The Royal Navyās first Inspiration Class frigate, HMS Venturer, is approaching a significant milestone as it nears structural completion at Babcock’s Rosyth facility in Scotland.
This marks the latest phase in the build programme for the new Type 31 class, also known as the Inspiration Class.
Images show the progress of first of five Type 31 Frigates HMS Venturer at the shipyard in Rosyth. pic.twitter.com/gS5aZzwC46
ā UK Defence Journal (@UKDefJournal) October 21, 2024
HMS Venturer, the lead ship of five planned vessels in the class, is now seeing the final structural unit added to its assembly within the Rosyth facility. Once complete, Venturer will represent a key element of the Royal Navyās surface fleet, designed to deter aggression, secure maritime routes, and support global operations.
This vessel holds particular significance as it carries the name of the Second World War submarine Venturer, renowned for being the only submarine to sink an enemy submarine while both were underwater.
First steel for HMS Venturer was cut in September 2021, and its keel was laid down in April 2022. While initial plans anticipated the ship would be launched by mid-2024 and enter service in 2025, the current timeline envisages a slightly later launch with Venturer now expected to enter service around late 2026 or early 2027.
Despite this shift, Babcock remains committed to delivering HMS Venturer as part of a comprehensive programme designed to ensure the entire class is operational by 2030.
Babcockās CEO, David Lockwood, recently highlighted the importance of the Type 31 programme during a recent steel-cutting ceremony for HMS Formidable, the third ship in the class. The ceremony also served as a reminder of the rapid pace at which the programme is advancing.
HMS Active, the second ship, is already well underway, sitting alongside Venturer in the Rosyth assembly hall.
Lockwood noted that the progress of the Type 31 programme demonstrates the UK’s sovereign shipbuilding capability and its positive economic impact across Scotland and the broader UK. āToday, we are proud to mark yet another milestone in this important defence programme for the Royal Navy. These frigates will play a significant role in protecting the UK and supporting international partnered defence operations,ā he said during the HMS Formidable event.
He further pointed out the role the Type 31 programme plays in bolstering UK industry and skills. āThis programme is a real demonstration of UK sovereign shipbuilding capability and is delivering positive economic impact within Scotland and in communities across the UK. It is a privilege for our teams across Babcock to be delivering these platforms for the nation,ā he added.
Beyond its military significance, the Type 31 programme is creating substantial employment opportunities in Scotland. The programme is set to generate 1,000 new roles over the next four years, including 400 apprenticeships.
My questiion. Is the delay due to more fitting out being carried out under cover, before being launched. This is what we are being lead to believe. or is it something else, that we are not being told.
Mk 41 is to be retro fitted to ships already in build. Has that changed? Might explain what is a rather long delay.
HMS Venturer won’t be completed with mk41, and possibly not Active either.
Why not build another 3 T31s with MK41s and leave the first 2-3 ships with 24 CAMM silos to get them into service quicker?
Because we can’t afford it or crew them. The prospect of new frigates should pretty much be forgotten, when programs like MRSS are only looking to be able to afford half the ships they need.
Besides, building with mk41 isn’t much slower, the first ships just won’t be built with them initially, though I doubt if they’ll ever get them.
If the UK wants a bigger fleet you need to find a way. Can’t they sort the personnel and pay and conditions problems out, are they truly that difficult? What are other countries doing to address the same or similar issues? A population of 65-70 million and not enough people signing up? This might be a silly suggestion but maybe allowing applicants to apply for 1 or 2 or all three forces and take a pick or do service for different periods in the different services? My 5p worth.
Thatās what they are doing but all will have 24 CAMM irrespective of mk41
Camm cells sit in the mk41 space. Will have to be removed depending on the configuration of the mk41 VLS.
I think the only way to have both would be to remove the forward B 40mm and put a couple of MK41s there and have the 24 CAMM top amidships.
