In a written parliamentary response, Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, reaffirmed the Ministry of Defence’s timelines for the introduction of new frigates into Royal Navy service by 2030.
The update, prompted by a question from David Reed MP, confirms the current projections for the fleet’s modernisation.
The Type 26 frigates, designed for advanced anti-submarine warfare, remain on schedule to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2028. Ships from this class are expected to enter service incrementally between 2028 and 2035.
TheĀ Type 31 frigates are also progressing according to the original plan, if not a little bit behind in the case of the first ship.Ā HMS Venturer, the first in class, is scheduled to be operational by the end of this decade. All five Type 31 ships are expected to be in service by the early 2030s, providing flexibility across a range of operations.
The Type 32 frigates, still in the concept phase, were not specifically addressed in this update. However, the confirmation reinforces earlier statements that no immediate timelines have been set for this future class.
These timelines are presented here without analysis purely to document and inform.
Just do a batch 2 type 31 for God’s sake. MInimise the cost , take away development delays and get the hulls in the water
The cost of T31 has increased, unless you strip off the offensive capability like mk41.
Thatās before crewing issues
I dont see your point, it will still be far cheaper and fater than developing a new ship.
People get fixated on the T32 designation assuming itās a more expensive design when in reality it could be a stripped down T31 or something even more basic, point is we canāt afford more escorts in general
Yes, we could easily just put 4×3 ExLS in place of B turret and use the central space as a mission bay.
Hey Presto! A Patrol Frigate!
And yet it would still carry 24 CAMM for defence while having MCM or HADR anywhere on Earth as a River B2 replacement.
A perfectly satisfactory T32 for very little cost.
Perhaps develop/acquire a heavily armed corvette class, designated for littoral defence around the UK? Entire emphasis on reduced acquisition cost, a reduced manning requirement and reduced running costs. May be able to designate it as the Home Defence Fleet in an effort to engender Parliamentary support. Even liberal politicians should be able to comprehend defence of the homeland.
@FormerUSAF. Even in America the word liberal means different things depending who you are talking to. Given that it means something different in UK politics to the US, having an American use the term on a British website makes the word almost meaningless without context. It gets even more confusing given that liberal is different from Liberal. It’s yet to be seen if the Starmer government will be politically liberal.
Ondeed….two relatively good value paths for type 32 ..both based on type 31.
Type 32a..type 32 as now spec”d.. but add a bow sonar and upgrade radar to ‘210’ version. Robust surface combatants that can navigate mines and If cash is available then keep T31s as River B II global patrol vessel replacements. If cash is tight, migrate to T32 and sell off T31s.
Type 32b. As per originally spec’d T31 (no mk41) but simply add NSM. Robust global patrol frigate.
I think it would be a good idea to order another batch of the T31, perhaps get 8 in total but we need to actually see a finished ship in operation first with certainty that the remaining ships can be delivered within budget and on time before more is ordered.
Exactly !.
We don’t need to see a finished ship yet. That’s nonsense. Want to see a finished ship. What do you think the Danish navy have been sailing around in since 2004?
It’s a proven off the shelf highly adaptable frigate design.
We should just get more of the same, with adaptation made for optimised patrol and sub surface warfare. 5 more ships needed and quickly.
By sticking to the 2030s timeframe and not pulling the frigate programmes forward we will see an absolute crazy situation where the RN has just 5 or 6 serviceable type 23 frigates left before any of the new frigates enter service.
If the UK could lease or lend 4-6 of the LCS class being taken out of service by the USN until the first type 26 and type 31s enter service that might be a useful stop- gap measure to ensure patrol and escort duties are still acheivable
We absolutely DO need to see a finished Type 31 Frigate delivered before commiting to any more should funds and Crew be available ( as unlikely as that looks ).For starters the Type 31 is a completely different Ship compared to the IH Class,the RN went through the base Design and Specs and completely re-worked it.It might look similar in basic appearance but that is about as close as it gets.Secondly Babcocks have yet to complete a Whole Ship from start to finish before – let alone a Complex Warship.Thirdly and most importantly we need to see what the final cost actually is,the price had changed before the Build had even started,it has to fit the ethos of the Ship being cheap compared to it’s competitors.
