Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace has cut the first steel for the first of the Royal Navy’s five new Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer.

Hosted at Babcock’s facility in Rosyth, Scotland, where the Type 31 ‘Inspiration class’ ships are being built, representatives from across UK and international industry and public service, witnessed the historic ceremony signalling the official start of the build programme alongside employees and representatives from the local community.

Babcock say in a release that the frigates will be at the heart of the Royal Navy’s surface fleet, “deterring aggression and maintaining the security of the UK’s interests as well as providing humanitarian relief when needed”.

The symbolic first cut of steel for HMS VENTURER was conducted at Babcock’s new advanced manufacturing facility, a cornerstone of the company’s digital transformation at Rosyth, which includes panel lines with robotic welding capability, as well as other semi-automated manufacturing machines.

The technology, based on modern shipbuilding practices, enables Babcock to increase automation and create significant efficiencies in the build schedule.

The event comes just one week after Babcock announced that it had secured the first export contract for its Arrowhead 140 frigate (the export variant of the UK Type 31 platform) through a design licence agreement with PT PAL Indonesia (Persero) for two frigates.

The company has also been shortlisted as one of the bidders to provide a potential design solution for Poland’s Miecznik (Swordfish) frigate programme. The event also saw Babcock’s new assembly hall named ‘The Venturer Building’ – paying homage to the first new class of frigates to be built in the facility.

This vast structure measuring 147m x 62m x 42m is capable of housing two Type 31 frigates for parallel build and assembly activity. It will enable uninterrupted assembly, supporting increased productivity gains through improved access and digital connectivity.

The new infrastructure forms part of a £60 million investment programme on the site, on top of a further £100 million that has been invested over the last decade.

Babcock CEO David Lockwood said:

“This is a significant moment. We are witnessing what the National Shipbuilding strategy can achieve. Working with our partners and customers, we are creating something we can all be very proud of. The T31 Class will show the adaptability and capability of a modern warship created with British ingenuity and engineering at its core. I’m looking forward to seeing these magnificent vessels emerge from our newly-named Venturer Building.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:

“Today is a momentous occasion for the Type 31 programme, Defence and the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. As Shipbuilding Tsar, to cut the steel for the first of five new frigates that will be constructed here on our shores in the Firth of the Forth, providing jobs and innovation to the area, is a tremendous honour. Equipped with the technologies at the forefront of the Royal Navy’s future vision, the entire Type 31 fleet will be fitted with a range of capabilities allowing it to undertake a variety of operations at sea.”

A direct UK workforce of around 1,250 people will be employed on the programme at its height, including 150 apprenticeships, and a further 1,250 in the supply chain. This meets the aims of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, by delivering local and national, social and economic benefits through investing in its supply chain and the next generation of apprentice and graduates, whilst sustaining highly skilled workforces in multiple locations throughout the UK.

The first ship is expected to be in the water in 2023 with all five ships delivered by 2028.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
294 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago

Equipped with the technologies at the forefront of the Royal Navy’s future vision

O puleeze.

Mac
Mac
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Shut up, you cynical old Yank!

Keep your miserable opinions to UK Defence Forum…😉

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  Mac

No so much of the old!

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Speech writers and corporate speak… Don’t you just luv ’em 😂

Andy P
Andy P
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Yup, I had this scene from Still Game in my head as I was reading the blurb from the High Heidyins….

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR0NUnV2zB4

Tommo
Tommo
18 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I shall waiver, my Fee’s for ,any posts presented on this type31 thread , Chariot Rider, .Any monies remaining, will go into the Go Fund, me,Page for French boxes of,Kleenex tissues ,Via AUKUS

Stephen Fisher
Stephen Fisher
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Douche bag much oh colonial?

James
James
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

I see Airbeeze is offering an air tanker to the USAF as the new US built one if not at the forefront of the USAF’s future vision. In fact I think it’s the rear view vision thats failed.

Jamo
Jamo
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Technologies may not be what you’re thinking old man …detection, tracking, effects etc
It could be mission flexibility and adaptability. Containerisation and deployment of AUVs for example – operational, intelligent ship management, taking the best from commercial techniques and applications. Not bespoke US massively funded “technologies”.

Jonathan
Jonathan
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

they just missed out the word cheap a couple of times, just add cheap and it’s perfect.

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

It Scotland I think they say frugal.

As in: these English dudes are being very frugal with the truth 😎

Tommo
Tommo
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

RON6 We would prefer too use the political correct term of (Economical ) when it comes tòo the Truth it cuts out hints of Colonialism ,and Nationalism 🥱 yawn Mps have PHDs on the Subject

James F
James F
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

The model at DSEI had 24 Sea Ceptor, 8 IASM in addition to guns and a Merlin. On the next stand were the new Navy PODS (containerized capabilities which plug into power and C3 networks). Each containing a capability and command centre. Those on show included a directed energy C-UAS system, precision strike for FCF (Spike or Brimstone, or maybe loitering drones), an XLUUV, multiple flat-packed heavyweight quadcopters, a humanitarian medical facility, two VTOL drones, a FCF command centre. I imagine there will also be ASW and MCM PODS. I think this is what they mean.

Last edited 18 days ago by James F
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
18 days ago
Reply to  James F

It is interesting that the display DSEI model had 24 Ceptor.

I would not be surprised at 24 Ceptor given what they are doing to T45 as it clearly is flavour of the month.

I would also not be surprised by 8 canister mounted somethings.

I would be surprised by a Merlin as although it has good aviation facilities I see Merlin more with CSG or T26 than with T31 – but who really knows!?

James F
James F
18 days ago

May have been the only model they had :-). I would expect them to flex between Wildcat and Merlin HC4 depending on the mission.

Dern
Dern
18 days ago

To be fair a Merlin is a much bigger airframe than a Wildcat, so if you are showing off your product it is important to highlight that both the flight deck and the hangar can accommodate the Merlin.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Too true

Steve M
Steve M
18 days ago

Still don’t know why this wasn’t used? If it is as easy as they descride as bolt-on to Torpedo brackets and plug in concoles then you could nearly have couple pods/consoles on every Merlin ship!!!! give the whole fleet long range search even RFA’s doing drugs in Windies
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2011-11-18/lockheed-martin-offers-bolt-multi-mission-sensor-system

hell you could even remove wing AAR pods from Voyager bolt 1 each side give us additional AEW capability 🙂You could put on K3 at MPN still have AAR from centerline for Typhoons etc

Last edited 18 days ago by Steve M
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

The problem is more certifying all these systems for the platform and to work in varying combinations. And then to keep them certified.

Then they need to be crewed…..

It is a nice idea…..but I’m not so sure it will stand the rest of time. Mainly because I can see the ‘less popular’ modules going into storage at the first sniff of a budget cut and never emerging or being relevant.

Dave G
Dave G
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

It is all about the detail, Bolt it under wing on a voyager and if not careful, you may have a fairly substantial blind spot slightly fore and aft of beam, above the waterline that someone could exploit. Running cables on an airplane isn’t trivial as you have to ensure no inductive interference with other systems etc. emc requirement for what is basically a microwave under your wing fuel tank…. You will need to ensure it fits in your available power generation capability and update all your procedures for loss of a generator The biggest issue is certification, particularly if… Read more »

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  Dave G

it is pitched as being useable on to c-130 or c-295 so it must have some of that work done in the design and 2 pods on Merlin fwd hardpoints gives 360 coverage! so being out on a330 wings should have less airframe/rota interference. It is supposedly a self contained system with operator consoles so it obviously sounds better than prob is

Last edited 17 days ago by Steve M
Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
13 days ago

Interesting the way UK and US opinions vary in what apparently constitutes ‘copying a proven design’!
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/42553/new-diagram-details-how-the-navys-frigate-will-differ-from-its-italian-parents-design

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
13 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Don’t know why the USA bothered really.

The problem is NIH and Pork Barrel – that puts a stop to any sensible defence procurement.

Dern
Dern
19 days ago

Great News!
Let’s see how long Rosyth needs to complete one.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

That, coupled with the final cost/profit ratio, is the evident crux for Babcock – there are predators circling! together with the wider success of our National Shipbuilding Strategy viz exports. What T31 has or does not have fitted at the preliminary state is secondary, in this instance.
Good Luck to the company and the UK.

Tommo
Tommo
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Sheds? With those bloody Bird scarers God did they make you jump Dern Also these 31s will they fulfill all requirements Air/Surface/Subsurface ? Or are they built for just One Specific role

Dern
Dern
18 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Sarcasm?

