The first of the Royal Navy’s new Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer, is swiftly taking its shape in Rosyth, showing off its distinctive bow.
“Gleaming in its red paint and complete, this is the bright, bulbous bow of HMS Venturer,” a press release reads.
The warship’s progress has been remarkable, with significant development made in less than 18 months since its keel was laid.
“Venturer is beginning to resemble a warship as the giant units and blocks which make up the vessel are slotted into place with pinpoint accuracy by Babcock at their Rosyth site.”
The new frigate’s bulbous bow, although not as pronounced as the Royal Navyβs aircraft carriers, is a significant piece of marine engineering. It’s been designed to modify water flow around the hull, βreducing friction as the frigate cuts through the oceans, reducing fuel usage and helping to extend the range, while also supporting the vesselβs stability.β
Parallel to the construction of HMS Venturer, the second Type 31, HMS Active, is also underway. This ship is set to undergo a keel-laying ceremony next month, marking a symbolic milestone.
Notably, a specially-minted HMS Active coin, designed by the child of a Babcock employee, will be placed under the keel, believed to bring good fortune to the ship and its crew.
Badly needed to replace T23s which have been run into the ground. Hopefully they continue a pace and EOS with the factory means we get a few extra
And maybe some more T31/A140 exports.
Now, if only the rest of the ship looked as good as the bow section ….
It’s certainly in a different level of quality than the one that adorned a certain Scottish built Ferry π
Do you really think that looks good?! The panels and junctions have bad surfacing.
Donβt worry it will all buff out. To be honest just look at Starship in certain light and it looks terrible and they have built and modified thirty of those in a supposedly state of the art manner.
Looks like it is coming along well
She’ll be in the water soon enough.
Doesn’t seem that long age when HMS Queen Elizabeth sailed on her trials. It was over 6 years ago, Jun 2017… Where did that time go?
Cheers CR
Probably 3 years sleeping, 2 years at work, 5 months reading nonsense on the web, 4 months watching rubbish on tv and YouTube, 2 months eating, 1 month travelling around. Sorted
Thatβs sort of depressing.
M. S., Heh heh, as ever, a good summary.π. Eh, with a pinch of hospital time to boot. π π.
COVID really messed our time perception.
To quote a phrase from many years ago…” We want eight”…at least.
And we wont waitβ¦β¦
ο»Ώπο»Ώο»Ώπο»Ώ
We could build 25 for the cost of the modern HMS Dreadnought.
Yes…Makes you wonder doesn’t it? I know the reasoning behind it but I always wonder whether we’re spending too much on four boats when so much could be achieved for the cost of one boat.
Folks often say how does the U.K. not have bigger forces with the budget it has. The answer nuclear costs alot.
Iβm not a big fan of the name venturer. I like ships either all the same letter, cities, rivers etc. Something that links the class together
Yes. Its been a tradition for a long time. Theres always been plenty of suitable names within the letter or subject to use or even skipping a letter to the next one
It would be a better name for anther kind of ship,maybe a survey ship or transport.
Going to be interesting how, where, and if they’ll squeeze the 24 CAMM and 4 MK41s in. She’s going to be quite punchy when full!
If you’re just looking at VLS missile load-out that would actually be more punchy than T26. Allocate 24 of the 32 T31 Mk41s to who-knows-what non-CAMM stuff to replicate the T26’s 24xMk41 silo and then quad pack the T31’s remaining 8 Mk41 tubes with CAMM for a total CAMM load-out of 4×8 in Mk41 cells + 24 in the dedicated CAMM silo that you suggest = 56 CAMM in total vs T26’s 48 CAMM.
I do realise that there is way, way more to it than that, and I’m not suggesting that as a practical configuration, I just thought that calculations like that are interesting to illustrate the point that even if no dedicated CAMM silo can be incorporated that 32 cell Mk41 silo on its own would put T31 not far off T26 – 24 non-CAMM Mk41 plus 32 CAMM quad-packed leaving T31 only 16 CAMM short of the T26 VLS silo(s) capacity.
As I understand it the issue with adding CAMM silos is that on the parent design the extra non-Mk41 silos are port and starboard of the centreline Mk41 silo but on the starboard side of T31 there is an additional boat bay so that below-deck space is no longer available. The port side is another matter though, just maybe that space isn’t allocated and we might yet see a dedicated CAMM silo of some sort there.
