The hull of HMS Venturer, the first of the new Type 31 Frigates in build for the Royal Navy in Rosyth near Edinburgh, is starting to make progress.
Vice Admiral Sir Christopher Gardner, Director General Ships at DE&S, tweeted:
An important speech for all of us @DefenceES and pleased to be there to see progress on T31, now in build. https://t.co/fOUG2Y8SPU pic.twitter.com/QIGyXwG7aF
— Sir Christopher Gardner KBE (@SubsCEO) February 12, 2022
The Rosyth built Type 31 Frigates are to be named HMS Venturer, HMS Bulldog, HMS Campbeltown, HMS Formidable and HMS Active. The class will be known as the ‘Inspiration’ class.
Late last year, Babcock completed its Type 31 ‘frigate factory’ in Rosyth, the facility where the above hull sections are pictured.
The shipbuilding facility will be able to build two frigates at the same time. Babcock also unveiled plans to recruit 500 workers for its Type 31 frigate programme as the build of its new state-of-the-art assembly hall, known as ‘the Venturer Building’ is completed at its Rosyth site.
Measuring 147m x 62m x 42m, the Venturer Building will initially be used for the assembly of the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates, providing a facility that can support UK and international shipbuilding activity for decades to come.
“As the Type 31 programme continues, the fully covered hall will house two frigates for uninterrupted, parallel assembly and will support increased productivity gains through improved access to the platforms and digital connectivity.”
The firm say that the initial recruitment drive to support the programme will include a variety of trades including welders, fabricators and mechanical and electrical fitters as well as production support operatives.
“The announcement sees the 500 new roles contribute towards the direct workforce which will peak at the height of the programme at around 1250 people across the UK and will support a similar number in the extended supply chain.”
Will Erith, Chief Executive of Babcock Marine said:
“We are delighted to mark St. Andrew’s Day by celebrating the completion of The Venturer Building which builds on our exceptional heritage in Scotland, delivering a very real step change in capacity and capability for modern UK shipbuilding. From the start of this programme, we’ve been focussing on prosperity, supporting both the UK and local economies and so it is great we are also announcing 500 new roles on the same day who will directly support the Type 31 programme.
I would like to thank everyone involved in the construction of this fantastic building and especially our contractors Robertson Construction. This moment demonstrates further progress in the Type 31 programme and adds to the significant investment over the last decade at our facilities in Rosyth; bringing advancements and efficiencies into manufacturing, build and assembly processes.”
Good tidings all round. These new ships, though, lower in number, are larger than anything we’ve built until present. Type 45, type 26, type 31, type 32…..then even type 83! Not to mention, two flattops that are only behind big brother America. RN really going for it.
Will be welcome news to free up the economy now we have Brexit and make ourselves leaner and more match-fit as a state. Strong defence, more investment, better RnD etc. Let us hope we might gather our resources in a CANZUK +USA treaty too. Truly formidable.
Good afternoon Robert,
Do you happen to know when they will enter service with the RN?
Wiki says in service beginning 2027.
Earlier than that on my understanding.
Many thanks, Frank62
Operational in ’27. It could well be commissioned as early as 2025.
Optimism ! Outrageous ! You need to stop that right now sir. 😉
I would have to agree David, such talk has absolutely no place here ….
I’ll have you know Robert, the politically acceptable position in Britain today is a wailing and remoaning black cloud of dispair and misery.
Luckily for you, this is easily recified, you need to sit down and watch a good selection Alan Bleasdales work, his amazing ability to make everything ‘British’ look gloomy, suicidal, shit and stuck in a pseudo 1983 recession groundhog Day, will stamp out any optimism you might have.
I’ve a fair idea Bleasdale works for the KGB for that matter…..
The very idea…
I’d only add Ken Roach sorry Loach. 😡
😂😂😀
I don’t really do optimism, infact I sort of have a professional dislike for optimism, assume and plan for the worst. If it turns out better your in luck and can have a nice cup of tea, if it works out like a hill of crap at least your ready for it. Rule one: optimism is not a plan Rule Two: no one ever died of assuming the worst Rule Three: “things can only get better“ is for the Delusional, it can always get far worse. Rule four: ……well let me put it this way, the world is a dark… Read more »
Very good Jonathan! Blind optimism is generally not only futile but downright dangerous. It.has very little place in manufacturing, defence or daily life. Those demanding that all must be super-optimistic happy-clappies in support of Boris’ brave new world can bang their drum as mush as they like until the bubble bursts, which it inevitably will. We can be pleased that the T31 project is on time and in budget so far, as indeed it should be. We can keep our fingers crossed that the first launch and sea trials show the ship meets expectations, with none of the Astute/T45/Ajax-type design… Read more »
Now I am depressed.
“Give us a job I can do that aw go on ” Wasn’t that Bleasdales most renowned 1980ts saying BFTBS
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLfHcFIVEAM5Hms?format=jpg&name=900×900
😁😁👍
Very good! 😂
Here, here Robert. For the first time in years we have the right beginning. Now we need to put the indecision and inefficiency of the past behind us and crack on for the future.
Bravo! I like the positivity.
Strong name game 😄
.Spot on. Do you know the armament?
my only downer is we should have started these 5 years earlier, but all in all our escort fleet will be in a healthy place by 2030.
