With the keel laying ceremony for Type 31 Frigate HMS Active underway, there are now multiple frigates being built in multiple shipyards around Scotland.

The first blocks of HMS Active, the second Type 31 Frigate, have been laid out beside HMS Venturer at the Rosyth ‘frigate factory’, showcasing the scale and potential of one of two planned frigate fabrication facilities in Scotland.

At 147 metres long, the hall can comfortably fit three Olympic-sized swimming pools, and the 30-metre high doors can accommodate two vessels being assembled at the same time side by side, just as we’re now seeing.

Unfortunately, due to other commitments, I was unable to attend the Keel Laying Ceremony but we’ll do our best to supply you with all the latest news and imagery.

I previously wrote that Scotland’s naval shipbuilding industry is witnessing a renaissance, a boom that promises consistent growth well into the 2040s.

The renaissance of naval shipbuilding in Scotland

Shipyard workers in the heart of Glasgow, Rosyth and Port Glasgow are busier than they have been in decades, fabricating steel and constructing some of the Royal Navy’s most advanced warships. A sector once marred by periods of ‘feast and famine’ is now witnessing a resurgence, with its shipyards humming with activity and its workforce expanding.

You can read more on my views here.

George Allison
George Allison
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
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

187 COMMENTS

      • Yes. With two build halls either complete or in progress. It the T31 and T26 are successful designs this could provide 2-4 ships per year for a far cheaper price per unit building up the number of hulls to increase the UK presence worldwide at a reasonable cost

        I am fully expecting those here to tell me this will never happen. The issue really is that we change designs every 3 seconds adding vast quantities of cost resulting in fewer ships. Let’s face it these type of ships will be gone in 30-40 years to be replaced by drones. This will be a period of hybrids with drones working with standard frigates until the fridates etc. are no longer needed. The writing is on the wall. We need to get used to it.

        • Dont even think its ‘1 ship per year’ combined from 2 yards.
          Glasgow 1st steel jul 2017
          Venturer Set 2021

          The build process is very very slow- for good reasons apparently- for both types

          • The build process for the T31 is fast! The first to be built is nearly structurally complete. It is the fitting out phase that is slow.

          • Well you need both ! So that was my point .
            Im very surprised the basic fitout doesnt seem apparent in Venturer at all

        • “…The issue really is that we change designs every 3 seconds…”

          Too much hyperbole on here!

          We don’t, change designs every 3 seconds!
          The Type 26 frigate, is the first new type of frigate for over 30 years!
          Even the T31 parent frigate design is now nearly 20 years old.

    • Defence is sadly an easy cut.

      I really hope not as this is getting build costs down a treat.

      Hopefully a good hard look at wether spending £100+m on refitting T23’s was worth it as opposed to getting on with T26 and T31 soonest.

      It would have been perfectly possible to have a T31 hull with Artisan + Sea Ceptor + BAE CMS and other bits all stripped off the T23’s. When you look at it like that spending 2/5 ths of the price of a brand new hull on the GP clonkers makes zero sense – that us before you get to the amounts spent in other post 18yr refits which have been quite large.

      I hear NaB’s argument on NL about Treasury but that argument doesn’t hold water when the ships hull gets to a stage where it can’t meet class rules except with crazy amounts of welding inserts. Nothing on those ships was designed for longer than 18 years so the running costs must be rising fast. There is also the issue of having to agree new support contracts for those legacy parts as the MOD will only have contracted for 18 years.

        • They might have got confused about numbers Jim when Blair and Brown dumped the T42’s, most of the T22’s and sold off the three new T23’s to Chile. You probably forgot that bit.🙄

          • I hope your not suggesting the navy should still be using the 22 and 42 ships in 2023.
            The last 42 was commissioned in 1985.
            The 22 would of been costly to keep going with the batch 3 commissioned 88-90.
            Perhaps the batch 3 22 could of went to 2015-18 with a big costly refit.

          • I think what I said was blatantly obvious. Blair/Brown got rid of more ships than Cameron. I was replying to Jim who seems to think that everything bad in UK defence is down to the Tories where in fact the opposite is true.

          • It’s not just the Tories, labour also harvested the defence tree cutting huge swathes off it’s branches. The Tories have only continued the cutting so that the UK armed forces are but a shadow of their former selves.

          • The batch 2/3 type 42s went out of service in 2011-15 and so did the batch 3 22. That’s coalition rule after labour.

          • Agreed. The six T42’s were replaced by the sic T45’s. There would of course have been more if Labour hadn’t cancelled the other six The batch 3 Type 22’s were decommissioned because of their obsolescent Seawolf and the very heavy crew numbers needed for the T23′.

          • I think most people would agree that both parties have reduced the forces and the equipment a lot. Where the low point will end up who knows.
            Most members of the public/voters don’t have a clue about defence except they want it to do what’s needed in a crisis. Most politicians are the same. It’s expected with the budget they have they can do whatever is asked of them.

          • No argument with that. Defence is easy to sideline. There would be more fuss in the papers if the BBC cancelled an episode of Strictly…💃

          • That was the trade off for the new carriers. Maybe it wasnt a great choice but it was transparent. Were stuck with the appalling Astute program, which was signed less than 2 months before the election which Major lost- that was billions pounds down the drain as it was clearly too soon and had to re bid with BAE holding a loaded $%$ to the taxpayers head

            Cameron & Co just ran down the T22, didnt even deliver on their own upgrade program.
            Delayed the T26 till just before the 2015 election and wasted years on the OPV make work program

          • Agreed I think 2015 was about it. Major long refit could have seen it 2022 but then sea wolf would need to be kept running etc.

    • US intelligence briefing out today says China has 200 times the US shipbuilding capacity and they are adding 40 ships to their fleet every 5 years and replacing old ships.

      We need every bit of shipbuilding capacity we have to keep up.

      If rosyth scores the T32 build + 2 for NZ and the Corvettes it has enough orders to get it to the T31 replacement order assuming a 25 year service life for the current vessels.

