The MP for Dunfermline and Dollar has called on the Ministry of Defence to confirm that the Royal Navy’s planned Common Combat Vessel will be based on the Type 31 hull and built at Rosyth, and said he is waiting on decisions covering three other strands of work at the Fife yard.
Graeme Downie said: “The workforce have shown their skill time and time again and because of that the outlook for Rosyth Dockyard is very bright indeed. The Secretary of State knows I will continue to ask him to everything he can to secure a pipeline of further work.
“I know how hard he is working on new export orders of Type 31 and I hope we will hear good news soon on Submarine Recycling and contingent dock facilities. I also want to see MoD confirm that they plan to base the Common Combat Vessel (CCV) on the Type 31 hull and for that to be built at Rosyth as well.”
The comments follow a visit to the yard on Friday by Wes Streeting, his first trip to Scotland since becoming Defence Secretary, during which he met workers and apprentices on the Type 31 programme.
Babcock is building five Type 31 frigates at Rosyth under a £1.25 billion contract placed in 2019. The Ministry of Defence says the programme sustains 2,500 skilled jobs across Scotland and the UK supply chain, along with 400 apprenticeships set up through partnerships with colleges in Fife and elsewhere in Scotland.
Delivery has slipped. The department now expects the first ship to be handed over by the end of the decade, and Babcock has set aside around £140 million against design changes and rework.
The Common Combat Vessel is the Royal Navy’s planned general purpose warship, intended to be built in numbers and offered for export. The MOD has not said which hull form it will use.
Mr Streeting said during his visit: “From the skilled workers and apprentices building the next generation of Royal Navy warships at Rosyth, to the service families who support our Armed Forces every day, Scotland sits at the heart of our national security.
“It is inspiring to see proud heritage combining with modern technology to make our country fit for the future. That also presents huge opportunities for jobs and reindustrialisation.”
Harry Holt, chief executive of Babcock International Group, said: “The defence industry makes a vital contribution to Scotland’s economy, sustaining thousands of skilled jobs and apprenticeships. Our workforce and operations at Rosyth are a clear demonstration of this, delivering sovereign capability, supporting economic growth, and contributing to UK reindustrialisation.
“We look forward to working with the Defence Secretary and the Ministry of Defence as they implement the Defence Investment Plan, further strengthening our sovereign and export capabilities and the defence of our nation.”
When was the original ISD from 2019?
In 2024 NL suggested first quarter of 2027 for Venturer. And approximately 12 months between each subsequent vessel.
I did not mean the amended one, but the planned ISD when they were first started, I’m sure some minister was grandstanding that they’d be here a lot sooner than 2027.
The target ISD for the first of class was 2023 when the T31e procurement process was run in 2017 and again in 2018 (e.g. Hansard 6 Sept 2018). By contract award in September 2019 that was acknowledged as being impossible and mid 2027 became the working date, first publicly admitted in Jan 2020. Note that there is an increasing possibility than the Indonesia Balaputradewa or Polish Wicher will enters service before Venturer!
RB, Wicher is scheduled for float off any day now, obviosley still needs full fitout etc, second one is under assy in the sheds apparently.
Back in 2015, the first Type 31 was supposed to come in 2023, then one a year up to 2027. When the contract was signed that shifted to first ship in the water by 2023, and operational by 2027, with all of them handed over by 2028. That gave the opportunity for them all to be in service by 2030.
Sorry, by “to come”, I mean operational not handover.
Id expect delivery rates would be a high priority for giving the Clyde ANY CONTACTN
SAurely a batch 2 of the type 31s would be an excellent idea that would mean 24 escort ships and would mean the type 45s and 26s could be used for carrier duties without having to be seconded to other duties
Similar to my thoughts, I would much rather a batch 2 T31 but equipped ‘with’ not ‘for’ all the necessary hardware to make it an effective general purpose frigate. I just don’t think it’s the best suited ship to be an air defence mothership.
Fantasty talk. At the time it took to build a river claSS OPV THE ARROWHEAD 120 MIGHT BE A BETTER BET. THERE’S NO HINT OF A FURTHER T31 ORDER. IF THERE IS IT’LL BE BEHIND THE FANTASY DRONE FLEET.
Couldn’t garee more. Another five with, as Andrew says, fully fited t31’s would guarantee work and jobs for years. Also, i can’t help but think if we are still in the race for Danish frigates an order for the R.N. would be taken as a vote of confidence.
Lets get Batch 1 away first. Progress is currently snail like, irrespective of the Babcock hype.
Morning mate,
2023 with a 12 month delivery rate there after, according to google… but lets face it that was always a silly schedule for a yard that had never been project lead on a warship build before. The T31 was always a victim of the MoD’s usual conspiracy of optimism affliction, but with the T31 there has always been a whiff of unrealistic demands and expectations, probably from the grown ups who failed to order the ships in good time in the first place.
