New frigate to be in the water this year

A lot more should have been fitted at this point if only to reduce fitting out times.

Steel cutting was only just started on the 2nd hull(HMS Active) in January. It has Not yet been laid down in the main build hall. Some parts of this 2nd hull are being built in Poland.

The man from Del Monte, he says “Yes!”, but as always the idiots at the treasury say no to adequate & wise funding of vital national defences.

I don’t think so.

T23 are life expired hulls.

T22 was withdrawn when T42 went and the Invincibles were paid off due to its then unique and ancient machinery.

Because Invincibles used a lot of the same bits as T22 the OSD’s were always roughly lined up.

With only T22 in the supply chain it was simply too expensive to keep them going.

What I would say is the T23s flogged off to Chile was an error as was the flogging of a perfectly young amphibian to AUS. But i agree the T23 lifexs are now just flogging a dead horse and pissing money way…but that’s because HMG spent too long not ordering new escorts.

Very true 👍

And uncut our selfs when selling ships off with plenty of hull life left.🙄

When did that last happen then?

HMS Monmouth has already been stripped of a lot of her parts/components.
It would uneconomic to restore her with parts that are no longer produced.
Production lines would need to be re- established, to produce expired components, a very costly affair indeed!

Have you ever heard of “coffin ships” ? Westminster has been in the water for 31 years and was designed for 18. What’s more the workload was supposed to be spread over a class of 16 T23, not 13. There are folks on here who have 1st hand experience of refitting these ships and know what condition they are in.

RN may well choose to redirect majority of remaining T-23 LIFEX activity/effort/resources toward preserving/extending the fleet ASW capability, as opposed to preserving the GP capacity. The GP function is currently slated to be fulfilled by new build T-31s NLT 2030, whereas, ASW function will not renewed until 203X by completion of T-26 flotilla. Presume it would be relatively logical to seek to minimize rhe timeframe of the capability gap, assuming all other factors are held equal. 🤔

. … will not (be) renewed… minimize (the) timeframe…🙄

Unfortunately Westminster is one of the ASW T23’s and for the MOD to suspend her refit means it must be pretty major.
Also despite the similarities between the GP and ASW versions they went down alternative upgrade paths years ago and changing one would be a huge undertaking.
Gunbuster where are you ?
Different versions of Spey engines, different DG sets, Sonar, sound deadening etc etc.

😳😱☹️

Will any of the T23 ASW gear be going into the T26s?
Those 32 CAMM farms could useful on the T31s.

The tails are along with a few other bits and pieces. The CAMM launchers aren’t, they’re a bit of a cludge as I understand it and the Inspirations are going to get purpose designed CAMM launchers (unless mk41 takes their place)

Thanks Dern. The 24 CAMM farm for the T31 might be the very same that also goes onto the T45s. Hoping the later can have an extra 12 CAMM but 24 not too bad.

The MoD has only brought new ASW gear, and radar, CAMM cartridges, for the first three vessels only. The remaining 5 T-26’s will use some stripped out gear from T-23’s. So three sets of gear from the last three remaining T-23’s, available for spares or another type of vessel in mid 2030’s.

That was my understanding if too that more cost effective spares were used on the GP versions.

Logic?

Well said

Not sure if this is a good suggestion or not, but doing some of the older T23s up and gifting 1-2 to Ukraine might be useful for them for Black-Asov Sea Ops. Like to see a top up catch of 1-3 T31s and even an extra T26. Anyway, first ships first!!

I’m with you I really like the look of the T45, although its not to all taste I gather.

