The Royal Navy’s planned Common Combat Vessel could be built in the same type of production facility as the Type 31 frigate, Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard has told MPs, in the strongest hint yet about where the new hybrid warship might be constructed.

Giving evidence to a joint session of the Treasury and Defence Committees on 8 July, Pollard set out how the government has approached sequencing work across the shipbuilding sector after settling on what he called the steady drumbeat option.

“When we look at Type 31s, due to the faster rate of production of the 31 compared to a 26, we’re now looking at what follows on from that order, and although we’re not yet precisely in a position to determine the whole shape for the Common Combat Vessel, the Common Combat Vessel could broadly perhaps be in a similar type of production facility as the one we see with 31s,” the minister said, adding: “What we are keen to do is keep ship production in Rosyth and in the Clyde going.”

‘What follows on’ from the Type 31 order

The Type 31s are built by Babcock at Rosyth, and the structure of Pollard’s answer points the follow-on question squarely at the Fife yard, since the contrast given by his remarks at the session was his own: the Norwegian order means Clyde production on the Type 26 is now projected fifteen years ahead, while it is the faster-producing Type 31 line, on the other side of Scotland, for which the government is looking at what comes next, with the Common Combat Vessel raised in precisely that context.

Graeme Downie, the Labour MP for Dunfermline and Dollar, whose constituency includes the Rosyth dockyard, made the case for the yard directly. “The workforce at Rosyth have proven they can deliver for the Royal Navy. Their experience refining the design and build of T31 means they are the only yard, and T31 is the only design, that can deliver the CCV on the kind of schedule we need to build a hybrid navy and defend ourselves against the ongoing and very real threat from Russia,” he told the UK Defence Journal.

Babcock has promoted concepts derived from its Arrowhead 140 design for future ‘command vessel’ requirements, and the comments sharpen the written answer Pollard gave the same week, in which he said options for the vessel’s hull form are being explored. They bear directly on the industrial timing question, since the five-ship Type 31 order completes in the coming years and the yard’s follow-on steelwork demand depends heavily on Denmark’s pending frigate decision, a dependency the Scottish Labour MSP Paul Sweeney highlighted to the UK Defence Journal last week in warning that core surface shipbuilding sites need a sustained drumbeat to avoid a return to boom and bust.

The Defence Investment Plan commits to six Common Combat Vessels as the Royal Navy’s first hybrid warships, coordinating uncrewed systems in the air, on the surface and under water, with their arrival intended to align with the retirement of the Type 45 destroyers from the mid-2030s.

On the Clyde, Pollard said the Norwegian Type 26 export win means the government can now project shipbuilding on the class “for an extra fifteen years” and that, it’s safe to say, sharpens the Rosyth reading, because with the Clyde’s production line secured into the 2040s by the frigates being built for the Royal Navy and Norway, the minister’s stated aim of keeping both yards going leaves the Common Combat Vessel as the programme most naturally positioned to sustain Rosyth once the faster Type 31 line completes.

The continuation of the Fleet Solid Support ships for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and the agreement with the Netherlands on new Amphibious Transport Ships, which he described as “effectively an export campaign win” since the UK will build them for the Dutch as well, will sustain other yards, and further work could spread wider still, with the minister saying the government “will continue to support shipbuilding in a number of other yards as well, and, to a certain extent I can’t say which yards yet because that hasn’t been procured, but that could be across a number of our new shipbuilding projects, that could be block builds.”

Do note though readers that no procurement decision on the Common Combat Vessel has been announced, and the minister’s evidence stopped short of committing the ship to any yard, with the same session also hearing that certain vessel classes in the plan will be bought jointly with Norway under the offset arrangements attached to the Type 26 export deal.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

    • Oh, so I’m not banned! I was wondering why my comments hadn’t been posting for the last few days as they’ve all been ‘in moderation’. I even emailed Sunray but never got a response 😬

    • I’ve posted it again below, but it’s still ‘in moderation’. It must be an automatic thing because of the wording I’ve used.

      Dear Sunray, please can you ‘unmod’ it.

