The first steel has been cut for HMS Active, the second of five new Type 31 Frigates, at the Babcock shipyard in Rosyth.
Work on HMS Venturer, the first of the five, started last year.
We’re excited for the day ahead, with a milestone event coming up later. Who wants a sneak preview? #sneakpreview #wearedeliveringinspiration pic.twitter.com/0Ms2KjaGZY
— Babcock International (@Babcockplc) January 24, 2023
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”.
Alex Chalk, the Defence Procurement Minister, said at the ceremony:
“And with the T-31 frigates, we’re going to ensure the made-in-Scotland stamp is a worldwide mark of quality for years to come.
Such a powerful tribute to so many of the men and women here today.
And that brings me onto my third point – these frigates will act as an inspiration for our exports.
I don’t want to steal too much of Minister Bowie’s thunder, but it’s fair to say these ships are garnering global interest before they’ve even taken to the water.
And that’s because I know our allies appreciate and understand how the unique Arrowhead-140 flexible design can support so many different configurations.
And it offers the potential for greater collaboration at an operational and industrial level.
And that’s why Babcock has already signed an export contract with Indonesia and I’m not giving anything away I hope when I say there are other suitors too.
And I do want to take this opportunity finally to pay tribute to this vessel’s predecessor and namesake.
A Type-21 frigate which played a vital role in the Falklands War 40 years ago, from escorting supply convoys to San Carlos Water, to providing naval gun support to British forces in the Battle of Mount Tumbledown.
And I’m particularly delighted that some of those who served with such distinction on board the last HMS Active are here today as the torch is passed to a new vessel.
But historians among you will know these aren’t the only ships to have borne the name.
During the Second World War, Active joined the hunt for the Bismarck.
During the First World War, Active was with the Grand Fleet in the Battle of Jutland.
And in 1762, Active captured a prize of £100 million worth of Spanish treasure. Happy to confirm that is no longer British foreign policy.
Indeed, 11 different HMS Actives have written their own chapter in our nation’s great maritime history.
But today’s warship will be more advanced than any of its predecessors. More adaptable, more flexible, more agile and more powerful.
So, thank you to everyone involved in this important enterprise.
Congratulations on what you have achieved so far and what you will achieve and deliver in the future.
With a thriving Scottish shipbuilding sector behind it, the 12th HMS Active reflects the finest traditions of the Royal Navy and will write a new and exciting chapter in our nation’s maritime history.
Thank you.”
Excellent news. This is a very fast build, Five Frigates by 2028 and very cheap too considering how impressive the design is. Good times indeed.
Five Type 31s by 2028 – I think the first Type 26 isn’t supposed to be operational until 2027….. what a difference!
Let’s hope the RN has a plan to substantially up-arm the Type 31s when the enter service – NSM and Mk41 VLS come to mind.
I’d far rather prioritise ASW sensors and additional SAM’s above Mk41
Yeah, but a frigate this size should have some long-range offensive capability.
Still the huge type 26 cruiser can do it if anyone has the brains to actually admit that its not really a frigate after all.
I agree in what you are saying but I think the definition of “Frigate, Destroyer & cruiser” no longer really applies in modern times. They have all merged into one ship type with different rolls.
Isn’t a cruiser any ship capable of being flagship other than aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship?
No, the term cruiser used to be used for any ship that could protect the world wide sea lanes of the British Emprire. A ship with good range and able to defend the interests of the UK. Ships with long range be that a frigate or even a sloop could be called a cruiser. The modern thinking of what a cruiser is only came about because of the 1922 Washington Treaty, 6 inch or 8 inch guns, 10,000 tons etc. So yes the T31 could be seen as a cruiser, able to defend herself, able to roam the sea lanes,… Read more »
Post war Frigate and destroyer in the RN is simply a term related to primary function. All modern frigates and destroyers of every nation are effectively the same as an early 20c cruiser. even when you go back to the post war regeneration of the navy, the county class destroyer was simply a cut down of the post war heavy cruiser concept. It was called a destroyer as its primary function was AAW, It’s secondary function was to counter surface actions by Russian sverdlov cruisers. The Destroyer as a focused AAW asset then stuck. The concept of frigates as primary… Read more »
Like the IAShM that the MOD has announced it is buying several sets of?
8 dual purpose land/sea missiles changes the offensive/defensive punch quite a lot?
I also think getting the VLS in them is something of a priority as RN is weak on offensive missile punch. Adding the VLS to that and T26 is a game changer. That way in a CSG RN would likely have 4 No Mk41 VLS systems 96+ missiles) and 2 No AAW VLS on T45.
