The Ministry of Defence has adopted broader language when describing the expected in-service date of HMS Venturer, the first of the Royal Navy’s Type 31 Inspiration-class frigates, moving away from earlier references to a specific year.

In a recent Parliamentary written answer, the MOD stated that HMS Venturer is scheduled to be “in service and ready for operations by the end of this decade”, with all five Type 31 frigates expected to be in service by the early 2030s. The phrasing represents a shift from earlier ministerial answers which pointed to a 2027 readiness date for the first ship.

HMS Venturer is being built by Babcock at Rosyth and is intended to form part of a new generation of general purpose frigates designed to sustain fleet numbers while carrying out tasks such as maritime security, forward presence operations and escort duties. The Type 31 programme has also been positioned as an example of a faster and more cost-effective approach to warship construction.

However, the timeline has already been influenced by decisions taken during the build process. HMS Venturer was floated off in June 2025, later than some early industry expectations. The delay was not necessarily the result of stalled work, but rather a deliberate approach to keep the ship inside the build hall for longer so that more outfitting could be completed under cover before the float-off evolution.

This approach allowed significant internal work, including elements of cabling, structural fitting, and machinery installation, to be progressed in a controlled environment, reducing exposure to weather and improving efficiency. It also meant that the ship entered the water at a more advanced state of completion than might have been expected under a traditional build sequence.

Following float-off, HMS Venturer returned to Rosyth for continued outfitting and systems integration, a phase that will include major work on combat systems, sensors, propulsion commissioning and preparation for sea trials.

Another rather important factor in the programme’s delivery timeline, it seems, is the Capability Insertion Period (CIP), a contracted post-build upgrade phase intended to integrate additional military capability across the Type 31 class. Under this arrangement, equipment enhancements beyond the baseline build specification will be inserted after delivery, improving long-term combat effectiveness and future-proofing the ships as requirements evolve.

The inclusion of a CIP means the path from physical completion to full operational readiness likely includes structured additional integration work before the ships reach their required operational capability. The MOD’ shift to “end of the decade” language may therefore reflect both a cautious approach to public scheduling and the complexity of delivering modern warships with planned post-delivery upgrades, time will tell.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

84 COMMENTS

  1. What a f**king nightmare.

    David Cameron and George Osbourne should be forced to testify in front of a select committee on this and for all the damage they did to the country. If T31 isn’t in service by 2029 we may get to the point of having no frigates.

    • The Tories ordered 13 frigates. Labour ordered zero frigates in 13 years from 1997 to 2010. The Labour Government cut the order for Type 45 destroyers from 12 to 8 and finally 6. The Labour defence minister tweaked the design of the Type 45s to favour Vritush jobs and, as a result the Type 45s have spent half their operational lives being repaired and upgraded. Please top with thr myopic political rubbish.

      • I commented on the selective amnesia on this site the other day, for anything pre 2010.
        BOTH are responsible, thus, I vote for neither.
        Simple.
        Jim is right about those two, though,

        • 100% I. Agreement, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth 1 they would have had a very unpleasant ending ! Mind you I would add Blair to the list as I like the “Rule of Three”.
          3 Blind Mice, 3 Stooges and 3 Treacherous incompetent, short sighted, sycophantic, 3 faced, self serving idiots !

          Did I miss anything off my list of their Skill sets ?

            • To be honest sometimes it’s not down to the person who orders kit or starts the development of it that results in appalling delivery times and delays but the Treasury Mandarins who subsequently provide the funding.
              The fundamental reason for the late delivery of Astutes, T26, T31 etc etc is down to the stage payment schedules to industry.
              Instead of saying this is what it is going cost, it’s in the budget, when can you deliver, here is a contract so now get on with it and if you F it up you pay for it.
              We take the budget and spread it out over the period between now and when the proceeding bit of kit goes out of service as it costs less pa.
              So yes it can be built in 6 years but we can stretch the existing kit to last for 10 so do it over 10 years and we realise it will cost way more overall as that’s inefficient.
              After all I’ll be retired with my Knighthood and index linked when it all hits the fan !

        • Hi folks hope all is well.
          Yes i would support that Daniele. Any excuse to not spend money on crucial defence equipment. I despair at this government and the previous one was equally as useless at defence.
          Take care all
          George

      • There’s plenty of blame to go round the Conservatives and Labour, and the other parties seem to have even worse policies for defence.

        I’d suggest part of the reason Labour, under Blair and Brown, ordered no new frigates was that they were still building Type 23s – the last 2 were laid down and the last 5 commissioned after the 97 election . They did however order the T45s and carriers, albeit not enough of the first with a compromised design and then slow-rolled the carrier construction.

