In addition to 8 Type 26 Frigates and 5 Type 31 Frigates, Scottish shipyards will also be building an unspecified number of Type 32 Frigates.
Ben Wallace, the Defence Secretary, recently stated that Rosyth would be building Tytpe 32 Frigates in addition to Type 31 Frigates.
“We are committed to building the Type 26 in the United Kingdom; it is under construction on the Clyde. In Rosyth, work is ongoing to build the facility needed to build the Type 31s and the subsequent Type 32s. He also knows that I recently recategorised the future Fleet Solid Support ship as a warship. I intend to make sure that, if not entirely, there is a considerable degree of UK build in that process, subject to tender. I have to be cautious about the contract, because the competition is to begin soon—very soon.”
What is the Type 32 Frigate?
According to the recently released ‘Defencer Command Paper’, the Type 32 frigates will be designed to protect territorial waters, to provide persistent presence overseas and to support Littoral Response Groups.
The first mention of a new Type 32 frigate came in the Prime Minister’s 19 November statement. He said: “We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates.”
The Defence Command Paper, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, describes the planned programme:
“Type 32 frigates, designed to protect territorial waters, provide persistent presence overseas and support our Littoral Response Groups.”
The Type 32 was not mentioned in the Government’s 2017 shipbuilding strategy, which overhauled the way the MoD procures warships for the Royal Navy. Nor was it mentioned in the review of the strategy published in November 2019. Early speculation suggests they could be ‘batch II’ Type 31s, but not necessarily based on the Type 31 design, which explains why Rosyth will be building them following on from the Type 31s being built at the yard.
In November 2020, the Ministry of Defence stated that the concept phase for the vessel had not yet been launched but added that the ship is currently envisioned as a “platform for autonomous systems”, used in roles such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.
What was the Ministry of Defence already planning for?
Before Type 32, the plan was for only two new classes of frigates.
Type 26 frigates
These will replace the specialist anti-submarine warfare (ASW) Type 23 frigates currently in service.
The Ministry of Defence has committed to buying eight Type 26 frigates and signed a contract for the first three in July 2017. The ships will be built at BAE Systems’ shipyards on the Clyde. The first in the City Class, HMS Glasgow, has an in-service date of 2027. The MoD says it expects to sign a contract for the second batch of five Type 26 frigates in the early 2020s.
Type 31 frigates
These will be general-purpose frigates to replace the non-ASW Type 23s. The MoD signed a contract with Babcock at Rosyth for five ships in November 2019. Manufacture will begin in 2021 with an in-service date of 2027. The overall programme cost is expected to be £2bn.
What are Scottish shipyards already building?
Since 2014, Scottish shipyards have launched five Offshore Patrol Vessels and work has started on 13 frigates of two types.
The Type 32 Frigates will be in addition to those listed above.
So screw all the other ship yards across the uk?
Are there many yards capable of building Frigates and Destroyers? To me it seems likely the result of this is there will be work across maybe 5 yards in the UK: 2 x “frigate factories” – Rosyth building low end (T31/32), and Clyde building high end (T26/T83) 1 x Submarine yard – Barrow 1 x Auxiliaries and Support Yard – Cammell Laird? Maybe H&W? Covers RFAs, Survey Vessels etc 1 x Small ships – this may be spread over a few smaller shipyards, but covers ships like the Gibraltar patrol boats, the replacement for the Archers, autonomous minehunters, maybe even… Read more »
BAE did not build the Ship factory on the Cyde at Scotstoun in the end, but this facility if built will be the place for what looks like a bigger ship for the Type 83.
Yes I’m aware of that. My point was more that there are two yards in Scotland who have potentially a lot of Frigate and Destroyer orders in the pipeline with T31/32 and T26/83 on the way over the next decade or more
So a typo then. My point was that BAE would do well to build the Scotstoun factory in the future which had a 1000 feet (31M) in lenght undercover building dock that is about 132 feet wide, with great steel work facilites and fitting out facilities all undercover. A digital shipyard before anyone else had one.
Yeah, which they would have done with an order for 13 T26s….
I’m saying this for the Type 83’s. But Austrialia did this for for only one more Type 26 Frigate. I guess BAE said for the build time too, that was there was no need to build a state of the art facility, and also stop future potential comptitors getting the Fairfield Govan faciltiy which BAE do not own. The new Scotstoun facility would have only cost 200 million pounds to build back then. Not a lot. About 235 million quid today. It was said on this website too that BAE has made big profits and much due to the Type… Read more »
They may be busy enough with other work/block builds etc.
But there is a serious political risk in all this…Scottish Independence is not going to go away.
Do we think there must be a back up plan here as in all likelihood unless circumstances change u predictably, there will be independence beyond this decade, whatever delaying mechanisms are used. Or are they simply letting some future Govt take on the hit. Who knows.
And if Scotland do go independant then there will be a severe lack of shipbuilding in the rest of the uk.
we will not allow independence to happen, don’t be fooled by the front the snp put on at westminster and sturgeon when she is on the telly, they are weak. independence in the immediate aftermath of covid is not realistic and majority of scots don’t support it. Independence will hopefully be killed off in the next election in 6th May. Too many jobs rely on Uk based industries such as North Sea oil and gas (~300,000), shipbuilding in rosyth and the clyde. Defence bases such as Faslane and Lossie (~10,000). Financial Services Industries which is the main businesses in Glasgow… Read more »
Your wasting your time speaking reality sonny , the wee Willy engerlandshire crew of experts on politics and what’s happening on the ground up north who think they know everything Scottish but really just talk shite as they base their “extensive” 😂👋🏻knowledge off the back of the lying shitey propaganda machine that it sky news , the bbc and itv 😂. Total wallopers it’s now predictably yawnsome every time the word Scotland gets mentioned the same shite about independence etc etc blah blah. I honestly believe they all live in London where everyone knows they are in a twilight zone… Read more »
Too right my friend 🏴🇬🇧
In-service dates for the first Type 26 and Type 31 is 2027 with the new Type 32 following on after that.