I suppose some people will probably complain about the 57mm main gun being too small but as long as the 32 x Mk41 plan doesn’t get derailed or downsized (fewer cells fitted) between now and implementation, and T31 does get cannister-launched NSM, then it’s already looking to me to be a world away from the “oversized OPV” description that some people assigned to it when the spec was first announced. Finding some way to squeeze in even an extra 12 soft-launch tubes for CAMM would be icing on the cake.
As long as the way the spec seems to be developing doesn’t start going backwards then, if the ambition to get to 24 escorts remains and budget and risk become even more pressing issues (risk being the added risk inherent in T32 being a significantly new design), then morphing the T32 project into funding for another 5 T31 would seem to me to be a perfectly acceptable outcome.
Agreed, dropping the T32 and adding another 5 T31 to the fleet would bring savings and you would think making the ambition of getting to 24 escorts quicker. Potentially this non T32 development saving could be added to upping the number of the T31 further or even a couple of additional T26 seeing that the new frigate factory is taking shape to speed up development there.
There is no staffing for 24 escorts. That’s the reality.
I don’t think it’s out of the question. Using approximate numbers for ship’s crew
Type 23 needs about 185
Type 31 needs about 105
Type 26 needs about 155
So 8xT26+10xT31 = 2,290
And 12xT23 = 2,220
Up until last year we had 12 Type 23, so the requirement would be approximately the same. Now I admit we didn’t have crews for all the frigates, but it’s not much more of a stretch to get crews for 18 new frigates (giving 24 escorts) than it was having 12 old ones.
We’d be looking at numbers in the mid 2030s anyway, so it’s not like we couldn’t gear up for it over the decade if we chose.
I’m considering an alternative reality about now; but of the sort that would be very familiar in prior decades / centuries.
Keep the hull drumbeat, as per the Shipbuilding Strategy, even if only to FFBNW state, & lay up.
The issue of crew numbers is by no means new, but was answered by what constituted conscription during times of national emergency. Anyone think we’re not very rapidly approaching that point, by all that’s savvy, if not sane?
Yes, very well aware maintenance is costly, as were our predecessors, but there are at least two more costly scenarios, one financial and the other fatal. Not difficult to come up with others (capability gapping, say), but these will suffice.
The first we’re familiar with as MoD / Treasury agreeing requirement, then cutting numbers to fit short term accounting parameters; even if final costs are at least what was budgeted for the full Class.
The second is closer to the current reality, as you point out. Find you have to rapidly introduce compulsory service, but have no vessels to which you are able to assign crews in any reasonable manufacturing time.
Now I know the USA has sailed, flown or rode to the rescue for the past century, and made a decent return on it’s investment, you may think (no criticism, same policy as UK beforehand). However, that was against a little Island State & one Central European corporal, both of whom wanted access to natural and technological resources.
We now face two superpowers, one with the technological issue pretty well sorted, and the other with a fair share of the natural resources; furthermore both have moved quickly to secure much more, worldwide. Strategic seaways / chokepoints to boot. The USA cannot deal with this as the current lone, western superpower, I’d contend. With or without their Dumb Blonde (posterity picture publicly promulgated, you’ll note).
Our UK politicians need to face their public. At the moment, though there are initial encouraging signs, my main impression (granted, it may only be mine) is that there’s still rather a ‘Halifax’ than a ‘Churchill’ outlook.
No more Intention, more Determination, please Westminster.
Rgs
Morning Julian, that was a good read.I can’t remember if it was mentioned that if the 6 CAMM Silos are actually deck piercing. Less invasive if not or semi and less expensive the MK41s. So should be flexible where they go on the top deck of T31s. Same I feel on the T45s. If they put 2*6,3*6 CAMM silos down the sides of the 6*8 Asters, they could still utilise the 2*MK41 spaces there. Maybe too costly and not a priority but what an opportunity to further upgrade the T45s post PIP and pre T83. Anyway, it’s nice to see new ships coming through for the RN. And we’ll always want a few more!
Are you sure the 24 x CAMM are in addition to the Mk41s or are the Mk41s intended to house ALL missiles of various flavours (CAMM, FCASW, etc.,)? Will the Type 31s get the NSM cross-decked off the Type 23s as they retire?
24 x CAMM, 32 x Mk41 and 8 x NSM would be a fantastic load out compared to the 12 x CAMM that was originally proffered!
Fingers crossed the penny-pinchers don’t interfere!!
I have no idea. Weβll have to wait until these ships are outside and we can get a top down shot! Many here have said CAMM out if Mk41s a bit wasteful so weβll have to see what happens here. I think the Polish A140s have a similar 4 x Mk41s fitted and also using CAMM, maybe one adapted for it. The forward 40mm can be removed for 2 x Mk41s and maybe also the 4 x 6 CAMM silos can also go in there if need be?