We’ll only know with reasonable certainty that the final ship is coming in on time around 2028/29, by which point half the builders at Rosyth will have had to be fired. And what if it comes in a year late? Are you going to say no more ships from Rosyth or are you going to order more anyway? These are cheap ships and there’s no financial slack. If an order isn’t in place by 2027, they’ll have to start letting people go. You can’t do these things risk free and unless Babcock are really messing it up, we should put a new contract in place as soon as the first ship is handed over. The fixed price nature of the contract means Babcock will have to rectify the ships if they are not up to snuff, so caution isn’t helping anyone. It just increases build costs.
Would you Buy a Property ‘ Off Plan ‘ ?.
Most people who buy a new house do just that.
As an avid watcher of Grand Designsā¦. My answer is Yes and No. š¤Ŗ
Exactly right. Been saying this for two years but I’m not shouting loud enough!
100% agree with you Brom
I can understand your comment about a Batch II T31 and in some ways I agree. Then again we need the T32 to do several other tasks such as mothership and a platfrom for small numbers of Royal Marines say about 120. So if we were to get say three MRSS for the Royal Navy/Royal Marines then we should build 6 T32s based on the stretched T31 concept that Babcock has. Look at the Damen Crossover Combattant design concept. Then we could have two fully independent forward deployed response groups made up of one MRSS and two T32s and one group undergoing refit.
We certainly do need some fresh thinking on this subject and I think we need to take as long as we can WITHOUT threatening a production gap for Babcock. Fact is autonomy and associated ai are going to transform immeasurably in the next 5 years+. Effects of this might be clearer in 2 to 3 years (or still in flux) so there are a lot of variations to discuss and evaluate even if itās a modified or stretched T-31. Developments published in the last few days on Googleās quantum chip and Muskās claim on solving the coherence bottleneck which has massive implications for training of ai, autonomy and as a result roboticsā¦ if he isnāt exaggerating and hyping yet again (as if). Does it seriously affect such fundamentals affecting traditional warships, what they look like and perform? If so how? Problem is the T-32, if all this and other innovations it might create, is the platform that will most exploit such widespread opportunities certainly in the forseeable future as its function isnāt strictly defined, unlike the T-83 destroyer for example which is a core anti air asset. So if we donāt make the right decisions on T-32 it could be a serious problem in the thirties and beyond to do so and difficult to put right if a fundamental sea change in requirement goes beyond re working traditional frigates to do the job. I do hope therefore there is a lot of focus here rather than simply kicking and design down the road to save money, in this apparent hesitation to commit.
“HMS Venturer, the first in class, is scheduled to be operational by the end of this decade”
5 years? what the heck is going wrong here ?
12 to 18 months would be reasonable. Babcock keeps bragging about how Venturer is more complete than Glasgow when she was floated,
sorry I don’t buy that.
Amazing isnāt it the Germans laid down a keel last year and plan to have their first in service in 2028.
All of this is still subject to the defence review. There is no guarantee that there will 19 escorts after that review is complete.
The first cuts, announced last month, were salami slice cuts impacting certain capabilities in each of the services. That may well set the pattern for the rest of the review.
All the cuts were announced last month so that when the review comes around thereās only good news in it to fill the headlines. The politicians will hope that everyone has forgotten the cuts by then.
Itās called news management.
Spock as usual thinks logically. For the bigger picture itās the Capt Kirks who lead us making āoff the cuffā emotive statements later to hide the obvious weaknesses and obscure and misdirect the level of investment that Iām worried about, especially with Klingons violently kicking off on our starboard bow while the Romulans look on and ever so inscrutably quietly plan their long term World conquest.