I think we could maybe go off the Type 45 design to help for a future T83 .Allow for future weapon systems ,like star wars ect one day ? But give a bigger Displacement 12,000 13,000 tons .Has we have learned in the past batch 1s end up bigger 2 -3s

How about a British version of the Italian DDX? Already designed, has Aster, CAMM-ER (I think), AShMs, and plenty of gun mounts. Just add some MK41s and a 🇬🇧 . 😆

Well take a look 👍

I agree an air defence vessel needs to be fast and have plenty of power for future weapon systems. A bigger vessel will allow both and leave the space for more automated weapon handling systems as used on the QEC aircraft carriers. It ought to also allow for a strong hull for use in ice even if not a full ice breaker.

More type 45’s without the glitches?

Too much like an aerospace command vessel. Not a more all rounded destroyer!

Agree that the Type 26, in the form of the Aussie or Canadian variant (air defence optimized) be a follow on order to replace the Type 45 destroyers. I suggest the Type 83 be a new cruiser sized (15k tonne) air defence / anti ballistic defence large destroyer with a large land attack and anti ship load out .

I think T-83 class would not be allowed to enter the Black Sea, if they are more than 14Kt.

If they are Battlecruisers dont forget the armoured decks!

T45 replacement must surely be based on T26, we shouldn’t waste the effort put into making T26 acoustically efficient with a new hull, unless we can dramatically improve.

T26 is better than T45 on every metric except radar /AAD and I suspect we can fix this relatively easily by inserting a new radar and AAD suite onboard (perhaps losing flex space to accommodate this).

given funding constraints, I would make T26 more of a Burke type ship and have more of them.

batch 3 of T26 should implement features of the adaptable strike frigate, as should T32. With each batch improving incrementally thereafter.

my view is that we should aim for 16 of each type and then work the rest of the fleet around this.

each CSG needs 4 T26 and 2 T45 so a min of 12 is needed + 3 spares to furnish 2 CSGs = 15.

T31/T32 with appropriate unmanned systems could take over a lot of the other tasking and we should evolve and merge both into a single common hull over time.

we have lost so much of the surface fleet since 2010 and continue to do so. T31/32/ASF will eventually replace all the sandowns, hunts, echo and river classes, so 16 is a reduction in numbers.

2 QEC
15 T26
20 ASF (t31/32)
10 MRSS
7 MROSS
7 FFT
3 SSS
4 SSBN
12 SSN
16 X class (Patrick Beckett)

96 ship RN, rebuilt over 25/30 years

cut where you think necessary – but at least it’s an affordable plan. £5bn pa.

Should be with new hall at govan & barrow plus we could get CL & HL for the large RFA fleet. Babcock already has more capacity than it needs

Doable in my view given infra upgrades to most these sites

The other half of it is that ship design, like anything is a skill that can atrophy. Probably worth shelling out a little bit extra to make sure that when the Type 84 rolls around, and the T-26 hull definitely doesn’t work, it can still be designed.

Plus given the trend towards 10,000+ tonne destroyers/frigates, T-26 might be a bit small for what is needed in the 2040s and beyond.

Hi Dern,

With you on the size issue. Always build them bigger than you currently need because the threat never stays still and rarely gets less.

If I had my way, any defence project (or any infrastructure project for that matter) that did not have properly thought through growth potentional built in would not see the light of day.

Also if the growth allowance is there you can stamp down hard on requirements creep that bedevils programmes. If anyone tries to argue that mega widgit X or Y is needed you simply tell them OK stick in the update / technology insert requirements list. Tell them well done and send them one their way. Be interesting to see how mega widgets actually see the light of day.

Cheers CR

👍. for warships, not only additional space, but also, additional power generation capability, will be critical. Directed energy weapons will become a mandatory capability by 2040. AUKUS Pillar 2 R&D will assure maturation of designs.

if we were starting from a clean sheet, why do we need a frigate at all.

why not have all our ships like a Karel doorman or GLAM type mothership with a large missile load out, 4 helicopters and 8 CB90s / minesweeper / ASW assets.

if we can get the mojave UAV working off this as well as other UMVs we are good to go. Almost like dreadnought 50 without the fancy design.

do we need frigates when we can have motherships with a wide range of pods available.

if bigger is better then use the aegir hull and crack on

Agreed, a point I should have thought of- the design of both T26 and T31 has interest abroad and is far more exportable than our actual shipbuilding in that sense. To let that design capability die off again would be close to a crime.
Yes, if T83 is even the same size as T45 I’d be surprised..!

