from the ship. That coating, called Thermion, is more expensive but lasts longer – and as a balance, Thermion was only used on the aft third of the deck for F-35B operations and near several landing… Read more »
Unsure how much strengthing it would require. F-35B Lightning II Crew: 1 Length: 51.2 ft (15.6 m) Wingspan: 35 ft (10.7 m) Height: 14.3 ft (4.36 m) Wing area: 460 sq ft (42.74 m2) Empty weight: 32,472 lb (14,729 kg) Max takeoff weight: 60,000 lb (27,200 kg) Weapon payload: 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) Fuel capacity: 13,500 lb (6,123 kg) internal Range: 900 nmi (1,700 km) Combat radius: 505 nmi (935 km) on internal fuel Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m) g limits: +7.0 Powerplant: 1 x Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-600 two-spool, axial flow, augmented turbofan with shaft driven remote lift fan Maximum thrust: 27,000 lbf (120 kN) military thrust / 41,000 lbf (182 kN)… Read more »
Yes so a quieter hull design may not be needed if one thinks that way that’s the sort of technology decisions and developments that at some point need to be frozen but yes I think if this ship is to be designed for underwater drone operation then long distance drone operation would probably be one of the reasons why changing perspectives of technological requirements.
How will they crew a bigger fleet? The pay and food are crap and the accommodation blocks an absolute disgrace. I’m amazed they can even retain the people they have.
So you serve in the RN?
Irrelevant
That’s a no then, so you don’t really know what you are talking about.
There’s no winning with you people. “Shut up, your service is irrelevant.” “Are you in? No? Then shut up”
Well Luke, my experience was rather different. I stayed in some excellent accommodation in the RN, and at RAF stations. Granted that’s not the case for the whole MOD estate, but at RN main operating bases, the standard for single living accommodation is very good. Single man cabins with en suite bathrooms. Pay is pretty good when after the first few years. A Petty Officer will be on 40k +. 38 days leave plus bank Holidays, and you get more leave for sea time done. That doesn’t sound so terrible does it Luke. Get yourself to a career’s office pal.
RAF accommodation is generally better for sure although not without its issues. As for pay and conditions I guess you and I have very different opinions of pretty good. If as I think a PO is equivalent to a Sgt, that’s more than “a few years” and a completely different mess block. I’m sure none of the reported issues are evident in the SNCO and officer blocks judging by their angry responses to the whistleblowers.
I’m talking about the lads blocks. SLAM blocks. Good sized modern rooms with en-suite. Cooking facilities on each floor ect. Most main operating bases have had these for years now. Especially at RN and RAF stations, I can’t speak for the Army because I didn’t spend any time at any Army camps.
Nice commentary Robert. Service folk deserve the very best IMHO.
I’m fully aware accommodation isn’t always fantastic across the full MOD estate, especially married quarters. And there has been problems for service personnel and family’s getting housing snags fixed In a timely fashion. But. It’s not all bad, and some stations are excellent. And the overall forces package is still pretty good overall. Everyone would like more pay, but you can earn a comfortable living from a life in the forces. I have friends who did 22-25 years service and now have £900+ a month pension coming in to top up their full time job, plus a large cash lump… Read more »
Issues with armed forces pay and conditions are not unique to the UK, as examples both the Royal New Zealand Navy and the Irish Naval Service cannot currently crew a third of their small fleets.
Yes, so I can’t see what dropping additional hulls in the water brings capability wise aside from additional serviceable hulls available? Without addressing the pay and conditions that recruit and retain sailors (soldiers and airmen too for that matter), it’s a Potemkin village fleet.
Instead of trying to find a role how about we look at the current capabilty gaps and look to shore them up?
My suggestion would be:
8x T26 as planned
8x T31 increase of 3 over current order to provide flexibility to the fleet
8x T83 increase of 3 over current T45 numbers
Set out a long term plan and stick to it If we need to find savings in the short term then selling off the Waves and either Albion or Bulwark, with Fort Victoria in due course as well.
“If they do go ahead, they’ll enter service in 2032. If they don’t (or if no ships at all are ordered for this timeframe), say goodbye to a chunk of the UK shipbuilding industry.” I do not follow the logic. T32 be built by 2032-35, then HMG will order what? Nothing. Ordering T32 now just cause the bigger disaster on 2035, because there will be nothing to order then. Rosyth must “save the day” with the four MHC-LSVs. I even think they shall build some blocks for FSSS. Then, T32 to be delivered by 2040 will provide a good “gap… Read more »
The voice of reason.
Are the MHC LSV’ s not the just the small work boats that accompany the unmanned systems. If so then hardly a job for Babcocks
The Government was committed to growing the fleet. So are we back to more cuts again?
It would be logical to build 5 more T31s as these are already in production and are large flexible designs.
It strikes me that any UK Government should understand that we need to boost defence given the unstable world we live in….
Nope. Bluffer Boris was committed to publicity grabbing sound bites and then said, “You really what said, do you?” (Words to that effect).
Not that you are biased in any way
Irrelevant. A lying Con lied to gain popularity; bluffed by name, bluffer by nature.