Tommo
Tommo
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

No Sorry Dern was With Mcm 3 whilst up in Rosyth , when boats went into the Sheds every bloody evening the Automatic Crow scarer would go off and if you were unaware of them you didn’t just spill your coffee so too speak

Dern
Dern
18 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Ah gotcha, I wasn’t sure what you where on about with the crow scarers, thought it might be a comment about the 57mm XD

Tommo
Tommo
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

57mm new,calibre too me Ottomelra Automatic turret of the 80ts springs too mind though

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

I was level 3 Base Maintainer for the Oto in HMS Tamar 93-96..Fun times…

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Thanks Gunbuster, Didn’t the Irish end up buying them ?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

The Irish bought a couple early on when the HK squadron was reduced from 5 to 3 boats …the final 3 went to the Philippines Navy as soon as they sailed from the island along with RFA Percival. The rest of the Fleet bomb burst after the handover to do more exercises and port visits. I was on Beaver having left HK 6 months earlier to bring the family home… There was Illustrious, , Fearless, Richmond, Gloucester, Brittania, Chatham, Trenchant, Trafalgar loads of RFAs and plenty of 40 RM. Lots of other countries vessels dropped in to play… It was… Read more »

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

But we still lost the Colony China Fleet Club I wonder what that is now ?

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

And what ever happened too Jennys Side party use to get a Crimbo card every year ?

Peter S
Peter S
19 days ago

Has the armament specification been finalised? I know that orders have been placed with BAE for 57 and 40mm guns but is SeaCeptor going to be just 12?
Given the plans for their forward deployment isn’t some level of ASW capability essential, even it’s just Wildcat with the lightweight dipping sonar SKorea operates?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
19 days ago
Reply to  Peter S
Paul42
Paul42
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

24 x Sea Ceptor with hull mounted sonar? If that were the case with an ASM fitted plus a Wildcat, these might just be considered credible.

Paul.P
Paul.P
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I don’t think that article is authoritative. I’m still assuming ‘up to 24’ Sea Ceptor probably means 12 initially. But that’s enough to take out any aircraft before it can launch a glide bomb. And the 57mm plus 2x40mm look capable of dealing with a swarm of subsonic AShM and/or FAC. Beyond the horizon offensive capability comes from the Wildcat and Sea Venom. No question T31 will be a deterrent presence.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

It has great potential if we arm them correctly rather than fitted for but not with. Purely from a sales perspective, it would make a great deal of sense.

The article I linked to shows this, now it’s up to the powers that be to make that final decision.

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Point taken on the sales and marketing. That said I think a good salesman could finesse a T31 sales presentation – if we had T23s in service fitted with the interim AShM. The T31 brochure would have L, GL, Ghia and GT model options.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Fair point!

Steve
Steve
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Sea ceptor probably doesn’t have the range to take out the host jet, so will be likely targeting the glide bombs. As such 12 could easily be saturated by a handful of jets.

I am also curious about the final fit out, kinda odd that they have started building without some flashy gov release on the exact weapon spec.

Last edited 18 days ago by Steve
Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve

I’d be happy to bet that the £250m contract fit out is for 12 Sea Ceptors, no AShM and no bow sonar. But that doesn’t mean to say the MOD can’t sign one or more other contracts for additions. Re the glide bomb thing I have to admit I’m guessing a bit. Obviously the glide range is a function of altitude. High altitude makes early detection easier. The actual performance of Paveway is classified but I did read somewhere that 10 miles might be a realistic distance. Sea Ceptor published range is 25km so it would win that contest. Another… Read more »

James F
James F
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The £250 million did not include missiles – they are GFE.

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  James F

Ok, forgot that. In any event I think the main achievement of T31 is to prove that it is possible to move away from a procurement process based on cost plus and requirements>design>spec>change the requirements>rinse and repeat never ending cycle to a Pareto 80/20 fix requirements and price and build then review. Argue about the detail when the ship is in the water as a useful asset.
From that point if view it looks like being a success.

Steve
Steve
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

There is also non glide ones. Harpoon has a range of around 120miles when air launched. Good old Falkland era Exocet had similar range.

Last edited 18 days ago by Steve
Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve

True, but a subsonic missile is still vulnerable to both Sea Ceptor and the ‘Bofors BAE guns as it approaches. I recall Sea Wolf could take out a supersonic artillery shell. Sea Ceptor should be at least as good.

Steve
Steve
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yeah it’s just matter of saturation attack. Launch 13 missiles at the ship and it’s going to be depleted and that assumes 100% interception rate which I doubt is realistic in real world scenario, probably more realistic is 50%

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

You wouldn’t use Ceptor to take out a glide bomb – you would use the 57mm and 40mm combo – more than adequate for that.

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

It shouldn’t, that was published in 2019, and is going off of speculation.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
19 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Hi Peter,

A quick rummage around the internet reveals nothing new. The only bit I found was on the wikipedia page where it says ‘up to 24’ cells. However, it also shows two users, the Royal Navy and Indonesian Navy so the 24 could appliy to the Indonesian ships and not the RN version.

There is no mention of a SSM either… Obviously, still time to make more decisions but not much.

Cheers CR

Steve M
Steve M
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

As all 5 T31 supposedly going to be in water by 2028, send couple of guys over to BAE and borrow some of T26 Sea Ceptors becaused they won’t need for few years

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Like your thinking….we have 5 dozen extras if you don’t mind… Lol 😁

Peter S
Peter S
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Thanks. I did check if anything had been confirmed recently. Let’s hope the government is keeping options open rather than saying nothing in the hope no-one notices.
Cheers

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Hi CR,
Is the Indonesian version even going to carry Sea Ceptor? As far as I’m aware they bought Arrowhead 140, not specifically the Type 31 loadout, which means they could fit any sort of VLS that fits in the amidships area.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Hi Dern,

I’m not sure, but I saw the 24 silo version of the CGI image which was associated with the Indonesian order. So I think it might be that a publicity picture is leading to speculation about the weapons fit for these ships.

Cheers CR

Ackruzer
Ackruzer
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

You can see the specifications of the Indonesian arrowhead 140 here.:
https://pal.co.id/2021/09/publikasi/news-berita/resmi-pal-pilih-desain-babcock-untuk-proyek-kapal-frigate-kemhan/

But it looks like it’s not final specifications, but there is one thing that is almost certain that the Indonesian arrowhead 140 will be enlarged and extended, that’s because of the addition of Sonar and battery based emergency diesel generator, some sources say the length is between 140-144m

David
David
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Maybe the interim AShM potentially for purchase on 5 x Type 23s, will be cross-decked to the 31s? Would make sense and they would already be paid for so increase in the cost.

That said, there is news reported recently that the interim AShM might be at risk itself……

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  David

Just hope the French don’t now play around with the FCASW (I think I’ve muddled the letters a bit) as we might need to order more Interim AShMs! I’d like to see the order upped to cover all T23s and T45s, or maybe even 10 sets. Just for some backup inventory.

Daveyb
Daveyb
19 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

Ladies and Gentleman, and those who are undecided on the weekends. Please find below Babcock’s latest model of the Arrowhead 140 frigate as revealed during last weeks DSEI 2021. also Babcock’s Arrowhead 140 Frigate at DSEI 2021 – Bing video What is telling, is that the model has T31 written on the the flight deck, not T31e. It also shows a Merlin helicopter on the spot, rather than something else. Is this wishful thinking or what the ship will look like when handed over to the Navy, I really do hope so. With the addition of 24 SeaCeptor and 8… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
19 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

WikiP says:

Last I heard it was just 16 Sea Ceptor cells, which is dangerously few, unless rapid reloads are available. Main gun should be a lot larger for me. AShMs are a must & glaring gap, as are ASW torpedoes. Hopefully these will be added along the line.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
19 days ago

More good news for the RN. Lets hope there are no delays going forward.

So far this programme is looking like a success, accepting that the re-start delayed things early on. Better to start a programme with realistic costs and funding structure than run out of money half way through… So perhaps view that period as a outbreak of reality.

I really hope this works and wish all involved the best of luck.

Cheers CR

Nathan
Nathan
19 days ago

Could we not have a Roman or Viking cities class, or something less ethreal. I’d like to see HMS Danum or HMS Jorvik. I think that’d be better than “Inspiration class”.
Could we not name them after fallen sailors, voted for by the past and current generations – not just Admirals or the like?

eclipse
eclipse
19 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

I don’t know why the Royal Navy that protects Britain would name ships after Roman or Viking cities. It would just be rather random.

rr
rr
19 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

they would be UK Viking or Roman cities, Jorvik is viking name for york and danum roman for Doncaster

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

Because those are cities in the UK, and are part of our History?
If we look at the history of RN ship names there are some truly random ones out there, HMS Jorvik wouldn’t really be that random by comparison.