Babcock have obviously run into trouble, but they seem to have tackled the issues and put them right and have accepted their liability with little or no obvious push back or demands for more money – compared to Ajax and other projects where the established big primes seem to get bottomless wallets opened for them Babcock have just cracked on. To me that earns them some level of respect and sets them apart from established primes. I just hope they get more work and the chance to show they have learnt some lessons. We need the competition to keep BAE Systems honest if nothing else.
We need more frigates and destroyers in spite of the move to drones as I think the T9x concepts will need command ships in reasonably close proximity to provide effective and reliable command functions. A CCV based on the T31 is the only realistic option as BAE Systems will be building T26 for the next 10 to 15 years apparently, they were slow to modernise their facilities and are still trying to increase capacity with subcontracts. There is an urgent need to increase mass across the board and Babcock seem to have a number of Arrowhead variation already outlined, so it shouldn’t require a huge amount of time to come up with another variation on the basic T31 design to produce the CCV. If the MoD can get their act together and keeps is simple it should be possible to keep much of the basic design the same and simply provide additional C2 capacity. May be base it on Babcock’s T32 concept which had a smaller flight deck and larger mission bay compared to the T31, as such is might just be possible to move straight onto the CCV as T31 run ends? Currently the last T31, HMS Campbeldown, is due for completion by the end of this decade, although I don’t see that happening until 2031 as they haven’t even cut steel on her yet. So a delay might actually work to our advantage by keeping the workforce busy and allowing production to straight switch into the CCV if the HMG can make timely decisions for a change.
That’s a lot of if’s.
Cheers CR
Ah, thanks mate. 2023…..blimey! It is a lesson in NOT accepting verbatim a word HMG or the MoD say, or remain sceptical until an asset appears.
That sadly will currently apply to a whole host of incoming assets or stuff that does not yet exist.
I agree with every word of your post, by the way.
I wonder how much impact the lockdowns had on the timeline? But as a general rule you’re quite right, anything the government says on defence should be taken with a healthy pinch of salt!
Can’t blame lockdown forever. Babcock need to stick to the delivery dates or we will have no ships at sea.
What a way to run a country. I shows me the whole workings of Government are not fit for purpose and no end in sight. We are going to need more than a change of Government party. We need a much more urgent and professional way we think and do business. The forces equipment issues are just a symptom of a deeper malaise. It wont be solved by allowing rubber boats with 150 uneducated young men of questionable loyalty and motive into UK. There need to be serious penalties for malfeasance in Government whose definition needs widening hugely.
If Mk41 is to be retro fitted to T31 and, as it seems MBDA have confirmed it can handle Aster, there would not be major redesign needed for the T31 to be the new CCV platform. If the USV plan runs into problems or cost escalation, the RN will still have an AAW platform to succeed T45 in due course.
Two issues-
Can a T31 hull cope with a high mounted radar?
Can Babcock really deliver? They aren’t doing well so far.
Incorporating Mk41 will add a significant delay to the ships impacted and requires the Mk41s to be ‘ordered’. They do not ‘grow on trees’. The Mk41 opportunity has been missed as far as the Batch 1 T31 are concerned.
Installing Mk41 on the existing T31 will add years of further delay. THE mk41s will need ordering first. The opportunity to fit Mk41 has been missed , IMHO.
Likewise any other radar requiring significant structural change.
Please no. The hull is inadequate for carrying and powering capable radar arrays and DEW and so using AH140 as the base would force further reliance on T91 and T94 for FADS’ capability, which is an extremely risky path to go down.
The hull can cope with medium-size arrays. The original was built for the APAR/SMART-L combo, and the Poles are putting a fixed-face SM-410 on their ships, which offers Sampson-like performance. Babcock has also shown off CEAFAR 2 equipped variants and a SPY-6V3 variant was also floated at one point.
That means that you can get Sampson+ performance as a baseline. You’re not getting close to SPY-6V1 capability, though.
I think your bigger issue will be power generation capacity.
“.. fixed-face SM-410 on their ships, which offers Sampson-like performance ….”
Ha, ha, ha, most amusing.
It’s what the Dutch pundits claim. Both are built explicitly with the threat of low-flying, high-speed AShMs.
Don’t you just love those anonymous sources, so dependable.
Whatever floats your boat.
There’s no way a vessel in 50 years’ time will be conducting AAW without substantial power generation which AH140 simply can’t provide. It’s a deal breaker, or should be, unless Babcock can find a way to fit in GTs.
Fifty years is a long way off. It could be all micro reactors and batteries by then. Actually, that could be 15 years away rather than 50.
All of which makes it better to go for a new design rather than one originally designed in the 1990s which will be around 70 years old when it would leave service. Only the Burkes have lasted that long, with only slightly less drastic alterations.
But that’s not the logic of the CCV/T9X plan; the CCV isn’t meant to be a destroyer, it’s a smaller ‘command’ frigate.
The power generation is the domain of the T94. That’s where the chunky radars will be.
I don’t agree with this idea personally, but that is the logic of the process. I’m advocating for an insurance policy of a decent sensor fit on the CCV, but that’s in no way confirmed.