Subject to robust and long-lived design and construction, especially of propulsion. Long live QA and testing!
Not sure if we can reply on the USA anymore as they continue down the Dems Beijing biden route. They are making the right empty noises but all the wrong decisions. Doubling down as they say, on the dire mistakes of Obama. Empowering our natural enemies while snubbing natural allies. I hope quoting examples of each is unnecessary at this stage.
Don’t want to offend but I cannot see a hull taking shape, only a big chunk of steel on a factory floor. Perhaps a little early for photos?
Actually its quite interesting as those two pieces of steel are clearly part of the bottom of the ship. The one on the right rear of the picture is a subsection, whilst the big chunk on the left must looks like a number of subsections have been welded together to form a complete section. Welding the subsections together upside down on those pilths in the picture obviously makes it easier to get everything correctly lined up, pretty key factor given everything else is built up from that base. Obvioulsy once the sections are assembled from subsections they are lifted, turned… Read more »
Thanks CR-interesting info! Some of my best friends are Engineers btw 😆and my first year at Varsity was BSc Civil engineering but changed to commerce the following year.
Looking at these two steel units, it does not follow the current trend for frigate building i.e. hull blocks being built from keel to weather deck before put on the berth.
It’s a lot easier to see it after your explanation. Thank you.
Spot on. The use of robotic cutters and welders mean that welding has little if any waste. Welded seams are almost all at a universal standard and you only need to NDT a random selection. The days of having a team of platers with grinders buffing welds up for NDT are long gone. Most fabrication is done in a separate workshop. Millimetre precision Laser/Plasma cut steel made into panels and welded by robot. Panels assembled into units and again welded by robot and then units made into blocks for further assembly into super blocks. The Block and Super block assembly… Read more »
Well, a small fabricated structure, but yeah probably it’s a bit early, the headline did get my hopes up.
Just laying the keel?
That’s how they all start, though not actually a “keel” anymore, just the hull plate & a double botton section lowered on to be welded in place. House foundations are just concrete poured into a trench, but the house won’t work without it.
Mind you I’d hope we were a bit further on with these than this. 1st in class not due to be in service until 2027.
To your point Frank – what seriously takes 5 yrs? It’s not like the Type 31 is a top-of-the-line, state-of-the-art warship with ultra modern combat systems and weapons that require a lot of testing and integration before handing over. Just seems to me that we couldn’t build these any slower if we tried. Is it HM’s Treasury playing stingy with the pennies?
Treasury is certainly extending build times for budgetry reasons, yes, more so for the T26s(10 years for a frigate!), though a first in class build does take a little longer to iron out things.
As Frank said the slow build is mainly down to political and financial reasons. That said, it should be noted that even though the type 31s are at the ‘lower’ end of the sophistication spectrum, they are still very complex vessels compared to ships built 30+ years ago.
I doubt it. Not for the Type 31.
It’s a new design, incorporating new systems and new weaponry, built by a company who have never built a complex warship, in a new facility, at a site where no warship has been built from scratch probably since WW1. And they are still aiming to float it off next year.
I don’t think expecting this to go faster is at all realistic, or sensible.
I thought it was just me when I looked and saw just a big empty space. Then again you get what you pay for. Sometimes or never in the case of the MOD.
It’s a stealthy design Dragonwight.
Yes, definitely lol….
Two sections there. That’s how ships start, unless you want ships with great holes in the bottom. I spent way too long working in those cramped double bottoms doing all the dirty work. I only worked on tankers & ferries.
Respect for your craft Frank.
No craftmanship on my part I’m afraid, I was just a labourer doing lots of rotten jobs & clearing up after the skilled guys. Heavy work but quite fun & fascinating watching how things are done.
Great experience all the same. Shipbuilding is a very different Industry these days. I remember visiting Harland and Woolf with my Uncle as a little boy in the 1950’s-lot’s of activity then and plenty cloth caps!
Indeed. My father served his apprenticeship in a shipyard in the late 50’s. Always talked about red hot rivets dropped from above being a horrendous danger. ..Hard hat or not.
Agreed. The Project Manager is probably reporting 1% complete, based bon this photo I can’t see much chance of a launch next year, even if it is 31 Dec! There will need to be a LOT of progress over the rest of this year if she is to hit her 2027 in-service date
I’m with Geoff, I’m not sure “taking shape” is the correct headline as it just sounds a bit silly when linked to that picture….maybe “all set to start taking shape” would have been a bit more congruent.
I agree.
But at least it is happening and they are good big ships with lots of upgradability.
Increase the T31 class to 8 and add Mk41 VLS. Radakin was quite clear he wanted Mk41 on T31 – before someone says I’m fantasising.
Mk41 is already in T26 so it not an additional system for RN to bring into service.
Adding Mk41 to the five in build would cost about £250m.
T32 is for something else.
Its hard to disagree. I’ve long argued T31 should be increased to 8-10 ships to better benefit from economies of scale (although if T32 does end up as T31+, then its effectively the same thing). Previously my view was that the interim anti-ship missile should be fitted directly to T31 instead of T23; with that programme seemingly dead, there is literally no alternative than to put a single 8-cell Mk41 launcher on the T31. I’m not sure where you’re getting that figure of £250m for the work though? The launchers themselves cost VERY roughly £15m, so £75m for 5. On… Read more »
I would like to see T32 add in the absalons flex deck and be able to launch 4-6 CB90s. The ability to land a company size raiding force would be useful.