      • Fortunately the plan has more than the USN to counter it. In addition to the USN presence in the far east are the navies & shipbuilding of Taiwan, Austrailia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore & others. All of whome have not fallen into the trap of “Peace dividend” running down of their forces. They’ve been acutely aware of the danger & growth of a hostile & expansionist PRC & have been building up their forces accordingly.

        • I think you will find everyone one of those countries you list spend significantly less than the UK total and as a % of GDP excluding singapore and the USA which have political rather than security motivations for spending on military’s.

        • Correct.
          SK Oceanplant Cuts Steel For 2nd FFX Batch-III Frigate

          SK Oceanplant also announced its detailed plan to hold the keel laying ceremony for this vessel on April 1st, 2024, with the launch scheduled for the end of November of the same year.

          Following the launch, from May 2025 to June 2026, the vessel will undergo a sea trial campaign before finally being delivered to the RoK Navy. Additionally, following the delivery of the second ship, the third and fourth ships are also scheduled to be delivered with a six-month interval.

          The third ship is set to be delivered on December 31, 2026, and the fourth ship will be handed over on June 30, 2027.

          https://www.navalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/HHI-Starts-Construction-on-ROK-Navys-First-FFX-Batch-III-Frigate.jpg

        • Also.

          “MADEX 2023: Hanwha Ocean Unveils Joint Strike Ship ConceptHanwha Ocean unveiled the concept model of the new “Joint Strike Ship” at MADEX 2023, an exhibition held in Busan last month.
          The Joint Strike Ship is the future Arsenal Ship of the ROK Navy which Naval News has been covering over the past couple of years.”
          LINK

      • Don’t say the corvette word. The RN doesn’t believe in them. Although a corvette class is precisely what the NATO allies need if they are not going to be overwhelmed by a Chinese navy with numerical, but not necessarily qualitative superiority over the USN and it’s allies in the Eastern Pacific region. Containment of China is the strategy. If enough forward deployed munitions and troops can be positioned and partner nations can build up enough strength then containment could work.
        If the Chinese do launch a campaign of conquest then it will be bloody and brutal warfare and very expensive attritionally.

          • I’d have thought they would salil there. 🤔
            Least that’s the traditional way a navy vessel tends to deploy.
            I’m thinking a forward deployment of a surface action primed corvette squadron with the support of a few frigates could be the UKs contribution towards ensuring a presence in the region.
            The big stick carrier strike group can be deployed if China and it’s allies do something unwise and cross the line.

          • Well given that it’s 10,000nm from the Clyde to the SCS and the longest ranged corvettes have fuel for not even half that, they won’t be sailing there.
            (And that’s before we start to factor in the whole days at sea and provisioning issues).

          • Whats the only RN ship in the Pacific currently ?

            HMS Tamar or HMS Spey… how did they get there . Did they not need refuelling too ?

            Im not a fan of these level of ships but its silly to say corvettes cant do long distance stuff

          • Not really, Spey and Tamar both are designed to be ocean going ships, and both have a considerable range advantage over even the longest range Corvettes. Not to mention the fact that they have provisions for over a month at sea, compared to a week for most Corvettes.

            Which is why when Tamar and Spey sailed to the East Indies they went through the Pacific.

            It’s not at all silly to point out the fact that Corvettes by design can’t do long distance stuff while pointing out that ships that are designed to do long distance stuff can.

          • Clearly the UK needed longer range and built accordingly

            Singapore victory class corvettes are 4000nm range at 18 knots just under Tamar at 5000nm at 10-12 kts

            What did you say was silly and what does by design mean to you
            Check Damen naval shipyards Corvettes – light Frigates page. or the corvettes they built for Indonesia
            SIGMA Corvette 9113Speed (maximum power) 28 knots Range at 14/18 knots 4800 / 3600 NM Endurance 20 days at sea
            https://www.damen.com/vessels/defence-and-security/sigma-frigates#deepdive

            Maybe you are confused with the ‘fast combattant’ types

          • This is where it worth double checking Wkipedia, the Singapore Navy lists the a Voctory class ranger as 2,000nmi, which seems way more likely a) given the size and armament of them and b) its the navy saying it.

            As for a SIGMA 9113 3600 nm, so just over half of what a River can do. Same for days at sea. This is not a long range asset, from a UK perspective it could only just get across the Atlantic, no ops along the way, and be out of fuel and provision when it got there, meanwhile a T31 or R2, the two ends of out scale can do that comfortably.

            Also worth noting that the Corvettes built for Indonesia, and I had to dig for this, where 400m ea. This is where it really stops making sense, because at that price you’re not looking at replacing Rivers, you’re looking at T31 money.

            But hey thanks for the condescending tone. Really making yourself look great there.

          • Doesnt matter about crossing Atlantic, we are talking about for SE Asia here. No one here thinks the RN will be buying Corvettes, its just your view of them as sort short ranged fast combattants doesnt realise they are really light frigates in all but name
            No warship would sail from UK to say Singapore without refuelling along the way, or take their tanker with them
            Thats another pointless thing, so forget them for the RN , no one is arguing they buy them at all.
            Apologies for condescending tone

        • Babcock and Saab will be working on a jv on a new corvette for Sweden so good luck to them with that. If not the RN then others will be takers. Hopefully Babcock can get some more T31/A140 orders and the T32 build. We harp on about this, but if the T31 is such good value and a quick build why not a few more for the RN? Great looking shed too!

          • Yep the t31 is exactly what the RN needs..reasonable budget, big hull, good facilities for small ship flight, good range and sea keeping, good air defence capabilities ( and CAMM x2 40mm x1 57mm is good air defence capability)..added to the fact it will have mk41 silos for a decent strike package…it’s exact what the RN need a good number of..personally I hope the T32 program is merged into the T31 programme and they simply chug out 10 T31s

            6 T45
            8 T26
            10 T31s
            5 rivers 2

            That would make a very decent surface fleet for all the tasking the RN needs to do..with the T31s loaded with strike packages becoming a real local deterrent.

          • Wonder if the RN would ever go for a few Harry Dewolf style AOPVs for high north and far south? Hangared, smaller than a T31, bigger than a River B2.