Wish it had a better name!
She is fitted for but not with MK 41 No more than a OPV Cannot send her into a War zone No Surface to surface missiles No NGS possibly send her to Dover to stop the small boats
You’ve been registered on this site for a remarkable amount of time, I see, colin. Probably sufficient to know that many posters are quite impressed by the Type 31 concept, yet still you peddle ‘concerns’ that were most often considered undue a long time back.
Even so, you must have gleaned that in naval terms size is often everything, and that the RN Staff, with numerous political commitments, has to a make the best fist possible of public financial constraints. FFBNW is thus just that:-
It applies to the Carriers – big enough to accommodate new developments in aircraft design, including types that require cats & traps
It applies to the Type 45, inbuilt with vertical launch voids to enable significant A/A upgrade
It applies to Type 31 for the self-same reason, of course.
Rgs
Oops,? Burns unit?? π³
π€ – not really, DH. More one too many ‘negative vibes’. Currently, and against this vessel, undue π€₯, of course. Rgs π
No probs, me old. Know what you mean. ππ.
It has already been announced that the Type 31s will be getting Mk41s. The VLS silos will probably be added after the initial fit out to avoid contract alteration issues. We don’t know the length or what will go into them. It’s also speculated that NSM could be moved from the Type 23s to the Type 31s.
The only reason to use a 6,500 ton design was to assure it could be upgraded with more capability later. What they will be capable of when they become operational may be a considerable improvement over the initially announced patrol frigate.
That is really bad surfacing…unacceptable.
Without a Hull outfit for an active array flow noise is not going to be an issue. But yes it does look knarly!
Will this be the final coat of paint? Do they put something else on top. Is surfacing referring to the paint or the steel joins?
Yes mate….. Dolphin dazzle paint code. Hey, when’s the next Malta dog shoot due?? ππ.
I have the NSNs for the dazzle paint used on B1 Rivers Scheme…
Hempel Pro Acrylic Light Weatherwork Grey (20L) 8010-22-635-6277
Hempel Pro Acrylic Light Weatherwork Grey (5L) 8010-22-635-6276
Hempel Pro Acrylic Pale Green RAL 6021 ( No NSN)
Hempel Pro Acrylic Pigeon Blue RAL 5014 ( No NSN)
or B2 Scheme
Interfine 629 HS Light Weatherwork Grey BS381C 676 (5L) Acrylic 8010-99-920-5440
Interfine 629 HS Light Weatherwork Grey BS381C 676 (20L) Acrylic 8010-99-156-9062
Interfine 629 HS Medium Sea Grey BS381C 637 (5L) Acrylic 339 8010-99-380-1890
Interfine 629 HS Medium Sea Grey BS381C 637 (20L) Acrylic 8010-99-940-7153
Interfine 629 HS Dazzle Grey (5L) Acrylic
8010-99-564-1369
Interfine 629 HS Dazzle Grey (20L) Acrylic
8010-99-564-1371
Interfine 629 HS Dark Weatherwork Grey BS381C 677 (5L) Acrylic 8010-99-959-5324
Interfine 629 HS Dark Weatherwork Grey BS381C 677 (20L) Acrylic 8010-99-258-5551
You could now paint your car in an homage!
FFS Gunbuster, yer making me π΅ dizzy now. πI think I’ll stick to the old ici old English white and smoke blue /grey for the Cooper. However, you’re right about the bonding of shipside HM grey. Post hurricane, Caribbean off Aruba, old RustyB (Bulwark) was glorious red! Paint ship, Padre pissed in the nets, Pusser pissed off the price of paint, only wished I’d had a picture πΌ. Lmfao π¨ππ
The joys of red lead and its replacement yellow chromate are still a nightmare to deal with if you find it. It’s like a full on chemical warfare scenario if you find either. Seal areas off. Air filtration. Full body suits with seperate air supply to remove it. Swabbing for contamination…
And I’m still waiting for the promised long weekend, after spraying the complete hangar out in refit. Then the blue asbestos was found, deckhead lagging. Dockies like rats off sinker. 1974/75 so, pre any Cosh.
Not much asbestos around now. Had a scare on a 40yr old USNS ship a few years ago with fire cement but following checks it was OK. I start on her again shortly… Great ship and a great crew… Silicate is an issue though and will be for a while yet on just about everything afloat.
Yellow Chromate is now banned in the EU. Though Boeing still splash it on most things.
Nothing else to go onto that.
