The Ministry of Defence has once again confirm its projected timeline for the launch of the Type 31 Frigate HMS Venturer.
The ship, currently under construction, is set to be “in the water” by 2023, according to the Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, James Cartlidge.
“On current plans, the first Type 31 Frigate HMS Venturer will be ‘in the water’ in 2023,” Mr. Cartlidge said in response to a Parliamentary question from John Healey, the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence.
This announcement has been eagerly awaited, as the HMS Venturer will be the first ship of the Type 31 Frigate class. As such, it represents a significant milestone for the Royal Navy and UK shipbuilding.
Further, Mr. Cartlidge confirmed that the ship’s delivery to the Ministry of Defence is scheduled for 2025, signalling the two-year gap for the necessary fittings and final tests before commissioning.
“As the first in Class, [HMS Venturer] is scheduled to be delivered to the Ministry of Defence in 2025.”
We recently reported that HMS Venturer is taking shape in Rosyth.
Each of the Inspiration class – so called because either their deeds or the ingenuity of their designers are milestones in Royal Navy history – will be equipped with the Sea Ceptor air defence missile system, a 57mm main gun and two 40mm Bofors, a 4D radar and carry a helicopter up to Merlin size.
Fantastic news!
The venturere build is coming along quickly, or is that just me?
Looking at the latest photo there appears to be no pre outfitting, just steel work. They may be able to get it in the water this year, but 2 years to complete the outfit, setting to work and trails does sound optimistic.
The engines have already been fitted, inside that middle block.
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.
Two years to outfit a warship why? what’s the reason shortages of people? Equipment? Expertise? Whatever it is, it should be looked at. The navy needs those ships now not eventually.
It’s not unreasonable to expect to see two hulls in the water per year including T26.
Echo retired. A substantial platform which, in terms 5 years is not really at a stage where it should be retired. She’s got years and miles left in her and the navy should give this kind kind of policy a rethink. It’s not on saying that the navy is too small and then retiring a platform which could easily be used elsewhere to release other ships from their current tasking.these are Big ships and we should keep them until at least when there is a new one to replace it.
Glad you aren’t in RN Planning…so many factors drive fleet availability – not just wishful thinking and enthusiasm
I just wish we had better wishers that could turn hope into a reality
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.
So this seems optimistic given where we are in the build of this. HMS Glasgow is far ahead but won’t be handed over before this vessel.
something doesn’t feel quite right.. as this ship is equally as complex as T26 in most respects..
T26 is a lot more expensive than T31 so the cost has been spread out slowing the building process, this costs more in the long run but has less of an impact on the navy budget while it’s being built.
Understood Steve, and definitely not a fan of this. We have a need for 75-90 surface ships, we need to be launching at least 2 every single year.. the way we are doing it is as inefficient as it gets. Latest price of T26 is £840m – that is really quite good and should be rewarded with a future order for another enhanced batch of 8 AAD variant to take over from T45 in 10-15 yrs There’s no need to deliberately slow or build ships you don’t want if we get our shit in order. Shipbuilding needs £5bn pa for… Read more »
Two T31 hulls in the water per year, should perhaps be part of the contract award. I don’t think timelines are given the priority that they should be the navy needs those ships now, not eventually.
It’s no where near as advanced as T26, most if the cost is in the propulsion and the acoustic reduction. T26 is the absolute world leader in this regard and has scored massive export success of the back of it. T31 is amazing in terms of bang for buck and is rapidly acquiring more offensive capability in the form of NSM and Mk41 VLS but those could all be put on a container ship at the end if the day. T26 is now coming in at the £750 million mark, I doubt T31 will come in at much less than… Read more »
“those could all be put on a container ship at the end if the day.”
The unsurvivable, unfightable unacceptable type of warship?