The idea that T94+CCV will be cheaper or more effective than a T83 with an equivalent radar has the potential to be a greater money sink than Ajax, by a long way. It’s an absurd notion not really worth discussing, and doesn’t sort out the problem that we will need to make an expensive new design for T94 anyway so we might as well do CCV properly rather than shoehorning into AH140.
I really don’t see the point of the T94 acting as the primary sensor platform. As a means of extending the mothership’s or another ship’s magazine, yes. Plus as a means of extending the low height radar horizon, yes. But doing the long range volume searches? Pretty pointless when you have a much larger vessel (inherently better stability) with a lot more power and plenty of room for cooling. Especially when you want the radar to be capable of doing the ballistic missile search and tracking.
But what alternative is there? BAE will be building T26 until the late 2030s. Babcock have struggled with T31 but will have capacity from 2031. A brand new design would be even more problematic and expensive.
Might I suggest the Arrowhead 160..! (T32!)
With a little bit more speed, Power and range with Added Capabilites from the 140 t31 version.. ( Extra Power for lasers !)
Opvs replaced by Something like A 120 or Even a 100? Version If possible..
What other work did the MP have in mind..
The old SSBN DOCKS (Barely built) next Rosyth, could be Reconfigured for Submarine Dismantling, freeing up Dock 2..!
Some unit work for EUSTON..?
You can now see both T31s (Venturer and Active) on Google maps at Rosyth
As others have said up thread, I think Babcock’s performance has been pretty decent all things considered – standing up a yard from zero, plus covid. I understand they made one major c ck up are build sequencing but have learnt their lesson
5 frigates in 5 years was never going to happen, thats a conspiracy of optimism. A CCV based on T31+ starting build around 2030 seems to be the least bad option for the RN all round. The Clyde will be busy with RN/NO T26s for the forseeable.
“ Delivery has slipped. The department now expects the first ship to be handed over by the end of the decade”
Slipped is the understatement of the century.
It is incomprehensible to me how a project plan is that wrong. Unless of course there has been a specification change that hadn’t been announced- not very likely.
Hi SB,
From a couple of articles I have read, one being on Navy Lookout, Babcock have had to undertake significant reworking of the first two ships. The articles were not entirely clear but the implication seemed to be related to the manufacturing processes and some sort of mismatch with the design. I couldn’t work out what they were getting at, seemed a bit odd?
Fact is they took it on chin got on and apparently sorted the issue out and have moved on. If projects like Ajax were set up in the same way perhaps that calamitous program would not have cost the tax payer £6.5b for vehicles that injure our troops..?
To be fair to Babcock, they took a big project with very little experience and overall the A140 is proving to be a very promising product. I hope they can carry on building ships for the RN and keep BAE System honest in the process.
Cheers CR
How about everyone waits until they’ve delivered at least one ship to the Navy before rushing into giving them more orders.
*shades of Ajax
At last the voice of common sense. Let’s see what the first couple of ships turn out like before committing more money. They maybe duds and need lots of reworking! I sincerely hope they are good quality ships and are the first of many.
What came first, future ship work on the table or delivery schedule slipping? I don’t trust any of them.
Beatings will.. erm, new orders will be withheld until delivery improves
Good grief there should be plenty of work. More T31s or something based loosely on that design is the most obvious.
Take a look at the USN new 18000t capacity Floating Dry Dock AFDM 15….!! 694×157
AFDM 15s weight in at 12000t and from contract signed to operation around 5 years….!
It is very premature to be talking about Babcock building the CCV.
Have they even built and fitted-out a warship before? They are running at least 2 years late on T31 and having to fix a mistake in the construction process. It will be at least 2030 before we can see if the T31 is a sound, effective design or just a pretty ordinary underfunded patrol frigate with a glaring vulnerability to submarine attack, due to it having next to no ASW capability.
The logical next step would be for them to build a successor T32 frigate, incorporating rafted engines, acoustic dampening, a TAS and torpedo launchers, to create a better all-rounder. But there is no money for that, the RN’s budget is already stretched to the limit.
The MP assumes there will be a CCV coming along soon. There won’t be the money to do so until all the T31s are completed and equipped with Mk 41 and NSM, which is several years away. And will there be a CCV frigate anyway? – it may just be a tricky RN place-holder for a later switch to a T83 destroyer. The RN has form.
Whichever, whether Babcock can design and build.an advanced anti-air frigate-cum-command ship is another question. We all know about the need to avoid boom and bust in the shipbuilding industry, to protect jobs at Rosyth and to build on Babcock’s progress. But first priority is getting cutting-edge warships that enhance the fleet, rather than propping up shipbuilders and civilian jobs. An underarmed, vulnerable patrol frigate is a start, but is it a qualification for a much more advanced future anti air ship?
The day BAE are only 2 years late with anything we’ll all be breaking out the party hats. One of those years were covid related, the other was a rookie mistake that theyve learnt from.
I understand there were a coiuple of rather large warships assembled and fitted out at Rosyth not long ago
Dirty little secret is the Clyde is just as much of a start up – new facilities, new people, many apprentices.
Rumor has it that much of T45 was designed in Slovakia