Mk41 should be the standard from now on, the more we buy 5he cheaper they become and we really can’t afford it then let’s get Seaceptor quad packed into a more economical VLS as a minimum
Single cell CAMM launchers are very cheap compared to ExLS launchers. Sea Ceptor is contained in it own container.
understood, but they are also fixed to Seaceptor. I have no problem with having Seaceptor silos as long as we have a lot more and they take up less space than they currently seem to. realistically we should have a silo in a container and this can be used by both the army or navy as required. Looking at the new land ceptor system not sure why they have not gone for a containerised solution that can be dropped rather than 8 silos. this would surely be the most cost efficient way of the uk storing and using this product… Read more »
Pacman I agree with your concept for the T32. In some ways that is why I like the Damen Crossover type. The Combattant can land over 100 Royals and have a frigate weapons outfit.
The Damen crossover is a great ship and Damen is the model the uk should be following, as they build stock ships they lease out to keep the workforce busy.
we could do that and have the yards making fishing vessels or other ships or even offshore items should we need to but the key is to know what we want and build in volume to bring cost down. The Dane’s have nailed it with huitfeldt and a salon classes and we need to learn from them.
When RN has slack demand use the foreign aid budget to build fishery protection / OPV vessels for free issue to developing commonwealth countries and the likes. Australia already does that model and its a win win for all concerned.
don’t get me started on foreign aid budget, we should spend all of it on products made in Britain.
The above could be distributed via 4 dedicated humanitarian ships that could also act as floating embassies and be based on the proposed MRSS.
we should never give money to a government, and all goods should be British made.
That is a very solid policy, that I would vote for, when do you run for office. 🙂
As I see it type 32 will be a type 31+, makes no sense otherwise 👍
The t31 is based on the huitfeldt which itself is based on the absalon. I think an updated version of the absalon adding all the lessons learned from both and the t31 with the flex deck added back in is a sensible approach as these ships are meant to be highly flexible.
I’m in total agreement, my reply was to confirm your logic as to the absalon evolution. Dont understand the logic elsewhere where the type 32 is a completely new design…👍
I’d go as far as to say that unless the type 32 isn’t the same hull as the type 31 (or an evolution of it) the class makes no sense at all.
Simple comment.
T31 is 29 knots in speed (in Danish standard, 30 knots).
Therefore, Absalon-based T32 will be 23 knots top speed. (as Absalon is 24 knots in Danish standard). Is it enough? Maybe maybe not.
Significant fraction of internal volume and weight were used to accommodate 2 more diesel engines on Iver Huitfeldt class, compared to Absalon. That is what Iver Huitfeldt class “payed” to accomplish the 30knot top speed.
HDMS Absalon has a different engine set up to huitfeldt which is an improved version of absalon minus the flex deck.
From memory I believe the absalon has 2 engines and the huitfeldt 4 – but this is within the same hull.
what I am suggesting is the apply lessons learned from all previous versions (inc T31) and add the flex deck back in.
The Absalon is a fabulous class of ship and will be able to do anything outside of AAW and ASW, which we have the escort fleet for.
Understood. When Iver Huitfeldt was designed, the main deck has been heightened, which was enable by taking out the flex deck. Two main engine rooms of Absalon-class, originally carrying a main engine and auxiliary engines, are filled with 2 main diesels engines individually, and auxiliary engines were moved to new secondary engine rooms. Also, added intake/funnel weighs a lot and took off the space for the second Merlin in the hangar. I’m afraid Absalon-style hull with 30knot speed is impossible without significant hull extension, or widening the hull by 0.5m or so (*1). But, may be possible if the flex… Read more »
Hi Donald
I wasn’t aware that that was the driver behind removing the flex deck, I honestly thought it was about have a sleeker more fight design, but I was aware of the engines etc.
The Absalon is a great ship, no doubt about it the question is how would we use it
I do think that we have a use for it – especially if we can configure it to hold and deploy 4-6 CB90’s or equivalent.
Thanks. I “guess” the weight of intake/funnel and very heavy 32-cell Mk.41 VLS made it.
Just for note: May be you know, Absalon stern cannot hold CB90 (13t light, 20.5t FLD). What is carried is much smaller SB90E (7.2t). To carry CB90, RN need to design a new boat handling system (which itself is not so difficult, but will cost. Not bad).
thanks Donald
yes was aware of the SB90 and actually think a rear ramp would be better with an internal flex deck layout similar to the Damen Crossover range (which is another excellent design for this type of requirement).
key question is would it be useful to have CB90s and if so which platform do we launch from, the MRSS or an absalon type vessel or both.
the SB90e would be a big uptick on a pacific RHIB – but I do think the CB90 offers so much more.
Yes that is true, I dont know if you have seen a view frm the top of a T26 and the CAMM missile pods are just a bit smaller than the mk41. it is a shame that we are only getting 24 per vessel as well.