IRL in a CSG a T31 is likely shepherding STUFT and RFA.
Agreed, the way I see the T31 in a CSG is as a RFA escort. I also agree on installing four blocks of Mk41s, one block for quad packed Sea Ceptor, one block for Aster 30 and two blocks for anti ship/land attack or anti air. A further eight anti ship missiles could be canister launched. I would however make one major change the aft 40mm postion. In this postion on a raised half deck housing I would have Sea RAM, then on the port, starboard corners of the hanger I would have the 40mm guns with the magazine in… Read more »
They are too noisy to be effective ASW ships. Better off fitting them out to be able to handle surface threats and support local air defence so the dedicated ASW ships can focus on sub hunting.
How do you know they are noisy – they haven’t even been built yet.
Because they are not being built to the hull or powerplant specifications of an anti sub frigate! That’s openly available information.
The parent design does ASW.
Not as well as T23 for sure.
Given that diesels have generally got significantly quieter it *might* be better than the parent design.
That said there is no point in having a world class super optimised ASW and then spraying budget around of half arsed solutions.
But with a tiny surface fleet T31 needs a clearly defined role in a CSG.
Love it SB, better 1-2 more T26s for ASW.
Noise optimisation was an offer the MOD did not pick from Babcock for T31 as it significantly increases the cost and that’s what T26 is for.
Not strictly correct. These ships were originally designed to NATO standards wrt noise reduction/ASW capabilities. They are clearly not as capable as a T26 in this respect, but then again are only roughly 25% of the cost of a T26! Can they do ASW, yes they can. Are they as capable as a dedicated ASW ship, no they are not. The major difference between T26\31 ASW wise is that the T31 will be detected by a SM at a greater range then a T26. A T26 will also be able to detect a SM at greater range then a T31… Read more »
All true statements, but have you perhaps left unstated the concern that beyond the City Class frigates, the Astutes and the SSN(R)s, the rest of the fleet will not be thepredators but rather the potential prey of ChiCom SSNs in the 2030’s and 2040’s? The rest of NATO has the same issue. 🤔😳😱
but the RN has the best ASW frigates in the world as well as AAW frigates…..and as long as it gets 32 CAMM it will have a very effect AAW fit, the gun fit is also exceptional effective from the AAW point of view. If you need it to be an ASW asset just park a Merlin in the hanger….but it’s not designed to be an ASW frigate, the hull is not silenced. What the RN is really missing is strike. Considering these ships will be forward based as geopolitical tool, the very best thing they can have are strike… Read more »
Agreed but like everything it’s down to money and priorities. The RN will have to guess what it’s budget will be in the future. Whether to go for more platforms (Type 32) with or without upgrades to weapons or systems or forego in favour of upgrades to existing and planned ships. That may be the issue they’ll have to decide. Apart from the price the best thing about this class is there’s room to add to add new systems with minimal structural change. The RN won’t get it but they deserve huge praise for this. They’re prepared for whatever budget… Read more »
I Was reading a paper on the design of the T31 and the spiral design process..it’s very clever they have designed these ships specifically to be upgrades…so for instance if you wanted to fit a 5inch gun the design has all the pipes and cables in the correct place so you don’t have to move a lot of stuff around. Even how they designed the weapons fit was clever.. the RN basically gave a set of requirements…what would need to be engaged at what speed and at what distance and to what effectand left the bidders to all come up… Read more »
Yes the RN has high build standards, particularly with regard to redundancy and resilience, which is why the River 2 OPVs were more expensive than the Amazonas class corvettes on which they’re based.
Hadn’t heard of this spiral design process but it does sound a ground-breaking way to ensure the RN gets what it wants for the price it can afford.
Indeed I was actually going to mention the rivers 2 as a good example. RN builds are premium for a reason and I don’t think anyone would argue with safer is better on a warship. I will find the reference document and post a link.
Thanks for that I knew most of that but not all. It’s ridiculous in some ways. As a model for procurement it makes so much sense. Don’t get involved in the minutiae. Set broad parameters and choose the best option provided on grounds of goals and costs. Wouldnt it be amazing if the public sector as a whole implemented it. Time and time again disasters have been the result of futile attempts at micro management.
