According to the recently released ‘Defencer Command Paper’, the Type 32 frigates will be designed to protect territorial waters, to provide persistent presence overseas and to support Littoral Response Groups.

The first mention of a new Type 32 frigate came in the Prime Minister’s 19 November statement. He said: “We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates.”

The Defence Command Paper, titled ‘Defence in a Competitive Age’, describes the planned programme:

“Type 32 frigates, designed to protect territorial waters, provide persistent presence overseas and support our Littoral Response Groups.”

The Type 32 was not mentioned in the Government’s 2017 shipbuilding strategy, which overhauled the way the MOD procures warships for the Royal Navy. Nor was it mentioned in the review of the strategy published in November 2019. Early speculation suggests they could be ‘batch II’ Type 31s, but not necessarily based on the Type 31 design. Several MPs have tabled questions on the Type 32.

In November 2020, the Ministry of Defence stated that the concept phase for the vessel had not yet been launched but added that the ship is currently envisioned as a “platform for autonomous systems”, used in roles such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.

What was the Ministry of Defence already planning for?

Before Type 32, the plan was for only two new classes of frigates.

Type 26 frigates

These will replace the specialist anti-submarine warfare (ASW) Type 23 frigates currently in service.

The Ministry of Defence has committed to buying eight Type 26 frigates and signed a contract for the first three in July 2017. The ships will be built at BAE Systems’ shipyards on the Clyde. The first in the City Class, HMS Glasgow, has an in-service date of 2027. The MOD says it expects to sign a contract for the second batch of five Type 26 frigates in the early 2020s.

Type 31 frigates

These will be general-purpose frigates to replace the non-ASW Type 23s. The MoD signed a contract with Babcock for five ships in November 2019. Manufacture will begin in 2021 with an in-service date of 2027. The overall programme cost is expected to be £2bn.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

119 COMMENTS

  1. Surely it must be a variation on the T31 design to keep retooling, design and manufacture costs down, plus through life maintenance and spares.

    I guess it comes down to the exact requirements placed on the vessels, does it need a bigger helo deck for instance? Who knows, I doubt the RN does at the moment either.

    • Another, arguably more important, factor is that by not specifying that they want T32 to be an Arrowhead 140 derivative, they’re not giving Babcock a stronger hand in negotiations.

      By not specifying a preference, they can run a fair competition in the future where Babcock’s bid has to be competitive with whatever BAE or anyone else puts forward, thus keeping prices lower. In theory, there’s a solid chance that T32 as a follow-up to T31 could have a similar price tag in real terms this way, while offering more capability.

      • Seems a tad far fetched. How on earth could a brand new ship compete against Babcock’s modified Type 31 on price?

        • It will depend entirely on the exact specifications for T32, and if the competition is meant to compete on cost or if it’s another fixed price contract.

          In any case, there isn’t any advantage to simply announcing we want to give the contract to Babcock before any negotiations take place.

    • Since it has been reported that the Navy want’s a ‘new type of frigate’ its highly unlikely that these will be T31. Nor should they be. Its an old design.

      • James,

        i don’t think it makes the slightest bit of difference what the Navy wants, in the end it’ll be down to the politicians/treasury telling the Navy what they are going to get….

      • Agreed. There was no option with T31 due to the tight timeline which required all candidates to leverage an existing design. Timing for T32 enables a clean sheet optimised platform. But if costs get out of hand then MOD could revert to T31.

        I suspect the RN will probably want an intermediate frigate like the French FTI or Italian PPA Full that would meet the “designed to protect territorial waters, provide persistent presence overseas and support our Littoral Response Groups” role

    • Hopefully it’s a batch two order for T31, last thing the RN needs is trying to operate yet another small fleets of ships.

      • It seems to be a no brainier to me. It’s a modular design and is large enough to be adaptable. I know some think it is too old a design but I’d have thought all the innovation would come from what it deploys, not the ship itself.

        Also T32 build will almost certainly follow on from T31 so it will likely be built in the same place.

  2. I think they will be unmanned motherships for sure. For MCM and unmanned subs to work in the littoral zone. They also need to provide long range strike in support of the RM – so some sort of land attack capability (drones, missiles, guns) as well as air defence for the LSS. Possibly a well deck or rear ramp, a large mission bay, VLS for Sea Ceptor and Land Attack Missiles, direct energy / EA CIWS, surface, subsurface and aerial drones for ASW, MCM, ISTAR, VERTREP and Land Attack, a 57mm or 127mm gun for NGS.

      • Well if it had transporters you wouldn’t need a flight deck and a well deck…. No need for boats either
        !!!

    • I would have thought a ship along the lines of the Future Belgian & Dutch MCM mothership would be appropriate for MCM roll than this large ship, with possible sea cepter fitted for self defence along with 40mm bofors

      • Thing is, fitting Sea Ceptor pushes that up to, guess what, a Type 32 displacement.