With the additional time delays involved, it would make sense to put Mk41 in from the word go, specially bearing in mind the fact the space is already there to do so, although I do wonder if the Mk41 for these ships has actually been ordered and are actually available for fitting.
It’s certainly not been ordered. And we don’t have any weapons integrated in mk41 yet. T26 will probably be testing any first.
We could quad pack CAMM in them until we acquire further weapons, greatly enhancing her air defence capability. As things stand, I suspect the first Type 26 – Glasgow, will enter service ahead of Venturer
An expensive launch silo for missiles we can already launch.
But the logic is that the cells will have actually been fitted and can be filled with whatever else we choose to buy when we get it. Meantime we can pack in a lot more CAMM. I would also fit NSM straight to Type 31 as they commission. Given the rate at which they’ll come into service and Type 23 will be leaving service there is no resson not to.
To quad pack cheap CAMM, in very expensive Mk.41 cells,
is the most wasteful used of scarced money for the RN.
The RN should consider long range sm-6 to fill some cells on T31 for AAW?
More of the FFBNW nonsense,
Shame because the MK41 will make the T31s a lethal Frigate. Without any offensive capabilities, T31 is just an oversized Corvette.
It would be reasonable to expect the fitment of NSM on them in lieu of any MK41 delays.
Nothing has been said about fitting NSM on the T31s or T26s, so I assume this is not planned.
Im sure was plan was to buy 11 Sets of NSM – the ones fitted to the Type 23’s would be cascaded down to the T31’s as the 23’s retired,the ones fitted to the Type 45’s would stay with them.
With CAMM, BSM and the guns it mounts, T31 will be equivalent to T23 for weaponry, which nobody ever described as oversized corvettes and have served the UK well until recently.
No the mk41 will be added in a future refit.
We simply don’t know that. We won’t know that until they are out of the covered hall with that area exposed to view and George is allowed to do a drone fly over. George did comment, in an earlier article, that they were not allowed any photos of the ship which would imply that something different was being done that was not be disclosed.
What will almost certainly be done is to get the seatings and the services in for the Mk41. I don’t think the clearances exist in the build shed to lover the Mk41 modules onto the seatings as the shed is not high enough.
Since Mad Vlad invaded UKR, understandably, MoD has gone rather quiet on weapons fit and specs.
It would, given the crewing issues, make much more sense to slightly slow these down so that Mk41 could be fitted and provide cover for Babcock’s ‘learning on the job’ curve.
We have nothing to go in Mk41, we need the ships more than we need the weapons. As it stands we’ll probably be down to 8 frigates by next year, 7 not long after.
If the T26s are getting Mk41s then there must be a plan to procure weapons for them.
If the T31 makes it into service first, they could be used for MK41 weapons testing and integration.
The only weapon known so far is Fcasw which isn’t even a finished weapon yet, first version due in 2028, but doubtful it will come out then.
At this rate Glasgow will more than likely be the first vessel in service and Venturer will not be fitted with mk41 initially anyway.
“Venturer will not be fitted with mk41 initially anyway”
This is what bothers me, as we have seen with T45s, it took years before we got around to fitting them with Harpoon, and even now the FFBNW spaces remain, while the MOD procrastinates about giving them extra AAW silos.
If we are learning anything from the way global politics is shaping up , then we need ships that can face up to neer-peer threats from the first day of commission.
Tbf the T45 extra silos are happening, the ships getting them are just in long refits. And ones just coming out of refit are having the work later.
And how many years after commission is that?
This is my point, the ships are quite old by the time these upgrades get done. It makes me not trust the MOD when they use the acronym FFBNW, it just lets them keep “kicking the can down the road”.
How many years after commission will Venturer will get the Mk41s?
Good question, we need more hulls active desperately so it’ll probably be put off till first major refit.
According to Navy Lookout the extended time in the build hall is due to more fit out work being carried out under cover. It looks like Babcock are developing their methods as they work through the program which will hopefully bring advantages as subsequent ships come down the production line…
Cheers CR
Fingers crossed this is the case, having an innovative efficient naval constructor is exactly what the uk needs.