Like a river class corvette? I’m sure you can make the survivability of them better every hull is vital. If it can float fight and get from Ato B without needing a tug, it’s a warship. If a hull old or not can do the above, then it shouldn’t be moored in Fareham creek,(Monmouth) it should get a new coat of paint, some sailors, a bit of diesel and beer crates(gin for the wardroom) fresh bangers and bullets and put back in the fleet. We have habitually retired ships earlier than needed just to save the costs of running them.
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!!
Jervis Bay anyone?
T26 should be the starting point for the T83 project, seeing as it’s halfway there now. Or maybe a souped up batch 2 T45.with viper and dragon fire? And save £millions in R&D. BUT MORE THAN THE 6 T45’s we currently have.
Or as I’d like to see, simply 6 more T45’s
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… Read more »
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
I don’t think the T26 hull form is big enough for T83… Australia are having a hard time getting the AAD stuff fitted onto the same hull form, and they mount their radar arrays lower than we do. T26 has one less deck than T45, I’ve been told, so wouldn’t be able to get the radar high enough- which is the big selling point of our system over the American/Australian approach. A T45 B2 may be an ok approach, but might be worth a clean sheet hull with developments of or existing in service equipment. Gives most uplift in capability… Read more »
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 /… Read more »
👍. 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… Read more »
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.
With advances in direct electric drive as well as smaller AESA radars one might hope that T83 could be built on the T26 hull and that we could get rid of dedicated AAW and ASW vessels and instead just have a general purpose destroyer able to perform both roles.
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.
Debate about whether T-26 has the capacity to be scaled sufficiently, haven’t heard any update mind. T-45 seems like a great base design not sure why there has been no talk of using it as a base. Maybe something to do with CAD developments since it was conceived making T-26 more flexible in adapting, redesigning and reproducing as a digital twin, but that’s just guesswork on my part. Not sure what implications the physical engineering aspects reflect upon such a move to using it as a base, but if it’s less digitised overall by modern standards maybe it’s no better… Read more »
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?
I agree I do think the RN needs to very much focus on building up a decent escort fleet by not hunting exquisite platforms but instead double down on what we have.. Type 83 should be a modified T26…after all the T8x numbering should indicate an air defence and ASW asset… Type 32 should be a batch two of type 31… That would give the RN two escort hull types..If they end up with a new hull for the type 32 and type 83 the RN is going to be running 4 escort types…which will cost and potentially keep escort… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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….
As the T31 PROGRESS’ I CAN SEE, AS WELL AS THE MK41 UPGRADE, WE MIGHT SEE SOME KIND OF ASW SONAR GET FITTED ON THE LAst 3 or 4th vessel.
It also has more off the shelf components and more spacious, I would think that makes construction easier.
That may well be true, but Glasgow is actually built at present, the first T31 is in multiple pieces and will be active 2 years before at current estimates.
truly Abysmal by any standard.
I am not blaming BAE here, it’s clearly an MOD uk gov issue and a clear demonstration of how to waste money.
basic fleet management in its purest sense. 75 ship Navy needs 3 new ships per year over 25 years x cost of those ships…. It really isn’t difficult
Agreed not difficult but we are suddenly being faced with a breakdown of the world’s ‘good order’ due to Putin’s aggression and the West’s relative economic decline, caused by internal social changes, New tech, falling birthrate blah, blah, etc,etc……whereas the world population is now completely unsustainable inmho.
Always miffed me at how long the fitting out stage takes.the navy needs these ships sooner than later.
It does take time sadly .
The basic T31 design is ‘off the shelf ‘. So we haven’t had to start from scratch with this class.
I’m no expert, but my understanding was that the T26 were deliberately being built at a slow pace in order to spread out the cost, and that doesn’t apply in the case of the T31 ships.
Not just the cost but the work load.
Yes you can pay big bills to make 8 T26s in 3 years, but you have to hire and train a huge workforce, build the infrastructure to build multiple in parallel, and then… After 3 years all hulls are in the water and the RN says “cheers see you in 15 years for the type 27… and the yard goes bust.