😆😆😆
“build 5 more T31s” agreed Rob
So how come Navylookout, has already found out that the government has stated it’s no longer going ahead with the T32’s
We have just bought the MV Island Crown as the 1st Mothership for the new Block 1 MCH autonomous mine clearing systems. Relatively cheap, small RFA crew, tough as old boots, very flexible and widely available in an emergency. That to me is a very sensible “out of the box” solution to replacing our old MCM ships. If you were to have 6 of these, each with a system onboard plus extra systems in storage, surely the RN reserve could be trained to use those systems in wartime. And we do what we have done before STUFT of OSV’s and… Read more »
The other view would be that, drones will give future warships their own independent MCM ability, giving them the ability to navigate mined waters.
I find articles like this difficult to decypher. When did Alex Chalk say this, where and to whom? We’ve heard this before two weeks ago, so did he say it again or is this just a reheat? Is this a rebuttal from two weeks ago to the spectulation that continued a week afterwards in the Times that the Type 32 was to be cut and published now several days later?
Is there any actual news here I’m missing?
Survival of the T32 depends on whether the updated IR results in Rishi Sunak agreeing to the MOD getting at least a small uplift in its budget. By comparison, the French have already decided to increase their defence budget by 35% from 2024. That will take France’s defence spending from perhaps slightly less than the UK (the numbers aren’t like-for-like) to substantially more (c. 2.5% GDP). A lot of the extra money is to be spent on the Marine Nationale and building a new 75,000t nuclear powered aircraft carrier that’s larger than the QEC. France is very proud of having (since c.2010) a larger… Read more »
The efforts of the Ukraine against the Russian navy shows that you don’t need carriers and destroyers to get on top of your foe the UK Is,and has been for too long been blinkered and stuck in the era of the cold war fleet makeup other nations have corvettes, we don’t, other navy’s have missile boats ,we don’t yet these nations count them as front line platforms making it appear that their navy is bigger than it actually is.
The admiralty are as culpable as the bean counters in the decline of the RN.yet, are always spared from the blame that they are responsible for.
Redesigning the batch river to be a proper warship could be a goer, the basic design provides a decent platform I like what the Thais have don to their R2 derivatives i.e added a 76mm Otto melara rapide gun and two additional 30mm aft of the bridge wings.doing the same to our bach2 would give us a rise of 6 ships very quickly, even with the ships that are in build
Yes, very impressive having a 75,000t carrier, also good for NATO. France having just one carrier again though.. Still think it’s sensible to have two carriers like the UK.
Not quite a Type 32 but more a Type 31 question I have. Is it plausible the NSM be cross-decked from the Type 23 to Type 31 as the former are phased out? The MoD is buying 11 ship sets but the mix has not been clearly defined. I’m thinking 6 x Type 45s and 5 x Type 23s (later to be ported to the 5 x Type 31s?). If the Type 31 does indeed get the NSM from the retiring Type 23s, then you can kinda understand why the RN is getting a rather anemic frigate initially to meet… Read more »
I don’t think it’ll quite work like that- at a guess it’ll be like the Harpoons. Fitting points were available on all T45 and T23, but they were fitted from a central pool (kept onshore) only when required. This reduced maintenance costs and suchlike, and meant that ships that were alongside, in refit, etc. weren’t holding an asset that could be used elsewhere.
With that assumption, 11 sets of NSM would actually go further than just the 6 T45 and 5 T23 GP, they’d likely cover most escorts that are deployed at any one time.
T32 contract cancelled, as it’s only in a planning stage, our dear(not) pm snake sunak has given back word on the project. We need to grow the Royal Navy, we have a genuine need of more surface combatants. Unless of course The MOD is holding out on everyone, with some ‘black’ purchases of workable lasers and such .
My question is are the T32’s merely a stopgap to keep Rosyth afloat? If an order from a non shipbuilding country/countries for 5 export Arrowheads to be built at Rosyth come in would T32 even go ahead? How will they be crewed?
A bigger T31order would be enough for rosyth
How can you scrap something that as yet doesn’t exist?
Surely you “don’t take it forward” is a better description.
I don’t see the point of the Type 32. One class of frigate is all we should need, but two is manageable too as they can are better suited to different roles. A third type seems to be leaning too much towards complicating everything, from logistics to crewing.
More Type 31s would be better (Type 26 ideally, but we know that’s not going to happen).
I think the Type 32 is just another of Johnson’s pointless spaffs.
100%
yes- agreed Tams
Depending upon which unmanned systems are intended for launch off a Type 32 and their quanties dictates the design and cost of this ship. I think I’ll wait until we have something more concrete to talk about.
Personally we would be better off buying arleigh burke class destroyers rather than those useless hunks of scrap that likely wouldn’t take a KH 22 before they got sunk
I’ve no doubt that the fate of T32 will depend on the success or failure of the T3 I don’t think that the proposed cost of a T 31 will be within the specified cost originally set at£250 million I think the specs and design of the T32 are good enough I also think that if T32 didn’t happen,then more than five type 31’s would be a good compromise.the production in tandem with another one will deliver faster building times.
Just go for an updated Absalon – keep it simple
These will be like shooting rats in a barrel for the 3M22 Zircon.
Given that we designed them in the UK, I’d imagine a development of the T26 or T31 would make most sense from a sunk costs perspective. I know it’d be cool to have a cutting edge design “the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems“, but practically what does that mean? You need the survivability, speed and deployability of a military design still, so can’t depart too far from a large frigate design in my opinion. Biggest changes for me would be more space and access options for TEU systems,… Read more »
is the t32 just a political clckbait? i don’t see how these ships/boats will be built when the shipbuilding capacity of the nation is taken up by the t 31,t 26,dreadnaut class building. i don’t think they’ll ever be built.