As you quite rightly say, why not build the Type 32 at other yards across the UK and speed up the in-service date?
I wonder how many additional jobs this could create in areas that require them?
I liked this part, “designed to protect territorial waters” when exactly?
If they speed it up then the replacement ships/designs also need to be speeded up to keep a continuous ship building industry going which wont happen.
So we continue building at a snail’s pace in that case.
If you’d used sped instead of speeded you would have saved three more “e”s for another comment.
You realise that spreading out the work would increase costs and only create jobs for a handful of years before they go bust again?
The goal is to make shipbuilding more secure, not go back to the boom and bust of the past where yards either go broke or are sustained through unwanted orders like the River batch 2s.
OK, so we continue building at a slow rate In Scotland, let the other yards go bust in the UK for lack of workshare and whats happens then if Scotland becomes independent?
No expert by any means on this matter, just asking for your opinion.
I think Spyinthesky came up with a possible solution further down on this thread. #556194
BAES have already stated that they’d move shipbuilding back to Portsmouth from the Clyde, and it’s likely that Babcock would do the same in case of independence. Contracts already awarded would likely be honoured simply because moving them would add undue expense and delays.
Its important to remember that unless Scotland votes for independence, the UK needs to continue to function as it means to go on. Anything else is a waste of capacity and increases the likelihood of independence.
Many thanks!
Agreed. As far as facilities go, the BAES covered ship hall in Portsmouth might ramp up relatively quickly for T26, and might even support a 160-170m T83 build without having to split into fore and aft blocks. Babcock might be a little more challenged with T31 in Devonport. The frigate complex is too small for T26 and T31 so they’ll probably have to make changes there anyway, once lifex is done and as T23 phase out. But to your point, continuing to invest in Scotland makes more sense. The potential in Portsmouth and Devonport just reinforces that there are not… Read more »
The Type 32s should be built in the North East with option for the new destroyers to be built at Barrow along with submarines. Barrow and the north east have built great ships in the past and can do again.
Scotland should have the repair work for the existing orders.
UK shipbuilding needs resilience and defence expenditure should be used effectively for the forces not for other purposes.
What is the impact of regional taxes on the specification of any ship and thereby the safety of the crew if placed in harms way?
By what logic does any of that make sense? The Clyde Scotstoun yard has been in continuous operation for over a century and a half, and Rosyth built up a large workforce during the carrier built. The North East has neither anymore, and Barrow is already at full capacity and behind on the submarine build. defence expenditure should be used effectively for the forces not for other purposes You’re literally suggesting using defence expenditure to make a political attack on British workers. There is no logic to spending billions and many years moving the warship industry south of the border… Read more »
To clarify the point raised earlier I was talking about a UK based shipbuilding programme that has resilience and competition without making any comments about the current workforce.
It is not a political attack but a sharing of work across regions who all have an equal case to be awarded the work. Taking aside any political sensitivities or arguments we all want a larger more capable Royal Navy that at some stage will require a surge in ships from a number of shipyards. The political arguments are for other forums.
Does that mean that the UK will build aircraft and AFV’s on multiple sites across the country too ??? Defence spending gets shared around, we don’t build enough of anything to justify multiple site construction (the exception being the fudge on frigates) so they’re concentrated in one area. When it comes to the 2 sites for frigates, do you not think it makes sense to have them geographically close for the transfer of workers ??? That’s not even factoring in that the 13 frigates built in Scotland (quite wrongly in my view but hey ho) became a political promise in… Read more »
When Threats emerge ? 😂
If you create lots of new jobs you need to keep the workstream going… better really to keep order books full for the yards you do have than create boom-crash cycles.
Only Rosyth and BAe on the Clyde can build frigates, and BAe will still be building Type 26s, and will then probably get the Type 83 Destroyers. Remember the hull is a small part of total contract – much of the ships systems will make up most contract value will be built elsewhere in the UK.
What happens if the proposed (by the SNP) Indyref Mk2 is successful? I thought that agreements with the USA demanded any shared technology was not farmed out to a third country.
The U.K. Government won’t give permission for another IndyRef2 and if the SNP hold one then they’ll find themselves in the same position as the Catalan Government.
I find it incomprehensible that behind the scenes, contingency planning for their construction outside of Scotland, in case of you know what, isn’t taking place. We all know that whatever ships that are already under construction, will be completed by Scottish yards. It would be utterly stupid to do anything else, We can’t just stop construction mid build and move the work elsewhere. ..But any ship that hasn’t had its first steel cut & laid down, which will certainly be the case with the Batch 2 Type 26’s & these new Type 31 & 32’s will NOT be built in… Read more »
I fear that there will either be a delay to the work moving elsewhere best part of a decade even potentially with us biting our tongues and holding our noses or there will be a hold on future ships starting build till alternative sites can be brought online. I suspect a blend of the two. Either way it’s going to create/inflame a seriously bad start to any post Independence relationship between the countries. One thing is for certainly the Scottish Govt will spin it as the hated English depriving them of their rightful God given business, probably with some hypocritical… Read more »
Well, as for the part about a bad relationship between Scotland & the rUK, one of the only benefits of Scotland leaving the UK, is that we’d no longer need to care what they thought of us any more and not take any suffering on their part, in terms of lost jobs, into consideration. If they lose 10,000 (defence related) jobs overnight as a result of their decisions..too bad. It will be one of the harsh realities of a post indy world, coming home to roost. Every job lost in a post Indy Scotland is an opportunity for one job… Read more »
Good luck with that its not going to happen.