T45 B2 called it a cruiser maybe 👍

Yeah, exactly. In many ways the T45 already fitted closer to the role of the USN Ticonderoga cruiser, from the perspective that they carried the facilities to comand a task group. At least in the modern sense, that’s probably what differentiates a cruiser from a destroyer?
Number of launch cells is also a factor- although with the whole drive towards distributed systems tied together through comms, the number of Mk41 cells on any one vessel may not be so important.

Somebody explain to me why a new Type 83 ‘cruiser’ should not be a tri-hull design using either a type 45, 31, or 26 hull and systems as a starting point?

My only answer to that (as it seems very compelling) is that the Americans have had fatigue problems with their trimarans despite being based on Australian technology that was already thought quite mature. I think Triton was used in that program too and I note we didn’t progress matters beyond that text vessel. In reality I think it’s all about risk and cost taking on new design concepts. I remember the brick wall Vosper came up against when they proposed their shorter fatter frigate concept.

Thanks SitS. Structural fatigue risk is a valid reason I suppose, but I would have thought some clever naval architect could sort it out – like with aircraft design and safety factors used in calculations to keep above fatigue limits and a good dollop of British over-engineering.

It’s just that there are big gains to be quickly had by using existing hulls and systems in a tri-hull design, and having greater resilience if attacked (certainly for the central main hull.

Trimarans are also very inefficient fir displacement. You have low interior volume because you have three small hulls instead of one bug one. It’s good if you want a big deck on limited displacement, like a large HLS.

Maybe r&d cost would be beyond the MOD’S Grasp And THAT THE SHEER AMOUNT OF SQUABBLING THAT WOULD HAPPEN WOULD PUT THE SUBJECT BACK YEARS.

There is no reason why t26 can’t have a mid section extension, but does it need it when the flex deck can be used for whatever is needed.

we shouldn’t be sending these out on anything other than LSG or CSG tasking, everything else covered by T31/rivers/p2000s.

if we are going down the specialist route then they don’t need a massive flex deck for flexibility leave that to the other ships and accept T26 is a true escort fleet. Especially as we will have 2 CSG and 2 LSGs in future?

Jonathan, by your definition we would still have horses on the roads and ships with sail. Please, technology progresses, either we do it or someone else will. A good example of waste and mismanagement is the USN who have left the Burkes towards stultifying and not invested in frigates. Their attempt at high end has been a disaster and ditto their littorals. The U.K. has chosen the correct approach and to a lesser standard so have the French/Italians.

Not really no..your taking it to the extreme,I’m not taking about building the same ships for the next 40-50 years…but actually spending two decades building up the numbers is fine..you don’t need a complete redesign every 6-8 hulls…it’s not the hulls that are changing it’s the tec carried in them…the RN laid down the first type 12i leander in 1959 and commissioned the last in 1973..the type 22 was first laid down in 1975 and final one commissioned in 1990. So nothing really wrong with building ships over 20 years really…the fact the US will have been building ABs for almost fifty years is a bit long…but they are still the most deadly large surface combatants on the planet and it’s sustained US fleet numbers…so actually yes we may just want to stop redesigning exquisite platforms and make sure we actually have the numbers right before going onto the next design.

Jonathan, have you actually bothered to read any of the recent copious reports of the GAO or Congressional Reports on the USN? The ABs and the loss of design skills, because of the duration of this class, are one of the reasons for the mess of their recent surface combatants. They have had not one success, not one! From the Ford debacle, where they legislated to stop counting the cost at $13bn to the Littorals, where the Navy don’t want the ships and Congress are forcing them to keep “some”, to the Zumwalt, which were stopped at 3 and don’t have guns or a purpose, ABMC is the latest unfunded speculation. Dear oh dear Jonathan, some informed comment backed up by knowledge is nice. I love this site for the practioners that contribute with knowledgeable incisive posts.