          • Something like that would make a good replacement for the rivers batch 2 in around 20 years.or if they could afford the crew as a replacement for the rivers batch 1 soon ( although I don’t think we will see the batch ones replaced as they were only kept on due to the frigate procurement mess up and were meant to be replaced by the batch 2s).

          • I’ve said this a year ago, add our two carriers and the other canzuk countries and the USA. What more do folks want?!

        • People forget about Uncle Sam’s main Naval asset, his extremely powerful SSN fleet.

          The reality is, if China lost its bloody marbles and and attacked it’s neighbours, the US and it’s regional allies would wipe the floor with them.

          A concentration of 10 USN SSN’s in the South China sea and the Chinese Navy would be absolute toast…

          Twisted burning wrecks afloat and more on the seabed.

          A Chinese amphibious attack on Taiwan would end the same way….

          A Chinese attack anywhere in that area would be fatal for the Chinese economy and would probably plunge world into a severe economic depression, as our world economies are so interlinked today

          It would be mutually assured economic destruction and utterly pointless.

          • It would lead to a mutually destructive world war, but I’m not completely sure that would stop it happening. It’s ever stopped wars before.

            in regards to the SSN fleet, the issue is a lot of the china seas and especially the strait are not great SSN territory..lots of shallows close to enemy air, noisy, lots of places for ambush ing a big nuclear boat and what china has developed is a lot of small electric boats specially designed for the conditions in the china seas…if the US sent its SSNs in close to the Chinese cost in a shooting war they will loss them in a bloody contests with small disposable assets…the US SSNs will probably be used in the wider pacific against the Chinese large surface combatants and nuclear boats…as whatever happens around the strait the war will spill into the whole pacific and then the whole world…you may actually see the U.S. decide to spend Taiwan for time and to attrit china…knowing it will be a very long and likely world wide conflict.

        • A corvette is a completely useless vessel in the pacific. They are all inevitably short range and poor sea keepers. Corvettes are very specifically for brown water activities close to home. That’s why they are seen on the northern flank….not something an island nation with a global navy has much use for.

          the simple fact is playing in chinas back door is going to be a way to lose vast amounts of assets in a bloodbath. It is incredibly unlikely that either side will win a U.S. China war in any short timeframe…it will end up with two super powers fighting to strategic exhaustion…from that scenario they will inevitably spread the war into the wider pacific as they try to interdict each others trade ( that will require large long range combatants)..they will then draw all their allies or affiliated nations into the conflict..to either secure or close down access to global resources…you will see Iran close the gulf..wars in Africa and South America to secure or deprive resources…..there is no viable containment strategy against a continental superpower with allies and affiliates ( the china Russia block stretch’s from the Northern European seas to the pacific)…it will end up being a global war of attrition between the west and china, Russia, Iran block…corvettes are not the answer to that for the Uk…what we are building now is the answer…SSNs with huge strategic mobility and strike capability…long range warships that can support and protect a carrier battle group to punch its way through enclosed seas and fight Iran…the ability to fight an air war in the north against Russia while closing off the north east passage.. marines to support the northern flank and stabilisation troops to support the wars in Africa that will occur…..china attacking Taiwan will probably be an operation based around strategic supprise..but if it works or does not work it will simply be the first step in a global conflagration…..look at Russian and Ukraine..modern nations even if massively over matches don’t go down unless it’s via strategic exhaustion the only way that either china or the US will admit defeat is via strategic exhaustion and they are two supper powers an occean apart….that’s a 5-10 year global conflict..or a shorter trip to nuclear Armageddon.

          • As I said it’s fine if you’re defending local waters…but for for the RN it’s not going to be any good in the pacific. The response was to a comment that the RN and US should be buying corvettes to counter china…which would be pretty useless.

          • You said its completely useless in Pacific. Not that the RN should involved anymore but plenty of countries know the littoral waters are where they need to have a good capability

          • History says differently. In WW2 the RN had a fleet of nearly 1000 corvettes. Black swan, flower and Castle classes. These vessels were used in the Atlantic at ranges of 1000+ miles from shore bases. So a modern corvette of 2000-3000 tons equivalent to what used to be labelled a light frigate or destroyer escort would I’d have thought had enough legs and sea keeping to manage ranged deployments.

          • As I’ve pointed out several times, Corvettes in WW2 are not the same thing as modern corvettes. The use of the word has changed.

            Modern Corvettes are heavily armed littoral vessels designed to fight surface combatants in their back yards. WW2 Corvettes where lightly armed, slow, Anti-Submarine specialists that literally had the job of puttering across the Atlantic fending off submarines that where maxing 8 knots.

          • Cheers mate, I think you missed a few zeroes from the prices of the Braunschweig and Rivers though? Or they’re a bargin 😛

          • So I did.quick buy them all up while we can…I’m sure we could sell them all on for a profit at that price..😂😂😂

          • Hi mr bell, those corvettes from WW2 are different beasts from a modern corvette and were very lightly armed and share more linage with a patrol boat than a modern corvette. A modern corvette is very heavy armed and this limits their range and sea keeping

            But just look at a flowers class corvette had a range of 3500 miles at 12 knots …that meant they just about had enough range to cross the Atlantic plodding along slow… going in a pretty strait line and only having very little reserve for a few full speed dashes…to many and they would run out of oil……a rivers class patrol boat 6500miles

            The Flowers class corvette was designed for inshore work and it was pure hell for the crew making a transatlantic crossing. The entire ship would be awash with every wave, the living decks were constantly awash with spray and everything was always soaked the crew slept on tables or any corner they could find.

            they were shocking at sea keeping..and would make even hardened sailors throw up with and 80 degree roll..living on a flowers claw corvette as hell.

            it was also no better armed than a patrol boat with a small medium gun ( 4 inch ) a couple of light guns and a set of depth charges.

            its endurance was no more than that needed for a 10 day Atlantic crossing and that was cramming food in every corner…

            but a better comparison is to compare a modern corvette with a rivers two and you will see why the navy as a global forces uses rivers 2 and not a corvette.