The time scale of the T26 is crazy. How many T23s will be left in operational condition by the time the first T 26 is ready?
19 escorts with a service life of say 25 years. All that is needed to maintain that total without gaps is to build one ship every 15/16 months. To fail to achieve that modest target shows how abysmal both politicians and RN leaders have been.
Spot on Peter,as you have correctly stated that the way it should be ,
Ummm…er…reasonably concerned the SDR will demonstrate that after projected deficits in the currently approved 10 year equipment plan are accounted for, as well as the costs associated w/ improving personnel recruitment, retention and accommodation, and existing MoD infrastructure issues, there will be relatively few Ā£ available for new initiatives, even w/ a projected MoD budget of 2.5% of GDP. GBAD has already been telegraphed as a high priority investment (correctly). Expansion of BA, RAF and/or RN not politically/financially feasible. Even if every single Ā£ of fraud, waste and abuse was eliminated from MoD spending, it is a virtual mathematical impossibility that UK could return to full spectrum of capabilities on a budget that is half the GDP rate of expenditure at the end of CW I. Uncertain whether any additional increase in expenditure is politically feasible, absent an Orc Marine amphibious landing w/in sight of Parliament. Remember, Liz Truas had a very abreviatted tenure as PM, partially as a result of proposing a 3% of GDP defence expenditure rate. Realistically, the UK should concentrate on developing a formidable defence of home islands, w/ a strictly limited expeditionary capability to reinforce NATO operations.
The US has similarly failed to invest appropriately in defense, post CW I. Sometimes wonder whether the post CW I ‘peace dividend’ was an elaborate plot by the Orcs to sabotage Western defence/defense. š¤š³š
It was the “end of history” and most liberals believed it … in fact, they still do. There was no need for “Orcs” to sabatoge western defence. All the sabatoge originates internally.
Interesting point…the enemy…er,…the liberal 5th column w/in. Depressing.
Oy, don’t conflate liberals with 5th columnists, it doesn’t work like that in the UK.
Haldane set up the TA on a very large scale and they provided a large part of the initial forces in WW1 and WW2.
Lloyd George led the UK through WW1.
Archibald Sinclair was air minister throughout WW2. And so on.
They were all senior Liberals.
It is a particularly Conservative and Trumpian.thing to brand liberals with a small L as the enemy within, but it doesn’t really work in the UK.
When we talk about liberals in this case we mean all western liberal parties from the Republicans and democrats in the US and conservatives and Labour in the UK, everyone of them fell for the BS of āthe end of history and last manāā¦ even when by 2009 is was obviously a load of rubbishā¦.infact they were still playing ā letās bury our head in the sand in 2014-15 to 2020 when it was clear Russia was planning to take nations by force and china had turned around and started on a road to a world warā¦
“A formidable defence of home islands with a strictly limited expeditionary capability to reinforce NATO operations”. This is the exact opposite of the 1998 defence reviews conclusion that prioritized expeditionary capability to conduct interventions. Many of the interventions were either ineffective or counterproductive ( for the USA too). The threats to Europe have greatly increased. So refocusing on self defence is long overdue. To do both adequately would require spending levels close to the US percentage of GDP which will never happen.
Interesting, did not realize 1998 SDR’s expeditionary emphasis. Thanks. š
If Eastern Hemisphere Axis between RU/PRC/DPRK, ENATO (especially UK) could face a modern “Fall of France” episode in the foreseeable future. Churchill’s insistence, in concert w/ Air Marshal Dowding, to preserve (25?) fighter squadrons for the defence of metropolitan Britain, was absolutely crucial to preserving the UK in the war until the US was drawn into the conflict. Am absolutely certain every reduction in RAF and RN capability is celebrated in both Moscow and Beijing.