Gosh are your comparing a run of ships that will be build over nearly sixty years..verses a suggesting to expand a run of ships from 5 to 10 and maybe 4-6 more of another hull, increasing the time timeframe of the builds to 15 and 20 years…get a grip man it’s not comparable….

But only 7 and when all built. Hopefully the SSNR follows right on afterwards. Even reactivating the last decommissioned T-boat (sorry, I can’t remember it’s name) might help with numbers and sub coverage in the short term..

Just looked it up, last two, HMS Talent and Triumph.

Triumph had a refit in 2022 to last until 2024/25. If they have the submariners available I could see this extended further to cover the gap in surface ASW assets.

Yes, that would be very good timing!

yes but there will only ever be a couple of boats deployed at any one time…and the SSN force has been constantly shrinking…..The RN needs ASW assets to cover all its commitments If we are losing T23s will tails before the Type 26s are in commission is shrinking again….using Merlin 2s in AEW roles shrinking again….35 MR2s replaces by 9 P8s…

where as in the AAW domain…the RN is now heading for every escort being armed with likely 30+ Mach 3 latest generation AAW missiles with a range of 25kM plus..that’s every escort….two 60ton carriers with fifth generation fighters…the RN has incomparable numbers of effective AAW assets compared to 2 decades ago…it’s ASW has not had the same love.

There are only ever so many of anything deployed at any given time, whether SSNs or frigates.

Your fantasy shopping list doesn’t offer a solution to the fact that we might have an unplanned dip in available ASW assets over the next couple of years due to T23s being too far gone for LIFEX.

If we can keep the last Trafalgar class going for a few more years, and maybe accelerate the build of Glasgow then it might be possible to avoid a dip – assuming Westminster isn’t the only ASW T23 that’s completely knackered. Anymore and then there will definitely be a dip.

It was not a fantasy shopping list Sean it was a factual review of lost ASW capabilities over the last 20 years…that’s not fantasy flee..it’s documenting a depressing decline….and a SSN Simply cannot be all things at all times……..the simple reality is navies like the French have been building some form of ASW capability into every escort they have…it may not alway be exquisite but it’s at least in the room..if the French can build a competent Surface combatant that is focused on both AAW and ASW then there is no reason the RNs reasonably priced escorts could not do both as well. It does not mean we don’t need exquisite ASW capabilities as well but these are alway going to be in limited numbers…and if you happen to loss one of the two ASW frigates attached to your carrier battle group due to a break down ( and ships and boats break for a pass time) and your other escorts can do FA ASW your in the shit.

Yeah but it does nothing to address the subject of the story, that we might lose one or more ASW frigates early leaving us with insufficient numbers.

Indeed so but the situation is dire because we have so few ASW platforms and have not defused any capabilities across the fleet…maybe a little bit more of a spread of capabilities would help….I’m trying to think of any other navy that puts no ASW capabilities at all in a large percentage of its escort fleet, and I cannot think of any….the French for instance have a very wide spread ASW and AAW capability. Let’s be honest..the RN could have had more ASW capabilities spread across the fleet, it was simply a money saving measure they did not…not a specific valid operational reason…If HMG had provided the money the type 45s could have had the same level of ASW capabilities as a Burke….without impacting a jot on their AAW performance. It would be forgivable if they were not making the same mistake again…we will have a fleet of 19+ escorts but only 8 of which have ASW capabilities…to be honest I’ve changed my mind a bit on this as I was of the opinion that we should just have ASW in very focused ASW hulls…but I’ve read some pretty interesting pieces that very much noted ASW is not just a quality game it’s also a game of quanity…the more viable assets you have the less options the submariner has apart from running away…at a very minimum you want an active sonar and a rotor in every escort and if you can..do what the French and US do….put a tail on it even if it’s going to be AAW focused.