Johnson is playing a strategic game hoping that this sort of job retention scheme along with the vaccine manufacturing plant thats been allocated to Scotland will convince the populus that the UK has their best interests at heart.
I don’t think it will make any difference and if anything will strengthen SNP rhetoric that they are capable of a successful independance vote.
Will Johnson have a backup plan?- What do you think …
His backup is not giving permission for IndyRef2, which is required for the SNP to have a legal referendum.
Or maybe its just to throw more money from his latest magic money treee at Scotland In the vain hope it appeases enough of the Nationalists to avert this. Johnson is being held over the proverbial barrel and I am now starting to believe 1) It won’t make any difference & 2) It’s not worth it. I would now be looking to change tac and make the carrot smaller -not bigger, bring some harsh realities to the table. I’m all for the UK but not at any cost – not at this moment financially anyway. if you think merely not… Read more »
Permission has to be granted by the PM for any independence referendum to have a legal status. Yes the SNP could just go ahead, have a referenda and declare UDI. But as shown with Catalonia, nobody would recognise it, including the EU that the SNP want to join. Plus the organisers of the Catalan referendum are either in jail or on the run 🤷♂️
I think defence related job losses would be far greater. 2 x ship yards, 1x major naval base, 1x major air base, at least 2 x army bases (functioning airfields) and support ecosystem, that has to be 30,000 jobs. Add to that UK banks moving south, asset managers etc and I think you start to approach 60,000 jobs. And there will be more. And then there’s the question of the £.
If the Scots got independence then the incomplete frigate hulls would be dragged out of the Scottish yards. The MoD Chad form having previously done this taking the incomplete final Bay class from Swan Hunter in Wallsend for completion by BAE.
That might work when you’re talking about a ‘large merch’ basically but there aren’t really any alternatives (at the moment) to build complex warships.
All of these ships are too small and under armed. How is it the MOD/RN can commission warships with such pathetic armament. Poor and limited anti ship missile capability. After all one of the primary purposes of a warship is to seek and engage enemy warships.
A destroyer/cruiser class of vessel is required – in the 12-15000 ton displacement size – 8 or 10 such vessels would do nicely, suitably armed with a range of ASW systems.
Thats not what these 31 & 32’s are for. The Type 26 and the Type 83 (Type 45 replacement) will provide the teeth of the RN.
These smaller ships are for all the other stuff the RN has to find hulls for..
JJ is right though. We always do this. The Type 45s are a classic example of underarmed vessels. They had space built into them for 16 Mk41 VLS which could have carried a mixture of quad packed Sea Ceptor, Ashm of some kind, and various other assets. Instead we have a somewhat embarassing empty space where the Harpoons used to be. The Type 31e apparently only has 12 Sea Ceptors and enough firepower to protect itself against a few patrol boats but little else. The Type 26, despite being an anti-submarine specialist, has no onboard anti-submarine weapons which is really… Read more »
Actually Warrior hasnt been upgraded with that. After 10 years and 400million the entire thing has been cancelled before production. CVRT is still in service with a hand cranked turret (try and find many pictures of one where the gun isnt at 12 o’clock!). That is not yet replaced. You also overestimate Russian and US systems btw. And everything can fire on the move, its just a question of where the round goes! Why do our warships need to be so armed? When have we needed that? In ‘82 our anti surface capability was very clearly demonstrated as SSN. One… Read more »
Didn’t know that about the Warrior – appalling! I’m pretty sure Storm Shadow was explicitly dropped from the F-35 program. Numerous articles from a few years ago state as much, unless there’s been a recent turn around in policy? Am very happy to be wrong on that one! As for the arming of surface ships – this is an interesting article from UKDJ: https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/improving-the-type-45-destroyer/#_ftn2 If the T26 is an anti-sub specialist and the idea is to keep enemy subs at too great a range from the carriers to be a threat then does this not imply that the T26s will… Read more »
Ref T26, no. It is never going to operate alone actually sinking submarines. Even the lone East of Suez T23(26), there as “Force ASW ship” would, if the balloon whet up with say Iran and its SSKs, operate as part of a surface, sub surface and air task force hunting them in which it is one node specialising in enduring detection and with a (part time) prosecution helo. Ref LRASM, why? Surface launched SSMs never even got close to being fired in 1982 – it was obvious that air delivered weapons offered far greater range and flexibility (including rapid reload)… Read more »
Surface launched ASMs have been used numerous times in combat by the Israelis, Egyptians, Syrians, Americans, Iranians, Hezbollah, and the Houthi’s, among others. They have been involved in several strikes on surface vessels such as the INS Hanit (2006, badly damaged) and the Iranian ship Sahand (1988, sunk). Given the realities of war, it is not always a guarantee that an SSN would be available right when needed – you’ll recall for example in ’82 that HMS Splendid was not able to sink the Argentinian carrier, despite Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward stating in his book 100 Days that had Splendid… Read more »
Few of those missiles were ship launched however – nor would having SSMs on the victim have made much difference due to SA deficiencies and Rules of Engagement amongst others. The overwhelming lesson, as in ‘82, was to have better active and passive defences which is where the vast bulk of effort has gone. Woodward seemed more concerned about Belgrano’s guns – although his book is questionable in places given it was heavily edited post war and amongst the edits were admitted efforts to push particular horses. But a balance is best, hence why we had Harpoon and will get… Read more »