“… between RU/PRC/DPRK continues to develop and mature,…” (Keyboard engaged before intellect š)
Defence of the Home Islands is not a good idea. British doctrine has, with reason, always been to fight in ways that makes sure the Home Islands don’t need to be defended. Given the threats that face ENATO now, if it comes to defending the Home Islands then the Wars realistically already lost.
Being quite partial to the History of the Battle of Britain,im sure that i read that Air Marshall Dowding’s goal was to have 52 Fighter Squadrons available.
“…Liz Truss…” š
Re Liz Truss it had way more to her rolling out a budget that in one fell swoop wiped out Ā£20 billion which could have been used for something else. Oh and a question for you my esteemed ex colonial friend.
Is it true Tango man is really hopping mad about the U.K deal with Mauritius re the Chagos / Diego Garcia arrangement ?
Absolutely no idea what The Donald believes re this issue. We will all learn stance simultaneously when he pronounces official US policy via post on X or TruthSocial, on or after 20 Jan 25. God Bless Us, Every One. šš
Problem is these days a formidable defence of the home islands would be more akin to the formidable defence of Singapore in WW2. The impregnable island surrendered barely without a shot, its survival hopeless in reality. If Britain is ever faced by an enemy who has fundamentally taken Western Europe we are finished, itās just, like Singapore merely the timing and destruction and deaths thatās in question as defeat approaches. Thatās the big difference technology no longer enables Britain to hold out for long.
24 ships in 2010 to this – I’m sure these is a lesson to be learnt here , somewhere
Escort fleet cut from 35 to 32 in 1998, in the same SDR that announced the carriers.
Paul, not many complained at the time that to get 2 large capable carriers that the RN had to give up 3 ageing frigates. Most thought that 32 escorts was still a sufficient number.
We would pray for 2 x QEC, 32 escorts, 2 x LPH and 2 x LDP plus an RFA that was falling to bits – that was what was set out!
Ok the 2nd Ocean never happenedā¦.but it was a sensible level of force strength.
Fast foward now and we have 2 x QEC, 19 escorts [if we are lucky] and very little RFA but we do have some lovely new tankers, 3 Bays and the evergreen Argus .
Why is it the only questions ever asked are the ones with the obvious āpositive sound biteā ones. Itās a complete nonsense to expect any other answer as itās U.K Political suicide to say anything less than we are sticking to the plan.
When it comes to Defence spending there are 3 rules.
1. Maintain CASD at any cost as itās the only thing that justifies us as a permanent member of the UNSC.
2. Donāt mess with the Scottish monopoly of surface Warship building as it is Political suicide for any party to do so.
3. Spend as little as possible on anything else as HMT hates spending money on Defence and would rather burn banknotes than do so. They have even been known to brag about that fact.
So my question would be the one thing no one seems to know ! āNow that we know Babcock had to renegotiate the original contract price for T31 as they may have underbid and the RN has added extra capabilities etc. Just what is the cost of a T31 compared to a T26 ?ā
But I guess no one will ever ask it as the answer wouldnāt be palatable š„“
If I were a betting man the answer would be that the enhanced cost of the renegotiated contract, plus the costs of redesign / rework and purchase of the extra capabilities etc is not far of the cost of a T26. Which means they blew a fortune on an inferior product, instead of buying the original 13 for an 8 / 5 split.
Hence no one will ever ask it as its egg on multiple Governments, Ministers, MOD officials etc.š¤
Type 31: Ā£268m
Type 26: Ā£1.3bn batch 1, Ā£850m batch 2.
However, the Type 31 figure excludes weapons, with these being provided by the RN. Babcock were given an extra Ā£40m to cover unforeseen costs (eg Corvid). The RN has also upped the planned weapons fit considerably, with 32 Mark 41 VLS cells.
What do you mean about the Weapons for the Type 31 being provided by the RN ?. Only Sea Ceptor Missiles ( not including VLS ) can be carried over from the T23’s. The other Systems are new to the RN and will be provided by BAE Bofors. I’m not confident. ( even sceptical ) that a Type 31 can be delivered for Ā£268 million.