The only real concern re T-31 and any derivative design is the potential acoustic emissions signature. Every other potential issue can be addressed w/ periodic updates. The 2030’s and beyond could prove to be very perilous for surface fleets not loaded for bear, in terms of ASW capability. Ivan will still be operating SSNs and there is a significant variance in estimates of projected number and quality of ChiCom SSNs. Anticipate T-26 will be able to hold it’s own; the rest of the fleet (and NATO as a whole)? Perhaps not so much. Dunno, the score for the movie Jaws… Read more »
Well from what I have read Russia has pretty much given up on the idea of challenging western ASW and is going for a bastion approach even with is SSNs ( which all now focus of long range missile attacks) as they are effectively stalled at a soviet level of tec. China is the wild card, not sure what their tec base will look like in a decade, but we do know they willl have the money and industrial capacity to capitalise on there developments. ASW is one of those areas where quantity does not have a quality of its… Read more »
Interesting, 🤔, need to do some reading. Concur re T-26 and Merlin numbers. Perhaps there are alternate methods to provide the ASW function. Absolutely believe it will be critical capability in out-years.
I recall the many moans here about these ships not having this and that.
I agree, the whole point is flexibility and an ability to upgrade later, if it’s necessary.
I hope they order another batch of 5, this T32.
Indeed, the RN have sort of formally adopted and formalised in the T31 the concept that the ship as first commissioned is not the ship the RN end up with in the end. T31 is designed to embrace that concept..it’s build to be changed. I agree I think it would be wise to make the T32 a batch 2 T31. If they don’t they could end up with a really large number of different escort hulls and all that complexity of logistics and training….type 23, type 31, type 32, type 26 and type 45…five escort types…there it has not be… Read more »
The RN escort fleet is too small, and has been since 2004. More ships are always welcome, but then so are more people to crew them.
I’d be ecstatic with the RN back to 24 escorts, but will believe it when i see it as it was so much BJ grandstanding knowing full well another Parliament will be actually funding it.
Hi Daniele, I think the RN is probably winding back the T32 program to a T31 B2 as we speak. If we get 3 I’d be really happy given we have a couple of bean counters in charge at the moment, which means that the Treasury is in charge again… 3 would also keep the line open long enough for next government to perhaps order a B3 to bring the total up to 10 (or heavens above 12!). The recent article about the GIUK Gap highlighted something I have been saying for quite sometime – don’t forget the Battle of… Read more »
Hi mate. I agree. As it is, without a Batch 2 all their talk of naval expansion is maintaining the bare minimum of 19 escorts and not expansion at all. It’s a pattern that constantly repeats itself over the decades, as the new low becomes the benchmark to emulate. I cannot see it changing while pensions and the deterrent remain in core budget, they eat up too big a slice of the funds. To be fair, Britain spends lots on defence but too much vanishes due to delays, gold plating, and an inability to stick to a plan ( I’m… Read more »
https://labourlist.org/2022/04/now-more-than-ever-labours-manifesto-on-defence-must-put-people-first/
And if the incoming Labour lot follow this way of doing defence you can kiss your extra T31s and god knows what else goodbye.
Hmm, that is a scary read, I note it was published on 1 April… To be fair it does look like a discussion piece which will hopefully never get into the real manifesto.
Starting to look like a tails you loose, heads I win situation 🙁 It has been that way for as long as I can remember.
Cheers CR
Indeed, it is not policy or official. Nevertheless, and spoof piece or not, I worry this is what lies beneath the respectable Labour once in power. And I will be here to admit I was wrong or to say “told you” when the expeditionary pieces and assets start getting thrown away by their own ideology on what “defence” actually means. Do you remember N Kinnook wanting to alter all the Tornado IDS into interceptors? The speeches I found by the Shadow DS Healey, also do not give much of a clue apart from a long rant about Tory failures and… Read more »
OMG… 🤦🏻♂️
Shame the guys who ordered Ajax didn’t do the same.
Well they designed the T45s to have lots of room for additional weapons systems and they now going to use it for Sea Ceptors. So there is a precedent for the space getting used.
Agreed there’s been a seismic change in Naval procurement. But Type 31 has taken it to a new level. I can actually believe that ‘Steel is cheap and air is free’ apologies to David Hobbs is hanging on the wall of Ben Wallaces office.
Monty Hobbs'(flying circus) Ark 85, good choice, good boss, brilliant author I’d really recommend. 👏👍
👍👍
Yes, but “only” 24 CAMM”. Wish they’d try for 32-48 if not putting in any MK41s. Can even FFBNW up to 4×4 AShMs too, like on the Italian DDX and pre-T83. There’s plenty of space and shouldn’t impede its AAW role.
It is a little surprising as the T23s have 32 Sea Ceptors and one of the ways of keeping the T31 costs down was to transfer weapons across from the T23s. So you would expect a similar number…
Presumably the interim Naval Strike Missile will be migrated across from the T23s to the T31s, with the T26s getting the new anti-ship missile currently being developed.