“Woodward seemed more concerned about Belgrano’s guns” – that’s not true. He specifically stated that the Belgrano by itself was “not that big a threat” but that “16 exocets arriving from the South [fired by the destroyers] would be very bad news for us”. He also recounts another incident in the same book where during an exercise he, as captain of HMS Glamorgan, was able to “sink” the aircraft carrier USS Coral Sea, again with ship launched exocets. I’m pretty sure he knew what he was talking about. And you didn’t answer the point about what happens when an SSN… Read more »
They were such a threat, it was the Belgrano that was always targeted. The Exocet armed destroyers (with 8, not 16) were left alone. Why? because Belgrano had the guns and the big strategic impact – it wasn’t the Wikipedia range of SSMs that were relevent but the moral component of warfare in sinking something big. Woodward’s Coral Sea was as even he admited, exceptionally cheeky and frankly abused the rules of the exercise (brilliantly, I’d do the same!), but it wasnt a lesson of war in terms of SSMs but a lesson of deception and mind fkry – noting… Read more »
The 2 escorting destroyers had 8 missiles each, hence 16 in total. They were left alone because Cmdr Wreford-Brown of Conqueror felt that after hitting the Belgrano the destroyers were now basically on a humanitarian rescue mission and, again to quote Woodward “he [Cmdr W-Brown] left them to their un-enviable task”. The Belgrano was the Arg flag ship so clearly it had value in that sense and it could deliver a decent gun volley, but the fact remains Woodward himself in his own words was more concerned about the threat posed to his fleet by the exocets on the destroyers… Read more »
Can you evidence 8 Exocet per ship? https://www.historynet.com/sin-the-belgrano.htm states 4 each, as does wikipedia. I know, but nowhere are 8 listed. Again. They targeted the Belgrano. As I said, the military threat of the SSMs was so secondary it wasnt even a discussion. Again, what was the counter to SSM armed ships? A sub, and if that had failed – Sea Harrier attack. RN deployment made no effort to put SSM equipped ships near them or to form a counter surface, surface group – that should tell you what their actual threat and counter threat appreciation was. Woodward’s book was… Read more »
If you can’t work that one out by yourself, despite repeatedly advocating the use of air launched anti-ship missiles, then I think we’re done. You can trust your website if you want to. I’ll trust the words of the actual commander of the UK task force in ’82 on the assumption that his intelligence of the enemy forces arrayed against him at the time was better than yours is today.
So you’ve no evidence at all then. Strange, but happy with that. In your world the fog of war and hindsight are just things understood by other people I suppose. As are orbats and counting. Staff College still recommends 100 Days btw and I first read it in the early 1990s on publication, it now sits on my shelf looking rather bedraggled – but to have such touching faith in the integrity of the author to not have amended/presented things so as to be highly favourable to their decisions and actions, is rather naieve. You honestly think our surface ships… Read more »
“I’ll trust the words of the actual commander of the UK task force in ’82 on the assumption that his intelligence of the enemy forces arrayed against him at the time was better than yours is today.” Not taking sides Gareth, just tossing this in, we had a visit from 2SL down an S boat a few years ago and when he popped into my compartment he asked “and what do we do in here ?”, as I started to explain, he admitted he should know as he was a former captain of that boat. These guys don’t always have… Read more »
It’s a shame about Warrior, but the Army got the shaft and really if something had to go it was probably going to be Warrior, at least Boxer will be a kind of replacement for it (not ideal but better than nothing).
Hi Gareth, All, correct if I’m wrong but the does above be image of the T31 seems to show two possible Dragon Fires and ve the hangar? I wonder how close they are to bringing this into service? What is it’s effective range anyway, anyone know?
sorry for the typos… does the above image…
A P2000 is a Warship. An MCMV is a Warship. An inshore survey boat is a Warship.
Its the HMS bit that defines a Warship not its size or armament .
Stick to top trumps.
Howsit Gunbuster. Did you check the link of Big Lizzie from Gibraltar to challenge the title of best photo?
Oops-sorry. This was meant for Lusty who reckons ‘his’ photo of HMS QE is better than ‘mine’.
I stumbled on your comment by mistake haha.
Good photo, but I do like a warship in a heaving sea!
Unless you’re on it of course Lusty. 👎
True, but it’s always fun to see how the new ratings cope! 😉
HMS Raleigh ?
I would love to see Raleigh try to float!!
As every ship is increasingly becoming a sitting duck as technology improves offensively faster than defensively as things stand, I would be very concerned at producing a fewer number of bigger ships. Smaller the better from my perspective. That said getting the balance between weapons/sensor fit and size is a vital ingredient especially for general purpose ships and I am not sure it is clear where that balance lies a decade from now or even the balance between building allrounders and specialist vessels as an added complication. Probably why the prospective classes seem to be expanding faster than actual numbers… Read more »
I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs? I’m sure they would be a very useful partner to have onboard. As you say and I have mentioned recently, large ships with long build times might not be the best way forward in the future? The Visby class is a very good example of this, very well armed and more to come it seems. The Nextgen Visby is perfect for coastal defence and gulf operations. “The Visby Generation 2 is a development of Visby-class version 5 and will be equipped with a modern anti-ship missile system,… Read more »
The answer is simple. Sweden focusses on the Baltic. The UK focusses on the world.
Visby’s range is c.2500nm.