        I dont think the D-B ships are a good call, they are still one-trick ponies whereas crossing it with a frigate gives you a much more useful platform, more space for more/larger UUV/USVs, proper embarked aviation support and the space for sensors and defences, plus all the space for the people and enduracne.

        • I agree that the D-B ships may work for the D-B, but not for UK global deployments, especially if called to operate off a hostile shore where shore based ASM and FIAC are potential threats. A T31 deploying MCM USV looks much better for that environment.

          • I agree, can escort itself both sea ceptor and guns, plus with a Wildcat has a lot of ISTAR and even more protection.

            Also better at self deploying and can RAS properly whilst giving us more frigates.

            I like the Type 32 “development of 31” so much I’d bin the 31 and just build 32s. If of course it ends up as I envisage, given the lack of actual info!

      • Said the same thing in here, over the past year or so!
        Belgian \ Dutch MCM is a big shift with at least 6 vessels each
        And with their media presence and design\concept, I really like it

  3. It seems overwhelmingly sensible to base the new ships on existing designs. A type 31b essentially. After all the 31s were designed to be modular and flexible.

    • Exactly Andrew, the T31 is large enough to be modified for all sorts of rolls.

      Build another 5 and up arm the lot to a robust anti air, anti surface and gunfire support platforms.

      Unless unmanned deployed ASW systems are carried in the mission bays, then these proposed strike groups will have no anti submarine capability …. I guess a T26 would be detached if SSK activity was thought to be an issue…

      • Babcock are marketing the type 31/Arrowhead with bow mounted sonar. Presumably a different propulsion system from the UK diesel only version.
        You’re probably right about unmanned systems being an option in 10 years time. I believe there are also under development some lightweight towed array systems that would be much easier and quicker to retrofit.

        • Peter

          The IH frigate is already rated as ASW capable by NATO standards. The Danish Absalon class have been redesigned as ASW frigates by Denmark. They have both bow mounted & towed sonars & are the parent class to both IH & T31 frigates. You can get quite diesel propulsion if you know what you are doing.

    • It should be noted that the parent design to the parent design of the T31 is the Absalon class, which are now designated as frigates by Denmark. They fit the mothership designation pretty well exactly. The T31 is based off the IH frigate which is based off the Absalon hull. I suspect that T32 is an Absalon with a T31 makeover (would rather an A140 makeover but take what you can get).

      Change the 36 ESSM to 24 CAAM & 12 CAAM-ER & 8 Harpoon to NSM & you have a reasonable frigate. A bit more speed though would be advantageous. While you are doing this, please upgrade T31 to the same missile loadout.

  4. While I’m intrigued to find out more, I think the fact that the Command Paper simply refers to ‘Type 32s’ without providing any detail or quantity suggests that these won’t manifest for a long time. It would nice to be proven wrong; a concurrent build alongside Type 31 would indeed help get to 24 escorts by the end of the decade, but I don’t see that happening under current circumstances.

    It seems that Littoral Strike is going to be a huge area of Maritime defence policy going forward. Amphibious Assault out, Littoral Strike in. The Type 32s (and 31s) seem to be earmarked as the escorts for this form of power projection, while the 26s and 45s are the escorts for Carrier Strike.

    • Picking through the paper a Littoral Strike Group is going to be deployed to the Indo-Pacific by 2023 – presumably the modified Bay class LSS and an RM Cdo. Also an OPV this year, followed by Type 31 Frigates (pural) towards the end of the decade. So we will have a permanent naval presence in the Indo-Pacific with a couple of T31 frigates, an OPV and an LSS + RM Cdo by the end of the decade (and an RFA tanker I guess). The Bay to be replaced by the new MRSS in the following decade. Where? Probably Dukm, where they can also operate in the Gulf and East Africa. However a new BDS is being formed in Canberra alongside the one in Singapore. Singapore and Brunei are also possible bases as well as Bahrein and Diego Garcia. I imagine these Type 32s will complement the T31s in the Littoral Strike Groups – a second is to be formed in the UK to operate in the Arctic, presumably using unmodified Albions and Bays.

      • Likely the naval bases in Oman and Brunei as the primary supply station and Diego Garcia as a nominal home port. There is a need for a small British naval base closer to China as well, I wonder if theres potential for Brunei?

        • Not if all you are going to put there is B2 River or even a current as designed T31. A T31 would struggle to handle one of Brunei’s current OPV’s (same 57mm plus 4 latest Exocet AShM). Not being credible is worse than not being there.

  5. Rare bit of direction in MoD shipbuilding; commonality of parts and hulls to keep costs down, increase logistical efficiency and helping to build a base for industry to move towards exporting

  6. I’d go for a variant of Type 31, the multi-mission bay used for MCM UUV and USVs but with T31 self defence ability and space for MCM specialists to be aboard.