I’m making 80 US dollars for every hr. to finish some internet providers from home. I absolutely never thought it would try and be reachable anyway. My comrade mate got $13k just in about a month effectively doing this best task and furthermore she persuaded me to profit. Look at additional subtleties
going to this article.. https://needpeopleNYC.blogspot.com
Good points as always Jonathan 👍
SNAP Steve ASW with towed array, UKDJs had an article on the Grnld Iclnd Gap just the other day
That could be achieved with unmanned rotary craft able to deploy a FLASH type dipping sonar and lay sonar bouy fields with a data link to the ship
A few sets could be rotated between the in-service ships.
Quadcopters these days can carry 300kg loads so that could be achieved.
It would be pretty easy to fit more Camm or Camm X/ solution to the proposed medium range UK solution.
Camm only weigh 99kg plus cold launch cannister so could it be reloaded at sea?
Agree that the plan is to use unmanned rotary craft for ASW work, but, unfortunately that’s still years away.
I can see them being equipped to deploy sonar bouys, but not a dipping sonar, believe that that is probably a step to far given that we don’t even have anything remotely ready to go just yet.
Too noisy for ASW
Just get LM containerised VLS then the T31 can be configured to suit a role. Good twitter post on LM containerised below.
https://twitter.com/osinttechnical/status/1434137914565398532?lang=en-GB
Has the fit out been confirmed officially yet? Last I looked it was still based on muck up photos and not official mod/RN/goverment confirmation
I think the proposed armament is good the addition of NSM make sense, but should have been included in the rendering design at the beginning of the design stage as I also believe that ASROC should have been included as well.
Considering it’s a fixed price contract for a fixed product, yes it will have been agreed already. They just are not bothering to publish the
last details..could be for a couple of reasons..commercially sensitive, if they are in negotiations with other buyers they may not want all the details out just yet…government spin, maybe they don’t want a frigates with no weapons headline in the sun….or they just cannot be bothered with publishing the details ( the most likely).
If I remember correctly, the deal included a number of mod owned equipment, so not entirely clearly what actually the fixed cost includes and doesn’t.
Navy Lookout put out a tweet on cost of Type 26 batch 1 and 2 and Type 31. Type 31 was £268m all included.
Alas the first Type 26 has been put back another year and is now expected to be operational in 2028. I hope with the order of batch 2 confirmed they might hire more people in time to claw some of that back.
Steel is cheap. Building the type 31 design at 5600+ tons allows the RN to have more than enough wide-margin to retrofit as funds and operational requirements demand.
Agree NSM, a 16-24 cell mk41 vls system with potential for quad packed sea ceptor or LRASM/ Tomahawk sounds like a good idea to me.
Is there any merit in a navalised MLRS? They’ve proven their accuracy, long range and effectiveness in Ukraine and would be superb for NGS role
Steel used to be cheap, not with current energy costs.
Due to your mate in the Kremlin pushing up everyone’s energy costs because he sent his rapist army of Orcs into the Ukraine.
Energy prices are falling rapidly – at least wholesale traded gas is!
Blame it on your comrades who flattened the Azovstal plant in Mariupol.
Of more note to me is that Jingye, British Steel owner, evidently wants us to provide industry subsidies – whilst China floods market with subsidised steel. Confusing – or Confucius? 😎
Steel is still a small part of the overall budget when it’s being used in warship construction.
The savings made from taking a type 31 down to 3500 tons would not be hugely significant.
Markets are adapting to the new normal of European energy supply and prices are settling down. As Europe and some other nations wean themselves off Russian energy products other countries are delighted to step in to fill the gap.
Unlike you Russian inbreds we still have the capability to manufacture major military equipment. Our facilities not suffering so many fires also tends to help…
See what you did there 🕵️♀️
Kongsberg and Lockheed Martin did a series of trials with a vertical launched version of JSM. Kongsberg used JSM as the configuration suited the Mk41 better, so needed less modifications. Only the addition of a rocket booster. Apparently the trials went ok. However, LM aren’t to impressed with pushing the missile, as it’s a competitor to their LRASM.
For the RN, a VL JSM would be ideal, as it can also be directly fitted to the F35B. By just removing the rocket booster. It would give the T31 significant punch, if 8 were carried in a Mk41 farm.
Can’t the harpoon mounts from T23 be reused on T31.
huitfeldt class can have 16 of these on top of 32 mk41 vls and 24 mk56 vls. It’s a solid build and proven in the RDN
Harpoon will be out of service by the time the T-31 is in service. Hence NSM.