            The German K130 class is a classic 1800 tonne corvette.
            76mm gun, 4 anti ship missiles, 2 ram block 2 Sam launchers with 42 Missiles…hanger and flight deck for 2 cam copters.

            But and this is important…cost was 400,000 euros per unit in 2017 money. The rivers 2 cost around £127,000 so a you get three rivers 2 for a full fat corvette.

            Then you have crew the k130 has a crew of 65 a rivers 2 35 so almost twice the cost in crew.

            so your buying and running 2-rivers 2 for every full fat corvette…with change.

            A k130 only has a range of 4000NMs vs 6500NM on the rivers 2…it only has an endurance of 7 days vs 35 days for the rivers 2…that means a K130 can just cross the Atlantic no loitering around on mission…it cannot cross the pacific without around 5 stops or complete restock of its stores ever 7 days….the rivers two can potter around all month.

            So corvettes cost the same as a type 31 and are 65% of the crew of a frigate so why not just have frigates…the corvette has to little range endurance and high crew costs to be a cost effective constabulary vessel so why use it for that…corvettes are specifically for nations that need brown water combat power only.

          • Most of the AO in the pacific theatre is brown or green water, not a lot of action off Midway. Almost all in SCS. Corvettes are handy for such areas but require forward basing which Singapore won’t provide in a war.

        • Nato is purely Europe-North Atlantic . Its foolish in current circumstances to be even think of playing with toys elsewhere . How did Afghanistan turn out or the Libyan adventure

          Even now The EU countries adjoining Ukraine have banned their wheat even in transit , as you know farmers must be appeased

          • Personally I think if the west can disentangle itself from needing Taiwan all the better..at present the west has backed itself into a corner around Taiwan due to semi conductors…the reality is the ROC and CCP relationship issue is an issue for china (as both claim to be the real Chinese government)….and at some point the republic of China and people’s republic of China will need to sort it out and the west needs to be in a situation that if the peoples republic of china does something unpleasant the west only needs to respond with sanctions and the UN ..not take part in a conflict that at best will kill hundreds of thousands, and decimate our navies and at worst will trigger world war three.

          • Just going to point out that Libya is in our backyard and we should 100% have been more involved there. As it was we just destabilized the country and then let Wagner run amok in it. But we where very much in another “We can win wars just by dropping things on people” phase in 2011.

        • It’s utterly beyond us Graham, quite frankly all the UK could contribute to a general war in the far East is a strongly worded letter…..

          We’ve cut away our capabilities to the very point of being ineffectual today, with possibly just enough equipment to defend the UK and a small contribution to NATO.

          That’s were we are today like it or not and we are among a small group of folks who actually care enough to be absolutely horrified by our lack of capability today.

          Most people (80%) of the population simply don’t give a toss…..

          • In reality you want you area defence ships protecting a small number of high end assets…the reality is you would need 4 type 42s to defend a carrier ( infact the navy planned for 4 type 82s to defend each carrier and they had the same air defence capabilities) so with the rule of three..we only ever had enough type 42s to defend one task/carrier group..the 6 type 45s gives us better coverage as the 42s were not very good air defence platforms…one type 45 has a very good chance of defeating any realistic air attack on a carrier…2 42s would be overwhelmed by 6 anti shipping missiles. So if you look at the rule of three we could actually realistically proved adiquate air defences to 2 task group or very good air defence to 2 task groups with 2 type 45s.

            If you then add into that the fact a CAMM armed type 23 or type 26 is going to a far better air defence platform that a type 42 ever was..then we are doing pretty well from an air defence point of view…you have to remember that the majority of RN escorts in the 1970s and 1980s had literally no air defence capability at all…so the present RN is doing very well with air defence.

          • Excuse me but your chirpy optimism and realistic assessment of the current capability compared to what it’s replacing is damaging the current narrative of “we are all doomed”. 😀

          • Yes…we are doomed….total and utterly….it will be rubber dinghies armed with a paintball gun by Christmas….you just watch.

          • You make a good point Jonathan. Assuming the T45 is protected from other threats it’s radar and CCS linking into a T26 and even a T31 with CAMM would greatly increase the cover. I had forgotten how badly earlier frigates were in the AA department.

          • Hi Geoff, yes one of the areas I’m really actually positive on is the RN and it’s development of a fleet that is able to put up very good area defence networks.

            The reality is that any of the RNs frigates will be more effect AAW platforms than a type 42 ever was ( range clearly sea dart was better than CAMM, but CAMM is faster, more able to engage anti ship missiles, have a greater load out, can engage more targets more quickly…a type 42 was only realistically able to engage 2 fast moving threats) Now every RN frigate can provide very effective short range air defence for not only itself but also anything it’s escorting.

            Also at the time of the T42 as discussed the ability of the bulk of RN frigates to defend even themselves against air attacks by stand off weapons and anti ship missiles was none existent..it’s always worth remembering where the RN was at and I love lists:

            So the RN list of frigates without any real ability to defend itself against an Anti ship missile or fast jet ( so pointless sea cat and light AA guns)

            Type 21 x8
            Leander batch 1 x8, batch 2 x8
            Rowthesay x9
            Type 81 x3
            Whitby x2

            frigates that could defend themselves but no one else ( sea wolf)
            Type 22 x14
            Leander batch 3 x10

            So we had 30 frigates that were essentially targets and 24 that could just about defend themselves.. ( rembering that sea wolf armed leanders only had one fire control radar and the type 22s had two..so again anything more than two targets would likely overwhelm). Where as a frigate with 30+ CAMM that can engage multi targets with a mach3+ volley of missiles.

            my only concern is that we don’t put adiquate numbers of CAMM on the type 31….but you have to remember a lot of French frigates ( even the new ones) have a handful of self defence SAMs only so we are doing very well.

          • Hello again Jonathan, been away for a couple of days. Yes, it’s easy to forget how poorly armed some of our ships were. A twin 4.5 or Exocet, often not together and a Seacat or two. I know we have to take into account the standard of aircraft and air attack but even, so as your list suggests, air defence should almost have been called air survival for each. Even the T22 batch three could only just about look after themselves which is why they were de commissioned refits costing a small fortune.