A type 23 is 7500nm, a threefold difference.
T26/31/32 are defined by taking the T23 concept and making it an even more of a global ship.
It’s hard to think of a less suitable ship for the RN than Visby really.
“It’s hard to think of a less suitable ship for the RN than Visby really.”
Agreed. I’m sure it would be a ‘super-cool’ escort for the odd Russian war vessel (and its tug) passing through the channel from time to time what with all the guns and stuff, but that’s about it. Its not got the legs for further deployment and will cost a shit load more than the Rivers (which we’ve already paid for) to do the same job.
Hardly,
But that was not the point I was making in my original post.
“I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs? I’m sure they would be a very useful partner to have on board.”
“I have mentioned recently, large ships with long build times might not be the best way forward in the future? The Visby class is a very good example of this“
Yes you have Nigel, quite often. Fair enough but don’t be surprised when you keep repeating it, people will continue to offer an alternative logic. “I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs? I’m sure they would be a very useful partner to have on board.”….. followed by “The Visby class is a very good example of this, very well armed and more to come it seems. The Nextgen Visby is perfect for coastal defence and gulf operations.” So forgive me if I don’t disassociate your keenness for working with the Swedes with the outcome… Read more »
UKDJ is a site to discuss ideas or alternatives and like me, you have your own opinions. All I’m asking is when people reply to me, read my post first before commenting.
Put the big boy breeks on Nigel. I did read your posts, over a couple of threads. I’ve been courteous enough in my replies (until now I suppose) and I’ve explained why I disagree, as others have done too.
Just as you have your right to push your ideas, others have the right to counter them. Don’t get precious when your posts get deconstructed in replies, I’ve explained my ‘workings’ further up this discussion, its not like I’m the only one. Keep banging your Visby drum, I’ll probably get bored of replying so then you can call it a win.
Visby drum Again,?try to understand what it is I’ve said, it was merely a reference nothing more.
As I said,
UKDJ is a site to discuss ideas or alternatives and like me, you have your own opinions.
If you reply to my post, clearly I will do my best to provide you with an answer.
As for winning, that makes no sense to me at all I’m afraid.
When was the last time Sweden made something that wasn’t a small, short range corvette? Maybe Goeta Lejon? And that was build in the 1940’s. While Sweden does make a lot of very good kit, I’m not sure I’d want them designing my large ocean going escorts…
They are building larger ships and as I said above, Coastal Defence and the Gulf region for a Visby Class would have been ideal in my opinion for this tasking.
“It’s hard to think of a less suitable ship for the RN than Visby really”
Batch 2 rivers spring to mind?
Cost £116M
Visby Corvette £141M
I would happily swap distance for stealth, speed and armament personally, given we have tankers in the RN fleet to refuel them.
https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2020/01/26/visby-class-corvette/
Why would we want such a one trick pony? The days of buying “gulf” optimised ships disappeared 6 decades ago. At best we have 1 ship in the Gulf at any time, why on earth base a class around it? We dont have a coastal defence problem that a Batch 1 River or something smaller and cheaper cant handle aka the Border Agency ships – its smuggling and offshore tapestry not anti surface and anti air and absolutely not stealth coatings territory. Those costs bear almost no relation to each other given underlying infra and governement furnished equipment aspects –… Read more »
Going back to my original post, “I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs? I’m sure they would be a very useful partner to have on board.” And using the Visby Class purely an example of this, “The Visby class is a very good example of this” perhaps you might consider in future reading what it is I’ve said first before going off on a tangent. Define for me what a one-trick pony is in your opinion? A batch one River? A Batch 2 River? A Border Agency ship? And then you go on to… Read more »
Because their ships are short range, short endurance, enclosed sea designs which exactly fit their requirements. Their requirements and ships are however the complete opposite of what the RN needs which is long range, long endurance open ocean types. Hence why nobody is interested in such a tie up. Isnt that obvious? In terms of Patrol boats, they are one trick ponies, but are cheap and for a one trick job. Our patrol boats need a hull, small gun, small boats and a simple sensor fit. Why waste money trying to make them ubermench for a non existent requirement? Border… Read more »
Sorry to disagree with you on this.
“Because their ships are short range, short endurance, enclosed sea designs which exactly fit their requirements.”
The Visby Corvette 2 that I mentioned isn’t short on range and can be adapted to suit the customer’s requirements.
More to the point, you’ve completely misread my original post.
“I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs?
“The Visby Generation 2 is a development of Visby-class version 5 and will be equipped with a modern anti-ship missile system, torpedo system and air defence missile system.”
https://i.redd.it/lbiluchikbo51.jpg
14 days is nothing and that’s half the range of a T31. And that’s their best PR figures so reality is worse. So yes, that’s exactly what it is. You realise T23 has a full 50% more and that is barely sufficient for its op tasks, and routinely spends 4+ weeks at sea. A T23 has north of 200 people on it for a an operational deployment. We havent even started on self maintenance yet. The whole purpose of the T26/31 generation is to get properly globally deployable ships instead of the T23 which kinda sorta best efforts does it… Read more »
You said Visby’s range is c.2500nm above. I was only pointing out the published facts to you for your reference.
In relation to crew numbers, think loss of life, hence the reason for smaller ships configured for stealth.
More to the point, you’ve completely misread my original post again.
“I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs? I’m sure they would be a very useful partner to have on board.”