      Many thanks,

      JJ

        • I mean, I’ve said some stuff on here in the past that would probably warrant the naughty step/ban, but this was just about calling out bullshit.

          “For any clarification, or to avoid any doubt, we did not buy those 12 aircraft for dual capable aircraft capability. We bought them for our conversion units,”

          1. You haven’t bought them.
          2. Read my comment below to DM and put that into a search engine. All they talked about in the first official announcement was the nuclear role. There was literally no mention of the OCU.

          • Mate.
            An Apology.
            I now recall we had a little bit of “Banter” a while back when you posted under this name.
            I’m sorry for my woeful display of “Keyboard Warrior Antics”.
            I am normally more aware of multi accounts especially the “Experts” and “Hit and Runs”.

            • Ha! I don’t remember the ‘bants’, so all good pal 👍
              More ‘experts’ than the pub after the England game! 😀

    • No surprise, although I think that the Clyde have done enough to get further warship contracts. Too slow to build, too slow to fit out, another yard is needed to provide competition for the C lyde.

  3. Seems like the sequence is sorted up to a point. I just wonder what comes for BAE after say 2040 and Babcock after say 2035 after these CCV’s? New-ish frigates and CCV wouold be in service for another 20 years. Maybe grow the navy after that?

    • Well, the CCVs only have to enter service in 2035, which is when the first T45 retires. It’s likely there’ll be some delay that will require the T45 to be LIFEXed or pushed on without upgrade, so Babcock will probably still be building the final CCV in 2042.

      2040 lines up with when the Tide-class tankers need replacing, but I expect that’ll go directly to Belfast (as it should). It also lines up with when the first of the B2 OPVs reaches 22 years old, so replacements for those five vessels will be required. If that ties it over till 2050, work can then begin on the ASW-CCV that will replace the T26 frigates beginning in 2060.

      All four major surface yards should be producing unmanned vessels in parallel as well.

      • Leh,
        Probably reasonable to assume that if/when CCV concept is proven demonstrably successful, all remaining RN surface escorts will be modified to be CCV (lite) to the maximum feasible technical extent during MLUs. Perhaps the most straightforward proposition would be Babcock, if CCV is indeed a derivative of Arrowhead 140, but virtually certain BAES will be interested in modding the T-26 as well (including the RNoN contingent). Possibly an export oppurtunity to the Poles, probably not the Indonesians?

        • How much modification would really be needed? Wasn’t the whole point of PODs to make drones a plug and play option?

    • Well by 2035 and the 3.5% gdp on defence the RN will definitely realise it does need a AAW destroyer to staple to the carrier battle group.. so I would bet money BAE get to modify say the Australian T26 design for a UK destroyer built from 2040… Babcock will probably then get the more complicated and larger of the T9x vessels to build after the CCV in the later end of the 2030s.

      • This is pretty much what I came to say, here’s to hoping Babcock get the CCV and get on with it like they have with T31 before anyone can change their mind and screw up the process.

        Then once they realise they really do need T83, CCV will already be in service and T83 becomes extra, seems the only way a government would actually start to regrow the navy properly, the poor decision around T83 will hopefully work out for the better in the slightly longer term.

  4. Good. Arrowhead 140 has the space for medium-sized radar arrays and a small launch system complex.

    Rosyth need the work, and in 2040, Govan can build either the replacement for the OPVs or a new air defence ship concept if this one fails.

    • Power generation ( radars/laser?) might be an issue for a Type31 derivative. BAE might have solved this with the Hunter class but that has weight problems with potentiakly littlereserve for upgrades.
      Just hope MOD keeps it simple with some spiral growth options and just get on with it.