I think its forgotten the Arrowhead team have partners like OMT who specialise in marine construction practices. When the order was won the team knew they would need to implement the latest best practices to have a chance of making any money on the T31. Good news is it’s also given BAe kick up the backside to make improvements.
BAe didnt like it up ’em did they? Immediately started to plan and build their shiney new shed. Competition was urgently needed and the T31 provided it. Luckily the offering from BAe was passed over as that really was an insult to the word Frigate. I think this site here and others do start discussions that help the forces.
Innovative and efficient ? Compared to who ?
BAE Systems? I got the distinct impression that the new ‘frigate factory’ at Govan was in response to Babcock’s investment at Rosyth.
Both companies are having to start or restart surface ship production after years of zero orders. Gapping is the bane of any kind of sustainable capability.
Cheers CR
Ummm…your last sentence begs the question: Whither Rosyth, post T-31 Programme? If SDR mandates delay/cancellation of T-32, the fall-back plan is (almost cringing at probable answer)? Would be a helluva waste of infrastructure and workforce development efforts. š¤š³
Nope it wasnāt triggered by Babcock, itās way more complicated than that and as per usual itās all down to UK Politicians and them delaying / cutting numbers and generally messing around with industry.The new BAe Build hall is way bigger and more complex than the one at Rosyth, so itās far more expensive.
The original plan was 13 T26 all to be built by BAe on the Clyde on one integrated site in a New Build hall. Everything was planned out in 2014 ready to build it at Scotstoun as BAe didnāt then own the Govan site.
Post referendum HMG changed their minds, cut the T26 plan to 8 and went shopping for 5 cheap GP frigates.
However they only ordered 3 T26ās, needless to say BAe put their wallet back in their pocket, as the had no faith in Cameron to deliver more orders.
When the extra 5 T26 B2 were ordered, NSBS put in place and BAe had the confidence in future orders to justify the investment they did so.
So nothing directly to do with Babcock.
But that wouldn’t affect the in service date which appears to have slipped by up to 2 years.
Possibly, but COVID had a significant impact. Also, if they have been updating their processes these in themselves would create delays even if they were introduce as mitigations for possibly longer delays. In addition, delays to first of class are far from unusual and these are the first frigates Babcock have ever built as far as I am aware.
There is also the very real probability that the original timescales suffered from that age old syndrome ‘the conspiracy of optimism’… It is very prevalent in major programs, especially public sector programs. The cause of this syndrome is pressure from decision makers to be told that the best kit can be produced in record time for minimum outlay and with zero risk. Impossible of course. However, if they don’t get those assurances nothing happens so they get there way make a decision based on flawed data knowing they won’t be around when the poo hits the fan… I had first hand experience when doing some very preliminary costings for MoD and the message came back too much, rework…
All very frustrating.
Cheers CR
I hope you are right. But remain to be convinced. The ‘No Photos’ instruction is a red flag.
I’m not aware of an ‘instruction’ but even if there were pictures you wouldn’t see much change as fit out is mostly under the skin, although I do agree the no photos thing is a bit odd unless they are trying to avoid giving progress away on the second ship..?
Cheer CR
Seeing as they have never built a warship from scratch before, delays are pretty much inevitable. I’m sure they will get better over the series and dates will be more likely to be met.
I’d agree with that – Babcock’s are negotiating a very steep learning curve ļ»æšļ»æ.
Maybe they could tender for the USN Constellation class that are very late and in some disarray!?
Babcock built 4 90m OPVs at Appledore for the Irish Navy.
Which arenāt anything remotely connected to building an all up frigate. They got the contract for the 60s because they were the cheapest possible.
Despite the much repeated mantra on this site that an OPV isn’t a warship, I’d have to agree that’s much better than nothing.