The Visby that is actually floating is 2500. Yours is a picture and some PR stats. How about we think less about prioritising “reduced loss of life” as the driver of what shipnwe buy and more about the ship having a useful capability and being able to do what we want it to do and then having a crew size matched to that? If we put the people on a Visby that we need to do the tasks we want the ship to do – its crew would grow to equal that of a T23/26/31 ship. The answer is staring… Read more »
His picture isn’t of a Visby, it’s off a theoretical design Saab are floating to replace Swedens K40 requirement (aka a planned Patrol Ship that would have in at about 2,800 tonnes, before Sweden cancelled it). That’s the equivilant of putting the stats of a River and claiming they apply to a Sandown.
I’m confused by that. River & Sandown?
In terms of working closer with other nations – its the Dutch I admire. Very solid and capable ships and arguably better than ours over several decades now plus fully NATO integrated. The Holland class would be ideal for what the River2s are doing.
With subs and their amphibs they are very impressive – and whilst there has been some exchange (RR engines, Lynx, Goalkeeper, the LSDs, S1850 radar and other electronics) it seems a pity there wasnt and isnt much, much more.
Flexpatrol 98 (K40): Size: 98x15x3m Displacement: 2400t Visby: Size 70x10x2m Displacement: 640t River OPV Size 90x13x3.8m Displacement: 2,000t Sandown MCMV Size: 50x11x2m Displacement: 600t Nigel was saying that a Visby’s range is 5,500nm using the Flexpatrol 98 numbers, but that’s a very different ship to a Visby, the difference is comparable to that between a River and a Sandown. At anyrate Flexpatrol was a paper design for a requirement the Swedish Navy had, but then cancelled. The Holland Class are nice ships, though I’d maybe want to look into if dropping the 76mm for something lighter would get it longer… Read more »
Ahh that makes sense. I’m also confused as to why a faster turnaround of building ships would imply moving to ones too small and short legged to do anything, but then this entire idea of Sweden with its small short ranged ships and the RN with its global patrol and strike group ones, makes no sense unless you really, really, like Sweden. Now Sweden is a nice place and so are the Swedes, but nobody is seriously proposing a tie up. Holland is a big ship, surprised the endurance is that low, and it has a pricey ISR fit –… Read more »
I think it just goes to show how good of a job the RN has done at making the Rivers optimised for long sea legs. I guess there is only so much you can fit into a 2,000t hull. On the bright side at least in the Amphib world we have a long standing working arrangement with the Korps Mariniers.
Yeah Sweden makes some very decent kit, just not in the world of Ocean Going Warships, there’s plenty other neighbours to look to if you want that, the Netherlands, Denmark both leap to mind.
Your post is completely taken out of context, read what I said originally. The comparison is between the larger next gen flex patrol 98 and the Batch 2 in relation to distance. future warship designs You also have the incorrect displacement above, it’s 2400tonnes as it says in the picture you’re referring to. Saab Signs Two Contracts for Next Generation Corvettes for Sweden https://www.saab.com/newsroom/press-releases/2021/saab-signs-two-contracts-for-next-generation-corvettes-for-sweden My original post: “I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs? I’m sure they would be a very useful partner to have onboard. As you say and I have mentioned recently,… Read more »
Nigel please don’t be insulting, I read the entire thread as you can tell by my replies to quite a few things. You tried to correct Rob’s statement of a Visby’s range by citing a range of a completely different ship that is 4x the size of a Visby and never was built. I emphasise this: The Flex Patrol 98 is not a Visby, it is 4x the size of a Visby, and that’s a very different proposition. I have the correct displacement for an actual Visby, it is 640t (650 at full load), since you are so fond of… Read more »
I know what the difference is and the displacements. “future warship designs” “very useful partner” In short, all of the comments that followed have no relation to what I said in my original post. It’s not that hard to understand surely My original post: “I’ve often wondered why we have not joined Sweeden on future warship designs? I’m sure they would be a very useful partner to have onboard. As you say and I have mentioned recently, large ships with long build times might not be the best way forward in the future? The Visby class is a very good example of this,… Read more »
Well clearly you don’t because you pulled Rob up for using the correct ranges, when you mixed them up, sorry edit And then had a go at me for listing the correct displacement of a Visby, so frankly, you’re lying now. You can quote your original post all you like, but that doesn’t make it right. Please actually try to engage instead of quoting yourself over and over again, it’s tiresome. You mentioned that, and you are wrong and others have repeatedly told you that you are wrong, so I don’t really see much need to hammer that point home.… Read more »
“it’s tiresome”, tell me about it. READ AND UNDERSTAND MY ORIGINAL POST.
“Well clearly you don’t because you pulled Rob up for using the correct ranges when you mixed them up, sorry edit And then had a go at me for listing the correct displacement of a Visby, so frankly, you’re lying now.”
Look at the picture, does that look like a Visby or a Flexpatrol to you? I used the image to show that they have a future design that matches Batch 2 which will have a greater range than the Visby.
EVERYONE HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD YOUR ORIGINAL POST!
Get int into your thick skull. Because people don’t agree with what you said, or because you straight up are wrong does not mean they haven’t read it or your UNENDING quote tweets.
Oh my god, you’re hopeless, it’s a Flexpatrol kid, we’ve been over this. Take a leaf from your own book and go read the thread again.
I’m aware of what it is as the picture that I posted above states that you keep referring to, in relation to distance compared with a Batch 2 river. As for what others think? that’s their opinion. What’s more important is to correctly reply to the original post in the first place. technologies, solutions and experience gained from the Visby corvettes and other vessels have been used to develop Saab’s next-generation Corvette ships with lengths ranging from 70 to 110 metres. The ships are flexible and multi-mission capable and can be used on a broad spectrum of missions. These include surface combat,… Read more »
Well that’s a surprise because everything so far indicats you are not.