  5. Daniele, put this into Google. For some reason I couldn’t post it on the ‘New F-35As not bought for nuclear role, says Beck’ article:

    ‘F-35As NATO nuclear mission 24 June 2025’

    He’s saying it’s not about the nuclear mission…

    • Hi Greg.
      Sorry for late reply, only just looked at this article.
      For me it’s a power grab by the RAF.
      if I recall correctly, the original statement way back highlighted the nuclear mission, then the next day there were reports on X that the 12 As would also do training with the OCU.
      That was long established.
      What seems to be the case now is that he’s saying THESE 12 are only the OCU and that “the future mix of A B is still to be decided.”
      So they want more A, for the nuke mission.
      That either means an enlarged buy, on top of the 12A and 15B Tranche 2, or that the Bs will be reduced further or done away with, maybe with the excuse that the hybrid wings are here and the Carriers do not need them.
      So the Carriers and FAA get shafted, and the RAF get some of the As that they crave.
      That’s how I see it.

      • Hi pal, the link I posted was the original government announcement with the first mention of the F-35As, and it’s all about the nuclear sharing role. Put it into Google, read it, and then compare that with what Beck is saying now about the media assuming it.

        It feels like this was a massively rushed decision, and only now are they trying to work out the details.

        • As I mentioned at the time, the decision to go with the 12 F-35As wasn’t for a single reason. The RAF wanted them for one reason, to wedge open the door for more, the Treasury for another reason, they actually believe they will be a cheaper buy for the OCU, and the PM because he can balance calls from certain senior military figures for an extra step on the nuclear ladder with being seen to be NATO first.

          Of course none of these are what they seem. Unless GCAP fails, we won’t have time to build up operational squadrons of F-35As. The Treasury weren’t told that because you can’t train a host of F-35B functions using the F-35A, more planes would be needed in the OCU than otherwise, costing more not less. And the extra step on the nuclear ladder is the same step other countries already fill — unless it’s a sovereign capability, which this isn’t.

          Of course they are trying to sort it all out now the dust has settled. They’ve promised to buy a pup and they need to withdraw (no signs of that) or cover their backsides.

  6. Just lay down and arrowhead 140 that’s got a competent AAW fit ( a second volume search radar and 32 AAW missiles) as well as the mission bay configuration for drone oversight and tendering.

    Lay down hull 1 in 2029 and hull 2 in 2031 hull 3 in 2032 hull 4 in 2034 and hull five in 2035 and hull 6 in 2037.

      • Umm the CCV is core to AAW defence… ASW is not its core function.. that’s what the 8 T26s are for and the ASW drones and merlin2s.

        • Agreed, but, a basic forward facing sonar fit as part of the basic design would then allow for a containerised towed array as an option?
          One could argue that the current T31 is missing this capability.

    • Hi Jonathan, I’m more than slightly sceptical about this being a version of the T31, that design started off as Jack of all Trades Light Frigate / OPV / Support ship in the late 90’s that was the Absalon class. Then the rear of the hull was altered so that it could take more power and hence speed and adapted as the AAW FFG Iver Huitfeldt which was then in turn rejigged as the T31.
      At no point has it ever been adapted for anything high end and it’s lost more competitions than its won. The only reasons it was selected in the first place were to cut the costs of the T26 programme by cutting those to 8 and buying 5 “cheaper and non BAe” Frigates elsewhere in Scotland as it was 13 Frigates promised to Scotland in the 2014 referendum.
      Building at Rosyth may make sense as it now has the facilities and workforce but to do this function you need copious amounts of raw Electrical power and for that you really need CODLAG / CODLOP or IEP and no version of this hull has ever been anything other than CODAD.
      So personally I’d like to think that someone in MOD engages their Brain Cells and transitions Rosyth over to block building to speed the T26 delivery up and then an AAW CCV version of the same T26 hull.

      Then again there is the “Great Big Elephant” sat on the Lawn at No 10, what effect does the change of PM to A Burnham make to any part of the present Defence plan.
      TBH I think this DIP is a total crock of last minute panic, rushed, badly thought out, underfunded j tried garbage wrapped up in a package with a lot of regurgitated old numbers.
      And if Mr Burnham doesn’t rejig it to include extra Typhoons and F35’s actually being ordered I’ll be very surprised !
      After all he has put Re industrialisation at the Top of his list and BAe is the largest single industrial employer and wealth generator in NW England and they are backed up by 3 of the 5 Big Unions.

      Roll on Monday !