Indeed but the additional cost of putting the Mk 41 on it will bump up the end cost.which of course could mean that the end price is well over the projected one. There needs to be more responsibility for the decisions around changing the agreed design and the consequences of it. As regards to the hopefully increase d numbers. It’s an ongoing fiasco and is repeated time and time again.T32, T83? Not in our lifetimes.
Glasgow far ahead? In cost.thats for sure
The UK currently has two hot production lines for some of the best surface combatants on the planet. Given China’s 2050 plans for global dominance I really hope we keep both yards rolling. Personally I would drop off the T32 and just keep T31 production rolling. MCM will be done by USV’s and those can be carried by T31 and T26 in a hostile environment or converted commercial vessels in more permissive environments. Having the two Scottish yards continue to build escorts with Belfast building large RFA and amphibious ships and Barrow building the submarines gives the UK pretty much… Read more »
According to former 1SL T32 could well be T31B2 anyway.
I’d hope with Mk41 VLS and a bigger main gun.
T31 is getting the VLS now as well, hopefully they see sense and just role an extra batch of 5 T31 however we are already seeing the usual suspects decry the fall of the royal navy if we don’t have “proper” minesweepers.
In spite of the fact that RN hasn’t done mine sweeping for donkeys…..
Let’s hope so, it would make a great deal of sense, just add the 5″ Gun to let it send ‘the good news’ far ashore re RM support.
Could be, but I don’t think T32 WILL HAPPEN ANdTHAT INSTEAD OF JUST 5 T31 we’ll see more than five and a sonar fit.
Yes, I think the RN could end up with the 6 Type 45’s, 8 Type 26 and 8 Type 31’s or 10. I’m also hoping there will be a replacement for the River Batch1 patrol vessels next decade. They are so useful for lighter duty deployments.
Certainly hope in the 2030’s they can add a few extra Type 31’s. Fingers crossed..
If it is 3 more T31 with sonar and VLS fitted from the off and maybe a larger gun then that is all good too.
Maybe the T32 will be a T31 with more of an ASW focus over a ASuW focus…the RN seems to have massive step increases in ASuW and AWW planned..but ASW is still restricted to 8 escorts.
The RN’s primary ASW force are the Astutes.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Amen!
I will second that Amen!
More T31’s and th type 83 to come they’ll be busier than they’ve been for many years.we just need them trotting out faster.
I agree but your last sentence will be the direction the next government will take us.
I hate talking politics, but we need another major yard.
Long way off the third best naval building capability.
If we want to get anywhere close we’d need a lot more yards building larger civilian vessels- cruise ships, tankers, cargo ships etc.
Nobody will give yards like Cammell Laird and Harland & Wolff orders in their current state so they have to be rejuvenated. MRSS, Point replacement, potential wave replacement, eventual tide replacement.
Government should give incentives for UK cruise/ferry/tanker companies to buy British.
At a very minimum we should be making our own ferries.
What UK cruise/ferry/tanker companies ?
Oh heck I just remembered CALMAC.
Aah I was about to say are there any British owned left despite the historically familiar names.
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… Read more »
A bit of a vicious circle as they need the business and certainty. But, Sir John Parker did give a caveat in getting UK taxpayer funded ships, those shipyards need to show they are investing in people and those facilities and not allow the facilities to deteriorate. It has been said by people working at Cammell Laird, that it needs updating which is obvious to see. Their portfolio is wide including nuclear.
What you say on the ship building side makes sense ,however our Army is far to small mate. 🇬🇧
Good news; probably faster than Westminster returning to duty but sadly not an equivalent capability….
Or returning to the scrap yard if reports are true.
If that happens could we convert one of the GP T23s to ASW?
No anti ship missiles?
Some people are still of the impression that the type a31 is a small ship. We know that the sizes of these ships are substantial and ate as big or bigger than the current workhorse theT233. The confirmation of the mk 41 fit is excellent news, I can see the T32 project being put into the pending tra, and I think aT31 will be a bit success and that the size of the class will not be pinned at five it could be tat T32 getting cancelled, we can expect around ten of them.