Build Absalon style ships instead of the LSS
I was costing it as a 24 cell VLS based on the numbers from the Mk41 VLS FMS release?
What size MK41, self defence, tactical or strike. The weight and footprint is very different.
Whilst £15m might be a base price, like all US outings, it would need to come with the “service plan’ which makes things far harder to price.
Tactical would suffice for many missile types. If it was a tomahawk class cruise missile, then it’s strike length. FCASW should be a 4 metre class weapon so tactical cells could be an option.
I think the hill can take full length?
But a mixture of full length and strike would do the trick.
I take it the 5 ships were ordered as a batch. We could see a Batch 2 especially if there’s nothing ready to be built afterwards. Could be cheaper as well so long as Babcock haven’t underpriced these 5.
Glasgow shipyards will be busy with type 26 for years and if type 32 isn’t ready. Perhaps as a river supplement or replacement.
Agreed.
I’m wondering if the RN is playing a game with HM treasury by not adding much of anything in the way of weaponry to the T31 now just to keep them within budget (as they stand, an extremely paltry weapons fit I think we will all agree). Once they are handed over, then the RN will get serious and add a decent weapons fit. Still, if this is indeed the plan, it makes you wonder where the money for the weapons upgrade will come from – rob Peter to pay Paul….
I think that’s certainly part of it, but there’s also a wider reality at play. The RN basically had a choice; one more T26, or 5 more hulls.
We may all hate the “fitted for but not with” policy, but it’s easier to upgun ships then build them in an emergency
That’s a fair point Callum – I think I’d take the 5 hulls vs 1 deal myself. I agree with you on ‘FFBNW’ policy – unfortunately, history has shown this almost always means the ‘Not’ is ‘Never’ – eg the Type 45 FFBNW Mk41 VLS. Yes, they will get Sea Ceptor but that’s not as good a deal as Mk41 – the latter giving you so many more options. Still, the T31 is designed to take Mk41 VLS and if the 1SL is serious about giving the surface fleet more lethality, then maybe – just maybe – he has a… Read more »
Yes I completely agree, to be honest I was very pleasantly suprised when they went with a large hull ( I thought they would be short sighted and go for small as possible hull). I think the T31s would have more use for the Mk41s than either the T45 or T26s as both have such low numbers they will be needed to cover their specialist roles. But the T31s could have more freedom to be an Anti surface warfare/land attach platform. We would then have a high end ASW ship, high end AAW ship and high end anti surface warfare… Read more »
In that case, you would need to dump the 57mm (fit to T45), fit the 127mm & buy some Volcano rounds for it, fit some sort of up to date heavy AShM (eg NSM) that has land strike options & possibly strike length mk41 for Tomahawk. You also need more AA missiles (at least match the T23). I would also be fitting a hull mounted sonar (since you have now become a worthwhile HWT target).
depends really, NGFS could be one of the functions of a T31 ( and I think it should be) the 57mm would be a good fit for the T45 and T26 as we are unlikely to be sending them off to provide NGFS and the 57mm is fine for a medium gun and adds to their strengths as escorts. The truth is any escorts are High value targets, so the T31 will be just as much at risk with a land attack capability as without. They are warships after all not constabulary vessels. I I think we need to lever… Read more »
Why a hull mounted sonar?
Fit a VDS.
Using a VDS overcomes a lot of issues with hull mounted sonars being at the mercy of environmental’s.
Mk 41 would really make these ships worth having, they need an offensive instead of just defensive armament. Radakin needs to put his money where his mouth is and get Mk41 VLS tubes ordered for installation.
I did read somewhere that the design still has the famous “bath tub” to take the Mk 41’s but this would not seem to fit in with the mission bay.
one of those things where different statements contradict each other
Greece has published the specs of the general purpose frigates they are purchasing from France. Very well equipped for the size:
Greek Parliament Releases the details of FDI Frigate deal – Naval News
The standard 2 are trading a couple of knots of speed and half the range for a frigate with 1000 tonnes less displacement thats better armed.
Size is not always an advantage if its smaller. Packing in more into a smaller space may seem clever, but its not necessarily good in practice. Here’s why. It ramps up the initial cost by making installation harder. Makes modernisation and up arming harder and slower. Reduces crew habitability. Does nothing for repairing battle damage, range or survivorbility. In fact what is there to like? Docking, painting, smaller radar target (questionable). The UK County class cruisers were a brilliant success just because they were large for the weapons they carried. The crew loved them compared to smaller more compact ships.… Read more »
Agreed.
Your missing the point that the bulk of the displacement difference is fuel.
They are only 15m shorter ~10%. But will be operating in much more confined waters.
A classic home example that is easily understood is the difference between a PC and a laptop. PCs always have a higher spec for a given price because it has more room. That means you can make components bigger and it is easier to keep it cool. For a ship, this could translate into better expansion possibilites, better power options and just generally easier to maintain and upgrade in the future.
But those FTI frigates cost the same as a French FREMM so the Marine Nationale is not happy to have to get 5 of those FTI.
The French doctrine is the FTI are the battle line optimized for conflict and the FREMM is what you have doing long patrols/humanitarian relief.
The savings of ordering 5 FTI over 5 more FREMM allowed for the La Fayette class to be refurbished rather than retired increasing the hull count and allowing the La Fayette to be dedicated to the home fleet freeing up other ships for foreign deployment.