It can’t.
Agree the FDI a modest 5000 ton frigate from the more efficient french yards ( how can I even be saying that) costs around Ā£400,000 million pounds each at 2017 prices.
Different combat management system (CMS) and Radars on the type 31, so there will still be integration/testing work for existing weapons systems being brought over from the type 23s
Even with the upgraded weapons fit and Covid, there’s no chance that the T31s get anywhere near the cost of T26. The upgrades were really needed, without the Mk41 VLS it was basically an oversized patrol vessel.
I seem to remember that the original budget was close on Ā£300m a ship, but that HMG increased the budget from Ā£1.5 bn to Ā£2 bn. Some of the extra was no doubt a contribution to.Babcock building the new assembly hall etc. But even then, Ā£400 for a capable warship.looks dirt cheap.
And if I was a betting man, would be willing to wager your analysis is essentially correct re ultimate cost of T-31 vs. T-26. Someone at BAES royally torqued off the wrong individual(s) w/in MoD/HMG. š¤š³šš
If the process is not speeded up the RN will have Zero frigates left. Get a move on it does not take 13 yrs to build 8 xT26’s. What are BAE doing?
Given where we are, BAE would do very well to deliver all eight ships in 17 years. 13 years will be how long it takes to deliver the first four ships.
The build speed of the two T26 batches were government decisions governed by cash available, not BAE building to fastest speed. While the first batch was further slowed a bit by Covid, HMG (Cameron/May) wanted it that slow so they would pay as little as possible per annum. If the second batch had been built at the same speed as the first, it would have taken 23 years to build the 8 T26s and RN would have really struggled to maintain 5 ASW frigates for several years.
From what I can see, BAE and Babcock have speeded up the hull fabrication processes, but have not improved the fitting out processes (Glasgow has been fitting out for years now). Plus the time needed for sea trials.
I am predicting with T26 we will see a bottleneck where Scotstoun will not be able accommodate the number of hulls that are ready for fitting out.
If the funding was there then so would the pace to get the hulls into the water. Note that each replacement hull has a much smaller crew than the hulls they are replacing so the RN should be better able to man them and also the extra ones we all wish for (if ever they should be ordered). More of the same with regards to the T31’s but with some ASW fit (spares available from the T23 (5 fits) saving cost on training etc). The RN was the second Navy in NATO once not any more its sad to say. Old worn kit. The T45’s should also be soon be able to take some of the load off the T23’s as they certainly Have not been worked to any real level as compared to the T42’s which really delivered to the Fleet.
The sad reality is that the British ship building industry for whatever reasons, (that will include the MOD, constantly changing spec, RN gold plating and treasury dripfeeding funds ) is incapable of building timely and really cost effective warships ( we shall see on the T31..but I bet itās doubled in price and will never be commissioned by 2027). The T26 is taking 11 years per ship to build all the while the French and Italians are knocking out frigates at only 5-6 years each at the cost of around half a billion for each decent quality ASW frigate.
It is more like 4 years per frigate while cost is like 750M Euro , at least Italian 2 FREMM prices seems to be 1.5 B Euro.
I think this is the current FREMM model not the EVO model.
Hi Alex 2 Evos for 1.25 billion pounds so around .61 billion each..the earlier 10 FREMS were 4.91 billion pounds for the 10. So around .49 billion each..very very cheap for what they were.
Somewhere we have lost the art of good project management.
In comparison, from the first steel cut to commission: T42 / T22 /T23 averaged 5 years for the lead ship and then paced up to around 3 years per ship.
Indeed 4-6 years is pretty much the average for the rest of the western world.