      • But I don’t think the plan is for the CCV to be high end.. it’s plan is to be just about adequate… essentially a European style air defence frigate.. not anything like a high end AAW destroyer… with extra capabilities added by its drone fleet.. essentially it’s going to probably sit above a T26\31 with a second volume search radar and some MK41s… but below the T45, so you don’t need massive extra power systems for this… throw in 4 modern diesel generators gives you 12-16 MW on top of its diesel engines.

        The reason I think they will do this and go nowhere near BAE is efficiency and I suspect a cunning plan from the RN. Block building in different yards does not provide the greatest efficiency and they are better off having BAE utterly focused on delivering those 13+ T26 they are above all the overriding strategic ship building programme.. BAE needs to build these as fast and efficiently as it can and let Babcock build these CCVs as efficiently and quickly as they can..

        Because the CCV is about in the late 30s and beyond and ensuring mass ( even if it’s laid down in 29 it’s not going to be operational until 2036) so it’s not a critical immediate need in the late 20s and early 30s..

        I think there is a cunning plan in the RN because it knows a few things…

        1) it knows it’s T45s as of 2032 will have completely updated systems and that those hulls have a good 35 years of hull plating at normal loss rates… so I bet it’s happy it can run then into 2045 and a bit beyond.

        2) It knows 2030 to 2035 will see a massive boost in defence spending as we move to 3 then 3.5 % and it knows most of its core surface fleet recapitalisation will have been done… by 2035-2040 it will have the newest fleet on the seas.. with 19 escorts essentially all about a decade old or less.. this means it’s going to have capital, lots of it and far less critical needs than it’s had in 30 years…

        3) The Navy knows it needs a very high end AAW destroyer to be the centrepiece of a CBG or amphibious group.. I think it’s essentially playing the treasury to get its mass of OK AAW ships it lost when it moved from 12 T42s to 6 T45s, by ordering 6 CCVs as a cheap potential option while capital is tight. But come time it’s going to point out it cannot replace a T45 function with cheap as AAW frigate and some drones and it needs a 10,000 ton AAW destroyer thanks.. ohh and we have loads of free capital now and that’s what we need…can we have the first one for the mid to late 2040s

        4) it will be pointed out that BAE will be launching the last T26 in 2039ish and they must have a complex large warship as our high end combatant yard.. at which point some time between 2030 and 2035 BAE will be asked to propose a high end 10,000 AAW destroyer programme with hull 1 laid down in the late 2030s.. essentially giving BAE its surface work until the late 2040s

        At the same time Babcock will have launched the last CCV and I suspect will end up majoring in the large surface autonomous vessels for the late 2030s and 2040s…

        So the 2050 RN in this type of thought through process could be
        8 T26s ASW
        5 T31s ASuW/Strike
        6 CCVs patrol and lower end AAW
        4+ T4+ high end AAW

        This puts the RN closer to the 30 escorts it’s always needed for peace time..

        The final reason I think they will keep both BAE and Babcock with individual efficient open tap escort lines is because of the risk of war either in Europe and or the Pacific and if either kicks off the RN will be decimated and need rebuilding as soon as possible…

  7. I’m dismayed at the cancellation of the T83, a reduced order for four AAW variants of the T26 specifically as CSG escorts was a surely a good balance between capability, cost and risk, whilst still freeing up £billons for the ‘hybrid navy’. Nevertheless, a small consolation is that it has effectively saved the T32, albeit rename CCV. Also good to see the MOD acknowledge that Babcock will soon need more work after losing the Greek and Swedish frigate competitions, and almost certainly New Zealand. If they lose the Danish order after being such a strong favourite for so long, then realistically only a CVV order will keep the yard viable in to the early 2030’s

    • Hope Babcock are still in with a chance for Denmark and NZ and anyone else. Any more for Poland, Indonesia?

      • Sadly, the grapevine is that NZ has all but signed on the dotted line for two Japanese built Mogami frigates. And unfortunately Babcock just can’t commit to contractually meeting the latest Danish timeline of at least two frigates in service by 2031, whilst France’s Naval Group is willing to do that with its FDI offer. There is still a chance that the Arrow 140 design may still be selected by Denmark, but with the ships built by a consortium of Danish companies – Babcock providing services and some components, as per the Poland and Indonesia contracts.