        Just to have maintained frigate numbers at around 16, we should have been laying down the first replacements around 2010 – that was after the Russo-Georgian war so the writing should have been on the wall about the peace dividend and the end of history. Of course it was also the time of the financial crash and the subsequent policy of austerity. In the circumstances we can perhaps forgive a bit of a delay but the first T26 wasn’t actually laid down for another 7 years, and then with a deliberately slow build timetable. That’s 3 years after Russia began its attack on Ukraine with the little green men, shot down MH17 and annexed Crimea – you’d think those would have been a wake up call but sadly not. The current problems are the inevitable consequence of decisions taken in the early 2010s. Whilst there might have been a bit more money and priority for defence for the last few years it still isn’t nearly enough.

    • So, if I’ve got this right, The Tories are to blame for placing the existing orders but Labour are blameless for not ordering the others after eighteen months? Got it.

    • Jim have you noticed one major thing about the T31 process ? Only 5 ships, minimum cost but Babcock have invested in a brand new Shipbuilding yard and it’s years behind schedule !
      So no one mentions the blindingly obvious “Elephant in the room” question 🤔
      What is the forecasted overall cost per hull for each complete T31 vs a “more affordable” T26 ?

      I have a funny feeling we can guess why 😏

      What say you ?

      • A couple of years ago there was an interesting discussion about the final price of (each) Type 31 on a well known Social Media site,some numbers were crunched,many heads were scratched,a well known commentator came up with a figure of £420 million Delivered to the RN.I personally think that all things considered it will be pretty close,but time will tell.

  2. (Right then, nobody post anything negative here, It’ll only atract the usual suspects ! )

    Great news, it’s so reassuring to see this project Is still happening.

  3. “ The delay was not necessarily the result of stalled work, but rather a deliberate approach to keep the ship inside the build hall for longer so that more outfitting could be completed under cover before the float-off evolution.”

    And if you believe that is really the reason can you get me Santa’s phone number?

  4. So. This means that are putting extra stuff on the ship now rather than later?
    Keeping the hulls indoors for a bit in order to fit this “stuff” is a good idea surely… especially with space to build two at once??

    I thought the contracts were reported as no touchy-touchy…sign on the dotted line and that’s what you get. Hopefully some of the extra capability insert is simply more sea captor silos..
    AA

    • Babcock made a very public statement which basically said hands off the contract. However, that wouldn’t stop the CIP contract from following straight on after acceptance…So basically someone in the MoD may have decided that the original planned outfit for the T31 was just ever so slightly tooooo thin and needed beefing up in today’s threat environment before going FOC…

      If the year was 2027 and is now likely to be 2029 at the earliest, just what is in the CIP? Surely it doesn’t take two years to fit a few Mk41 VLS. A quick search online and google AI suggests that the new trainable decoy launchers are also to be fitted along with advanced ‘sensors’. My guess the final point is where the delay will come as that suggests changes to the combat management and information infrastructure as well. It also occurs to me that they may be added in the capability to act as a drone command ship if it was not already in the spec..?

      And yes, I think they should have had those systems from the get go along with a hull mounted sonar.

      I would scrap the T32 and order three more T31 with the CIP included and a hull mounted sonar.

      As George says we’ll see, but damn we need those ships…

      Cheers CR

    • AA- that is far from the case,the whole Programme couldn’t even get started based on the £250 million initial price,none of the Bidders could make it ,it then went back to Tender and the Budget saw a reasonable increase.When Construction started Babcock’s went again to the MOD and another settlement was reached for a variety of reasons.As it stands currently, when Venturer is delivered to the RN there is absolutely no sign that she will have any extra Capabilty.

  6. What annoys me is the unnecessary lying this implies from all concerned. This is the very first warship manufactured by Babcock and I think people are willing to forgive some almost inevitable delay. The initial timeline of in service by 2023/4 was never realistic, nor was the £250m a unit. It took the government a long time to acknowledge that at least the first couple of ships would cost more than the subsequent ones, but we never even heard what the refinancing deal was. Nor can we say how much further delay is down to financial constraint.

    Nick Hine, the former 2SL who left the Navy to front for Babckock Marine, said when the ship was rolled out of the hall in May 2025 that he expected it to be handed over to the Navy at about the same time next year (2026), which would have meant manufacturer’s sea trials starting around now or even earlier. Why say that if it was so totally unrealistic that Venturer won’t be operational until 2030 rather than 2028? How can Babcock expect to land the potential Danish or Swedish orders if they announce schedules they can’t possibly meet? Better to have come clean. Better even now to come clean.