    For the mothership MCM ops to work, will need dedicated people embarked on ships doing regular training. Just as T45 has fighter controllers and T23/26 will have all the sonar operators, hyrdographic expertise etc.

    So T45 are AAW specialised, T26 ASW, T32 MCM and T31, well, mish mash!

    T31/32 also seem a hedge for being built in England if Sturgeon gets her way.

  7. Why should we give away our plans to our enemies until we have to.
    I’d like hope for us to put our requirement down first and then think about the hull next.

    • PS… this idea of the T32 has not come from Boris’ head. Its come from the navy…

      Also it’s come from our maritime strategy… this increasingly littoral stance. And this covers the Baltic as much as the far East.

        • Why? A different hull means staring from scratch. Everything you have learned from T31 goes out the window. Stick to an Absalon/
          IH/T31 hull & go from there. A lot of these design ideas are just that. Going to detailed design & then actual build is another matter.

    • I think you are pretty close to spot on. The Absalon is first cousin to the Type 31, and offers the vehicle deck and more accommodation for troops and stores. However the design is now relatively old, 20years?, but an updated design offering that degree of flexibility and as much commonality as possible with Type 31 would give a ship that can be relatively quickly role changed as required.
      And if commonality can be achieved then it should be possible to keep it price competitive. It’s all very well playing fantasy fleets, we all love it, but it has to be paid for!

      • If they added a well dock to it so that unmanned vehicles could float right out, it would be a perfect ship for the Type 32.

        • they could add the flex deck back into the t31 design at little cost and from memory the abalone has a rear ramp / crane able to discharge a CB90 combat boat.

          so it is a pretty useful platform and I would say probably what we should have got for T31 anyway.

          Huitfeldt applied loads of lessons from absalon class and removed the flex deck, adding it back in wouldn’t stretch the imagination of man too much me thinks…

        • I thought it had a dock, but just a ramp. “Alternatively, the flex deck can be used for mine-laying operations with a capacity of some 300 mines, or be fitted out for mine-clearing operations and launch and recover mine detecting and clearing equipment via a retractable gantry crane, adjacent to the stern vehicle ramp, which also is used for launching and recovering the fast landing craft. “

          • It has the flex deck, it just isn’t floodable like a normal amphib. If that feature was added, it would be easier for UUV or unmanned minesweepers to deploy. I think the Absalon as is would still be a great choice though

  9. Type 32 is a just an ACME frigate at this time, a sort of political place holder for this to not appear to be only cuts. It will be what will be decided by the end of this decade.

    “protect territorial waters, to provide persistent presence overseas and to support Littoral Response Groups.”This is contradictory to protect territorial water you don’t need range and long time stores, but you do for persistence over seas.

  10. “they could be ‘batch II’ Type 31s, but not necessarily based on the Type 31 design”

    But batch II means “based on the same design”. IOW the statement is an oxymoron.

  12. Right, let breakdown the description and guess what capabilities this new ship will have:

    1) ‘designed to protect territorial waters’ – This suggests an up-gunned OPV
    with 57mm/76mm gun, perhaps a light weight anti ship missile (lighter than harpoon or equivalent) and possibly point defence system (Vulcan CIWS or Barak equivalent). Think the American LCS but without the gold plating and stealth.

    2) ‘provide persistent presence overseas’ – flag waving and sufficiently large hull to facilitated persistence on forward deployments/patrols. So an OPV the size of a light frigate.

    3) ’and support our Littoral Response Groups’ – this suggests modules, bays and other areas to put kit in as required. Useful to mine hunting equipment in a well. Perhaps some light cannon and machine guns to combat speed boats that call littoral areas home.

    It’s a type 3x warship so the nomenclature points to a patrol frigate rather than a true fleet asset.

    So no 96 missile cell 10k tonne behemoth I’m afraid…

    • Drone carrier with recon and strike assets to identify targets for littoral strike and amphibious landings I would guess. Shallow draft, large storage and self defence against coastal patrol boats.

  13. Personally I feel as though this is nothing more then a red herring. Unless we keep t23 in service it will be impossible to increase the escort fleet to 24 by 2030. It takes years to conduct the R and D on these types of projects before construction even begins. As such its easy for the current government to hide behind these 3d animations to defend their cuts, only for a latter government to cancel them before the real money is needed. Even if these ships are built at best their impact will be negligible. With the retirement of the hunter and shadow mine hunters, but no dedicated mother ship replacements for the USV mine hunters. It is likely that much of these ships careers will be spent acting as mother ships for the USV and not as surface combatants.

      • Yes but I’m talking about type 32. He type 31 was proposed 6 years ago and we cant expect the first one to be launched before at least another 2 years. How do you expect an entirely new class of ship to be designed, selected and built in 9 years?