As my wife says when she nabs the last Lindor Ball . “You snooze, you lose”.
Great minds etc 😉

Plenty of British shipping companies. BP, Shell, Cunard, P&O cruises, Saga, Noble Caledonia. Lots of others which are British companies but are foreign owned, same concept would still apply with government incentives.

There was a newspaper article in the Telegraph about cruise ship operators stating they would have ships built here in the UK if we had the modern facilities. Of course, one great national treasure still exists, but it is now foreign owned and in an area which has a council in the pre 2007 era, Sunderland City Council and the shipyard or rather ship factory is Pallion. Ideal for small to medium-sized ships.

I’m sure cruise lines would be happy to buy from UK. Cruise ships are probably the only major commercial vessel still built in Europe. Container ships and bulk carriers are probably too far off- especially considered the lack of UK shipping companies- but I don’t see why Shell or BP wouldn’t buy smaller tankers if the yards proved they could build RFA ships first.
I wonder how much it would cost to bring Pallion up to modern levels. Looking at the Meyer Werft build hall, I wonder which Shipyards in the UK have that space. Cammell Laird maybe?

Pallion still has all of it’s plant but would require a panel and unit line in the bays next to the building dock. To build a another Pallion will set you back 200 million pounds, but we have it here. Building steel intensive ships like ULCC, bulk carriers in which there can be a profit as little as 1 to. 2 percent for South Korean yards is not desirable, but there are many other ships types. South Korean wages are now around the same as the UK with Japan much higher. A big outlier is Graythorp.

Apparently the River Wear would have to be dredged for Pallion to start building ships again. It’s not in an ideal place.
Do you know if there’s profit in medium/large product tankers or handysize tankers?
They are probably the easiest transfer from military to civilian.
What’s so special about Graythorp?
After looking on Google Maps, Cammell Laird doesn’t have the space. The only shipyard to have the space for a modern facility on Cruise ships is Harland & Wolff as most of the area around the large dry dock is vacant or car parks.

Sorry I have not replied yet. Yes, the Wear needs dredging no matter what, it is pretty disgusting and most likely intentional as the council up there is in a pre 2007 era and not moved on. The cost is several million pounds, but that employs people, could produce usable material, opens up Pallion, Depford and the river would be cleaner. Pallion cost around 10 million pounds in 1975 to build, or around 100 million in today’s money. But due to the pound value, per capita costs including labour and then purchasing power of the Country, the cost would be around 200 million pounds to build today. It’s main problem is the council with it’s owners and other vested interests but is a true largely forgotten national asset. You can see more on Facebook with two Pallion sites with the main one run by Rupert Keyzar.

Graythorp is special in a way that it has a huge deep dry dock in which Able UK have spoken about enlarging in terms of lengthening the dry dock by excavating the old inner dry docks into one big extended dry dock creating a massive facility. There is also plenty of room around the dock for modern manufacturing steel production and fitting out facilities. It is seen as suitable as a builder of super lift ships. It’s a blank sheet with a huge dry dock and area for maritime investment.

Cammell Laird current layout is still as a classic traditional building berth with undercover fabrication facilities from the 1940s and 1970s respectively. Modernisation and investment is due and acknowledged by management due to extra costs from the polar ship but that ship was under priced compared to other polar ships being built around the World. Building berth slipways, I think, are still relevant for building of big hull blocks to transfer to dry dock etc.

Harland and Wolff hopefully will grow and develope and can be a catalyst for other areas like Birkenhead. Close clusters as unborn west, Mersey, Clyde and Belfast and North East, Tees, Wear, Tyne, Blyth, Rosyth, Methil (Harland and Wolff), Nigg etc… Near or farther networks.