Substantially bigger tha T23 Andy
And very welcome. I suspect that T31 will be a s good for the navy as the Leander was.
If not more so, it’s good news it’s being uparmed, so it’s remit will certainly be more than a patrol frigate. It should actually be a very capable multirole vessel. Let’s hope for a batch 2 to take the RN back to 24 escorts. If there was any sense at the top, they would see there’s a very clear case for 12 T26 now. The post cold war ASW Escort force of 8 T23, was almost solely for SSBM support, we clearly now have a wider ASW remit and the extremely capable T26, with its wider range capabilities will be… Read more »
These are large surface combatants under anyone’s rules..not bad considering at first outing they were planned to be nothing more than the equivalent of a patrol frigate or if your French a second rank frigate.
They’ve certainly become better than the future french FTDI which is considered a first rank frigate.
The Type 31 is a sound design, obviously improved with the addition of the MK41, but I wouldn’t call it superior to the FTDI.
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.
?????????
This news combined with that on Westminster refit suggests the smart course would be to cancel the Westminster refit and use the money and crew saved to accelerate the timetable on this ship…
I said that yesterday, trigger.
Well it’s been suspended while they decide if it’s worthwhile, the work needed is it seems rather more than anticipated and the cost may be unsustainable for a few extra years of service.
The crews for both the T26 and T31’s were always coming from the T23 fleet. If you are bringing the build of a ship forward(HMS Venturer), then you need the crew earlier. That might also be a prime contributing factor for delaying/cancelling Westminsters refit!
Nice to get a bit of support and interest from Vietnam….
No reporting on the Quantum Gyroscope test aboard Blackett on this site?
You mean this?
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/245114/quantum-sensor-future-navigation-system-tested/amp/
Yup. The putative extension/revamping of QE class, lengthening runway and 3 step to assisted takeoff is also interesting.
Thanks for link 👍🏻
I’d heard if the quantum sensor research a few years ago, when the EU were getting iffy over us having access to Galileo. I didn’t realise it had advanced this far.
Quantum tec is getting to the point where it’s suddenly going to massively increase some nations capabilities. I’m surprised there is not more work on the military aspects in quantum communication to be honest, there is a lot work now in reducing attenuation of light photons as they travel between air and water interfaces…effectively giving undetectable, completely EW resistant coms between air and water.
Only if you believe Chinese fantasy. For real world purposes getting quantum into useful is really really difficult. We are talking serious temperature/energy and stability constraints.
Hope progress and acceptance is a bit quicker than this…
http://scihi.org/john-harrison-longitude/
🙂
Well the US is doing reaserch as well and they have also releases some interesting papers..there was if I remember rightly a bit of experimentation using a U.S. SSN as well. US navel institute paper: “China has set the pace for creating secure quantum communications that cannot be intercepted or manipulated. Further advances in Chinese quantum communication networks, especially networks designed for military use, will put the Navy at increased risk when deployed to the Indo-Pacific. If Chinese communications are virtually unbreakable and U.S. Navy communications can be exploited by Chinese quantum code-breaking technology, it will quickly lose its ability… Read more »
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.
So the first Type 31 will be launched a year after being laid down? The first type 26 wasnt launched until 5 years after!
T31 is based on an existing design. T26 is all new and rather more complicated.
The Inspirations where also meant to be made *quickly* it was IIRC a core part of the proposal.
Iam sure it was last March, when the first hull was laid down?
I remember the first steel cut, was in Sep. 2021. Before the new build hall was completed!
Is this a win for modern build techniques? We need to explore additional methods of improving quality & speed and reward the builders with additional arders.
I think they want us to assist with the inflation and sort the contractual dispute first.
I think there must be an element of that, the new shed will help speed up T-26 it seems, though I suppose being predominantly an upgraded existing design over a fresh water one must also be a factor. The third will be the relative complexity of the two designs.
Two frigates in the water per year shouldn’t be too much to expect.
Gotta balance Industry requirements, pretty sure we could invest and up the production rate… but then boom and bust economies happen again.