        • The design competition was stopped in 2018, so it’s not true to say it’s been proposed for 6 years. The design brief has been less than 6 years.
          In fact the T31 concept has been around since 2010.

          In fact it likely that the T83 will be the first ‘escort ship to be design from scratch since the T26. And that’s about 15 years away. I won’t be here to see it.

          The Type 8X nomenclature of the Royal Navy say this is for fleet general purpose , AA destroyers, frigates or sloops. The curiosity is that the. T83 has the T8x comenclature not T4x

          • Perhaps it’s 8x rather than 4x because it’s twice as big? An AAW Battlecruiser with 120 VLS, 4 x 5” and 6 x 40mm guns and a catapult plane for spotting!

          • Ha ha.

            It suggests to me it’s going to be big. T45 was 50% bigger than T42.
            So T83 … 11,000 tonnes? Isn’t the idea in that case that 2 of them would dominate a whole massive area, a hemisphere, of space.

  14. The point about T31 is that is a big ship with plenty of development potential so T32 will almost certainly be a development of that design. I’d suggest you put in a 5inch gun for NGS, add a meaningful number of Sea Ceptor missiles, add an anti-ship missile and have containerised MCM facilities. Beyond that there is also plenty of room for a number of marines to be accommodated to bolster the numbers carried in the converted Bay LSSS.

  15. This government has just proven to me they are a typical Tory government. Cut cut cut cut cut.
    BoJo was on record stating the era of cuts is over. Yet we are going to cut 10,000 from Army. Hercules fleet, tranche 1 eurofighter typhoons (without direct replacements) F35B order from 138 over life of programme to what exactly??? 72??
    All to fund Tempest of course. Which will run as an R+D programme for a few years. Rack up a few 10s of billions of investment then be cut to purchase a Franco-Germanic aircraft that will be hugely over budget and not as technically good.
    RN losing its 2 oldest type 23s and entire MCM fleet. With type 32 likely to become a mothership for autonomous MCMplatforms. Therefore 5 type 32s unlikely to be adequate. I would purchase the new Canafian offshore patrol vessel class to act as mother ships for MCM work and leave type 32 as a warship.
    9 chinooks and 20 puma helicopters gone is a significant reduction in troop lifting capacity.
    Pretty heavy cuts dressed up as a redesign of forces. Our enemies will be happy.

      • If it makes you feel worse, when they start casting around for something to jump on/take over, and if we get a pro EU Govt… all of a sudden Tempest is Typhoon all over again set in the late 80s/early 90s.

      • Possibly, but if so only because they have fallen out about sharing costs and R&D.
        And if they fall out the French will go it alone.

        There are no defence cuts there are defence increases. It’s just that some people want it to be spent elsewhere.

        The problem with defence is it’s does are going up exponentially.

    • No point slagging tories at least there trying to put 20billion in to plug gaps. With out that there would be nothing. The public don’t care because they are short sited. Also labour has cut far more capabilities in last 50 years

    • Where does it say Puma is gone Mr B? It is being replaced by a new type but where does it say going before that?

      Retiring Chinooks get replaced by new versions. We have so many that does not impact any day to say taskings of the force.

      Oldest T23’s not even useable without substantial work. Does not impact RN’s daily tasks.

      Around 70 F35 with 100 Typhoon and however many UCAV we can muster prior to Tempest is acceptable. Agree 48 too few, additional orders, even in dribs and drabs post 2025 essential.

      MCM fleet I share your concern over practicality of their autonomous replacements. But they are replaced.

      On Tempest I share your concern.

      And on BJ, he said the “days of cutting the defence budget” are over in his announcement in November. Is that what you mean. Where else did he say that?
      At this time that is correct! People seem to have changed his words to mean cuts are over.

      I’m not excusing the cuts but trying to add some perspective, positivity and sense into the hysteria.

      Typical Tory government? Yes, can we also agree that Labour would also be a typical Labour government? I cannot believe the guff that comes out of the shadow Sec of Defence’s mouth considering their track record from 97 to 2010 and just who they were trying to get into power recently.

      I have learned that when talking of numbers what really counts is how many can be actually be deployed and usefully used with modern weaponry and sensors.
      There are militaries far bigger that sit for show and which would be made toast in the first night of a serious war. Look at Iraq’s for example.

      • Perhaps one positive is this seems to be the end of the era of ‘fitted for but not with’ – I think that is what the ‘lethality’ jargon is saying. One consequence of trying to keep every capability going is the units become threadbare. For me I am happy to offset theoretical mass for actual capacity, even if the headlines makes that process look like ‘cuts’. .What is the point of 24 T1 Typhoon if they cannot defeat electronic attack or detect and destroy peer adversaries or an MCMV if an autonomous system can detect and clear mines 5 times more quickly?