            Even allowing for more modern aircraft ship for ship we are way better off. I’m still concerned about hulls but a Type 42 and a Type 22 with 14 missiles available for launch against a T45 and a T23 with 120 does put it into perspective.

            Moving sideways, do you know whether anybody has trialed firing a Martlett from a drone? It would be very useful for any size of ship.

          • Of the six built Robert, we are lucky to have 3 actually available for tasking, generally it’s only two.

            Admittedly, once they have all have the propulsion / radar/ weapons systems updates, e.g, updated Samson, Astor NG and the new forward Sea Ceptor farm, they will be very impressive Air defence assets indeed….

            I would be tempted to also replace the obsolete mk8 mount with T31’s more flexible 57mm mount.

            So riding shotgun for a Carrier task group into a warzone will require two, for some redundancy.

            One for a normal deployment is fine, but certainly two for a potential shooting war.

            That leaves nothing for anything else, is that responsible or acceptable??

            What if we need to cover a convoy or amphibious assault into the same war zone??

            We will be reliant on our allies.

            The actual minimum number of Air Warfare ships needed is 9 in my opinion.

        • in reality the west as a whole needs to stay ahead of china, Russia, Iran…we just need to do our bit..and the ability to form a carrier battle group that can cover the med/India occen in case of a china U.S. war…support with a pair of SSNs in the pacific, have an amphibious group for the northern flank to keep Russia honest…that’s as much as we can realistically do.

          • Yes, imaging if all the European great powers did as much as us, would be quite the fleet in the Indian Ocean blocking China trade routes.

          • We don’t need them, canzuk navies, USA, Japan, 5 power agreement? Do you think it’s the 1800s or something?

          • No Robert I don’t, however Japan the USA and the CANZUK navies are all in the pacific, which is close to China but far away from the Middle East and the oil.

            European navies including us will primarily focus on an oil blockade against China in the IO and containing Russia in the Atlantic well the pacific navies plus one or two British submarines focus in whipping out the PLAN.

            That’s the official war plan for NATO+.

          • The best way to counter the Chinese is economy wise china might be banging all those tubs together, but, like the old soviet Union it is struggling to pay for it the Chinese economy is wobbly.even small sanctions would be a massive hit on them the soviet union feel apart when it realised it couldn’t compete with the west.financially and tech wise.

          • Forget about the amphibious stuff the royal marines won’t be storming any beaches in the next decade or the next we should bear that in mind and make decisions based on the need we’ll have to face.

          • Will in Truth the amphibious groups are not about storming the beaches..which will not happen, they are about:

            1) being able to quickly and effectively Strengthen the northern flank of NATO….the northern flank very specifically needs amphibious troops with artic training ( aka the RM in a amphibian)..that’s because the geology is shite and moving by ship is the best way..also it’s very hard to fight so in that arena so combined arms battle groups are off and specialists infantry delivered by floating things are king.

            2) The amphibious vessels are command and control centres for combined navel and lane ops.

            3) there are lots of areas of the world that need sudden stabilisation support from light infantry delivered by a boat flying in stabilisation troops may be impossible or high risk…compared to 400 marine suddenly in place holding a port with all their kick and logistics in place with them.

            4) Amphibious vessels are great multi purpose platforms…for helping out…acting as mother ship etc etc.

      • Never mind what China is doing, at the end of the day, we will have 35 I think of these between three of the four canzuk countries. Add the US navy then add Japan, Italy, France and the JEF between us and the Nordic nations. What you worried about?

      • I strongly suspect that the PLAN is something of a paper tiger compared to the USN. Also, they are now having to face the problem of balancing new build vs maintaining and upgrading the hundreds of vessels that are starting to age, moving from “shiny and new”, to increasingly dated with lots of defects that need dockyard time.

        Also, its far too early to count on any T31 order from NZ. They are looking for “innovative” proposals to replace 8 out of the RNZN’s 9 ships in the 2030’s. It’s far from certain that the two ANZACs will be directly replaced by new frigates. A mix of large OPVs and Multi-Role Vessels (MRV’s) seems far better suited to the country’s needs and very limited defence budget.

        • I think NZ really needs two frigates. Having two fairly high end frigates like T31 or T32 allows them to make a meaningful contribution to any allied coalition force. A bunch of MRV’s would only be useful is they came with perhaps a very high end MCM capability which is expensive or large force of Marines which is all expensive. I certainly see a place for MRV for them but I think they need atleast 2 frigates. With the cost of T31 being relatively modest compared to most alternatives it seems like the best fit.

          It may even be precursor to them for mini AUKUS getting US missiles to stick in Mk41 on British built frigate.

    • Even if we can get up a drumbeat of a frigate a year ( one every two years from each yard and you will not get better than that really after fitting out and sea trials is taken into account ) that’s still only going to sustain a fleet of 24-25 ships if they are retired after 25 years……realistically you still need an extra yard on top for larger vessels as well as RFA as well as other yards such as appledore to supply all the smaller vessels.

      The cut to the ship building orders over the previous decade due to austerity and stupid delay lead to a capacity drop to ship building capacity well below what is needed to sustain the RN.

      if your aiming for 24 escorts you need 2 yards working on three escorts at a time…it takes four to eight years to build and commission an escort so unless your working on 6 total at any one time ( two building and 1 fitting out in each yard) your not going to be able to maintain six.

      we also have a need for around 23 large hulled auxiliary vessels from 5000 to 25,000 tonnes ranging from purpose build amphibious vessels to RoRo. Even if we palm off the RoRo strategic sea lift and tankers to extern ship builders that’s still more than one ship yard will be able to support.

      Then you have the smaller patrol ships and small vessels which is work for ever for Uk boat builders….

      effectively as long as you properly plan and fund a navel ship plan….there should be work for 3-4 major yards ( not including submarine) as well as a small host of boat builders….it’s been government incompetence and dogma that lead to the feast famine

        • Indeed and that’s the problem…we should have never dropped from a drumbeat of one escort a year…..it was incredibly incompetent of both Labour and the conservative governments..the moment Dragon was in the water, there should have been work started on the first replacement for the type 23 and batch 3 22s…the escort fleet should never have dropped below 26…

          • After dragon hit the water every UK yard was busy building the carriers. It was the gap left post 2010 that caused the issue. Labour set up a minimum annual spend guarantee of £250 million to force this. The Cameron government wasted it on 5 OPV’s.