No. The FTI savings is because they will not even put ECM’s, chaff and flare launchers in those.
Also surely the Greek navy is more littoral orientated…blue water secondary. Big difference.
it’s a pity BAE haven’t invested similarly into their proposed frigate factory, perhaps 5his should be a condition of receiving the T45 replacement order ( or not) it would also make sense to create a large ship facility at CL for the forthcoming requirement for large support and amphibious ships. ulimately I see the possibility for 5 yards to supply the RN with a rough order book of the following BAES submarine = 4 SSBN, 12 SSN’s BAES C1 Combat = 25 units @ 1 pa Babcock C2 Combat = 25 units @ 1 pa CL Large Ship build =… Read more »
BAE have applied for planning permission to modernise the site?
Yes I’m not sure why this is being ignored, it was reported and discussed here last November that Bae had applied for planning permission to extend their hall so that ships can be completed indoors. The problem might be that it potentially means demolishing I believe listed industrial structures which might be a problem but the intension is certainly there to extend.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bae-planning-to-expand-glasgow-shipyard/
2500 smaller ships am reading this right
Yes I believe when all the Rhibs, tugs, workboats, orcs etc are counted it comes in at 2500 units plus, add in the coast guard and the RNLI etc and
for the purposes of my planning and boat that is smaller than 30m would fall into this category.
I could be wrong but seem to remember a support co tract being announced on this website for the maintenance of this fleet over 10 years, and that where the figure comes from.
I had no idea it was as units as that would nice full equipt coast guard too
Maybe we could paint those Hercules
Red white reuse them for coast guard search rescue mpa air to air refuelling
God wish I was in charge of defence
Clarity issue – RNLI has nothing to do with the RN, it’s an independent charity so 2,500 units would not include RNLI boats.
Hi
I know but it is a uk charity and we could make it a condition that it buys it’s ships from these yards
In fact all uk charities should be forced to buy British or lose their tax free status
The key is how do we make sure we get the weight of orders to make the shipyard work
Probably wasn’t wise using RNLI in this context
Think the most recent RNLI hulls are all designed at the RNLI college, home grown and home built?…
The RNLI isn’t just a U.K. charity.
the RNLI is a uk registered charity that may have non uk activities but has its origins firmly within the UK.
RNLI are now an all in house from design to lifeboat station after the TAMAR class was finished, as it was deemed the only way to maintain quality. Asking them to buy lesser quality product because it suited a National ship building strategy, would be considered mildly reckless by most mariners and I imagine the donating public might have an issue with the RNLI propping up a bunch of profiteering shipyards
Its also a registered charity in Ireland and it’s origins predate the current UK formation, hence my comment that its not just a UK Charity.
Do what Australia does. Use foreign aid budget to build fishery/ OPVs for free issue to developing nations. Economies of scale, continuity of work, ability to long term plan etc
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian-class_patrol_boat
-The RNLI has its own boatbuilding facilities in Poole
SERCO operate the support fleet and there are ~50 vessels in the fleet (some quite new and others very old) they have a relationship with Damen who have built most of the newer vessels.
That’s an impressive fleet… how exactly does it get paid for?
Actually volume wise its more or less what we have now and if we really are spending £17bn p.a on equipment then it comes out of that budget. By standardising on platforms and not buying expensive fillers you will benefit from economies of scale and reduction in maintenance. so £4bn pa will fund this as the total cost is around £100bn over 25 years with the subs taking up over 60% of this cost. so we can afford it – if we get our shit together and stop running old ships far too long resulting in massive maintenance costs. We… Read more »
also please see Robs comment below, slowing things down costs money – building more at a regular tempo saves money (lots of)
on the carriers alone the government increased the cost by at least £1bn due to changing specs and then slowing the build down.
when you slow the build – BAE don’t lay people off they just work slower which makes the unit cost higher, then we compound this by reducing the order to fit the total funding.
This is self harm on a massive scale and something that needs addressing.
The thing curtailing the build rate of new RN ships is the treasury’s slow release of money. In the present situation surely the money now needs to be made available for as rapid a build as is possible? Moreover these T31s, as replacements for the GP T23s, should actually be general purpose combat frigates NOT patrol ships. The T31 is a good design but needs more Sea Ceptor SAMs and anti ship missiles. A meaningful weapons fit makes these ships militarily useful. Spending a lot of money on patrol boats is literally a waste of money.
exactly this, I’d like to think that over the next few years there will be a move to ensure T31 is fitted with the required VLS to accommodate a variety of weapons, ideally those already available to reduce lead times and development costs.
We have no idea what the T31 Ceptor fit is ATM.
We have no idea if Mk41 is now included.
All of it is based on CGI and models/wiki speculation.
I suspect we might hear an announcement soon….
Agreed!
I think RN shall add more T26, if 1st-tiear warfight is the main threat. T31 is T31. Uparming it is ok. But, it will never be a good ASW asset and Russia has a good fleet of SSN/SSKs.
Amazing what you can do if you have a vision, stick to a scope and assign the right budget at the right time.
You will never make treasury staff with an attitude like that!
In my opinion we need another carrier .