Nicholas Bassett
Nicholas Bassett
19 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

I agree but the RN does have past form in this area: the Tribal class and the Leanders spring to mind ie various Eskimo or Red Indian tribes around the world or Greek gods have ought to do with the UK.

Dave
Dave
19 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

HMS Cnut? Not a city of course

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
18 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

Many of our towns and villages north of Lincoln or thereabouts have Viking names. The area of the Danelaw.

https://www.jorvikvikingcentre.co.uk/the-vikings/viking-place-names/

eclipse
eclipse
16 days ago

Oh, Viking or Roman in that sense. I feel really rather silly… I thought of Roman or Viking Cities that weren’t/aren’t Britain.

eclipse
eclipse
16 days ago

Oh, Viking or Roman in that sense. I feel really rather silly… I thought of Roman or Viking Cities that weren’t/aren’t Britain.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
16 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

Having said all that, I’d have no problem with an HMS Thor or HMS Odin, as I like names from mythology.

And we already have a Neptune.

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago

Odin was an O Boat so the names on the Ships register for R N vessels

James
James
19 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

Cossack class? or is that too eth nik

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  James

Zulu, Ashanti, Tartar, Eskimo, oh no Cultral misappropriation Get over it Tribal Class not a Race they should be proud we’ve named a ship after them hope not too offend anyone if I have I’ll help yer Pack

Boondogger
Boondogger
19 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

I should say we’re lucky to get the Wokescold class- HMS Diversity, Equity, Inclusivity, etc.

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Nathan

Nathan We, did have the UPO Building at HMS Cambridge named after One Jnr Rate , (Boy) Cornwall VC 15 yrs 6mnth old stayed at his post when all his crew at his Gun were dead or dying Battle of Jutland His sacrifice was drilled into us in training if we wingded about anything

Ron
Ron
19 days ago

Some good news for the RN hope everything goes well for the build. With 2028 the expected date for the end of this production run, would it not be a good idea to start putting together the T32 concept so the design could be finished by 2028. Long lead items could be ordered and ready etc, this should save time and money. We all know Rosyth is to build the T32 the government said so.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron

Hi Ron, “would it not be a good idea to start putting together the T32 concept…” Yup, it would. Lets hope Ben Wallace sticks around long enough to properly launch the project. If it doesn’t launch by the end of 2023, at the absolute latest, there will be a gap in work load for Babcock and that would be bad news indeed. If the aim is to keep the yard / build drum beat going as well as meet RN needs then the longer the project launch is delayed the fewer options for change there are for the navy. Leave… Read more »

expat
expat
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Or some overseas orders, UK needs to do more to get UK builds. Ironically we loaned money on the Qatari Typhoons so we need to do something more creative on ship orders. Selling the design to Indonesia, Poland etc gives it more credibility but we need export build orders. Yards can’t be reliant on the MoD to plug every gap.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  expat

Hi Expat, Overseas orders would be great, but it seems everyone wants to develop their own ship building industry. So building export vessels in the UK is likely to be limited. At least one of the Ukrainian ships is going to be build in the UK. Even if the ships do not get built in the UK these export orders will help the balance of payments and to spread the cost of any RN build as they will likely make at least some use of the UK supply chains. Lets hope for more exports, preferably with at least the lead… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Maybe India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, NZ could be in the mix?

ATH
ATH
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

India, Malaysia Thailand and Vietnam definitely no. India could easily design and build their own. Malaysia and Vietnam have shipbuilding capacity so likely would only be interested in the design. Thailand has local built a version of the River Class so likely could build T31 with support. NZ is a real possibility but probably not for 8/10 years. They are in the middle of upgrading their current Frigate fleet.

Tams
Tams
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

NZ aren’t going to be doing anything. They can’t even deploy their total of two frigates properly and their government are otherwise engaged.

Sean
Sean
18 days ago
Reply to  expat

I believe HMG loaned money to Ukraine for their new attack boats, at least one of which will be built here.
But naturally a lot of countries want to build their own warships in country, we do after all.

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Or have Rosyth build FSS & MRSS plus refit the carriers at Rosyth and let Bae on the Clyde build a Type26 derivative for the type 32 requirement whatever that is.

Yeah, I know, slim chance with an anti-Bae MoD and Treasury 🙁

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Hi Ron5, The T26 programme is due to go on to the mid 2030’s, but recent reports suggest that the programme is accelerating and that HMS Glasgow could be finished early – not hard given the snails pace set by the original MoD funding schedule. If that is true then I expect to see BAE Systems competing for the T83’s to keep the Clyde yards going. I also think that if surface vessels are to be built south of the border then Cammell Laird will need a share of the work so I’d expect to see FSS or MRSS go… Read more »

andy a
andy a
18 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Cant see the need for 5 full time MCM mother ships. Maybe if they also field Orca type unmanned drones and airborne drones too! depends if RN really embraces all the new tech or dances around demonstrator programs like normal while others go hi tech

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  andy a

Hi andy,

I don’t either, but on a fleet of 5 ships lets say 3 are reliably at high readiness at any given time. Having 1 on MCM duty means your up lift in escorts is just 2.

With five ships assuming they have no problems like the T45 and that there are the crews available for them, it is llikely that routinely there will be 1 or 2 hulls in dock being repainted, inspected or perhaps even upgraded…

On such small numbers 1 unit is a lot. That’s all.

Cheers CR

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  andy a

How many MCM squadron’s does the Navy now field ?

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Ron I have some sympathy for BAE not its shareholders unfortunately bae was used by the government, as a bargaining chip in 2015 , inderef which didn’t placate them as its still ongoing they are stuck between both Westminster and Edinburgh

Jon
Jon
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Of course it would be a good idea.

Will it be a cheap ASW, a cheap AAW or a cheap cruiser? We know Arrowhead can do AAW because of Iver Huitfeldt, so a supplement to Type 45 is possible. I’m not sure what a Type 26 mini-me would look like, floated CODAD or CODLAD with big batteries perhaps. As for a low level Type 83, I think the hull would be just about big enough, but the budget, not a chance.

Last edited 19 days ago by Jon
ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, I don’t think the T32 is going to be big enough to be rated as a cruiser in today’s world. 12000 tons or more with shed loads of fire power would make a cruiser. Even the US haven’t built a cruiser since the Ticos back in the 1980’s. The Review talked about a flexible ship designed to carry autonomous vehicles. So an obvious initial role would be in support of MCM – which is not something a frigate has traditionally done. However, autonomous vehicles are developing rapidly and should be able to carry sono buoys, light weight torpedos… Read more »

Jon
Jon
18 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

You’re right. By “cheap cruiser” I meant multi-purpose in concept, capable of ASW, ASuW and NGS, rather than just AAW, which is how I hope the Type 83 will go. I think an Arrowhead design could be stretched to say 7000 tons, but the budget couldn’t. The idea of sending lone ships to patrol Indo-Pacific made me think cruiser.

If it gets off the ground, NavyPODS might kill the idea of a specialist drone mothership frigate.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, I agree that a bigger ship is needed for patroling the Indo-Pacific region but I think the T31 is that ship. The French Floreal Class are only about 3000 tons at full load, slightly bigger than a Leander class whereas the T31 are 5500 tons (ish). The French however have quite a bit of sovereign territory in the area on which to base the ships for maintenance and R&R. We no longer have the same extent of territory so our patrols will be relient on friendly port visits. The deployment of OPV’s around the world will be a… Read more »

Mike
Mike
19 days ago

Frigates or corvettes?

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
19 days ago
Reply to  Mike

Hi Mike, I think the best description is Patrol or Surveillance Frigate. The French have similar class of ship, the Floreal Class, that it bases in the Far East. Both the T31 and Floreal Class look under armed from a NATO prespective but are good enough for the job they are designed to do. The French vessel is also significantly smaller than the T31. The T31 could be significantly upgraded if the need arose thanks to its size. Lets hope the lack of an announcement on a final weapons fit means there is still a chance of a better fit… Read more »

RobW
RobW
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I’ve always assumed T31 would receive the interim ASM once they are removed from retiring T23s. The T26 are getting FC/ASW so they wouldn’t be needed on them.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  RobW

I agree Rob.

The interim SSM would add significantly to the T31 capabilities. I just hope we get the interim SSM.

Cheers CR

expat
expat
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Hopefully the T31 will see more unmanned systems deployed. Reading articles on defense news the RN will go for flexible platforms, this appears to be the vision.

DFJ123
DFJ123
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Considering that these ships aren’t designed for peer-on-peer combat, do they really need to be so big? Basically, does the size convey a serious advantage over a much smaller patrol ship? For example a River Class with a hanger and better weapons fit?