Predictable reference to original post, with more rude bolding….
And reference to more paper designs, again relatively small ships (about the size of a river) with short endurance, which the RN doesn’t need, or want, and Sweden has no experience building, but still referring to them in the present tense.
Now how about you go back and read what everyone else has already told you. Since you’re so fond of telling people to go back and read things. Maybe you’ll actually learn something by doing it this time.
Have an enjoyable evening Dern, and perhaps try to respond to my original posts (hopefully not) in future, that way you can stay on track. I only use bold text to highlight a point nothing more. Something you will see on headlines as well. This would be my definition of being rude and personal. Get int into your thick skull. Because people don’t agree with what you said, or because you straight up are wrong does not mean they haven’t read it or your UNENDING quote tweets. Oh my god, you’re hopeless, it’s a Flexpatrol kid, we’ve been over this.… Read more »
Well… thanks for confirming my predictions…
I wasn’t going to respond but since you called me out:
Shockingly when you spend the entire thread being rude and abbrasive, and then resort to shouting at people IN BALD ALL CAPS to do as you say, they’ll be rude back to you.
So, and let me make this absolutely clear Nigel: I couldn’t give a flying fuck what you think is rude.
In fact you know what, have the last word, enjoy it. I’m sure it’ll suggest that if only I read your first comment I’d understand, and that you didn’t repeatedly mix several different ships. Take care.
Why would anyone care about what they make equivalent to a River2? Hordes of countries produce OPVs, they’re hardly a complex warship that requires lots of partnership to produce, or indeed even has much scope for partnership work. We also have more Rivers than we want – this isnt a category of warship the RN has any more interest in. As Dern points out, their other (vapourware) concepts are all still small, short ranged and of little relevance to what the RN wants. Hence again, as the very first, and many other replies have said – the reason Sweden is… Read more »
Not even bothering to read it, you’re talking to yourself.
Oh, go on, please please please and pretty please bring your ball back. It was such a lovely ball, all that blue and yellow, albeit a bit small for the big boys league.
We all have damp parade days, I just hope you can learn from it.
Btw: You meant “you’re”. You’re welcome.
That seeemed pretty reasonable and polite Rogbob.
Just to put those 14 days into perspective: A River B2 has a 35 day at sea endurance. (And a significantly lower crew requirement, meaning much cheaper to operate, meaning more manpower in the escort fleet where it’s needed).
I thought I read the other day an explicit statement from someone in govt. confirming that migration of B2’s back to the UK to be replaced with frigates in forward deployments. Not that it was unexpected, just that I hadn’t seen it spelled out before. Couldn’t find it to link to unfortunately.
Interesting.
So… Visby cost a lot more even when you factor in the whole “Keeping Scottish shipyards in business.” And fit the Royal Navy’s needs a lot less… got it.
Not only that but the Visby, being so small, will really struggle in most of the waters the RN frequents. That 2,500nm range after all is for the Baltic… in the North Atlantic it’ll be significantly less than that (if it can even handle the North Atlantic in the first place).
The Big ship, Small ship arguement has been going on for years, the same with the arguement for armour/no armour. The big ship has some advatage over the small ship, one it can carry more sensors and weapons meaning it is better equipped for an active defence, shooty bang things. The big ship is also better in the passive defence, basically it would take more hits before it is sunk. However, in the modern world you do not need to sink a ship to put it out of action, just destroy the sensor suite and the ship would be out… Read more »
T45 is as it is becasue it does more than AAW. It needs boats for SAR, including for itself and getting to/from other ships if a helo is not available. It has a gun as this is used for illumination, chaff and a lesson of the falklands was anything can find itself needing to fire something at something. Its also a minimal ship impact on a ship that large. It has a Merlin hangar as the Merlin is the principal above water ASW asset and a hangar, deck and helo add a lot of capability to a task force indpt… Read more »
Agreed and a very good explanation.
Interesting. So the T32s will follow the T31s at Rosyth and be designed to support littoral ops. Sounds like a T31 with a bigger gun for NGS and containerised autonomous mine counter measure equipment.
Yes and according to the ISDR and subsequent reports say that the T32 will have a defensive suite but there attack systems will be ” off ship” ie UAV and USV systems..drones.There’s a lot of work going on in Plymouth.
So it looks like Babcock has without compition been given the green light for either a Batch2 T31 or a reworked T31 possibly on the lines of the AbSalon class, which would make sense in many ways.
Not ideal this has just been handed out – or T32 is still very much emphemeral and this doesnt really mean anything!
When Babcock double the price because they know its politically unpalatable for Westminster to pull the order from a Scottish yard it may not make so much sense.
If there is to be any competition or bidding process I wish they’d refrain from saying such things, it just gives the “betrayal” crowd ammunition if they even consider a different yard now.
I can only think they are desperate and using all ammunition to prevent the split.
I think anyone with an IQ of more than 2 knows shipbuilding in Scotland is dead if they split, just look at the Ferguson Marine fiasco. So I really don’t know why the UK government needs to make such big deal about it.
Only because the SNP does really.
I know there are plenty on here who’s default is to lose their shit at the very mention of Scotland but you boys need to take a couple of marching paces and think about it. The escort building experience IS in Scotland, in the distribution of defence spending they’ve been getting built in Glasgow for a while now. For a couple of reasons (expense and politics) the reduction of 13 T26’s to 8 and the building of the cheaper escorts has lead to 2 yards, both in Scotland. If (remember its a big IF as BoJo has already said he’s… Read more »
Nice rational comment Andy.