          • The MOD was still struggling to decide what colour it was going to be painted.look at how long it took to finally get the specs of T26,T31.

          • A ship in service every couple of years? Not good enough Glasgow will still be fitting out or rusty by the time new ships are actually joining the fleet we should be mor ambitious than that

      • Thanks for that deeper look and conclusions.
        Belfast yard is shaping up to be the place for larger hulled support and supply vessels who dont need the high level military fit out

      • The fitting out issue needs a good looking at, it’s far,far too long much of it could be done by the pre fitting out of the modules before they are joined to the main shell.

  2. Unfortunately, due to other commitments, I was unable to attend the Keel Laying Ceremony but we’ll do our best to supply you with all the latest news and imagery.

    George, thanks for posting regular reports on the progress of these welcome developments.

  3. Some good news after a week of critical reports. Excellent. I can’t help but think that if our government wanted to pick up some votes (cynical) but more particularly they wanted to move the R.N. forward a second batch of T31’s with contracts signed would be even better news, otherwise I can see the T32’s disappearing if (?) Labour win the election.

      • If re-elected the Tories are much more likely to ditch their vague assurances about the paper T32.
        They already reduced RN manpower LAST YEAR by 1000 or so,

        The Army is down 10,000 from the last major white paper – sure it was a fantasy number even then.

    • Who ever is it government next has to get the escorts back up 21 minimum. That’s only 7 normally deployable at one time. Even that is not good. 25 could at a push make 10.

    • Could they actually be worse than the Tories, look at the utter mess they have left the RN in….

      I’m no Labour supporter, but the Tories have absolutely trashed our Armed forces during their tenure.

      Cameron’s savage cuts should have resulted in us being kicked out of NATO, if I was the US president, I would have threatened just that unless they were reversed!

      I’m voting Reform Party, as are many others, the incompetence of both the useless Tories and Labour parties, ( the blind leading the bloody blind) is absolutely bewildering…..

    • Well the large carriers were their baby , Darings build started in their time ,Astute contract was signed 2 months before the Tories lost the election- poor contract as it turned out . The Tories put the T26 development on hold for 5 years after 2010 election and gave OPV instead and expensive and reduced T23 MLU

      I wish people would check their claims in these matters, as Labour is at least more committed to regular build . Yes they have made the RN smaller but it came with some other baubles instead ( sold T23 but built carriers)

  4. Pity that the frigate factories weren’t in construction these are world leading facilities and must be made the most of. Good news all round. Now, damn the torpedoes full steam ahead!

  5. Excellent news. Hopefully soon we’ll catch up with the rate of retiring the T23s, replacing with ne T26 & 31s. The T23 has done a fantastic job. Even more capable with the Seaceptor upgrade. Designed in view of the lessons from the Falklands war 1982.

  7. Type 32 order and confirmation needs to be signed in blood with a prohibitively expensive cancellation clause before the next general election. We have to have those ships fixed into construction.

    • Very unlikely given the period of purdah coming into a general election.

      If T32 was going to be accelerated then that way then main gate would need to be in the next six months: which I don’t think it is.

    • I can’t see Shapps/Sunak doing that. I don’t think steel will need to be cut on the first T32 until 2027. So contacts in 2026 perhaps. If the wanted to get a contract out before the election, the concept would have been announced eight months ago and industry would have preliminary designs well underway. However we are following the default path, which is to delay everything as long as possible. We’ll have to see what the concept requirements suggest next year. I hope those are then used to tweak the T31 design and simply move forward.

      • In all fairness it did do the industry rounds for top level costings and MOD blanched at the price.

        Hence, the go around.

        • Does that not require the concept phase to fully completed, before costing are produced? We know very little what T32 role is and it’s capabilities yet.

        • Personally I think they should just go with another batch of 5 type 31s. It’s a good hull, plenty of space for autonomous vehicles, big flight deck etc.

          The step change is probably going to come from the type 83…they should stick the design teams all working up that and just keep building on a proven hull design…for now.

          • I like Babcock’s evolved T31 concept with the ability to better operate USV’s and perhaps noise reduction for ASW. It can free up T26 then to escort CSG. One T31 forward deployed in the Gulf with 1 T32 forward deployed in Singapore. Add that to 2 forward deployed SSN AUKUS in Australia and we can restrart the eastern fleet 😀

          • Hi Jim, yes a slightly evolved batch 2 of the T31 would work as long as there is no long pause in the production line.

          • I think we should wait until the concept phase is complete, to see what the outcome is for the T32 to the needs of the RN and campaign for it.

          • Unfortunately I think the batch 2 T45 sailed a long time ago ( or more to the point did not sail). To replace the first of the T45s by its 30th birthday the RN need a type 83 in the water and commissioned by 2039, As its takes a good 8-9 years to build and commission a first in class the T83 will need steel cutting for 2030…..BAE systems are going to be full up building the T26 until 2035-37…so that will leave the Babcock free after around 2028 ( all the 31s will be commissioned before 2030)…there is not going to be much space for both a T32 and a T83 replacement….you could many be fit a follow on order of 5 batch 2 T31 that could be rushed through at one hull a year…so you would have a clear slip at Babcock for 2032ish…but delaying the drumbeat for a new design at Babcock would mean there was no shipyard ready for the type 83 until the mid 2030s which would mean no T45 replacement in commission until 2044ish…that means Daring would be 35 years commissioned and almost 40 years in the water.

        • If T32 was to happen, which I don’t think it will, I’d go with a dedicated corvette design a small, but deadly vessel tailored to our specific needs and that can be turned out fast. Don’t forget people, we’ll still be losing T23’S,

    • T32 needs to be a simple incremental upgrade of the T31, keep the development costs right down and keep the frigate factory going, without a break in the build programme.