Daveyb
Daveyb
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Yes, due to the lessons learned with the T21 and Batch 1/2 T42s. It is best to have a larger ship than what is required, as it means it will be much easier to modify in the future. It is also much harder to sink a larger ship, due to the increased compartmentalisation.

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

and type 23. They were built too small as well despite a report commissioned by the MoD that reviewed the design and said they would be better and cheaper if built larger. Unfortunately that would have made them too large for the Devonport frigate facility, Which is now presumably way too small for the T31 & T26’s.

Deep32
Deep32
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Absolutely too small, they extended the frigate shed to accommodate T23s, T26/31 will have to go into the docks, as the frigate sheds cant take them. Not entirely sure what the plan for the T26/31 is wrt refits, not that they will need one for a while!

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
18 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

The sheds could take T22 until they stretched them …after that one dock was extended and the flightdeck sticks out of the dock cover.

Deep32
Deep32
18 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Cheers mate, begs the question though, as T31 and T26 are some 5/17 m longer and 3-4 m wider then a T23 where sqid refit is going to take place? Plenty of time yet I know, but cant see the frigate sheds being much use for this….

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Nope not much use at all. Major rebuild would be needed. If you extend into the basin there would not be enough room left to manoeuvre into the dock. You could extend the front part into the road that runs towards towards Albert Gate but the dock probably still wont be wide enough.

Paul T
Paul T
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Could any major refit work be done at Cammell Lairds ?.

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

Or even at a shot H&W ?

Nicholas Bassett
Nicholas Bassett
19 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Harder to sink, maybe, but alas easier to hit in the first place…

Andy a
Andy a
19 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Steel and air are cheap

Jason M Holmes
Jason M Holmes
18 days ago
Reply to  Andy a

Not British Steel…could always buy that cheap Chinese steel, which is responsible for many building collapses around the world where they are ‘ investing ‘

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Jason M Holmes

Great idea Jason Chinese Steel saves them the bother of their Nsvy sinking them , we could do it ourselves with Force 5 wind and sea state Hee Hee just hope Life Rafts aren’t Chinese Knock offs though

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Hi DFJ23, Basically, yes. In addition to the points Daveyb makes, bigger ships are more comfortable especially in heavy weather. That makes a difference to crew effectiveness on long deployments. They also tend to be able to go further. Both points are important to the RN as these ships are intended to be forward deployed. Another point to note in the forward deployment scenario is that there tends to be more space around equipment, making maintenance easier. An important factor if you are 1000’s of miles from your home port. Although ‘easier’ in this context is definately a relative term…… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

And a better weapons + sensor platform – less important now in an age of digital correction.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
18 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

An added factor is upgrades are more compact.
The days of having a compartment with a NCS1 gyro sat in it are gone. Now its a little box with an RLG in it. No moving parts …it just sits there looking out of place in the compartment.
Sea Wolf has gone and been replaced by Ceptor. The 911 trackers had a huge space and weighed around 9 tonnes with the tracker, cabinets, spares etc. Now you have a fridge sized electronics box in the corner that has minimal power supplies and minimal cooling needs.

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Bigger means more crew comfort, means better retention and better health for the crew. It also means longer sea legs, easier to upgrade, etc. Steel is cheap and air is free I believe the saying is.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
19 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

T21’s were Frigates too. Don’t recall those being described as Corvettes.

I remain a fan of these and the Rivers.

ATH
ATH
18 days ago

But the T21’s had a relatively short life with the RN in part because they couldn’t be upgraded due to size and weight limits. The T31 for all its limitations at service entry can be massively upgraded if need be ( and money available).

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
18 days ago
Reply to  ATH

Absolutely.

andy a
andy a
18 days ago

I think RN and Cousins are holding off for the lasers too really take off. 12 miisles or 24 if we go toe to toe with china they will just flood us with missles.
On that point what happened to the British laser? Dragonfire? I know USA is fielding 3 different sizes on ships now!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
18 days ago
Reply to  andy a

I have no idea.

dave12
dave12
18 days ago
Reply to  ATH

Didn’t the Type 21s had structure problems as well ? they were not battle hardy enough going by some Falkland’s war reports.

Last edited 18 days ago by dave12
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
16 days ago
Reply to  dave12

I think they had a largely aluminium superstructure. A fire hazard when hit.

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  dave12

Correct on your assumption With the Amazon class 21s Dave aluminium, bulkheads on Superstructure , light in Weight ratio too steel, bad melting point, though , upper deck to Superstructure later reinforced with what looked like bloody Railway track
21s Fast and Sleek good looking Frigates ,but 82 and conflict was their Acillies heal sorry too say

Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

2 Still on Patrol GBNF

dave12
dave12
16 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Ye ,thought so .

AlexS
AlexS
19 days ago
Reply to  Mike

Peaceful warships.

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  Mike

Very big for a corvette and very long range….

farouk
farouk
19 days ago

“”The technology, based on modern shipbuilding practices, enables Babcock to increase automation and create significant efficiencies in the build schedule.””

I have to admit the above sounds fantastic, Hope they knock them out in time

Last edited 19 days ago by farouk
farouk
farouk
19 days ago

Ah, a little more on the names of the 5 ships: Grouped together as the Inspiration Class, the names of the new vessels are drawn from former warships and submarines whose missions and history will inspire Royal Navy operations. The names also represent the Royal Navy’s future vision: HMS Active signifies the forward deployment of Royal Navy ships to protect UK values and interests, HMS Bulldog is focused on operational advantage in the North Atlantic. HMS Campbeltown symbolises the ‘raiding from the sea’ focus of the Royal Marines’ Future Commando Force, HMS Formidable recognises the history of aircraft carrier strike… Read more »

Last edited 19 days ago by farouk
Tommo
Tommo
16 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Thanks Farouk on your in depth, detail for the naming of this new class glad too see Naval tradition has not been affected by Cancel culture if you forget your past then it will happen again

TypewriterMonkey
TypewriterMonkey
19 days ago

Am I missing something here? I know this isn’t supposed to be a 21st Century missile cruiser, it’s a low-end, do-everything ship, but shouldn’t it have SOME anti-ship capability, something like the Naval Strike Missile, a 4 missile deck-based launcher?

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
19 days ago

T31 might get the interim Anti ship missile from out of service going T23’s. But I don’t think it’s confirmed yet. Plus folks who use this website are far more obsessed with Anti ship missiles than the RN are. SSN’s would be at the frontline of taking out warships if it ever came to that. The kill chain is insanely complex to engage a modern warship at range that doesn’t want to be engaged. It isn’t like the movies.

DFJ123
DFJ123
19 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Can the SSN’s really be that useful against a dispersed enemy if the Astute numbers are so low? Especially if the enemy is in shallow waters or the combat theatre is large. Secondly, if the T31 isn’t designed to take on other ships, and isn’t designed for AAW and isn’t designed for ASW, then why not just use cheaper and smaller patrol vessels?

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Because you might need to send a ship into an area where the threat is too great for a cheap patrol vessel, but won’t require a Heavyweight SSGM. With a 57mm, 2x40mm and CAMM, as well as being built to naval standards and at 6,000t a Type 31 won’t be easy to sink.

DFJ123
DFJ123
19 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Again, could you not simply fit those weapon systems to a smaller ship? The point of the question being that if you spent less on patrol frigates you could afford more Type 26, or to at least up-arm the Type 26. CAMM doesn’t seem adequate against anything more than cruise missiles and the T31 seems vulnerable to subs.

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Well making the ship a couple thousand tons lighter will never get you more Type 26. The actual size of the ship is relatively cheap compared to the stuff that gets fitted onto it. So if you fitted the weapons onto a smaller hull and all the electronics, sensors and decoys, the savings will be quite small. Then there are advantages to a big hull: -Most corvettes have quite short range. The German Braunschweig class is a perfect example, it can spend 7 days at sea before it needs a resupply, and even if it gets filled with food regularly… Read more »

Last edited 19 days ago by Dern
DFJ123
DFJ123
19 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. Reach and endurance is obviously hugely important, even if it’s not as sexy as weapons systems. The River Class B2’s were £112m cheaper per ship than the projected T31 costs. Does the cost-saving come from sensors and fit-out? Or the construction? Regarding CAMM the issue for me is not that it won’t ruin a warships day, it’s that (A) it’s not rated highly by most on here in the anti-missile role against anything more than sub-sonic threats and (B) it could also be fitted to a cheaper ship anyway. If you’re patrolling an… Read more »

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

The Rivers are actually way more expensive than they should have been. Basically their cost represents the price of keeping BAe’s shipyards open between finishing the Aircraft Carriers and starting the Type 26’s. Remember all you need to purchase and integrate into a River is a 30mm gun. No CIWS, no SAM, no potential for SSGW, and not the sensors to make any of those systems effective. *Edit* I actually didn’t answer your question, so it’s less construction (although building to commercial v naval standards can have an impact here, River B2’s actually are surprisingly sturdily built for OPV’s according… Read more »

Last edited 19 days ago by Dern
Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

CAMM seems to have a pretty good rep as far as I’ve seen as a PDMS, yes it’s not Aster, but Aster is a much larger and more complex system.