        • Would the government be willing to do a Norway style deal with a couple of RN frigates going to Denmark? Let’s face it, if the RN are still having trouble crewing ships right now and are not significantly increasing training in shortage roles (they might be but it’s not been publicised) what chance do they have working up all five T31s by 2031?

          • At the rate the fit out seems to be going for the first two hulls, what chance has Babcock got in having them all ready for work up by 2031?

    • I honestly think the RN are playing a long game.. they know they need mass AAW as well as some exquisite platforms.. they also know that capital is tight now but will be freed up for 2035 ( 3.5% is a big budget).. they also know their present exquisite platforms the T45s will have only finished a full systems update by 2032 and has a hull that should do 35 years.. so I think they are betting come 2030 to 2035 when the budget frees up simply saying the CCV and drones can’t cut it to fully protect the CBG and it needs the T45s into the mid/late 2040s and a replacement AAW destroyer to be built from 2039ish… BAE will at the same time be running out of work and so bang you have the T4x programme delivering a new AAW destroyer post 2045….

    • Tad early to brag dude. So far, all anyone can say with any certainty, is they’re way late and way over budget.

      • Nah! Just minor adjustments to the plan – steps in morphing the original patrol frigate into the CCV.
        From the National Shipbuilding Strategy published in 2017.
        Para 51.
        “We are creating a 30 year Royal Navy shipbuilding
        Master Plan. This will document the schedule and
        capabilities of ships we will invest in over the next
        30 years, and will be the mechanism to monitor
        the delivery of those ships to time, cost and
        performance requirements. The Plan will detail
        the Ministry of Defence’s long-term programme of
        work, and will provide Industry with the strategic
        direction they need from the Ministry of Defence.”
        Para 57.
        “We intend to use the Type 31e as the
        pathfinder for the delivery of the new
        shipbuilding and capability vision set out
        in this Strategy. Alongside the traditional
        measures of performance, cost and time, Type
        31e procurement will focus on the enterprise
        objectives of invigorating and sustaining the
        industrial base in the UK.“

  9. The reciprocal deal for Norgie boats looks like the B2 replacement and although not mentioned at the Time the Norgie navy bought T26 – remember that sale – represents an outfloat of jobs abd cash to Norway.

    And I’ve not seen any mention of reciprocity over parts being manufactured here…

    • It’s not really an outflow of jobs and cash, because the inflow created by the frigate export is certainly larger.

        • When a country with the largest Sovereign wealth fund outside the Middle East spends £10 Billion on U.K. built Frigates and quite reasonably wants to sell us some vessels we need but haven’t designed anything and a load of NSM SSM missiles that we desperately need it’s a very good deal.
          Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

          Norway actually likes the U.K. more than a lot of our own citizens.😏

    • Naa building 5+ advanced 7000 ton ASW frigates is a well good swap even if they knock out 10 civilian spec 2000 ton patrol boats.

      • Should we be able to man those 10, I would be extremely happy, especially if armed like the Norgies.

        In other bollocks, T45 and T31 need sonar capability… I know, I’m fussy

        • T45 has a sonar capability the Ultra/EDO MFS-7000 sets.. they are just missing the trained operators to run them.

          • Which we both know, Jonathan

            ALL surface fleet need passive detection of undersea warfare vessels… submarines, uncrewed systems.

            Otherwise, it won’t be a black swan event, just a disaster.

          • It’s a 4th rate sonar developed from an 70’s era set totally not suited to detecting modern submarines

            • Mate I did not say it was much cop.

              But moving forward if the sea is going to be full of cut price drones… even a cut price sonar will have a place… and active sonar is a sanitation tool..

              The reality is against against SSN the only sonar with any real hope is a high end towed array on a drifting AAW ship looking for contacts… getting lucky with a dipping sonar.

  10. I have been posting on this board for a while. Fair enough I have changed my email address. But i seem to get a lot of in moderation messages ???????????????????

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here