  7. They need to be clear in what the intention is, if the 31s are going to be fitted with the nice to have now, then I can understand the slippage in delivery dates. The RN cannot go on like this for much longer.
    Now we hear build slots on the Type 26 could be open for the Norwegians. Not withstanding that the Royal Navys ASW capability is being severely eroded. Which build slots are being made available hasn’t been released but the more I hear about it, its profit before defence of the realm.

    • HMS Belfast (Hull 3) or HMS Birmingham (Hull 4) are being considered for diversion to the Royal Norwegian Navy to ensure they receive their first ship by 2029

    • Hmm, interesting suggestion. I doubt that the first two ships currently in build would go to Denmark as they are probably too far along the road to RN requirements but subsequent slots quite possibly??? Depends on how much outfitting the Danes want to do themselves I guess?

      Cheers CR

      • Offering Denmark earlier delivery would help to push their decision on an order over the line. Also, in light of the proven value of the B2 Rivers, how many ‘GP’ / ‘patrol’ frigates do we actually need? The RN might prefer to manage with just the first 2 and do joint development with the Danes on the spec for an AAW version; 32+ Mk41 and a better radar.

          • Denmark will want a Thales radar that is already fully integrated into TACTICOS – look at what happened with their existing CMS….

            • Didn’t Denmark choose APAR-L, ESSM and SM2 for Iver Huitfeld over Aster and Sylver (and I don’t know what radar.)
              I agree they would prefer a Thales Netherland radar. Given they want a change in systems architecture what about NS200+ CAMM + CAMM-MR + TACTICOS?

              • They will want the MOTS solution with as low a risk as possible.

                I agree CAMM sales are aided by the TACTICOS integration being RN paid for.

                The other bits will be native.

                AS RN is paying for Mk41 integration and likely ASTER integration then those are all plug and play possibilities.

          • Thank you Hugo; I know can always rely on you for an upbeat assessment 😂
            A few dots that we might join up on a good day….…Artisan-NG, Aster-Mk41 compatibility, CAMM-MR?

    • I do think Denmark will be looking for a more focused AAW ship than the standard format T31.. it would not suprise if they did not stick a long range volume search radar on it as a second sensor, and the will want a medium range AAW missile.

      For me it’s a great opportunity for the RN to get a Second tier AAW Ship.. by taking some of the same of whatever Denmark orders capability wise.

          • Always easier to speed up missile production than it is to cut a ship open and fit VLS.

            If the worst comes to the worst you can always fit fewer missiles than the maximum capacity.

            You can never fit more missiles than the maximum capacity.

            • This has nothing to do with missile production, Aster does not launch out of Mk41, and it will be years before that is possible.

  9. It all lends credence to the worryingly reduced numbers of frigates. Delayed IOC, build slots to Norway and potentially Denmark. Yes, by all means increase lethality, but with what when we are loosing hulls quicker than we seem to be acquiring them.

    • Is it Babcock though ? There could already be some Type 26 in service if the government hadn’t stretched funding across as many years as possible keeping build rate low by choice, Babcock have likely faced the same issue as BAE who for years have said build rate could be increased if the government wanted but opted not to.

      • I think its a mixture of Babcock’s inexperience in shipbuilding plus a Treasury slow down in payments. Perfect storm really.

  11. Man I think we’re very very very lucky ukraine has tied down the Russians. Can you imagine a time line that Russia rolled over ukraine. With confidence threatens NATO focusing on naval ops and power projection. Now surely Russia can’t move again for 5 to 10 years, by which time we SHOULD have the fleet ready to contain Russians northern fleet

  13. Unbelievable.

    This news, in conjunction with Pollard’s comments about offering Norway earlier T26 slots to prevent them cutting the order, is going to see the RN without any frigates at some point very soon…

    • We will become the Italy of Shipbuilding… Offering our own ships to International customers at the expense of our own navy.

  14. At Pace

    Thankfully the new ships were ordered early whilst the current frigate fleet has been well managed, with plenty of its planned service life remaining so that there are more than sufficient type 23s for the next decade with no loss in capability while delays persist, oh wait … back to reality.

    War footing

    • Ironically, you might recall that the Type 45 ships 7 and 8 were cut on the excuse of “accelerating” GCS, so the T26.
      And T26 was slowed down.
      Quality.

      • As you know Daniele the usual short term thinking for finance relief conducted without consideration for what is actually needed, cut now, use future program as an excuse to improve the long term, future program arrives, use new excuse, the endless cycle of under delivering, which over decades has led to the hollowing out that will require so much more funding at once than if it had have just been carried out as planned in the first place. Can be applied to all branches.