  16. As T32, possibilities other than T31 also will be there. It will be important also to upkeep the UK ship design technology.

    If more fighty ship is needed, up-armed T31 is the best solution.

    T31 has ONLY 3 boat alcoves, and is NOT good at USV/UUV deployments. To do it, significant modification is needed (may be using Absalon-like taller hull to increase internal volume).

    If more multi-purpose, a new ship with wider hull could be newly designed. Even they can have a common hull with Multi Role Support Ships?

    • Why isnt T31 good at deploying USV/UUV deployments? It hasnt been built yet so how can you possobly judge that? I’d bet its better at deploying them than T23 is RIBs and having done dozens and dozens and dozens of those into and out of the water, I cant see an issue.

      3 alcoves is 50% more than any current warship the RN has, noting that on T31 additional vessels can be stacked up inside.

      • 3 alcove is 3 alcove. HMS Forth is actually carrying 2 RHIB and 1 Rigid Raider now. HMS Medway is with 2 RHIBs and one Dingy. T26 is designed to carry 5 (or more) RHIBs. Dutch Holland class can handle 3 RHIBs. NZ frigate Te Kaha and Te Mana almost always carries 3 RHIBs.

        In short, T31 is NOT “special” at deploying USV/UUV deployment. It is much more a Patrol Frigate than a USV/UUV mother ship, as I understand.

        • Donald. I agree, but Absolon class fits the bill. Enough commonality to T31 to aid construction, but different enough to pull off the mothership idea.

    • What do you think of T32 being an intermediate frigate, broadly similar in capability to the French FTI or the Italian PPA Full, but as you say a new modern bespoke design, instead of re-use of an existing platform?

      It seems this would be a suitable fit between T31 and T26, especially for escorting and singleton patrol roles outside a full CSG or ARG but with capability beyond simple constabulary operations.

      I agree that a suitable MRSS might support MCM and littoral ASW using USV/UUV, in addition to an amphibious/sea lift role, per my post under that article. I don’t see it sharing the same hull as T32 though.

      • Interesting point, I agree.

        But, if RN wants FTI or PPA-full like vessel, I think up-arming T31 itself will be a better choice. Current T31 is a full-fat frigate level hull with a corvette-level armament, so just coming back to “full-fat” is very easy.

        But, as an USV/UUV mother ship, T31 is far from optimized. Even Absalon is not. Her stern gantry cannot handle CB90 (but just much smaller SB90 only), and even so, I do not hear it is well used.

        USV deployment is not easy. The Dutch/Belgium MCMV are to carry two large “cage-like davit” for USV handling. Not a crane, nor a stern ramp. (If it is crane, RN has 5 River B2s, just use them). If it is large “cage-like davit”, you need very large boat alcove.

        I’m wondering it could be a small well-dock.

        So, T32 design has a range of possibilities. Very looking forward for its concept study phase (which cost just a peanuts, but can invoke many discussion).

        • I suppose the question is – Would a FTI/PPA class vessel with a similar mission bay capability to a T26, end up costing T26 money, or could it be brought in for not much more than the PPA class. Such a combination would seem to address the USV/UUV mother ship capability more effectively than T31.

          • The PPA has a Large Mission Bay as Designed – im not sure how it compares size wise to the T26 but on Price it certainly wins.

          • I should have been more explicit in that I was thinking about the Rolls Royce mission bay handling system on Type 26 for launch and recovery, which looks like it might be pricey.

        • I understand T31 is anyway aimed at “one-level lower” than FTI and PPA-full. T31 RFI, T31 total cost, all suggests so. It is a sloop (=GP frigate).

          Actually, old French LaFayette class and Floreal classes are sloop. T31 is exactly the LaFayette equivalent, and one-level higher than the Floreal. As French navy have such sloops, may be UK also having it will be understandable.

          I’m afraid, if T31 were to be a full fat frigate, there shall be only 3 of them, at most.

        • That’s a bit apples and oranges though as FTI and PPA Full are significantly more expensive than the 5x T31 for £2bn. T31 was built to a price and for certain roles.

          T31s will be fine taking over or complementing B2s for the presence and constabulary role against piracy and drug running, which they will probably spend most of their time doing. Modest up-arming and additional sensors would be relatively straightforward to add.

  17. Why is there always a clamour to build more of the last design? I remember here a lot of calls for Type 26 to be a T 45 redux. We need to evolve and improve ship design not go backwards.

    • What like the US navy?

      How delighted are the Americans with there two state of the art LCS classes’ s?So delighted that they are trying to decommission the first 4, cull all future orders, and replace them with a traditional European designed frigate that actually works and has half a chance of surviving the first shots in a war zone. As what to do with the ones in service, well who knows….