If one of the two is in refit , amp , or off the sea for whatever reason then the Roy Navy and Britain will not have the projection it requires .
Considering the present circumstances with Russia poised to invade Ukraine and China Sabre rattling another carrier out at sea will make these thug like countries think twice (hopefully)
Regards Jim Perry ex RN
For the economy this facility is really good to develop skills – and actually for the people working in such an industry, it must be really amazing to be part of such a project (developed with modern modular means) and then see it coming together. I hope a lot of work is being done on how to expand the ship building industry more generally – and if not hulls, then certainly technology for the ship building industry. The Type 31 itself though is a different matter – with the Type 26 the Royal Navy managed to create a vessel so… Read more »
The interesting thing at the moment is that the international situation has markedly deteriorated since the T31 was given the go ahead.
Now the type is in production, it has the crucial space and size to up-arm. They should move to increase SeaCeptor to 32, to match the outgoing T23, make them ER version, as it’s a relatively cheap way of providing medium range air defence and add Mk41 silos and double the build number to 10.
Type 26 should be raised to 12 ASW followed by the new T83, that should be at least 9 strong.
Agree your Sea Ceptor numbers. This should happen from the first hulls.
Can’t see us getting 12 T26 but if the commitment to increase frigate numbers from 19 to 24 is met then maybe another 2 T26 ASW and 3 T32 might be a better mix than +5 T32 GP? Assuming T32 is just a T31 batch 2 fit the Mk41 to later T31/T32 as they build and when you know what you want to put in them.
Wouls suggest that in order to maximise vessel availability plan could be to leave the T31 design as-is till commissioned for fixed price. (Prove fixed price no interference procurement concept) In background plan on upgrades post commissioning. Additional AAM to be CAAM-ER. Add 8 x cannister NSM for low cost installation providing surface and land attack capability. Add 12 x Brinstone III or Spear 3 cannisters / launch modules to provide low cost very rapid solution for smaller vessels or smaller land targets. Then for type 32 with a blank canvas go 5″ naval gun, Bow Sonar and Mk41 alongside… Read more »
What capability gap do you allude to WRT the T26 exactly??
No anti ship, or anti submarine capabilities – very very little consideration given to swarming attacks by either drones or lightweight vessels (noteworthy when they are supposed to be ‘East of Suez’) – the ship would be in the position of having to fire £40,000 100kg missiles at $250, 20kg drones; no consideration given to CIWS or directed energy weapons. The joke is they were based on an ‘air defence frigate’….which has both AShM and ASW Torpedoes – as well as a proper compliment of SA weapons including medium range SAMs, Rolling airframe and CIWS. These boats are low cost… Read more »
Hi fella, think you might be getting the T26 ASW frigate confused with the T31 GP frigate!
Either that or your original post that I queried has a typo….
My original post was with regards to the gaps in capability in the Type 31 – so considering the article is about the Type 31, I just misread your reply. In short my post stated “the Type 26 would not raise eyebrows in Beijing or Moscow, and THIS SHIP (Type 31) would not do so even in Iran.” That being said the Type 26 is just a list of off the shelf components, 20 year old radars pulled from scrapped ships, and we know it isn’t going to have any anti ship capability much before we’re all worrying about the… Read more »
Well apart from very possibly the T26 will be the best anti submarine frigate in the World which just might give concern to Moscow and Beijing yes that clarification makes a lot more sense. But though yes as you say the article may be about the T31 it was you in this instance not Deep32 as you suggest who raised the questions on T26 to which he was simply replying to by asking you to clarify your comments upon it. Some misinterpretation all round I think. the T31 well we don’t yet know their full armament but last report on… Read more »
It is a pretty big question mark over the T26s being the best ASW firgates in the world considering they’ll be using a systems suite that will be 17 years old by the time they are launched – two Chinese attack sub classes will have come off the drawing board and be in service since 2087 was installed in the T23, and the T26s are launched. (The same system used by FREMM and the Spanish F110s) Also let’s not forget we have 6 of ‘the best’ air defence destroyers in the world, whose net contribution at the moment is mostly… Read more »
Systems fitted to the original T23 have been modernised and updated beyond all recognition to what is fitted now. The original 2087 is not the same 2087 originally fitted to T23 and soon in the T26. Regarding it being the best , well it really is …2087/CAPTAS is the go to system for ASW. The colonial cousins across the pond cannot find or track modern subs using the systems they have on their destroyers. That may improve with their frigates when ever they get built. Its interesting to note that the LCS ASW module VDS which was to be fitted… Read more »
A bit of misunderstanding all around, no harm done fella. Got to disagree with you about our T26/T45s though. T45s are available (2/3) just not at sea at the moment. There is a good article over on ‘The pinstriped line’ ref T45 availability which expands on @GBs good post on an earlier thread ref their availablity, well worth a read. As for the need to up arm all our escorts with the latest must have ASM etc, it’s not how the Navy fights. Our escorts T23/26/45 are just that, escort ships designed to defend in their specialist field. They are… Read more »
My thought entirely the T26 isn’t based on anything it’s a ground up design and designed specifically as an anti submarine Frigate so the answer makes no sense.