The RN is happy to replace Aster 15 with CAMM on the Type 45’s.

Dern
Dern
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

But not Aster as a whole.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Dern

No.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Oops. I meant yes, you are correct. Not no, you are not.

DaveyB
DaveyB
18 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

SeaCeptor has been successfully tested against both supersonic sea skimming and high diving supersonic targets. If it was so poorly performing, why are the RN getting rid of Aster 15 and replacing it with SeaCeptor on the T45s or not fitting Aster to the T26? You have to remember that first and foremost SeaCeptor is a direct replacement for SeaWolf, which was a point defence missile basically a CIWS. SeaCeptor has a much faster response time (acceleration time out of the cannister) and can be launched in swarms towards multiple targets with very little time delay between firings compared to… Read more »

Jon
Jon
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

“could you not simply fit those weapon systems to a smaller ship?”

Sure. Look at the Israeli Sa’ar corvettes. But those never go more than a thousand miles from home. If you want a blue-water navy, you need bigger ship for a bit of elbow room.

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Now don’t go asking awkward questions like that. 😀

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Nothing awkward about what he is asking

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Dern has explained it. The threat of an Astute would keep most Navy’s in port. We don’t spend 1Bn plus if the Boat isn’t useful, and Astute class is one of the best in the world. We useful helicopters for shallow waters. Stingray and dipping sonar from a Merlin Mk2 Would keep the bad guy’s busy.

DFJ123
DFJ123
19 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

There is zero criticism of the Astutes from me, I’m just questioning how effective they can be in a conflict when their numbers are so low. They could keep a nation from deploying a battle group but they couldn’t keep a dispersed fleet under an area denial envelope in port if the enemy was willing to accept some losses.

Andy a
Andy a
19 days ago
Reply to  DFJ123

Serious question, everyone here says how good astute is but are there any real statements from say American officers saying same thing

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  Andy a

Hi Andy,

To answer your question, yes.

When an American flag officer went on board Astute in the early days he was reported to be ‘amazed’ a what he was seeing.

HMS Astute ‘held’ an American SSN at an impressive distance (can’t remember the range now). I understand that to mean that the Astute was tracking the US sub whilst staying out of harms way or remaining undetected herself. That may not be the strickly correct interpretation, there are others on here who could give a better explanation.

Anyway, the Astutes are reportedly very good.

Cheers CR

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

So can we have 1-2 more please…

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
18 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Certainly, where’s me cheque book… Oh, sorry no more cheques left… I’ll get back to you 🙂

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
19 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

I think It will, I-SSGW will go on the GP T23, which will leave service first, so will be a good idea to migrate them to t31 – gives them anti-ship, lacm capability

AdjectiveNoun
AdjectiveNoun
19 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

Has it been confirmed that I-SSGW will be fitted to T23 GP? The Aug 2019 contract notice asked for an I-SSGW to equip “5 Type 23 (Towed Array) frigates capable of concurrent Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and Anti Surface Warfare (ASuW) operations in protection of a formed Maritime Tasking Group” To me, this sounds as though the 5 sets would be shared among the T23 towed array frigates for when they escort the carrier. To be completely honest, I think we should be happy with whatever the RN get. I don’t think it’s a given that I-SSGW will ever end up… Read more »

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
18 days ago
Reply to  AdjectiveNoun

There’s 8 towed array frigates, that’s why there’s 8 t26’s

AdjectiveNoun
AdjectiveNoun
18 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

To clarify, incase I was unclear about my counting. I know there are 8 towed array and 5 general purpose frigates (4 now, I guess). However, the 2019 contract notice stated that I-SSGW will equip 5 *towed array* frigates.

To me, it sounds as though I-SSGW will equip the *towed array* version for carrier escort duties, and that they will only be buying 5 systems to be shared among the 8 T23 TA frigates. But the contract notice is old, and I am in no way an expert, so maybe I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Hi Robert, yes, I have to say I might be one of those “ obsessed with ASMs” amongst some other things (lol). I’m not a military man at all so I am just talking off my head and from my couch. I want to say that when I say ASMs I’m also always saying that these are also to have a land attack ability which will always be complementary to any gunnery. And all this always fitting into the roles of any ship. I agree that the past has seen very little of ASM exchange but I think the present… Read more »

Dern
Dern
19 days ago

CAMM has an anti-surface role and the Helicopters will be carrying Martlet and Sea Venom, additionally the current plan is to move I-SSGW off of the Type 23s and onto the Inspirations as they come into service as Robert said.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

You are stating guesswork as fact. No plans to fit I-SSGW to the Type 31’s has been announced.

Dern
Dern
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

So it’s just a co-incidence that 5 sets are being ordered 😛

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Dern

As I said, you are guessing. And there are fewer Harpoon sets than ships fitted to use them. See if you can work out why.

Dern
Dern
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

5 sets of I-SSGW… that is not being planned to be fitted to the City class, need I say more.

Thanks for playing Ron.

Ron5
Ron5
16 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Are you sure about that?

Jonathan
Jonathan
19 days ago

A 57mm that fires 120 rounds in less than a minute out to 9nm is going to do a lot of damage to any ship, add in the secondary role of Seaceptor, that’s a 99kg missile travelling at 3 times the speed of sound ( that’s a shitload of energy to dump into any ship) that’s 99kg at 1029ms, compare that to an average good old 6 inch gun with a shell weight of 45kg and a muzzle velocity of around 850ms. finally sprinkle with 40mm guns and a helicopter that can cart ASMs out beyond the range of a… Read more »

Last edited 19 days ago by Jonathan
Frank62
Frank62
19 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

I hope you’re right. Though Sea ceptor is outranged by a long way by most other AShMs, so not much an anti-surface defence if the enemy takes you out long before cea Ceptor(CAMM) is in range.

Frank62
Frank62
19 days ago

“a low-end, do-everything ship”-Apart from NGS-57mm is too small & short ranged, ASW-no torpedoe tubes yet for ligtweight anti sub torpedoes, no AShMs-so can be blown away long before ever getting in range for its tiny 57mm which would be outranged by larger enemy main guns. So that’s nearly half of modern escort capabilities, hardly “do everything” & a risk to its crew.

Last edited 19 days ago by Frank62
Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Well… lightweight anti-sub-torpedoes being launched from ships is a pretty niche thing… Sublaunched torpedoes are much longer ranged, so… really better to have a helicopter launch them without putting the ship inside the torpedo range of a submarine.

Frank62
Frank62
19 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Back-up needed when your ships chopper is OOS, deployed away from the ship or lost. No sub is going to hold off attacking until it’s mended or replaced. No more than anyone deciding to go easy on us simply because the MOD has classed them as light/patrol frigates or River as OPVs.

Last edited 19 days ago by Frank62
Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

I believe it was Lusty who pointed out that there hasn’t been an ASW patrol missed by a helicopter in the RN yet.
But riddle me this: If the Helicopter is US for whatever reason, why would a submarine close into a ships lightweight torpedo range when it can attack from way beyond that without any fear of being hit?
(For perspective, the RN Sting Ray torpedo that Type31 would use if it had torpedo’s has an effective range of 11km, the Spearfish torpedo an Astute uses has a range of 54km…)

Last edited 19 days ago by Dern
Sean
Sean
18 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

A ship launching torpedoes from tubes against a submarine is somewhat akin to try to take out incoming missiles with a machine-gun. The fact you’re doing so is a sign that you’ve already failed. A ship always wants to engage submarines from the further distance possible, ideally beyond the range of the submarine’s torpedoes. In other words, by dropping torpedoes from its onboard helicopter or UAVs in future.

Frank62
Frank62
17 days ago
Reply to  Sean

The reality is in war things fail & mistakes are made. Happened in Falklands(a lot+fortunately lots of UK supplied Argentine bombs didn’t explode, saving many of our ships), Gulf etc.We’re hoping for things that are standard if not universal fit-out on an escort, not for reckless add-ons. Without basic ASW capability other than the chopper(& then only the Merlin has sub-hunting ability as far as I know, Wildcat doesn’t but has light AShM capability which Merlin doesn’t) you can’t really consider it an escort.
Not all nations have top class submarines or expertise.

Sean
Sean
18 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

The USN thinks the 57mm is the ideal gun for its new Constellation class frigates, and it’s not a navy known for either underarming vessels or having a lack of cash. I think this validates the RNs decision to choose the 57mm for the T31.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

The T31 has zero capability to detect any underwater threat. Zero.