But the canisters can surely be used still, assuming NSM fits into them
Completely different Missile profiles and sizes – unless by some fluke they match id compare it to putting a square peg in a round hole.
Golly, no.
There is far more to the canister than a metal can.
It has to
– resist ejection forces
– resist heat during launch
– resist heat in a misfire (ie missile gets stuck or does not ignite properly)
– protect the sensitive bits of the missile from certain calibres of incoming and shrapnel
– protect the missile from external heat
– protect the missile from salt
And of course launch the thing when needed.
If I remember correctly the VL JSM is a bit of a happy coincidence. The re-sizing done to fit into the internal weapons bay of a F35A just happened to bring it into spec for a VLS using a MK41.
And I am so sad for LM, Norway has nailed it.
Yes that’s correct. Kongsberg had to redesign the intakes, by splitting the underbody intake into two and moving them to either side of the fuselage. This made the body flatter so it could fit in the weapon’s bays of the F35A & C. By doing so it also meant it could also fit the Mk41 launcher. A very happy coincidence…..
Glad I wasn’t dreaming.
If the build schedule goes well, I’d like to see more of them on order, five seems a bit lump especially if the rumoured type 32 is to be believed. I don’t think an order for ten would be unthinkable.
in this instance, I do like the BAE System early thoughts on the Type 32 – basically, their Adaptable Strike concept. Clearly, no ‘ferry for drones’, but bona-fide in its own right. Fully kitted, it’d have significant onboard command, sensors, communications, weapons & defensive aids fore end; offboard effectors aft in mission bays, hanger, containers, aft ramp below flight deck easily suitable for large manned/unmanned surface and sub surface assets, or sets of smaller close networked units. They’d have to be prepared for significant cost control, though i.e. no surreptitious cost creep to stand any chance, I think. Yet to… Read more »
It is strange that the same BAe were the design consultants for the original Absalon / Iver Huitfeldt design when flexibility and price were the main requirements. Now they want to ditch it for another Gold Plated design.
Interesting, ABCR as I was unaware. My comment majors on the comprehensiveness of the design, which looks convincing enough within an increasingly unstable political outlook. Your reveal would appear to indicate that BAEs had direct knowledge of the requirements for a vessel combining aspects of both earlier classes? That, perhaps, and a knowledge of what happens to their submissions if they get unrealistic, with the consensus that Babcock still holds likely first refusal. I tend to take a slightly less critical view of Gov/MoD tendency to call fairly regular Time Out on projects, considering how much we could be contemplating… Read more »
Can we crew all 10? Manpower is still an issue.
With the mine hunters being drawn down there is that crewing available to be trained and retained.
Yes we are reducing the numbers of sweepers which will release some numbers but I do think we still need more.
A T23 has a crew of 185 and the T31 is headlined at 90 -100, but the Iver Huitfeldt uses 165.
Given that they had to increase the crew size of the Carriers I just get a wee but nervous about the crew size of the T31 especially if we upgrade it.
And if we do deploy 3 T31 semi permanently overseas then using the present Gulf T23 manning scheme we will need 8 crews for 5 T31’s.
Quicker than a small number of our tanks can be upgraded!
Hopefully, the war in Ukraine has woken a few people up to the fact that slow build times leave you with fewer hulls in the water and less to fight with. They will be fitted with Sea Ceptor and one Bofors 57mm Mk3 plus two Bofors 40mm Mk4 guns, currently four 8-Cell Mk41 Strike-Length VLS (fitted for but not with) that could include Tomohawk for example. In addition to that the flight deck can accomadate Merlin, wildcat and Chinook. I would suspect a drone or two might be on the cards as well! 3x Pacific 24 boats for boarding operations,… Read more »
You have to wonder why if the T31 and even the T26 B2s are working out to be relatively cheap that the powers that be don’t order an extra 1,2 or 3. It’s all an expensive business and there’s always other defence priorities but isn’t this an opportunity to increase fleet right now over the next 5+years? Good news if the SSNR gets brought forward a bit too. I’ll stop asking for more Astutes! Lol. Hope the UK gets a fair look in with the Australian nuclear attack sub requirements. 😁
This project is moving so quickly. Too bad the Type 26 is moving at a snails pace.
Bit different really.
The drivetrain in a T26 is bespoke whereas in a T31 it is mostly COTS.
T26 is very high end and very expensive so to smooth the cashflow it is built at a snails pace. This increases the ticket price. Whereas T31 is built in a manner to achieve the lowest unit cost that Babcock could do.