      Any deviance from this and it will simply be cancelled….

        • BAE should focus on getting its own
          stuff sorted. They’ve got the T26, subs and likely to get T83. Surely a broader industrial base is all the better for the UK. BAE can’t expect to get everything or do everything well. Hope the UK government encourages the likes of Babcock and BMT to flourish and be successful.

        • The governments pledge to keep surface ship building in Scotland could easily be delivered via Babcock in Rosyth instead of BAE on the Clyde. Funnily enough after Babcock started building T31 the cost of T26 dropped from £1.3 billion to £750 million and they found their own money to build the frigate factory.

          • That makes the T26 nearly half its original price. So why not another one or, a few more T31 while prices are low to build up the fleet sooner while waiting for the T32? If they did both you’d keep both BAE and Babcock happy.

      • Absolutely right. Being saying this for months. As Mr Bell says…order now and tie the contract in tight to stop Labour cancelling. We could have all of them in service by 2030.

  8. First steel was nominally cut for Active on 24 January 2023. To meet the anticipated delivery schedule, it can’t be long before we see similar for Formidable. The big question is what happens after the five T31’s , the last is expected to be operational in Feb 2030, implying a completion date in 2029. It increasingly looks like there will then be a gap in workload, even if the T32 project progresses. Export orders badly needed!

  9. If China is building 200 times more we need the Type 31 better armed at the moment no more than Opv we need NSM Mk 41 China will invade Taiwan that is all out war we will be dragged in we need Ships that are armed and don’t just look good we need fighting ships

    • The RN can’t get pulled into Taiwan. It’s would takes weeks to get there. The whole island will be surrounded so no resupply from air or sea. The only way I see Taiwan standing a chance is blocking an invasion and stopping them landing.
      Best RN could do quickly would be a couple of SSN full speed to the island. If they make it in time before substantial forces have been landed they could sink some ships.
      Will the U.K. really go to war with a much stronger country with nuclear weapons on the other side of the world? I can’t even see Korea, Japan and surrounding countries helping out.
      So that leaves the USA which is really out numbered with the forces it has in the area.
      Best way to deter an invasion is to have U.K forces deployed on the island. USA should do the same. Perhaps forward deployed ship. That is seen as not an acceptable solution so I can’t see the U.K. rushing across the globe to fight China.

      • Yes. Its of little interest to UK to be involved in Pacific matters and cant be afforded.

        Hong Kong was British territory until recent times, yet was given up willingly, as it too like Taiwan now does , rely utterly on China.

        Malta rejected *independence* in refendums a couple of times , but was ignored

        Taiwan is the strange situation that they too claim to be One China, – its in their name as well. And their defence budget as a portion of GDP is way less than much further away Singapore.

          • New territories were leased. The rest were sovereign British territory.
            But Gibraltar was taken by force, but I was talking about Malta who wanted to remain British too

            Cyprus was given independence but had to leave a couple of places as sovereign UK bases
            Mauritius was given independence but the Chagos archipelago was taken from the territory and became US Diego Garcia base . Thats was in return for US missiles provided for UK nuclear subs
            Lets say * its complicated*

      • The reality is china invading Taiwan is probably going to be a world war lasting a very long time..it’s a totemic issue for both china and the US and neither side will just give up and go home. even if china takes Taiwan or fails to take Taiwan it will not matter……the losing side in that theatre will not back away..as to admit defeat would be to loss everything ( the US would lose its place as the hegemonic power and china would loss its chance to become the hegemonic power..both side have to much to loss to give up)…and therefore the US and china will enter a war to strategic exhaustion and as these are two supper powers with deep reserves of wealth and capability that’s going to take years and years ..they will drag in every allied nation and every other nation that has ties will have to pick a side…the war will be contagious along the shipping lanes and strategically important raw materials and supplies of goods…as well as allies of the two nations rub against each other..

        apart from the SSN force that will probably end up quickly fighting in the pacific I could see that carrier group taking over from the use carrier group in the Middle East and Indian Ocean..freeing up another US Carrier group for the pacific..the RN would then be facing off against chinas likely allies Russian and Iran and some African nations more than china itself.

        Taiwan is simply world war 3 waiting to happen. The only way it will not happen is if

        1) the west and friend keep a significant military advantage over china and it’s likely allies and china is convinced the US and its allies will fight.
        2) Taiwan becomes irrelevant to the U.S. and the west and the US/west Simply tells china and the world the argument between the ROC and CCP is and internal Chinese problem and the west does not care…this will lead to china and Taiwan reunification one way or another but without the conditions for contagion that will cause WW3.

        The west needs to aim for one of those states because if the west is still depended on Taiwans semi conductor industry at the point china thinks it can successfully hold the strait, force a landing and win..we are in world war three territory.

        • China depends on Taiwans semi conductors the most , and it grew to supply China. A chicken and egg

          The imports of chips value to China is about what they spend on OIL

          • unfortunately common sense and the great goos of all has never really stopped anyone starting a war especially with fault lines where two powers rub up against each other and Taiwan is one of those. For the CCP Taiwan has been a totemic issue for 70+ years and it’s never not going to be, reunification is embedded. Totalitarian authoritarian types at some point alway use a totemic issue when there populations get antsy…at some point china is going to do something silly and destructive with china and there are probably four triggers.

            1) the west no longer needs to support Taiwan and and makes it clear it’s will only issue firm statements and sanctions.
            2) China ( and any allies) decide it can be win a war against the U.S. and it’s committed allies and become the hegemonic power.
            3) Taiwan makes it clear its a fully independent nation, gets admitted to the UN and the west recognise Taiwan as an independent nation…( although if china feels it’s going to clearly loss that war it may step back).
            4) the domestic situation in China is looking rocky for the Chinese communist party and it needs a desperate final distraction ( against it may step back if it knows the west will fight and it cannot see a way to win…and in this case it may instead pick on another neighbour..even Russian or maybe India for the distraction).

      • 2 SSN deployed to Taiwan with CSG in the Indian Ocean controlling multi national fleet is exactly what we will be doing which is what the USN needs. Also freeing up USN units from Atlantic. Pretty much exactly what we did in WW2.