      Moving on to the destroyers, again, wonderful design the Zumwalts… looks really space age! But construction curtailed at 3 units, sounds like they will end up as technology demonstrators…. replaced with more Arkeigh Burke’s, as that’s the only thing that currently works out for them…

      sea wolf subs…. again fantastic ships, just completely unaffordable….canned at 3 units….they just need to get more of the replacement Virginia class in the water as quick as possible to off set the rapid ageing/decommissioning of the Los Angeles class…

      going with your philosophy James, the Royal Navy could end up being very nearly a shore based establishment!

      • Something seriously wrong went on with USN procurement. They either overstretched the technologies or/And were sold a pup (several) by the ship builders.

        Their defence dept waste gazillions of dollars.

      • What went wrong? Probably not maintaining a regular stream of new designs informed by experience and based on clear eyed requirements, rather than questionable capabilities and roles.

        I have not to this day seen a compelling reason for the LCS need to operate at over 30 kn, let alone over 40 kn. Pursuing that to the exclusion of all else has resulted in light weight, weak ships, significantly under-armed for their cost. The MCM and littoral ASW roles weren’t wrong, the vessels and over ambitious MCM module designed for them were.

        Zumwalt was someone wanting to have a battleship broadside again. Clearly the major focus on stealth recognised the increasing threats. But the focus on tubed fires meant either bringing the ship too close to land and to those threats, or development of absurdly expensive rounds that still failed to push the ship far enough off shore to make it worth it.

        What the USN actually needed were modern designs for an ASW frigate and a new modern large combatant design that combines destroyer and cruiser roles. Lack of pursuing the correct new designs has meant needing FREMM for the Constellation class, and having to settle for an AB III hull and propulsion system well past its use by date.

        • I understand the reasoning behind the advanced gun system (AGS). It was primarily for USMC support, but also for coastal interdiction missions, where the ship’s stealth “should” allow it to get closer to a shoreline without being detected. The AGS was supposed to fire a 155mm shell at a sustained rate of 10 rpm, with a required range over 100km, the ship’s two AGS guns could deliver the same as two batteries of 155s in the space of a minute. To do it though, they increased the chamber volume and changed the neck from the NATO standard, which is why they can only fire specifically designed for type shells (the shell length is a lot longer). As these were the only guns using these types of shell, they became horrendously expensive. This flies in the face of their original concept which was the ability to fire off loads of shells cheaply, compared to a missile strike.

          The problem is that when compared to say a Tomahawk missile, the range of AGS is pitiful. The development of the HVP and ramjet shell has pushed the tube artillery’s range past 100km, but it still won’t be in the same league as a Tomahawk’s. To do that you will need to massively increase the chamber volume so more propellent can be used.

  18. Well if the T32 goes down the T31 route which in many ways maks sense then a RN version of the Absalon with port starboard boat bays combined with landing ramps and a stern ramp would do the trick. With the same weapons fit as the Absalon they should be very capable littoral strike ship escorts and Comando operation ships. If we go down a completly new route then the Damen Crossover Combattant/Amphibious ships would be a really good combination. These types of vessels would also make very good mother ships.

  19. I recon the Type 32 will be like a giant catamaran with a crew of 3 and ramjet engines acting as a mother ship to virually any type of drone. It will be made of balsa wood and be able to reach speeds of Mach 6.4. No I have no idea either.

  20. These will be more affordable ASW ships, there is still a need for ASW either autonomous cruising or out from/ close to a fleet (depending on what the Type 26 are doing – inner or outer).

  21. Food for thought. The BAE Leander design must have come in under £250m.
    Its based on River 2 / Khareef so the design is probably oven ready. Just connect the computers to the lasers and start cutting steel. It has a quiet electric drive for ASW in the literal. It sports a clone of the T26 mission bay to launch UUVs. The River 2 production line is now looking for work. It could start building T32 tomorrow in parallel with T26 on the Clyde and T31 in Rosyth, funds and independence referenda permitting of course.

    • Im pretty sure there is no extra capacity to Build another Frigate Design in Parallel with the T26 on the Clyde,T31 Construction is due to start later this year, but Splitting work over both sites may not be possible due to Contract issues.

      • Understand your point re VT and Khareef. But it looks to me like the Khareef hull was the inspiration for Amazonia which was in turn the basis for River 2 . So I think Leander is essentially an evolution of this line.
        I think the received wisdom is that the price of River 2 was driven by the amount the gov were committed to paying BAE . A rowing boat would have cost the same. Stupid terms of contract. The MOD learned the lesson and T31 procurement was done differently. BAe might not have been able to build a patrol vessel for £250m so they partnered with cammell laird so the joint bid was valid.

  22. The RN needs some surface ships with land attack missiles. The few that are on RN subs aren’t enough for much of anything except token support when the USN launches a large TLAM attack.

  23. Given the Falklands test and for some fun lets compare the RN’s main surface units in 1983 and with the projected RN of 2030, by hulls, tonnage and lethality.