Frank62
Frank62
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

That’s chilling Ron. I thought it would have at least a hull mounted sonar. Hoping it’s just not listed yet but will be fitted.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Hopefully they’ve made allowance for a set to be fitted later.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
19 days ago

History is repeating itself here, type 31 design/purpose is following the same philosophy as the type 21, a cheap ‘patrol frigate’, When the type 21 was first launched they were seen as under-armed too. but they did get some exocets retrofitted.

Jonathan
Jonathan
19 days ago

The only real problem with the type 21 was the falklands war, not designed for the south Atlantic pounding and a high threat environment.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
19 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

And the fact Sea Cat was a pretty damn useless AA system.

Last edited 19 days ago by Bringer of Facts
AlexS
AlexS
19 days ago

Seacat and the 4.5″ both AA useless.. They were worse armed than a late WW2 destroyer.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Actually the Seacat system on a T21 was about as good as it got without being Sea Wolf. The 912 Tracker with the TV B guidance was outstanding. OK the Sea Cat missile itself was a bit hit and miss but on a T21 it was OK if you had a reliable batch of missiles. T21 4.5 Gun was again OK in its primary role which is NGS. AA was always a nice to have. Exocet added for some surface punch although it was limited to around a 38km/23 miles which isnt much more than the current dual purpose Ceptor… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Plus I believe they had an aluminium superstructure. Not good when hit.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

As the US Ticos have , the LCS Monohulls have and the LCS Trimarans are along with the Hull.

That said T22 had and ally bridge and funnel…

Jonathan
Jonathan
19 days ago

The type 31 although lightly armed is designed for worldwide deployment as part of a blue water navy. It’s got bags of space for all sorts, a big hull with a big hanger ect.

The 21 was only ever a patrol frigate for brown water navy’s, designed for Patrolling inclosed shallow seas.it had some great features but it was never a ship designed for the RN.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
18 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Yes, but it is a bad assumption that a type 31 will never be in a situation where it faces a hostile Surface ship with long-range AShM or be within striking distance of a hostile Submarine. We need to lose this mentality of ‘Patrol / light duty frigates’ all RN ships this size need to be able to fight near-peer battles.

Last edited 18 days ago by Bringer of Facts
Dern
Dern
18 days ago

If you required every RN surface ship to be capable of fighting a full spectrum fight against near-peer then the fleet would be reduced to about 10 escorts.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Well if that is the case then we cannot afford a Navy, so are we just kidding ourselves ?. Look at the latest ships Russia and China are turning out. For example Gorshkov class( Russia)or Chinese type 054A. They are much more heavily armed. What other modern navy has a 5700-ton ship that is so lightly armed?

Dern
Dern
18 days ago

No, if that’s the case it’s an understandable case of the RN being a High-Mid-Low mix of combatants. It’s not a “everything has to be a battlecruiser.”

Why are you making an issue of tonnage? Look at ships with similar roles and suddenly you see that other navies do have ships that are similarly armed for that role.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Which ships of similar roles? which navies ? give some examples.

Dern
Dern
18 days ago

Literally off the top of my head the Floreals and La Fayettes?

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Floreal class – 30 years old, 2900 tons – purposed as a surveillance vessel

LaFayette class 20- 25 years old,- 3800 tons – Has Exocet , some have sonar.
 -> Being replaced from 2024 with a new 4460-ton frigate that will have Exocet and anti-submarine torpedoes.

Dern
Dern
18 days ago

Not a “surveillance vessel” a surveillance frigate, with almost exactly the same mission set as Type 31…. but ignore that all you want. We’ve been over anti-submarine torpedoes elsewhere in this thread, if you’re too lazy to read that I’m going to be too lazy to repeat myself again here. But hey the replacement for La Fayette proves my point: A frigate with under 20 SAM, 8 old SSGW, a medium calibre main gun and 2 light guns (which unlike the Type 31 is not a CIWS). Meanwhile Type 31 is a frigate with 12-24 SAM, 8 ISSGW, a medium… Read more »

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Nothing you have said proves your point, you just love to argue.

The replacement for the Lafayette will be equipped to deal with surface threats by having anti-ship missiles and will be equipped to deal with subsurface threats. We will simply agree to disagree on this one.

Dern
Dern
17 days ago

Put your fingers in your ears and shout lalalal if you like, but that doesn’t change the facts I’m afraid.

You can choose to be wrong if you like go ahead. I’ll just correct you when I see it happening.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
16 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Look, this forum is here for all of us to put forward our opinions. We should do that in an ADULT way i.e DO NOT be disrespectful, dismissive, or insulting when someone’s opinion differs from yours , even if you think you are right and they are wrong. Can we do that .. please?

Deep32
Deep32
18 days ago

Try the German F125 class frigates, designed for low-med intensity warfare. At 7200 tonnes, armed with a lightweight 127,mm, 2x Ram systems some 12.7mm mgs, harpoon and some water cannons!!!!!
[email protected] says, not everything needs to be top end stuff.

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
18 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Yes but they currently have 8 harpoons, that are about to be replaced the RBS15 Mk 4 giving the F125 frigate a 300km reach

Last edited 18 days ago by Bringer of Facts
Deep32
Deep32
17 days ago

Agreed they do, but in the context of the discussion, broadly speaking they are similar and fulfil similar missions., although not all. Neither has a ASW sonar, or area AD system. T31 has some advantages in certain areas, which the T125 can’t much. The reverse is also true. T125 costs twice as much as T31, with the first hull having been built some 6 years ago. T31 will get some upgrades to its systems, eventually, it’s why this class was selected, just not on commissioning. I personally think if we do get I-SSGW, they will eventually end up on T31,… Read more »

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
17 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

RBS15 Mk 4 … I hope.

Deep32
Deep32
17 days ago

Personally from a totally joined up perspective, I would plump for a NSM/JSM combination. Then again I dont hold the purse strings so, probably totally wrong!!

Paul T
Paul T
16 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Interestingly the F125 Frigates are sometimes referred to as Colonial Cruisers.

Deep32
Deep32
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

They have received there fair share of critisism for their lack of armament for such a large ship! Yet the Germans seem happy enough with what they have got!
Colonial cruisers is an apt descrittion, not sure what an apt description of our T31 would be though?

Jonathan
Jonathan
18 days ago

Because most of the places our ships need to go are a long way away and that means big hulls with range and endurance. Yes we could pack the same capacity into a smaller hull, but it would not be able to go much further than the med, which is f all use to the RN. Also you are forgetting what it brings, space for missions, rotor assets, unmanned platforms, marines, boats. All the stuff you need to do most millitary tasks that are not some world war three thing….just remember what nelson said and what we needed in the… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago

Gorshkov is quite well armed. But its taken on average 10 years to build each of the first 3 . They will have 3 in the Northern Fleet, 3 in Pacific Fleet and the rest spread around when they get them.

Frank62
Frank62
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Funny how virtually every other navy doesn’t leave out essential equipment of weaponry.

Last edited 18 days ago by Frank62
Dern
Dern
18 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Neither does the RN.

Frank62
Frank62
18 days ago

Absolutely right. Insanity to pretend otherwise. We’re producing easily eliminated escorts.

Jonathan
Jonathan
18 days ago

But it will have a rotor that can provide anti surface warfare capability out to a greater distance than any realistic ship based system can. A warship is part of a system.

Klonkie
Klonkie
18 days ago

I don’t think one can compare the 21 with the 31. Sea Ceptor is the point of difference. But with only 12, things could turn nasty when the hordes are coming over the hill. As a GP frigate, the 31 seems to fit the bill.

Question is, can we scale up construction pace to replace retiring 23’s and build up the magical 24 destroyer/frigate ship number?

Bringer of Facts
Bringer of Facts
18 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

We CAN compare, it is following the same design/ ‘light duties only’ purpose, and ‘build it cheap as possible’ plan as was done with the type 21. Yes, sea-ceptor is a world apart from the useless Seacat, but as you point out saturation attacks may show that lightly arming our ships is a mistake.

Last edited 18 days ago by Bringer of Facts
Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago

Exactly. The T21 was procured by the politicians that didn’t want to pay the price for full on warships (Type 22’s). They massively overran their budget and turned out to be useless in the Falklands. So were quickly dumped afterwards.

The Type 31 is starting out to be pretty much a re-run of the same story. It was chosen by the Treasury which didn’t want to pay the price for more type 26’s and is equipped for nothing more than anti-piracy and flag waving. Not my words but the Navy’s.

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

The problem of T21 was not the ship but the weapons.