The original Type 31 competitions had multiple facilities including Appledore, Belfast in the Babcock consortium, but became just Rosyth because of difficulties of Appledore (after Babcock sold Appledore) and Belfast problems, then the reason that building in one place is more efficient and cheaper. Yet, parts of hulls for the Type 31s for the RN are being made in Poland be it for speed or for more business, this still stops anyone saying that building parts of hulls in different areas make no sense, especially made abroad with the tax lost and employment lost.

I think the break down of non military ships and commercial non tax payers funded ships i.e pure private commercial Worldwide share for Western (mostly European but not South Korean and Japanese) shipbuilders, is as follows…: cruise ship 62%, ferry 4%, offshore 8%, Fishing 1%, dredger 2%, tug 1%, research 1%, onccv 4%, roro 4%, dry cargo 3%, bulk ships 1%, container 1%, tanker 8% and no gas (another shiptype invented in Britain). The smaller percentage of ship types cover mostly ships for that area. Similar to the UK saying it builds 85% of it’s warships but it is around a few percent Worldwide for warship builds.

Product and handysize tankers are steel intensive ships is relatively non complex simple ships. I cannot imagine big profits from these but you have to look at Germany for this, the most expensive wage ship building country in EU and Europe as a whole but build them.

New ships are seen as semi and fully autonomous ships for cargo and the UK green coastal highway, that is separate from the requirement for 150 ships UK funded in the next 29 years, are some export, we would have a type of certainty to invest and build ships commercial and military taxpayer (in which much goes back to to government in tax) and UK market and non UK market niche.

I would say they are similar.
T31 has less crew, more missiles, longer range and is faster.
Granted there is a sonar on FTDI and it will have a towed array, but that can always be added onto T31.

Jonathan, if you believe in “the latest Chinese research” I would like to introduce you to a Leprechaun that lives with me. I understand that the latest independent academic research suggests that over 30% of Chinese academic research can be verifiable determined to be fake. I would put the percentage considerably higher, but hey ho believe what you will, comics are also a good source of military intelligence I understand.

As I said there is some pretty good US research on this as well, so maybe go do a literature search or 10 and stop embarrassing yourself.

Well, as someone that has been getting a Quantum newsletter every week before it became fashionable in the tabloids, I can tell you most of the “Quantum” prefixes are rubbish, just as most of the AI prefixes are rubbish. The real world is not related to comic books or Hollywood movies. There are very very very few quantum tools outside labs. But feel free to believe tabloid nonsense and Chinese propaganda.

Indeed but giving your AAW assets reasonable ASW capacity is not a foolish thing to do after all our new ASW frigates have a not unreasonable AAW capability. The very nature of designating a T8x means the RN is likely looking for it to have some ASW capabilities as the type 8x designation has alway been multi role AAW and ASW.

That’s not the point Louis, an AB is incomparably better than no ASW ability at all…as per a type 45 or type 31…maybe just maybe that’s ok if we have 8 ASW frigates in top working order..but we don’t we have 8 clapped out ASW frigates that are needing huge amounts of money thrown at them to keep them running…( if we are lucky).

there is absolutely no reason at all why you cannot fit out all your escorts to support the ASW screen….we don’t not give our ASW escorts no AAW capabilities as that would be considered foolish, infact the T26 will add a not insignificant AAW capability to any task group it’s in…the French navy is a classic example the horizons being primary AAW frigates still have a reasonable ASW fit. The Alsace and Loraine as AAW frigates have a very good ASW fit…as good as most ASW frigates out there…the ASW focused FREMMs have a good AAW fit…the new FDI frigates are designed to do both ASW and AAW ( not so well as focused larger vessels, but they are 4000 ton boats that still do both).