T32 ain’t happening. it wasn’t going to happen under the Tories and certainly won’t happen under Labour as there’s no budget left. Navantia are taking over H&W and has been given the go ahead to renegotiate the contract, 300m of direct cost to the MoD is the rumored amount, that’s the best part of 1 T32. The recent NI raid will make the new ships more expensive as this will be passed back the government in higher costs. Effectively the NI raise is a budget cut as it returns part of the defence budget back to the treasury, pretty much every part of the supply chain will be hit and as there’s many cost plus contracts its guaranteed increase not just of the NI part but because the cost is up the profit goes up in cash terms, i.e.(using simple numbers) 1m cost contract allow 10% profit so costs to the government 1.1m but after new costs are added the cost of the contract is 1.1m now add 10% profit that a total cost to government of 1.21m. So these additional NI charges are far reaching and impact costs beyond the NI cost itself. The reported direct hit on defence is 220m but that doesn’t include the supply chain which is a big part of the budget and therefore the treasury will get many 100m’s back. Was bit of genius from Reaves as most will not properly analyse the real impact on defence or recognise it as cut by the back door.
In reality the 1998 defence review around RN force size was probably the last competent review that was not a treasury lead cutting exercise and that was for a unipolar peaceful world..we are now in a world even more at risk of a world war than during the Cold War. With a far more economically/industrially powerful enemy than the USSR ever was. The baseline for the RN force structure moving into 2015 should have been 32 major surface combatants, by 2020 it should have been starting to increase in anticipation of trying to deter a indopacific superpower war, by 2022 the assumption should have been to deter or fight a world war against a major power block that covers pretty much all of Asia from the North Sea, through the Indian Ocean to the pacificā¦ the RN should have been on a road map back to Cold War numbers. Even our most powerful ally the US is only managing to launch around 1 major surface combatant a year ( 2 every 18 months if they are lucky)
The UK argues about if itās possible to return the surface fleet to 24 major surface combatants by 3035 while keeping its fingers crossed it will not fall down to 12 combatants for 2027..and the US struggles to keep its major surface combatant numbers stable only building 1 or 2 combatants a year ( while sill building a destroyer that started life 44 years ago).
All the while our major enemy over a 4 year period (2020-2024) commissioned 8 13,000 cruisers, 17 7500 ton air defence destroyers, 5 5000 ton ASW ships and 25 1500 ton corvettes. ( thatās 55 surface combatants in 4 years) This build rate is not slowing one jot With evidence of another 8, 13,000 ton cruisers, 16 7500 ton air defence destroyers and 15 5000-6000 ton ASW ships being built or ordered..the only possible conclusion for that build rate is warā¦with our enemy even giving its own people the year by which they should all be ready to go to war ( 2027).
Itās sadly pathetic really and indicative that the west may be a the civilisation in decline, once a civilisation can no longer afford or is willing to afford the cost of defending itself then its usually heading for historyās junk pile.
I’m simply wondering how many of the few 23 frigates will survive until replacement, the new ones are So far away. Might we have a no frigate period?!
The first cuts were part of a Treasury demand that all Whitehall departments cut expenditure by a couple of per cent, in order to get the public finance on a more even keel.
Defence had ro play its part, and each service duly opted to retire older and less useful equipment. Nearly everyhing being withdrawn will be replaced in time, so we will have yet more capability gaps for several years.
But I don’t think the exercise was anything to do with getting bad news out of the way before the SDSR, it was a one-off Treasury quest that applied to all 20 departments, not something aimed specifically at defence.
It
You have got it in one Jon. There is not the budget to bang out one warship per year, there’s only about Ā£800m a year in the naval equipment budget for new ship construction, the othet 70% of the budget goes on maintenamce, upgrades, refits, contracting out etc. That slender sum currently has to cover T26, T31, Castle MCMV, Proteus MROS, before even thinking about FSSS and MRSS. Hence the inordinate delays on all these programmes.
Those calling for more frigates and a T32 class are whistling in the wind, there is not anywhere near enough money to pay for what we’ve already ordered, let alone more hulls.