T26, first three anyway, was being built in a comedy move partially externally with all of the inefficiencies the dry and sunny Scottish weather brings with it. T31 is built in a custom built shed.
interesting insight re the Type 26 , thanks SB!
God help us if either one of type32 and 83 ever get off the ground it’s like Fred carnos circus at the MOD
No pictures of the first one?
I think it launches this year from memory so the external shell hull be nearing completion.
I second that, it would be good to see build progress.
The article is “first steel cut”, so there’s nothing to see yet.
Really?🤔
The first one, this is the second.
Doh!
🫢
My bad.
Navy Lookout has some pics of the ceremony on twitter,HMS Venturer is in the background,im no expert but id be suprised if she launched this year.
Me too!
Have to admit pretty impressed with all the ship building going on regards the RN, just hope any future gov continues with builds
Agreed. Just hope Government doesn’t sell platforms off after 2-4 years commissioned service as happend with Upholder class S/Ms.
Let’s hope they can be built to budget as well as to schedule.
24-32 Sea Ceptor and 8 NSM moved across from the T23’s would go a long way without breaking the bank to making them into decent frigates! I’d prioritise that over adding MK.41.
Makes complete sense for T32 to a batch 2 version of T31.
You can quad pack Sea Ceptor into Mk41 vls , so just by fitting it you give yourself multiple options on weapons load which includes increased numbers of SAMs whilst also providing increased strike capability
Which is why I can’t understand why they don’t fit 2 MK41 on the T45’s. That gives you 32 quad packed Sea Ceptors and 8 VLS for what ever else you want (Tomahawk ? ).
Mk 41 plus ExLs inserts are required for your quad packing. They are hugely more expensive the simple Sea Ceptor cells for absolutely no operational benefit other than using less surface area but requiring more depth and adding considerable weight.
I would have thought 8 TLAMs would be an operational benefits but using the inserts do they lose the MK41 Gym ? 🤣
Half of the gym will go with the CAMM fitted.
In principle you can.
But I don’t think it is a tested and certified system…..
LM wouldn’t be pushing it as it is a competitor to their missiles.
Hi SB,
I think you are right. As you well know I’ve banged on about quad packing in the past and whilst LM / MBDA have certified quad packing it was using the ExLS VLS which is of course the cold launch version of the Mk41 family.
Cheers CR
Thats a fair shout and I would say the NSM are already earmarked for them as they are replacing the GP T23’s which are already leaving service. It has the space for the additional SAMs anyway and as one will soon be heading off to the Gulf it would be sensible to ensure it has the right fit, perhaps an additional couple of 30mm’s as there certainly is space aft. Would give anyone silly enough to try it on a real bloody nose.
I’ve always wondered why we didn’t adapt the DS30M Mk2 with the quintuple Martlet launcher mounted that they trialed on HMS Sutherland. Now that looked like a sensible force multiplier using existing kit.
Babcock have not shown many photos of the progress on HMS Venturer yet, afaik she is scheduled for launch this year.
There is a photo from today on the Navy Lookout Twitter feed of Venturer’s lower blocks
Considering the cut steel for venturer was sept 21, not sure in the water is doable in this year.
George needs a drone-flying holiday on the Forth.
🤩
Congratulations merited for all associated w/ this. Demonstrable forward progress noted.
Excellent news. The type 32 really needs to be just a rehash of the type 31 hull form. Keep things simple, get the job done. Good enough will be fine we don’t need a bespoke design for just 5 frigates costing +£1 billion each. The whole national shipbuilding strategy was supposed to be based around batch continuous building.
I don’t think that the type 32 will ever actually happen. Our building capacity is already overloaded. A bigger type 31 order makes far more sense to me.
Smoke and mirrors. Type 32 will never happen, it’s just clickbait.type26build rate is a joke addin another class of frigate and, remember the supposed type 83 destroyerit’ll be an utter fiasco it’s like Fred carnos circus at the admiralty.there’d be a blind panic if Charlie mk.3 decided he’d like to review the fleet!!
The T32 will I am sure have the T31 hull etc but with a different weapons and systems fit to make it more multirole as compared to the GP T31. Perhaps a bigger main gun (5″) with a CIWS on the beams with space. Cost has to be kept sensible (which is what they are doing presently) to ensure the Fleet gets them and our numbers grow. Dont forget we want RN flag showing East of Suez meaning 2+ hulls to do that and ensure more presence in the North Atlantic.
that sounds like an excellent suggestion Andy
What do you envisage Babcock building in the frigate shed after all 5 T31s are complete?
Have to see if Babcock remains solvent that long. Their share price is still down 65% from 2018.