From the sheen it appears to be silicon so using WARPAINT you can see who makes the paint schemes. I dont know who is doing the T31 paint but best guess is Intersleek from International Paints or my favourite through work is X7 from Hempel. Standard anti foul pain has a far duller sheen to it.
Each RN vessel has a designated paint scheme that should (!) be exclusive to one manufacturer. You should never mix and match one manufacturers paint with another. The chemical bonding etc between coats may not work as well so the paint will literally fall off in sheets.
Orrr, too much thinners trying to stretch the paint for the job. ππ¨
You cannot get away with that as a contractor. You record all chloride readings in the Hull post washdown. The surface prep data, washing water PH, air and steel temp, humidity. The paint is applied and dry/wet film thickness measured. To much thinner and you won’t achieve the correct measurement. Interval coat timings recorded. All that is signed off by the paint manufacture rep. He doesn’t sign off then the warranty isn’t valid and the contractor doesn’t get paid.
Ah yes, that wee paint thickness comb. The contractors hated me on inspections. Shore establishments Barrack master’s mate, I mean.,but I get your drift. ππ
And the paint bible was horrendous but a godsend just the same π
The reflection of the surrounds on the paint surface make it look even worse!
Cheap job remember,only Β£250m!
Yeah, i am not asking for a zebra analysis to be like in a small yacht but this is quite bad.
Since T 22 went out of service the RN has had Bow dome hull outfits for active medium sonar. Looking at that picture there is no bow dome allowed for. From the bow profile (And it’s very knarly welding!) it looks like the hull outfit, if you wanted to fit a medium active sonar, would need to be fitted to the keel around the position of the white diver’s search line (between the 2 temp lifting pad eyes.)
So, like the USN Constellation class no hull mounted sonar and the only sonar that a T31 could get would appear to be a stern deployable CAPTAS type/2087 Active LF towed array.(Via a PODS??) That makes sense as the array would be Kms aft and to an extent isolated from any ship self-generated noise.
By altering the stay length of the array and ships speed you can vary the deployed depth that the neutrally buoyant passive hydrophone array sits at. For the active transmitter you simply lower the transmitter assembly deeper via its separate winch. Thats basically how you get to listen and receive above and below thermoclines /sound channels by varying ships speed and stay length. Lots of heavy tow cable out the back sinks the array, forward speed straightens it up over its length. To make it go shallow you shorten the stay (towed length) so less heavy towed cable is out to sink the array. You cannot tow a long stay array at a high speed. You will stretch and ultimately break the hydrophone array (woe betide if you are the Officer Of The Watch and set off the tow alarm by doing to many revs with a tail out). For high-speed dash you need to shorten the array to bring it shallow, pull up the transmitter array, dash, then extend to long stay again and drop the transmitter down to depth again.
With the machinery layout for T31 being Diesel drive you probably only need one engine on when an array is out with the remaining drive engines on standby. Thats going to help with self-generated noise. If you need to dash you on engines, shorten the tail and do the dash. Sonar reception is going to be ruined anyway. Once in a new position, deploy to long stay, down to one engine, redeploy the transmitter and re-acquire.
In short, a T31 could do ASW if the RN wants it to and the development of PODS or passive thin line towed arrays on drones is going to help in this regard. Lets see what happens.
Hi GB, good read on the intricacies of towed arrays. It’ll be interesting to see what ASW A140 developments are going on with Norway if they order this type and what might come on the T32, if that comes too. And maybe get some interest from Australia and New Zealand.
I think you’re the man to ask this silly question again. could they ever tweak/re-engineer the Vickers 4. 5″ main guns into 5″? It’s only 12.5mm difference. Second silly question, could they add an additional 12.5mm thick sabot (is that the word?) to a 4. 5″ shell so it can be fired from a 5″ barrel?
It was looked at decades ago for modding the Mk 8 to 5inch as was fitting a modified AS90 to ships. BAe had a design for a 5 inch gun using double stoke hoists to load the shell and then the charge.
As with everything it died a death due to budget cuts.
That said the increase in range by modding the 4.5 rounds to base bleed helped alleviate some of the range disparity. The loss of explosive charge was minor and more energetic bursting explosives helped at that end.
The 4.5 is an all one piece round consisting of the brass case containing the propellant and the shell on top. Its handled and loaded as a single item.
The 5 In gun uses a separate shell and seperate propellant charge with each bit hoisted and loaded separately.
So no you cannot use a 4.5 shell in a 5In gun.
thanks for the great info GB!
Could a mk2 T31/T32 be the same design but with a bow sonar, rafted engines and a 127mm gun? The saving on further design costs could go towards the additional equipment.