HMG will hedge – lots of talk of plans, minimal actual financial commitments it cant get out of.
But yes, by the time Scotland could actually be fully indpt, T26 will be nearly done and T83 will be the one to watch.
Well said Andy. There is also the issue of the people who work there. Complex warships need skills and training up an entire work force takes time. Anyway we’ve been building most of our major warships in Scotland for over a hundred years so unless the very worst happens I think they can expect that to continue. Also plenty of Army & RAF contracts go to other parts of the union. One thing though, I do hope the FSS contracts go to the Tyne or Mersey as the Scottish yards will be busy.
There hasn’t been a ship built in the Tyne in 15 years. The last completed ship was RFA Largs Bay, with the incomplete RFA Lyme Bay towed to Scotland for completion.
Well said Andy. Using common sense like that may land you in trouble though 😄👍🇬🇧
Totally agree, the ships probably should be built in Scotland. The drama I have is with it being fed out in drips and drabs like this. Either have the bids and select one, or outright announce that Babcock is designing and building the Type 32. I’m not a fan of the sort of half announcement that could easily be gone back on, and give ammunition to the “broken firgate promises” lot.
I agree, the T31 competition worked really well imo. We’re getting a solid platform and there’s been a lot of oversea’s interest because its competitive. Babcock to make the ship at the cost have invested to make efficiencies. From an industrial stand point the T31 looks to be a success. Makes sense to repeat the process.
Is there a lot of overseas interest? I keep hearing people say this but never see any evidence of it. :/
I think it’s too early to say but Babcock have built a facility that can handle more volumes than the UK order alone. They must be quietly confident or they wouldn’t have invested. And 30 or more countries interested I would hope once UK orders look like they’re on time and cost something will firm up.
Ah fair one, I was wondering if there was an announcement that I missed somewhere.
China makes in one year that many ships.
The UK is famous for overpriced things at slow pace. As the cost goes up so does the speed slow down. Many economist pointed out that the UK has the lowest productivity among developed nations and this successive governments none of them has tackled it head on. The cost people pay for anything is so high often that foreign exporters charge more the consumers than other countries despite paying the same shipping cost . The Germans call it ” Treasure Island “
You realise china is about 20 times the size of the UK?
Its hardly surprising they produce a lot more.
If we compared say the UK to New Zealand (similar population ratio) they’ve built 2 combatants in the last 25 years (and they didnt even actually build the ANZACs!). We’ve built 10+ and 2 massive carriers plus half a dozen nuclear subs. But is that wily waving contest meaningfull?
Good luck beleiving anything economists come up with, or national statistics for that matter. As Sir Humphrey nearly said, or meant, they are a complete nonsense.
New Zealand has a population of aprox 5 million which is less than a tenth of the UK’s, a larger land area and a much lower population density. Best to compare us to France or Japan
Not if you are trying to imitate the daftness of a comparison between China and the UK 🙂
UK used to build a lot of ships, but orders dried up. Countries like Norway which has similar costs to UK can still compete. You’ll hear lots of things like subsidies of overseas yards which exist in some countries but the real cause lies in poor management and inflexible work force meaning those productivity gains that countries like Germany have could never be implemented in the UK. The peeny finally dropped in the 90s but it was too late for many segments of UK manufacturing. Its not just the governments job to tackle productivity, I visit a number of Manufacturing… Read more »
Yes you are right. Only Warship building has never promoted innovation and increased productivity, until recently. Sir John Parker had requested government must make sure that decent realistic taxpayer funded projects mean investment in facilties and people. It is well documented.
And I think the T31 is good evidence that Sir John Parker was right. The first round highlighted the yards couldn’t build the spec for the price. The MoD ajusted the contract now we have investment in Rosyth.
Yes and that was important.
Personally, I would like to see investment in Cammell Laird, and a frigate factory there, for as second line of T26s (say 4) and SSK building (say 5) but realistically that wont happen. So even with X number of T32s there isn’t going to be enough work for more than 2 shipyards. It also looks like we are reverting to the C1 C2 and C3 concept. With C1 = T26, C2 = T31, C3 = T32, numbers wise I would guess the best we could get is 8XT26, 5 X T31, and 8X T32
Type 32’s at Rosyth makes sense (costs and price can be measured down to the last weld seam now). After the Type 26’s, BAE finally build not the frigate factory, but ship factory at Scotstoun as it looks like the type 83’s will be very important bigger ships countering new threats. Ben Wallace was part of the pro Fleet Solid Support Ship build in the UK group and needs to stick to that. They are more steel intensive warships, rather than systems based. This will invigorate the plate, section, pipe steel makers in the UK and help them integrate more… Read more »
“Regarding all the England Scotland stuff. It is sad, because it is manipulating politicians from every side who cause all this rubbish and devisiveness amongst us Britons. Scotland’s contribution to the Union of our Country is brilliant and has just as must right to this UK franchise as any other part. Surely our main interest is in the care of all of us Britons, and not rip ourselves apart for what, for manipulative self promoting, vested interested politicians (I mean many of them too and not from just a single party)?” Totally agree, politicians often pander to a pretty low… Read more »
I wonder if there are plans to equip the new frigates with LRAD communications systems (LRAD 950RXL) like we see in almost all other european navies.
Why are we building so many different types ? That’s an expensive way to get hulls in the water, or do the frigates share a common hull ?
Surely you pick a design that is fitted for but not with all the toys, then add the toys as and when you need them. One hull design, one power plant, across the board would be much more efficient, ships could then be scaled for the intended purpose, whether that’s RN requirement or overseas sales requirements.