Ron5
Ron5
16 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

So when they started breaking up in heavy seas that was a fault of their weapons?

A fault that cost a lot of money, a lot of weight, and 4 knots off their top speed to fix.

chris stocken
chris stocken
19 days ago

Can the type 31 be re-armed at sea?.

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  chris stocken

Yes but not the missiles.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Which is a good reason to have a little more than too little, space and cost permitting.

James Fennell
James Fennell
19 days ago
Reply to  chris stocken

They will be able to embark the new PODS – they will include XLUUVs, UAS, USVs, direct energy weapons, precision strike, humanitarian, commando and MCM, ESM modules smong other capabilities.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Where will these PODS be placed on the Type 31’s? It doesn’t have a mission bay like the Type 26’s.

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Yes they will. You are incorrect – Type 31 has a mission bay for 6 TEUs under the flight deck. They will also be used on the River Batch 2s and probably designed into the new Types 32, 83 and MRSS. For different tasks you could guess at a mix of PODS such as: Patrol – UAVs, FCF Command, Data Fusion, Quadcopters and Humanitarian CT, – UAVs, Data Fusion, C-UAS, FCF Command, Precision Strike ASW – UAVs, XLUUV, Quadcopters, ASW Torps, Towed Array Sonar, ASW Command MCM – USVs, Towed Array, UAVs, MCM Command, C-UAS Littoral – FCF Command, Data… Read more »

Last edited 18 days ago by James William Fennell
Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago

So you can operate all these things from a storage bay under the flight deck?

Most amusing.

That space would be most usefully employed to house a towed sonar array and an SSTD array. Neither of which requires or benefits from being in a pod. Any room left over could house disaster recovery supplies in standard commercial containers to be put ashore at the nearest port when needed.

James Fennell
James Fennell
16 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Obviously they are not operated directly from the TEUs, they are deployed on the warship or from the boat bays. The TEUs contain command facilities once the system is deployed- they become an office. The Danish version has a smaller mission bay with a towed array and a rer boat ramp, but the RN chose to delete the ramp (only good in calm waters) for an extra boat bay which allows deployment in heavier seas.

Ron5
Ron5
15 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

You’ve clearly not been in the spaces beneath a frigate flight deck at sea. A most inhospitable place. Noisy and lots of motion.

Not sure how you plan to move equipment from under the flight deck to the boat bays. Will be an interesting trick.

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
15 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

The boat bays are accessible from the hangar, so I guess that is the mechanism. I’m not sure how the TEUs are stowed – flightdeck elevator maybe. Navy wants to use ‘stabilised UAVs’ to move them around at sea.

James Fennell
James Fennell
16 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

The point of the system is to divorce the capability from the platform- so ships can be reconfigured at sea. Your solution does not achieve that goal.

Ron5
Ron5
15 days ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Another interesting trick will be deploying containers to the Type 31’s at sea and then storing them below the flight deck.

Pretty sure that will need a dockside with a big crane.

By the way the LCS tried to do the whole “separate the mission equipment from the platform” – total failure.

James William Fennell
James William Fennell
15 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Yet the Danish Navy has made it work with Stanflex, and this ship is based on a Danish Stanflex capable design.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
19 days ago

Interestingly, from what was visible of the A140 model displayed at DSEI 21, it apparently shows the RN T31 design but with 24 x Sea Ceptor and 2 × 4 anti-ship missiles. If so, that would suggest that the RN required mission bays on T31 do not preclude that armament format at some point.

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

The Mission bays preclude the weapon fit out that the Ivar Huitsfelds have. Basically the original design has 2 modular slots, that can take cannister launchers, Mk41 or Mk56. The mission bays take up 1 of those slots, effectively meaning that the A140’s have the choice of VLS silos in the rear slot, but can only have cannisters bolted on the front slot.
Not sure if I made sense there, but hope that helps.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
19 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Appreciate the attempt, anyway, Dern, thanks. Less sure what R5 is about. Still counterintuitive that the T31 design lacks significant missile upgrade potential when that (inevitably) becomes necessary.

Dern
Dern
19 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

I mean 32mk41 cells and 8 cannister launched missiles isn’t exactly something to sneeze at. What Ron5 is on about is Babcock designed Arrowhead 140 with, for lack of a better word, various modules that can be swapped out when you order it. When they display Arrowhead at defence shows they always have the “alternate modules” alongside the main display. Some take this to mean that any weapons layout you see at shows can’t be taken as an indication of anything (personally not that pessimistic myself, with first steel being cut I can’t see why Babcock would display it in… Read more »

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Thanks for the help @Dern.

Yes, the display at the show was to demonstrate that as a new buyer you could specify all kinds of different equipment fits in all kinds of configurations. All at additional cost of course!

The display said nothing about the RN’s Type 31 The RN has already picked their configuration. They won’t be going back and rebuilding parts of the ship in the future.

Dern
Dern
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Well yes, but the display was showing the RN fit out, in all confirmed respects. The only thing people can speculate about is that the number of CAMM hasn’t been publically confirmed yet.

People are happy to grab a unofficial Babcock screenshot of 12 and run with that, but unhappy to say 24 from a Babcock display.

Steve M
Steve M
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Hi Dern, wish we had kept the StanFlex model that Abslom/Iver H use, I think the option to be able to vary the load according to where being sent from just small guns (West indies) to few missiles etc in 2 containers for further afield to full load with 30+ AAW and ASM for adding as additional escort for ARG etc would have been better the dreaded fitted for but not with game especially for the T31’s

Dern
Dern
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

I do need to look into the Ivar Huitsfelds and find out just how often the StanFlex system is actually used to it’s full potential by the Danes….

Steve M
Steve M
18 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Personally i think the Absalon class (used to be a support ship but they reclassified it!!) type would be ideal for long range patrol and wasn’t expensive in bases fit but had option to add enough to make credible additional escort. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalon-class_frigate

Dern
Dern
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

I mean to be fair the Inspirations are basically an evolution of the Absalons (Inspirations are based on IH which is based on Absalon). Both Arrowhead and Absalon have a basic fit but space and design allowances for increased armament.
So, in a sense you are getting your wish.

Steve M
Steve M
17 days ago
Reply to  Dern

yeh but less of 🙁 smaller main gun, less AA missile, no ASM, no torps (moot if an Astute is within 10 miles your already fcuk’d), no sonar (so you won’t know anyway) only 1 helo so it is step up from Rivers for long range patrol but just think could have been so much more

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
17 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Mind you, their construction was RAPID, took just four months from laid down – launch, 5 for fitting out and then commisoned 2 months later. If T26 was that quick – HMS Glasgow would be operational by now!

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Well no, the model did not show the RN fit out. The forward gun, for example.

Dern
Dern
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

The one I saw had the 57mm and 2x40mm.
I can’t help it if you saw a picture where someone had been fiddling with it.

Ron5
Ron5
16 days ago
Reply to  Dern

You weren’t there dude.

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

A a totally different gun and a bunch of alternative superstructures, sensors & weapons on the adjacent stand that can be switched off and on the model like Lego.

Oh yes, and labelled “Arrowhead 140” not Type 31.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

For use with export buyers so they can pick their version of Arrowhead to buy.

Not for the Royal Navy who have already picked and signed a contract with their choices.

Jonathan
Jonathan
19 days ago

its great news but the class names a bit wank really, who calls a warship class “ inspiration”, that’s not really very warlike is it.

Ron5
Ron5
19 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Appropriate for the ship tho, don’t you think?

Jonathan
Jonathan
19 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Clearly not a fan Ron. The thing to hold onto is they are good hulls so HMG my get over themselves and spend some money on lethality/protection. Just don’t hold your breath or you’ll die.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

And they looked kinda pretty to me. But then again, so did the Type 21’s.

Examples of the UK up gunning warships later in their lives are rather rare. But not entirely out of the question.

Jason
Jason
19 days ago

Good news. I’ve a feeling the Type 31 will be a blinder. No it’s not gonna be a cruiser able to pound shore batteries and fend off attacks of the heaviest kind but with 24 Sea Ceptor (fingers crossed), 57mm main gun and two 40mm guns it’ll be able to defend itself pretty well against the threats it’s expected to face. It may even be able to do a little more than that.

Steve M
Steve M
19 days ago
Reply to  Jason

I read article (can’t remember where) that advocated swapping the 127mm from T45 with 57mm proposed for T31. Reason being who is going to send the primary AAW platform defending the battle group inshore for NGS? where sending T31 would make sense. The 57mm would be useful in helping against Asm or swarm with the shrapnel rounds. Can see the reasoning as we have so few T45 & T26 it would be risk sending inshore as part of ARG of a hostile shoreline.