        • Do you really think if China invaded Taiwan tomorrow the Rishi will announce Today I’ve told the forces to deploy a carrier battle group and the army to prepare to head there in 24 hours. Paratroopers are dropping into Taiwan as we speak. We call on China to withdraw.
          I can’t see it. If Taiwan mattered to the U.K. send a battalion or 2 to be permanently based there with some typhoons and a ship or 2. That’s a better deterrent

      • No Jim, NSM has not been approved for T31 yet. Only approved for T23 and T45. T31s will get Mk. 41, but not the first one to built, only at a later date. Down to bean counters again!
        NSM will most likely be migrated to T31 as the T23’s retire.

    • The T31 is going to be a well armed ship, MK41 launchers for strike package + CAMM and a very good gun set up will make the T31 a very good ASuW combatant.

  10. Alright, finally compelled to ask some questions out of ignorance of this tradition. In days of yore, keel laying was precisely that. Does the modern equivalent occur when the first two prefabricated modules are joined, or when the first module is placed on the assembly rig? Coin(s) still utilized to promote good fortune for ship and crew? If so, any particular type of coin favored (e.g., in the US usage of silver dollars connoted good fortune at one time)? Does the ship sponsor usually attend ceremony? Does ceremony trigger an installment payment to contractor? Is USN practice nearly identical to RN? (Wiki less useful in this instance). 🤔

  12. “At 147 metres long, the hall can comfortably fit three Olympic-sized swimming pools…”

    An Olympic pool is 50 metres in length…

    • And the handout failed to use the basic metrics of London Buses, Big Ben & most importantly quantities of sausages…….

      I agree very sloppy to truncate the length an Olympic swimming pool, which is also quite wide!

      • I can’t even tell how big a warship is if it’s not measured in London buses. Few people know that the admiralty tried to have London buses as the unit of measurement in the second London naval treaty which is why Japan refused to sign. 😀

  15. If you look at the present ship building programme and how much of a backlog we have from a decade of no escorts being built we are going to be struggling for ship building capacity well into the 2040s even with BAE and Babcock running we are going to hit issues of not enough slips…

    Im making some basic assumptions here…

    Type 26/T83 first in class will take 9 years to build and commission, five years on the building blocks then 4 years fitting out and first in class trials.
    follow one will average 8 years..four years on building blocks, four years fitting out and trails.
    Type 31 first in class 6 years to build and commission, 2 years on building blocks and 4 years first in class trials..follow on 2 years on slip and 1-2 years trials.

    So with that we can see that BAE are not going to have a free slot on the building blocks until to 2033/34 at best with the launch of Edinburgh and a second slot in around 2035/36 with the launch of London…realistically London is going to be fitting out until 2038 for commissioning 2039…so BAE are not going to be a place to start a new ship building programme until 2034 at best and that’s runnning it concurrently with the last T26.

    Babcock will be launching the second to last T31 ( bulldog) in 2027 and probably the last later in that same year so it will have 2 slips clear in 2027 ( or 2028 at the latest)…but we have the promised T32…five hulls…now if Babcock run it as a batch 2 31 using the same timescales as the batch 1 31s we would see two T32s launched in 2029 and two in 2031 with a free slip in 2031, the last will be launched in 2033..so if Babcock run like the wind and just do a batch 1 and then batch 2 T31 they may have a slip free in 2031….if the T32 design drags on and it’s not laid down in 2027 and built at the same 2 year pace as T31 then Babcock will not have free building slots until we’ll into the mid 2035s…

    so what does this mean…well daring was launched in 2006 and commissioned in 2009….so even if we drag the poor ship to its 30th commissioning birthday and 34th year in the ogin we will need to lay down the first T83 in 2030 ( 9 years time frame for first in class)…but even if Babcock run like the wind and churn out 2 T31 and T32 every two years…it still could not lay down a hull until 2031….

    what does all this mean:

    1) If we want to hit a fleet of 24 escorts ( with 8 T26, 5 T31, 5 T32 and 6 T45/83) then Babcock need to churn out 10 T31/32 without pause two a year…or we will not be able to replace the T45s before they are even older than the T23s are now.
    2) We will probably need Babcock and BAE to share the T83 build…with Babcock taking 1,2,4 ( slots opening in 2031 and 2032) and BAE taking 3,5,6. ( Slots free in 3034 and 2036)…..

    then from 2040 onward we will have the first free slot with Babcock to start the replaces for the T31s and or T26s and will be able to settle into a drumbeat of one escort every two years from each yard..

    • The Babcock shed at Rosyth, may not be big enough for a T83, if more than 160m. It will be unlikely that the T83 build will be a shared build.
      Also I think Pembroke Dock, South Wales would be suitable as deep water port for T26, because T45 struggles to get into Devonport at times.

      • I’m not sure how big they will build the T83, I think everyone was assuming something on the large size ( 10,000tonne +), but the FADS vision is looking at a a number of ideas including a 4000 tonne stripped back vessel that is simple a high end radar and an arsenal of vertical Launch cells..no small ship flight hanger, no medium Gun, no mission bay…simply a ship that’s stapled to either a carrier battle group or amphibious group. Because they could be low crew numbers and have greater numbers that a 10,000+ tonnes do it all AAW cruise type ship.

        So to be honest I would be surprised if the RN end up with anything over 150m and 7000 tonnes…I think the 4000tonne idea is to out there and there is good evidence that through its life a sub 5000 tonne hull is more costly than a larger 5000+ tonne hulls and the RN would want a bit of general capacity in all of its platforms…personally I think it will be something in the 7000 tonne range…maybe without capacity for a small ship fight, but with a deck and space for air, sea sub sea autonomous vehicles ( your not going to escape the need for them), I also bet the RN put a medium gun on it ( 57mm or something else focused on anti air with a bit of general purpose usage).

        time will tell…but if the RN go for something 10,000tonnes that can only fit in the BAE yard it’s not getting commissioned until 2045 and Darning will be almost 40.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here