More of them
Spot on answer, as I’ve said already I’d wait and see if the T31 comes in on budget and try to buy 3 more. Meanwhile upgrade those that are going overseas and use the rest as Basic GP frigates.
You might well be correct, but if it’s T31\T31 B2 or T32 is surely largely irrelevant, so long as more vessels are built, to whatever the requirements are?
“….. More agile….”
Quite.
HMS Active? What a terrible name.
Goes back at least to 1758.
An inspirational name at the admiralty no doubt.
I’m not too sure about the Inspirational class name. It feels kind of suspicious because of modern culture. Either way, at least it isn’t called HMS Stunning and Brave.
Or HMS Boris & HMS Cameron I will leave others to fill in the other inspiring options.
Either of those, and it will be scrapped on the slipway
Jason wrote:
How would you feel about changing the name to HMS Black Joke (A former slave ship captured by the RN) Only the most famous member of the British Royal Navy’s anti-slavery squadron which between 1827 to 1829 , captured 16 slave ships and freed 3,970 slaves. Then again pretty sure Mayor Khant would take umbrage at the name
I’ve always been terrible with spelling but i’m pretty sure you’ve got a y and an a in there when it should be a j and a u.
This is great news, but how far along the line is the venturer build?
I meant how of the ship is built, not what the MOD arerepeating.
I think the door gives it away when the picture was taken.
Just seen this tweet regards 3 d printing (heard that the so called spaceport in Scotland will be using 3D printing) I do wonder when it will be adopted by ship builders
I would expect so, there seems to be quite a lot of practical difficulty with 3D printing in metal, but it seems to be going on for aircraft and I believe the aircraft carriers were having 3D printers installed for printing out spare parts (Also must be under consideration for FSS) plastic/nylon is quite advantage.now as well. There is also a 3D printer centre of excellence in Sheffield University
In my last military MoD job, we used to use Southampton University a lot. As they were developing metal 3D printing. The product they delivered was very good. They were always keen to have a go at our bizarre designs. The issue with metal 3D printing is the strength of the finished product. In its raw state the product is basically sintered, which is a fused metal with an irregular grain structure. It then requires heat treatment and tempering to get it to where you want it. At the moment the process cannot produce a product that is as strong… Read more »
The only practical example I can give is of a 3D printed handle for a fencing foil 🤺.
Compared to an ordinary aluminium cast and machined handle it’s a tenth of the weight, partly due to it allowing it to have a skeletal construction and partly through the use of titanium.
Looks amazing, but 8 times the cost…
“And in 1762, Active captured a prize of £100 million worth of Spanish treasure. Happy to confirm that is no longer British foreign policy.”
Perhaps an exception could be made for the Gibraltar squadron?
Shame really
I wonder how long it will take the RN to stick the Type 31s into refill and add bits to them. One of the advantages of the procurement model is speed, but it also means the RN or MOD has no ability to change the specification on the hoof. They are buying a very specific product at a very specific price…so we will have to wait for the RN to get them handed over before any bits are added.
I believe the ships are intended to go through a post contract/build phase of capability insertion. But I’m sure that will be a target for the bean counters.
Slightly off-topic. looks like HMS Daring has completed (PIP) at Cammell Laird. David McGinley, Chief Executive Officer of Cammell Laird, said: “Cammell Laird was delighted to complete the programme of works on HMS Daring on time and to budget.”
👍👍
Does the type 31 come with all the ‘bells and whistles’ that the Navy require it to have?
5 Warships by 2028… is that right?
Delivered by 2028, not in service by. Still pretty good. All in service by 2030.
Totally off topic, but it appears sending 14 Challenger 2 tanks to the Ukraine has had the effect it was meant to make:
yep just heard some commentary on BBC world re that.
The uk should go all in on challenger 2. Lend Ukraine 80-120 and they can give them back when they no longer need them. I would also say throw in some warrior on loan but I don’t know how many are actually available. Bundle it up with the recent armoured vehicles announcement. Start training ASAP. This then gives Ukraine what it needs and time for the allies to figure out leapards and Abrams. It leaves the uk with enough and a review can happen every 3 months to see if they are still needed. Return the broken/damaged ones, they can… Read more »
How many of 80-120 would you expect back ?.
I would think if 100 went at least 85 would be returned. Even blown up ones can be returned and go through the upgrade to challenger 3
I suspect Ukraine would not want too many Challys due to the different Ammo supply chain. Leopard/M1 with the smoothbore ammo that they can get hold of easier from maybe Poland? Suspect the 14 Challys are just a political statement.