Jason
Jason
19 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

I read something similar. Using a T45 for naval bombardment is very unlikely I agree and swapping its 127mm for the 57mm due to be on board the T31 sounds great. I suspect in practice it may be a little more complicated than we think but in principle it’s a good idea. Expensive though so I suspect so it’ll never be done even if it was a decided to be a good idea by the RN.

DaveyB
DaveyB
18 days ago
Reply to  Jason

Until, the T31 with the NS100 comes into service, the T45’s Sampson has the best littoral radar performance. Worth bearing in mind!

Peter S
Peter S
19 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

T45 doesn’t have a 127mm/5inch gun. They have been ordered for the T26. T45 has the 4’5 inch gun fitted to T23.
I do agree that given their intended roles, it would be better to have the heavier gun on T31.
Since it will be replacing T23s, why not install the 4.5 on T31? I think the navy has some spare.

Jason
Jason
19 days ago
Reply to  Peter S

I apologise. I had a brain burp there for a moment. I wish it were the only one I have these days. You are correct. Replace 127mm for 114mm.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
19 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Slight correction. The T45 does not have 127mmm (that’s for T26) but 114mm. From my recollection way back, fitting the 127mm to the T45 would have impinged on the space now allocated, much more usefully, for Sea Ceptor.
Regards

Jason
Jason
19 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

I see. I thought it may be more complicated than it appears on the surface.

Paul T
Paul T
15 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

That would depend on the below deck footprint needed for each Gun system,swapping the MK8 for the MK45 on the Type 45 wouldn’t necessarily impinge on the Space needed for the Extra Silo’s.Obviously it would make sense for the Escort Fleet to use the same Gun System,or failing that use Systems that at least use the same Ammunition xx

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
15 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

The footprint would certainly be the issue in these situations. But it was a draftsman involved in the initial designs of T45 who confirmed this particular problem among a number of front end FFBNW points at the time i.e. you could have the 5 inch or the missile provision, but not both with any convenience. Option of Bofors or Ceptor was not part of the discussion back then, though.
Regards

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

You can be confident that the effectiveness of the proposed gun and missile configuration on the T31 has been modelled by the Operational Research analysts to fit the intended role; patrol frigate. I think we outsource that stuff to places like Qinetic. I would not be surprised if the 57mm and 2x40mm combination is not capable of defeating simultaneous attacks by sea skimmer missiles and FAC surface swarms. The guns will be modelled as a system ( which will include multiple mini guns and GPMG). The layered self defence effectiveness would be compromised if say the 57mm was swapped out… Read more »

Steve M
Steve M
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Just thought the 3p shells would provide additional defence capability against swarm attacks (air or surface) out to over 10K which would provide additional defence only limited numbers of missiles and phalanax is sort of BOHICA weapon.

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Yes, I have been learning about guns vs missiles from other folks posting here; notably Gunbuster. It would take only a short burst of a few shells from these guns to take out their target. You would need an impractical number of AA missiles to defend against swarm attacks and there’s no possibility of reloading at sea. Guns with hundreds of shells and programmable ammunition are the way to go. The RN have thought this through.

DaveyB
DaveyB
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The next up scale iteration would be to replace the two 40mm positions with two 57mm. Replace the single 57mm with a 5″. Put the two 40mm where the DS30 are located. Then move the DS30s to amidships. This would provide a stronger NGS capability, whilst also improving on the gun AA capability, by having two 57mm guns firing the ORCA rounds.

Simples!

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

I missed that. Where are the DS30s now?

DaveyB
DaveyB
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Either side of the 40mm on top of the hangar. Naval News have a video of an interview with Babcock at this year’s DSEI. Babcock were showing off a model of the Arrowhead 140. However, the model had T31 written on the flight deck along with a model Merlin helicopter and he kept referring to it as the T31.

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Thx. Wonder if the Merlin is significant.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

It is, it shows the deck is strong enough for a Merlin.

If they had a Chinook model, they would have put that there instead.

Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

There’s not been any model or picture or video or article showing or mentioning DS30’s on a Type 31.

Go watch the video again.

DaveyB
DaveyB
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

You mean like this one from Babcock’s DSEI 2021 presentation. This was shown as part of the modular build capability. So in the shot it also shows a Thales SMART-L radar.

Backcock T31 stern.jpeg
Ron5
Ron5
16 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Come on, you specifically referenced the Navy News video which doesn’t show any DS30’s.

And this new picture doesn’t show the Royal Navy variant. So it’s not a type 31 despite the paint on the flying deck. Just a set of configurations that could be bought. Millennium gun for example.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Its now de rigueur that RN flight decks are Chinook capable. Spec for the biggest helo in service and everything else is easy. Even the Helo Start servicing equipment is multi Helo capable nowadays. You can start anything from Lynx/Wildcat, Merlin, Apache up to Chinook.

Ron5
Ron5
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

You mean it will be “de rigeur” surely? I doubt a type 23 can accept a Chinook.

David Barry
David Barry
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Why not just 3d every deck with the F35 resilient finish and put an F35 on every deck… no quibbles about ability to fight then…

🙂

DaveyB
DaveyB
18 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

Hopefully we will also get the ORCA round to compliment the 3P shell. 3P is more designed for FIAC and other lightly armoured targets. Whereas ORCA is designed to combat airbourne threats. The 57mm has multiple ammo feed options, so here’s hoping?

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

It doesn’t sound cheap.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Nope. Babcock and Thales picked the armament to fit the budget and to meet the RN’s request for a medium gun and point defence capability.

No in depth analysis was performed. No time, no budget.

Paul.P
Paul.P
18 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

If it was performed you wouldn’t know 😉 I accept that the process probably went down along the lines you say; ‘ I’ve got this much to spend, this is my most important consideration, what can you offer?’ But at some point the configuration will be modelled so a ship’s captain and crew know what they are up against and how to respond. Personally I think these ships will be a real winner. Put a bigger mcg on and some Mk41s and you got yourself a light cruiser. Put some Asters A50 cells on and you have a AAW. Put… Read more »

Last edited 18 days ago by Paul.P
Ron5
Ron5
17 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

I would and it wasn’t.

Paul.P
Paul.P
17 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

Well, well. You are Ben Wallace and I claim my £5.
But I bet it will be….

Ron5
Ron5
16 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

😃

Abracadabra
Abracadabra
18 days ago

Swedish steel?

geoff
geoff
18 days ago

Good news and if it is “in the water” by 2023 then could be available to the Navy by 2024?

ATH
ATH
18 days ago
Reply to  geoff

25/26 more likely. Lots of fitting out and initial tests on equipment to do after launch. Then as first in class there will be extensive trials both by the builders and after delivery by the RN.

David S
David S
18 days ago

If I was in charge of Chinese defence; I’d order six to counter AUKUS.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  David S

That’s 6 months work for one of their shipyards.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  Ron5

The build quality on Chinese built commercial vessels is pretty appalling. I hope the build quality on Military vessels is the same! Sea valves that disintegrate after 6 months immersion in saltwater. Bearings and electrical motors that burn out in the space of months. The best I recently saw on a vessel we had in was the watertight / fire proof engine room bulkhead that had been stitch welded (Not full pen!) on one side only…you could see light where the weld was supposed to be … In a fire or flood ( Noting the motors and sea valves above!)… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Wasn’t Stitch Welding an issue with Navantia as well with the Norwegian Fridjorf Nansen (excuse spelling) Ships?.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
15 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Interesting insight, GB. Reminds me somewhat of the analysis the US Navy did on why the Japanese lost so many Carriers during WW2. According:- was significantly down to crap understanding, or subsequent lessons learnt, about efficient damage control requirements and procedures.

OldSchool
OldSchool
18 days ago

I don’t expect the T31 to be a T26 but the lack of underwater warfare options is scandalous. No mention of a sonar – not even for mine avoidance let alone ASW ops. And if they are going to rely on Wildcat then they should have a clip on FLASH sonar if the ship itself lacks detection ability.

Ron5
Ron5
18 days ago
Reply to  OldSchool

Agree but look how cheap and gray it is!!! Will be the pivot point for the new Navy he said. Move over those carriers!

What’s the emoji for sarcasm?

stokey
stokey
17 days ago

Is the type 31 having a hull mounted sonar fitted or bottom?

Last edited 17 days ago by stokey
stokey
stokey
17 days ago

Is the type 31 having a hull mounted sonar fitted or not?

Paul T
Paul T
15 days ago
Reply to  stokey

Short answer is no.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago

Worth looking here

Video: Day 3 at DSEI 2021 – Naval News

Covers lots of the stuff that the RN can fit onto T31.
USV workboats with towed active sonar, MCM fits, it could even carry Maritime Brimstone!
Torpedo carrying drones
PODS container systems
40mm guns.