  15. Depends how they do it.. most people forget that commissioning is not operational and for the first ship that will be a very very long gap.. first in class second stage trials is an 18months affair..

    I would imagine therefore that venture will as planned get commissioned in late 2026 early 27.. bomb around doing first in class sea trials until say mid 2028 but before becoming operational go in for a refit.. because first in class ships always get pulled into a rectification period after first in class trials anyway.. active will then probably be commissioned and start her second stage sea trials, which will be about 6 months.. so in early 2029 she would go in for her refit and venture will pop back out and become operational.. it’s not really a big deal because commissioned it not operational, never has been.

  16. Spoon, are we being led to believe that MK41 will be installed prior to entry into service, perhaps along with NSM from the batch of 11 sets already procured? If indeed this were the case, these ships would enter service with a far better weapons capability that we badly need. But even then, I wouldn’t expect it to take that long?

      • That may well not be true.

        If T26 build order is being rejigged then Mk41s, ordered or in storage, from that can be transferred to T31 without affecting the T26 program.

        NSM wins much easier and has been previously integrated into TACTICOS.

              • You can have two rows of 8 tactical and a row of 8 strike. If just need to have the raised seatings under the shorted tubes.

                There are plenty of good weapons that go into tactical.

                • Why would they do that when there’s already 48 CAMm cells, and leave themselves with only strike missiles. No they’re not going to knee cap themselves for our sake.

                  Besides the only launchers they have are either on ships they have in active use or the one that sunk, and I doubt those are useable if not already scrapped

                • There isn’t much difference in price between strike and tactical length. Not enough to really make any sort of difference to the treasury unless we are ordering over a thousand VLS.

                  The main reason that is the difference in length is to allow the Mk.41 to be installed on smaller ships. The Type 31 is easily big enough to fit strike length and the ability to fit something like the Nightfall or Tomahawk is worth far more than the fractional saving of swapping to tactical

                  • I agree but there is also the ‘get something done’ impetus here.

                    I’m not so much taking about ££££ but the art of the possible.

  17. This is a PQ&A from December 2024. What’s changed regarding Venturer?

    Tabled: 2 December 2024
    Asked by: David Reed MP (Conservative, Exmouth and Exeter East)
    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many new Type (a) 45, (b) 26, (c) 31 and (d) 32 frigates will enter service by 2030.

    Answered: 9 December 2024
    By: Maria Eagle MP, Minister of State for Defence

    Type 45 is already in service with no new vessels to be built.
    Type 26 is forecast to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2028, with ships expected to enter service between 2028 and 2035.

    HMS Venturer will be the first in Class of the Type 31 and is scheduled to be in service and ready for operations by the end of the decade. All five Type 31 ships are planned to be in service by the early 2030s.

    The Type 32 frigate programme remains in the concept phase and has not yet reached the level of maturity to allow publication of a specific timetable for design and procurement.

      • A slippage from the ambitions prior to 2024, yes, but we are now in 2026. The article says:
        ‘In a recent Parliamentary written answer.’

        The reality is that we don’t know what issues will arise from first in class sea trials, so we don’t know how much rectification work will be required before Venturer can be considered operational. Therefore, we can’t realistically assign a fixed date for ‘in service and ready for operations.’

    • I missed that. The language in 2025 seemed far more bullish. Even if they could have sent Iron Duke to the Gulf, it looks like they still couldn’t have kept it going long enough for Venturer to take over.

        • It isn’t quite that silly given one of them has been on the wall for a long period of years….

          Let’s hold that Daring is back 100% soon.

  18. Not sure what to make about the in service comments by MPS. Yet from what I have been reading could be because of CIP. If that is the case especially if it means all the plumbing, deck strengthening for the Mk41s etc is being done now then in some ways I think it could be better.

    The major issue is not that the build is taken so long it is that governments have pushed the T23 that was designed for 18 years of service to 30+ years. The other issue is block obsolescence, this causes a complete class of ships to come to an end almost at the same time, no retention in construction work force which means hire train build fire loose hire train build and so on. Each time this happens ships get more espensive, it take more time to hire and train etc. I think it would be better for if we built the numbers that we now need so the 8+5 frigates +6 future T83s but have follow on builds for the T26 and T31 on say a 2+1 base, these follow on builds could be a T26 AAW a stretched T31. This would reduce overall new build cost, stop block obsolescence, retain the trained workforce and improve RN hull numbers.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here