Appledore belonged to Babcock for over a decade before they closed it down in 2019, the same year that they got the T31 contract. Their 2018 proposal talked about building blocks at other sites including Appledore. I’m not sure why they turned their backs so irrevocably on it, not even able to wait another six months.
If the government still had a national shipbuilding strategy, Appledore could have even gone back to Babcock, but with no Type 32, no B1 OPV replacements, no idea what’s going on with Border Force ships, and everything up in the air with the SDR, why would they?
We’ve been promised launch dates in 2023, by the end of 2023, first quarter 2024, first half 2024, and now in october 2024 no date is given at all. Every time the previous shift is used as a baseline for slippage. So now its claimed that “initial plans anticipated the ship would be launched by mid-2024”. Don’t Babcock know we can use Google?
Instead of rewriting history and promising dates when the frigate will be operational, not something in Babcock’s gift, why not tell us when the first one will be handed over? Then stick to that.
Is this an admission that it won’t launch in 2024?
Seems that way to me. 2025 launch it is. Fairly casual admission about a year delay.
From the pics it is obvious she won’t Launch this year – the question is when in 2025 will it happen ?.
Behind schedule & over budget. No doubt Babcock’s will be approaching the MoD with their hands held out for extra cash.
No Mk 41’s have been ordered so they most certainly won’t be fitted and last I checked, 12 CAMM’s was the plan, I doubt that’s changed.
When the MK41’s were first mooted Babcock said not under the current contract, so they are ‘planned’ to go in during routine maintenance / refit cycles.
Cheers CR
I read this and just go Mmmm ! Then scratch my head š¤ The Milestone is āthe final structural added to its assemblyā. So the hull and superstructure are now complete !
That is something for Babcock to really celebrate š„³ Or is it hiding bad news on a Friday ?
T31 is a derivative of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt Frigate, same basic design, size, weight etc etc.
So how do they compare build / timeline wise ?
T31
Laid down in the hall 26/04/22, hull assembly just finished so 30 months so far.
Iver Huitfeldt
Laid down 02/06/08, launched 11/03/10, Sea Trials 13/12/10 so 30 months.
There are major differences such as guns, missiles, sensors etc, but generally they are very similar ships.
The build strategy is different in that the T31 is having āmoreā outfitting done in the hall and when Iver Huitlfeldt left on her builders trials she didnāt have her armament, AAW radar or combat systems fitted.
But that is 30 months to being underway, at sea, with her crew for initial trials, compared to ā¦..just got the steel work done. š¤
The huge difference is that T31 has the advantage of being built on 1 site and assembled inside an assembly hall. The IH had blocks built in 3 different Baltic Countries and was then assembled outside in an open dry dock in Denmark through 2 Baltic winters (hardy buggers them Vikings).
So all I can say is I hope Venturer is a very, very steep learning curve for the rest, as so far itās not very impressive.
There is an article on Navy Lookout with pictures of the interior an Iver Huitfeldt and a rendering of the same section in a T31. The difference is stark. The T31 has far more redundant systems than the IH it is based on so way way more complicated to fit out and probably more costly… The RN hasn’t forgotten past experience from Jutland to the Falklands.
Those extra complicated systems will steepen that learning curve as well.
Cheers CR
I think that’s being unfair given the need to train up people to build the things and all the other paraphernalia associated.
I’d have though 2 years is longer than a “slight delay” but I suppose in MOD terms it is a mere blink of an eye.
Externally I don’t see a lot of progress from other photos taken earlier this year.
What is stopping them from getting the hull painted?
No point in painting the hull till it’s ready to launch.
If the RN & RFA could join the train drivers union, all recruiting problems would disappear..
Err the Navy canāt and the RFA crew are already in the same Union. They are in the RMT as they are the M (Marine) bit, so Mick Lynch is their rep, which is baffling but true. He was actually on TV a couple of weeks ago and said his next big challenge was to sort out was the RFA.