I would disagree on the anti swarming capability the Bofors guns fitted are portably the most capable kinetic weapon against swarms. There’s options for programmable rounds. Also.opions that with proximity fused fragmenting rounds they’re more effective than CIWS. Navy lookout ran a good article on the Bofors fitted to the T31.Theres also another point worth considering if you are going to take on a T31 you will very likely see a combined response from the UK armed forces as minimum possibly a NATO response so the T31 doesn’t need to be armed to the teeth if you have credible deterrent… Read more »
Except the T31 is expected to be operating in places where it is likely to be operating alone (in regards to RN, or indeed NATO). While the RN may have other assets, allies may not be so thrilled at needing to supply that level of support to what is supposed to be a 6,000t class GP frigate.
A GP frigate is supposed to be able to do just about everything to some degree. A GP T23 can, a supposedly GP T31 can’t.
I don’t aggree. Let’s take somewhere like the gulf no single ship of any navy would see off an attack from Iran if it wanted to launch a sustained attack But what would follow would be a number of assets move to the region to respond that’s why a T31 would not be attacked it the first instance because its an act of war.
Let’s hope they can continue the orders. Things can only get better with price, timescales etc.
I’m so glad they are getting the basics right then worry about the kit.
We would not want to end up down the road of zumwalt and LCS. These are basic fighting ships to do the bread and butter patrolling and showing are presence with the ability to look scary and defend themselves from pirates, non state aggressors etc. The odd Yemeni anti ship missile stuff.
What will the Scottish Government do when Scotland is independant and the MOD put all new ships out to tender,there’s going to be a lot of unemployment at Rosyth.
Its called migration, people will move south!
It is interesting to see how comments change.
Years ago it was mostly doom and gloom here about T31. Now comments are mostly positive as it dawns they may not be as useless as first feared. Their decent size allows upgrades where necesary.
We saw a similar phenomenon with the River B2s. All moans, last article on them here was a positive love in.
Hi D. I’m really enjoying this piece and the comment- a god start to the week. I’ve always said that even with all his faults , Bojo has at least made a meaningful increase to defence investment.
Morning mate. Indeed.
But I’m still waiting for more goodies as part of it, I hope it doesn’t all vanish into cyber, space, and filling in black holes.
Sea Ceptor on T45 was an excellent example. Let’s get a confirmation ASM will he fitted to aircraft ASAP, dipping sonar, modest heli increases, things like that.
J made a good list on an earlier thread, this stuff really shouldn’t break the bank.
On the army side, yawning silence apart from GMLRS increases, which are modest in number and come at the cost to gun artillery. At least the rockets are improving.
B2 are well made reliable vessels but are arguably, under delivering on their potential utility given the quality of the vessels. Fit 2 x 40mm and / or take the concept brimstone 8 x launcher module that MBDA are working on integrating with Ajax and add a container UAV and you have a vessel that can be utilised for gulf escort purposes freeing up a T23 at a time when it could be usefully deployed elsewhere. Ps. Huge t31 concept fan and huge fan of simple force multipliers such as wildcat data link and dipping sonar etc Really not a… Read more »
Couldn’t agree more D. Much more to be done. A phased approach on the smaller (bit important) items is a great way forward.
I was one of them admittedly….few now would refute the B2’s place (initial build quality aside), see type 31 and the type 32 (surely the same hull) starting to look like pretty joined up thinking now.
Aside from the on going ‘fitted for’ budgetary constraints theres a shipbuilding strategy emerging before our eyes which is very good to see.
Agreed at least we have a plan that is fixable along the line as a worst case scenario, previously in many cases that simply wasn’t practical.
There’s a danger that the Type 31s will be used to replace the B2 Rivers, and not used as a warship at all, just forward-based presence/piracy-patrol ships. Four of the B2 Rivers will come back to the UK as fisheries protection and the B1s retired.
That will leave us with 5 overspecified, over-costly T31 patrol vessels, and 4 overspecified fisheries protection vessels, and 5 fewer escorts until the Type 32s arrive. But we won’t have to upgun anything and the Treasury will be terribly pleased.
I really hope I’m wrong about this.
Overtime Sell the B1 Rivers, move the B2 Rivers to replace the B1 Rivers role. Move the Type 31 to replace the B2 rivers in their role. Then build 10 Type 32, 5 of which replace the type 31 in their role Job done ✅.
Capability gap disaster recipe. Why would you spend twice as much operating Type 31s to do a job the B2 Rivers can do better (given some drones). More availability, less provocative.
Covered/indoors builds were something I could only dream of back in my shipyard days. Freezing to death in winter, boiing in the summer, rainwater pouring/pooling in & yard shut for safety in high winds. Shipyard closed for good early 1990s.
Hope these builds will be rapid to replace our clapped out ships asap.
As a frequent reader, but first time poster, given the current turbulent climate we find ourselves in, would there be a case to keep some of the type 23s just to provide a presence or undertake escort duties etc.
Obviously there’s the obvious staffing issues, but might it be a cheaper way of increasing numbers??
You’d have to price in cost of refit then cost of crewing and general operating cost fuel etc. The calculation might be say 3 or 4 23’s for 3 or 4 more years or 1 31 or 32 for 20 – 25 years. If we found ourselves in a war in the next couple of years it would make sense but if not you’d end up worse off.