Alsace and Lorraine are poor AAW vessels. We could achieve the same by sticking a radar onto a T26 but it wouldn’t be anywhere near as good as T45.
FDI frigates are the ‘dreaded CODAD’ propulsion as well. France will only have 6 ASW ships.
T26 will come soon, it is regrettable the program was delayed so often early on. Some of the T23 are doing fine, albeit not many.
I agree with you about the lack of sonar on T45 and T31, but both ships have the possibility of it being added. I don’t see T45 Sonar being upgraded because T83 aren’t far off and they will remain part of a CSG.
T31 should definitely get a proper sonar, but as seen with Mk41, it is still possible.

Yes but they are far far better that the majority of RN escorts….as we now have 7 escorts Capable of ASW work in the RN escort fleet..so more than 50% of the RN escort fleet is incomparably worse at ASW than an AB. Something is always better than nothing….also just look at the French they have knocked out a couple of generation of escorts than can actual do both ASW and AAW to a greater or lesser degree..infact there is no French escort that cannot do ASW at all. Some are very very good at ASW as well as AAW.. Alsace and Loraine do it all well….just not exquisitely…but I will repeat this something is always better than nothing.

On your convoluted logic a broom works as well as a fire extinguisher! As I said the ABs are big noisy ships primarily outfitted for AAW, they are reasonably capable as AAW destroyers, but not as good as the T-45. Because of their primary function, fleet protection, they will be close in to the carrier. This does not make them useful for ASW. So close in and noisy means you cannot do useful ASW work. Is that better than nothing? Give me a broomstick!

No I did not say it worked as well, I stated having some capability is better than no capability…..using your fire extinguisher and broom analogy…the broom is not better than the fire extinguisher…but it’s a hell of a lot better that beating the flames down with your hands…But your now making effectively pilotless arguments..

it’s not just the US who give all their escorts ASW capability..look at the La Royale all their escorts have ASW capabilities of some descriptions…infact they have good AAW vessels that are also good ASW vessels. If you look at the majority of wester escorts they have both an AAW and ASW capability..it may not be the exquisite ASW or AAW but it’s there.

Your other bit of logic that every AAW ship is going to stapled to a carrier is also flawed as hell…if that was the case there would be no ABs deployed anywhere other than with a carrier…not true and there would be no type 45 deployments without a carrier again not true…the type 45s are deployed on their own.

finally what is your point that type 45s are better AAW escorts than Burkes…..in some ways they are and in some ways they are not…but the fact the type 45 was not given reasonable ASW sensors has sweet FA to do with that so not sure why your raising that.

how you can say the statement of having some capability is better than no capability is twisted logic is I would say a bit odd….something is always better nothing….

Jonathan, your homilies on “good enough” are quaint but unfortunately bear no resemblance to modern warfare. The doctrine of specialisation was formed through experience in conflict and is, if one is interested in such things, logically sound. Your good enough doctrine sounds like something an accountant would put forward to save money.

unfortunately pretty much every navy in the world does not follow your logic of only putting ASW kit in very high end specific exquisite hight end ASW assets. Yes you need very hight end ASW assets, I have never said you don’t, but you also need mass and that means your general purpose and AAW assets also need to be able to support the ASW mission…..infact yours is the logic of the account….it was the logic of the accountant that left the T45 and future T31 without any ASW function….the logic of warfare is that if you offer a weakness…like very limited numbers of ASW platforms or general purpose escorts without any ASW function ( that will be on their own without the exquisite ASW asset)…your enemy will exploit that….it’s why pretty much every western escort apart from RN T45 and T31 has an ASW function.

The French are also looking at the thalesFLASH dipping sonar which could be mounted onto smaller helicopters(wildcat perhaps)?

I thought that Babcock got the contract on the proviso that they could build indoors , that should mean completing all works excluding fitment of feweapons systems

The stern block for HMS Venturer was built in another shed on the site. It will be moved into the main build hall in due course, it may have already happened, does anyone know it has yet?

I’ve been around shipbuilding for many years including commercial and warships both in the uk and abroad, so yes I would say an educated guess.