    1./ Carrier Stirke

    1983
    3 CVL 2 Invincible Class 1 Hermes Class – 30 Sea Harriers, 27 Seakings
    Tonnage – 70,000 tons
    Lethality – AIM9L Sidewider, SNEB Rockets, GPBs, CBUs, Type 46 LW Torps
    2030
    2 CV QE Class – 60 F-35B, 18 Merlin, 30-40 UAVs
    Tonnage – 130,000 tons
    Lethality – Meteor BVR, ASRAAM, Spear 3 / EA, Paveway IV, Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Missile, new Lightweight Torpedo

    2./ Anti-Air Warfare

    1983
    12 DDG – 3 County Class, 1 Type 82, 8 Type 42
    Tonnage – 50,000 tons
    Lethality – Sea Slug, Sea Dart – range 74 km / medium altitude only, 4.5″ gun, Seacat SHORAD, Wessex and Lynx helo, Sea Skua ASM, Exocet AshM.
    2030
    6 DDG – 6 Type 45
    Tonnage – 48,000 tons
    Lethality Sea Viper (Aster 15 and 30) – range 140 km / low/medium/high ABM capable, 4.5″ gun, 2 x Phalanx CIWS, FCASM, Wildcat Helicopter with Martlet/Sea Venom, 30mm gun, UAVs.

    3,/ Anti-Submarine Warfare

    1983
    18 ASW Frigates. 6 Type 22, 12 Leander Class
    Tonnage – 51,000 tons
    Leathality – Lynx HAS 2 Helicopter, Ikara ASW missile, Seawolf and Seacat SHORAD, Exocet AShM – no guns
    2030
    8 ASW Frigates. 8 Type 26
    Tonnage – 64,000 tons
    Lethality – Merlin MH2 Helicopter, ASROC, Sea Cepter and Phalnx CIWS, 30mm gun, VLS with FCASM, Tomahawk, UAVs.

    4./ General Purpose Escorts

    1983
    25 GP Frigates – 6 Type 21, 8 Type 12, 11 Leander
    Tonnage 63,500 tons
    Lethality – Exocet AshM, 4.5″ Gun, Wasp Helicopter with AS12, Seacat SHORAD
    2030
    10 GP Frigates – 5 Type 31 5 Type 32
    Tonnage – 60,000 tons
    Lethality – New AshM, 57mm gun, 40mm CIWS, Sea Ceptor, Wildcat with Martlet/Sea Venom, UAVs/USVs.

    • Great post. Really interesting to see it outlined in one go.

      The main asset for me though is the SSN. And we have declined substantially in those and the departed SSK. Didn’t we send 3 to the S Atlantic I recall? Arriving much quicker than the taskforce too.

      • Thanks Daniele. Four SSNs and one SSK went South in 1982. Conqueror, Spartan and Splendid arrived before the Task Force to create the ring of steel. Valiant came later and snooped around off the Argentine coast to provide early warning of air attacks, The SSK Onyx was used to scope out the landings in San Carlos water, and land SBS. They only had WW2 Mk 8 straight-runner torps (well they had Mk 24 Tigerfish but they did not work). SSNs are for me are the glaring ommission. We need to see some XLUUVs at minimum.

        • Ahhh, Valiant. Did not realise that.
          That is an area myself and no doubt others are very interested in. Just what went on on the mainland or off shore regards SF and Early warning of planes leaving the airfields at Rio Grande and Rio Gallegos. Lots of rumours. I know a Sea King deposited SAS in Chile and the flight crew were decorated for the mission, even if it failed. I’ve read of Op Makaido but don’t believe that is the whole story. I also believe RAF Canberra’s and other elements were also deployed covertly in Chile and used over the Islands.

          • SAS set up a mobile radar in Chile too – right on the border to fill a gap in Chilean coverage. From Saxa Vord I think – donated to Chile of course :-). Also a Nimrod R1 operated from islands off the Chilean coast to sniff along the border. An RAF C-130 was crudely painted up to resemble a Chilean Herc on Easter Island in order to fly fuel for the Nimrod. Also a couple of Canberra PR 9s operated from Tierra Del Fuego. Facinating stuff. Its also why ‘space’ and ‘unmanned’ are improtant – with our own constellation of ISTAR sattelites and HALE UAVs these kinds of shenanigans are unnecessary.

          • Oh, wasn’t aware of the SAS radar report. Fascinating. I had read of the Nimrod, PR9 and Herc reports, and donating surplus Hunters, in Warplane magazine from the 1980s no less.

            Agree on the satellites. Not much detail on the Oberon and Artemis plans in the doc, but about time we had our own capability. On SIGINT/ELINT I presume we will continue with the current arrangements where we pay NSA for use of one of theirs.