They expect to keep some for many years to come. I think HMS St Albans will be the last to go in 2035. The Type 23 Life Extension programme is increasing the life of 12 Type 23s by an average of 8 years for about £600m. Even though they’ll spend 2 of those years in refit and more time in subsequent maintenance than a new ship, that’s still pretty good value. But all this is needed because of the mammoth delays in building the replacement Type 26s. Instead of creating an overlap and increasing the total number of frigates, this… Read more »
Thanks Jon
Very informative
“Expanding this to more Type 23s is the only mechanism likely increase sea days over the next five years.”
Yes for the T23 GP’s and T31, but not much scope to forward deploy T23 ASW vessels, due to their anti-submarine warfare role in the North Atlantic/N Sea. An exception would be Gibraltar for the Med. if need be.
If old Cochrane is still standing plenty of Accomadation for those 500 extra workers
I do wonder if we do get more of these ships and others will the royal fleet auxiliary need a boost. Say small tankers etc. They have the big tankers for the carriers and the amphibious groups but nothing really left for other ships. The navy must be going with we can refuel/Resupply from friendly countries around the world when needed. The new ships are large so perhaps they can fit on 90-180 days worth of supplies. It’s a lot of stuff though. My memory is letting me down as to where the RFA get there budget from. Is it… Read more »
Evening @MS, tend to agree with you ref the gun size on the T26. Given that the frigate is primarily a ASW asset, which will be spending the vast majority of its time working with CSG/LSG or with other ASW assets defending the GIUK gap, then you have to wonder if a smaller calibre (76mm) gun wouldn’t be just as effective, with the 127mm going on the T31? Can’t really see our T26s or T45s doing much of the naval gunfire support type stuff with the limited numbers of each we will have. Might be different if we had say… Read more »
“With the type 26 having the big gun and these less valuable ships having a smaller gun is there a case for a gun switch in the future.”
No, I like the idea of the type 26 having a 5″ /127mm gun that can fire mini depth charges, handy to scare those Ruski subs away.
Does anyone know how many mk41 the type 31 are fitted for but not with?
Don’t believe anyone knows that yet, just 1SL stating that they would be. More info may come to light as the build progresses…
Iver Huitfeld has 32 strike length Mk 41
Given what’s going on in Eastern Europe right now I would have thought the shipyard and the entire supply chain would be working 3 shifts per day, 7 days per week. A delivery time years away won’t help given someone has promised a nuclear winter if he doesn’t get his way entirely.
You also need at least two Trident subs on station right now.
Type 45 Update: “With the return of HMS Dragon to Portsmouth last week, at the time of writing, all six of the Type 45 destroyers are alongside or in dock. Depending on who you listen to, this is either an embarrassing disaster or entirely routine and no cause for concern. Here we look at the current situation and the complicated back story. Between 2026-32 they will receive 24 Sea Ceptor VLS cells, allowing their 48-cell Sylver VLS to be completely filled with the powerful Aster 30 missiles. Adding some Ballistic Missile Defence capability also remains a distinct possibility. The Type… Read more »
Hi Nigel, with the 4×6 Camm fit-out on the T45s, I wish they’d looked at upping this to the 6-8×6 utilising side silos as I think that there’s is the space. Then 48 Camm + 48 Aster would be a very potent combination. If the PIP and Camm/Aster upgrades are going to take so long maybe they could build an extra two extra T31/32 even as an more AAW orientated type? The frigate offers to Greece has MK41 and RAM, which could be replaced by Camm/Camm-ER maybe with a mini-version of the PAAMs or even the Albatross NG system. The… Read more »
Albatros NG = CAMM ER
Pithy comment inbound… Where’s the union flag?
Just shows what can be done when BAE are not involved. I really hope the T32 is just the T31 and we can end up with a fleet of 10 of these. Also what an amazing job the workers of Rosyth are doing to go from a yard that was to be closed to make way for marginal seats in the south of England in the 90’s to building two super carriers and now ten frigates having never built warship for decades is amazing. It’s also amazing that naval dockyard can do so much commercial work as well. The place… Read more »
Shame we cannot expand production facilities even further all over the UK. Double or triple the current capacity.
Good news
We made a good decision here. I’m so glad we chose the big hull option, plus even if the first T31 are initially under-armed the sheer size plus the previous weapons integration on the IH parent design bodes well for future up-arming potential. This is not a dead end – far from it.
Finally some good news. I am really hoping Babcock can deliver on time and to budget. Everyone agrees that the T31 has next to no offensive capability baring the ship’s Wildcat armed with Martlet and Sea Venom. Defensively it is so so, but could be better. I’m pretty confident that after the ships have been delivered, they will go through an enhanced lethality program. The question is what would be added to make the ship more lethal offensively and can enhance it defensively? First off you have to consider what will be it’s primary role? Which from both ministers and… Read more »
its a pity We cant have these Halls in every Ship yard build our Navy up Twice as Fast
Lets get another batch of 5 ordered- but with the 5 inch gun so optimised for NGS and surface strike, then another batch of 5 optimised for sub sea warfare/ with huge numbers of drones/ USV/USSVs, and then keep on building until we say stop. The RN needs to get back upto +26 escort warships and as fast as possible. War is most definitely coming.