On the face of it getting it “into the water” this year sounds great. But it then needs to be outfitted, inspected, de snagged etc etc. And that may take quite a while, especially as they haven’t outfitted anything for a while. The T31 is shaping up to be a pretty decent GP Frigate and well suited to their intended role of being an overseas presence to replace the B2 Rivers. They are not a substitute for the T26 and suggesting they are is something I’d whisper just in case some Whitehall Mandarin or Politician gets that idea into their… Read more »
Extra this Frigate and extra that Frigate. I’d be slightly more impressed if someone did a bit of joined up thinking and joined the Poles and bought more AW101’s 4 their Navy and 22 for their Army.
Do the Math and allow a 3rd in for a service so we need @40+ new builds just to properly equip what we have now, never mind more hulls.
I’d be happy if the RN just took the AAC Wildcats. Then it would make sense investing in dipping sonars.
Not sure how effective the wildcats with dipping sonar actually are…I believe they take quite a hit in range and endurance lugging all that kit around…the Wildcat is a very small cab to try and get it to do everything…it can still act as a torpedo tug, being guided but another asset.
Still much better than without. The ships wildcats are deployed on don’t have sonars (T45, T31 in future). Dipping sonar will become necessary.
It doesn’t always have to be fitted, for example in a CSG.
Great news with the progress on the type 31. Thinking about the 83 we really should have a large destroyer for both anti sub and anti air. It would allow for a class of 20 to replace the 8 type 45 we should have had, 4 to exploit economics of scale then start replacing the 8 type 26 around 12years into production (~2045).
It seems you haven’t been paying attention. Anti-air and Ant-sub require totally different designs, unless you have a small navy and can’t afford specialisation or you have a very large navy and can use subs for this.
One is close in and noisy, but has a small surface radar cross section and height to optimise radar coverage. The other operates far out and is quite with subsurface quietening measures and other subsurface propagation advantages.
Just putting sonar on big boats just doesn’t cut it in the modern world AB’s not withstanding.
Well to be fair the US have pretty much been down the single do it all escort road and no one would ever say a Burke is not both a capable AAW platform and a capable ASW platform. So yes you can do both, you just could not do both in smaller Escort hulls…larger hulls yes you can.
I agree with you, that the Burkes are a very capable AAW platform, but not so good as an ASW platform, with only GT’ engines only, with no diesel gens. So the USN are looking forward to the new, long overdue, Constellation class frigates to fulfill the ASW role.
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.
Burkes don’t even come close in comparing to a ship like T26 for ASW, the US isn’t in a good place for ASW at the moment.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Anybody that knows anything about ASW would say the the Burkes are shit ASW and if you knew anyone in the USN they would tell you the same. They are not only not designed to be specialists at ASW they are OLD designs.
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..… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
The French are also looking at the thalesFLASH dipping sonar which could be mounted onto smaller helicopters(wildcat perhaps)?
👍
Exactly!
For the U.K to have the same proportion of destroyers as the USA has(71) we would need a fleet of at least 10, to be equivalent to an economy 7 times the size as ours. So if the U.K had a fleet of 16 destroyers, that would be the equivalent of the USA having a fleet of 112 destroyers!
Population wise, the USA is 5 times larger. So the U.K would need a equivalent fleet of about 14 destroyers.
The UK needs as many new warships as it can possibly afford to combat irresponsible leaders of rough countries and ie mad men trying to act big
Well said plus Aircraft ,Tanks ect and manpower for all three services .However the UK can’t be and Will never be world police man .🇬🇧
We are there to fix security problems with our friends. That’s a noble cause. Good to see so much progress with escorts being T31s and T26s where at last but maybe too late BAE is getting its act together. Taken them the threat of competition to up their game. I really look forward to seeing the T32. Personally I’d like to see a design worthy of the 2030’s and the Best UK can come up with. It needs to be a development of the T31 with a rafted propulsion system probably straight shoe in of the T26 power plant. I… Read more »
By the look of progress now it may well be an empty hull going in the water . What’s the point of all this when the idea of modern build is to maximise internal outfitting in a controlled environment , not outside in the open weather . Back to the old crap ways of building inefficiently and over time and budget .lessons never learned .