I’d add the Tranche 1 Typhoons too 😉
Might be the biggest difference 14 tanks ever made. (Military tales from those who know better are welcome 🙂).
If hear one more person say Abrams is to complicated due to its turbine engine I’m going to scream.
Of all the things on Abrams the engine is not complicated and require very little if any maintenance between overhauls and hardly ever fail.
Ukraine already operates lots of tanks. Some of the main things will be changing bridging/engineering equipment from 50t to 70-80t, spares and maintenance training for the units operating western tanks.
If this conflict is still going by end of 2023 we will see western tanks, long range missile systems and F16s starting to appear.
A turbine engine isn’t complicated I agree, but the maintenance and sustainment requirements are rather different, meaning considerable training at the very least, those experienced in turbines are probably best employed with the aviation forces till more can be trained. The major problem is the fuel consumption it’s hardly ideal for them to keep operating in any large or fast moving battle, even the US by all accounts found it tough during its desert operations. That said as I previously stated a small number should be sent, which like Challenger can be used in less stressful scenarios, help familiarity and… Read more »
Agreed. The nay-sayers are also pointing out that it runs on jet fuel which would be beyond the Ukrainian logistical capacity. But as far as i know its a multi fuel engine and the Aussies run theirs on Diesel.
It is fine for everyone to criticise the initial capability of the T31, but the simple reason is that after decades of continuous cuts in numbers and capacity we are planning to maintain numbers and have a chance to increase them. What makes this even more remarkable is we are doing this at the same time as replacing our SLBM fleet. The last 2 times we did this resulted in drastic cuts to the rest of the RN. So we are replacing 13 frigates with 13 frigates all on a very tight budget and with no option to stretch the… Read more »
Good news indeed. What is missing is the source of the first steel, Made in Scotland in line with the whole theme, or as I can guess. Imported!
You are right.
However
Source: Naval Today
Off-topic but excellent news if confirmed!
Both the US and Germany plan to send tanks to Ukraine after months of debate, according to media reports.
US President Joe Biden’s administration is expected to announce plans to send dozens of M1 Abrams tanks.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also reportedly decided to send at least 14 Leopard 2 tanks.
‘But today’s warship will be more advanced than any of its predecessors.’
Specialist Subject? Stating the bleeding obvious….
The RN has 3 hulls from which I think they can use to grow the number of surface combatants in the fleet, and this is how I think they should use these hull designs in the future Type 26 – Order an additional 6 that will be configured to add a more air defence capability on the lines of the Canadaian version. Essentially keep everything the same as with the current Type 26 in build but add replace 995 radar with the improved Sampson ASEA of the Type 45 or install the Type 31 NS100 ASEA radar, then fit the… Read more »
So you want 11 more frigates on top of those ordered? Even if the Treasury allowed such a budget increase, we do not have the manpower. It would take a long time to build that up, assuming we could attract the numbers required.
Most likely scenario is T31 batch 2 of between 3 and 5 ships. Even then we’ll struggle to man them.
I don’t think you can look at the River class as a unified class of three sizes any more. The 80m B1 and 99m Khareefs (only in Oman, btw), aren’t built to the same standards as the B2. Nor for that matter are the Amazonas. I’m not sure what standards the 90m Thai Krabi’s are built to in Thailand, but comparing any of these to what the Royal Navy would require from a 100m corvette is apples and oranges. Have a guess at the difference in the accommodation in the Khareefs to the B2s, for a start. 100m corvettes are… Read more »
Yey!
Royal Navy finally gets a gunboat after 50 years of missile fetish.
And room for more!!!
Don’t see much space. Sides?.
Port and starboard of the aft 40mm
I just wish we wold stop sucking up to Scotland they are lucky to get the lions share of Naval build. Good luck to them
Who exactly is “we”? I thought Scotland was part of the UK.
Good start. These cheap and versatile ships (which can indeed be uparmed) ought to be ordered in bulk. An expansion of this program from five to fifty vessels would easily restore the RN to it’s traditional 3 fleet posture, especially if wedded to supplemental orders for at least twenty diesel electric Submarines and perhaps fifty missile corvettes. Bulk orders of 45 additional type 31s, and supplemental orders of 20 or more SSKs and 50 corvettes (all 3 types of vessels requiring comparatively small crews) are well within Britain’s financial resources. Moreover, if supplemental orders for American F18 super hornets were… Read more »
The age of attack drones needs a decent size of LAWS laser to take out drones at an affordable cost. 500KWatts starter but need to think about 1MW for an all weather short range weapon if in high sea state bad weather.