No, it is not an empty hull. The engines have already been fitted. Other large machinery items have been placed inside the blocks, items that are too big to get through doorways and hatches, ready for the fitting out stage.
I’m very aware of what machinery goes into a ship before launch, what about all the other ancillary items like electrical , ducting , main cabling, pipework, all items that should be in place before launch, as a first build at the yard of this type I don’t believe that a sufficient level of internal fit out will be achieved by the end of this year .
I agree with you that most of the other fit-out work, like electrical cabling, and pipe work etc, has not yet been done. I also saw the stern block rolled out last week, it was an empty shell of steel work. They maybe waiting for that block to be joined on first, before other internal work?
https://twitter.com/HMSVenturerRN/status/1661777934313566208/photo/1
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?
In a way a shame the engines have been fitted. Otherwise, bearing in mind the likely fate of HMS Westminster, perhaps it would have been worth costing the incorporation of reduction mountings and delivering a replacement ASW capability.
Have you any evidence that what you have stated is actually true?
I’ve not had the opportunity to see inside the yard but I would say that based on the current build status from the picture I would guess that to achieve what they hope to do would not be possible. Looks about 40%hull completion with probably some main equipment fitted , six months to do the remainder to get the hull completed looks very optimistic in my view. Shades of launching the first so called completed ferry ‘ at Fergusons maybe occur again . I hope I’m proved wrong.
So just a guess then🙄
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.
Great news in a time of very little great news . RN revitalisation continues at speed 👍🏻
🏴🇬🇧
Maybe time for a real frank argument about what the size of the navy. I’m fed up of getting the impression that the R.N wants to be the Tail that wags the dog we want this system, we want x amount of them. We want an oversized frigate for a£billion, when we’ve accepted a design for a frigate costing£250 million. We’ll only have nuclear Submarines at a billion each, they must be told that they will get what the nation can afford, Ditto the number successive weak governments have let all of the forces behave like this, and its got… Read more »
This type of analysis is what happens when you look at things without context or comparison. It sounds good until you do the analysis. It sounds good until you compare us with our peers. When you do actual analysis you discover that it is nonsense. But if it makes you feel good…..
👍
Exactly again!
Excellent…..will it beat Glasgow into service ?
A 57mm ‘Main Gun’. 🤣🤣
They have these things nowadays called Missiles apparently they are very good 😉
anybody know when the last time a peer on peer naval action resulted in a vessel being sunk by a shell from a MAIN GUN? all I know is Waterloo doesn’t count
🏴🇬🇧
Trafalgar even 😂😂😂
Hardly the point is it? Nothing wrong with a good old Kryten on the front for a bit of naval gun support.
No nothing wrong with the big K but Don’t hate on the 57mm bro it’s got better performance than the 76mm 😃
remember it not all about size it’s what you do with it that counts 😉
🏴🇬🇧
We should order 3 more T31s Now to keep the build flow going pending the T32 order!
You can never have enough escorts with Mk41 launchers and more.
Of only mate 👍🇬🇧
In the water 2023… Delivered 2025 back in dry dock 2026 hahaha
Look at a picture of a rothsea imagin it with a 76mm, a mk 41 vls, a flight deck and a modern sonar/radar, and tell me why modern designs are for ship’s so big? These were excellent frigates and in their time an excellent ASW platform today they would be millions cheaper. Bigger isn’t always better. Plymouth and Yarmouth both acquitted themselves well in the Falklands.
No we need a large Frigate based on a very revised T32. Raft in the T26 power train for starters and produce a design for the next 30 years with a good ASW performance. The UK needs to be at the forefront of design. That would give us 8 T26 + 5 T31 + 8 T32 and a respectable number of Frigates, about 20 .