          • It wasn’t the SAS, but the RAF who set up the radar. It was delivered under the guise of a gift to Chile. So the RAF went down there and set it up, then did “on the job training” for the next few months.

      • A very interesting comparison James, thanks for sharing.

        I have to agree, the small SSN situation is dangerous. The only saving grade is the Astutes are an amazing asset, incredibly capable with a considerable war load, a third more weapons than the older S and T classes.

        A single Astute could ruin most Navies. The government has pledged increased investment to maximize availability, one would hope to keep them properly manned, upgraded and the bomb shops stacked full of Spearfish and Tomahawks….

        I would love more SSN’s, we should have never dropped below 12, but this was written in the stars when they let SSN development and production stop 30 years ago.

        The delay between Trafalgar and Astute was disastrous. It’s good that next gen SSN is going to start design, but in the meantime, we have little choice, but to use what we have or buy a small number of off the shelf SSK’s.

        That will only happen if the Russian submarine threat gets much worse.

        • I would like to know the reasoning why the RN don’t seem to favour the vertical launch system, like the Virginias have?

    • Only problem there is we live in the present not in 2030s & you’re actually probably talking 2035 to 2040. Which is likely at least 2/3 SDRs possibly 3 to 4 different governments.
      The most important thing we can do is distance our political decisions away from the US & become a more silent partner & very tokenist.
      We’ve have been following a more prosperous state spending more on Defence that us even just % GDP not actual money probably vastly different. If they start adventures again & we follow them you can rip the whole thing up. In reality we can have all you mention as long as we don’t use it. Any large-scale use needs to be fully funded by the treasury emergency funds.
      Since post cold war peace dividend there has always been a capability GAP. We can argue waste of money FRES, FSC, Typhoon cost overuns, Nimrod etc. But the US have almost the exact same stories.
      So yeah the above looks good on paper but it’s a paper force only.

      • Yes I was taking a look at the plans in the DCP in response to Gen Dannett’s revival of the ‘Falkland’s Test’. I wanted to point out that manpower and platform numbers are not that useful as measures of capability, although they make good headlines. Tonnage was used as a measure of capability back in the time of dreadnoughts, and is more useful when ships grow in size. Automation makes manpower a problematic measuse of capabiltiy (as it has done in industry). We probably need better benchmarks around lethality.

    • Great post. Impressive RN is still “so so comparable” to that in 1982 in tonnes. But yes, its majority is on CV.

      Clear is that, while the other assets are clearly shrinking, the CV air wing has significantly grown. “48-60 modern F35B in 2025” is as powerful as “100-200 F-4” in 1982, relatively.

  25. I recall that at DSEI 19 Babcock were interviewed, without explict denial, over an expectation that more than five T31 were anticipated for the RN. T32 could fit within that scenario.

  26. Why not some thing like the Danish Absalon class frigate. This has a traditional frigate front end with an flight deck at the rear with a hanger for two medium sized helicopters. But it is what is under this deck that is different a Flex-deck. It also has the capability of carrying up to an extra 200 personnel, easily carry a RM Company. This has the capability to carry ISO containers, vehicles even MBT’s, access is via two stern doors. One is configured for launching and recovering small craft, while the larger one has a stern ramp rated for MBT’s.

    PS: There is a Youtube video of one of two ships of this class visiting Devenport in Nov 2020

  27. I don’t understand why the type 32 came as such a surprise to eveyone, if anyone went to the supplier open days Cammel Laird and Babcock had for the Type 31 project both consortiums made it pretty clear that the build was going to be 5 plus another 5, the other 5 are obviously now called type 32.

  29. The future Type 32, before we say this and that the Royal Navy need to say what it wants this frigate to do. Does it want a pure out and out frigate such as the T26, does it want a patrol frigate such as the T31, does it want a mother ship for RUAVs UUVs etc, or does it want a multi role general purpose frigate.

    I will approach the problem from a diffrent way, what is the future of the RN capabilities,. I will also give a standard tonnage of 7,000 tons as a base line to work from and see what we get.

    To Start the Royal Marines are reverting to small unit roles, sneek in destroy get out, so if the frigate could carry 120 RMs four CB90 fast assault boats and a hanger for 2 Merlins, that will do the job. The CB90s should be in boat bays or a combined under flightdeck space with a sternramp and two boat bays. Call the underdeck space a multi function deck. Again thinking of the future rather the what is; possibly the safehaven company with their xsv17 or xsv20 would be an idea. Possibly a mix of XSV20 from the stern ramp and XFV 17 from the boat bays.

    (Think of this possibilty in a diffrent way, you have one frigate in the Straits of Hormuz, the frigate can launch four fast attack assult boats to break up an Iranian swarm attack, or you have a frigate that can attack an enemy frigate/destroyer but in confined waters cannot get out of the way or would be overcome with 30 small attack craft. Which would you rather have a frigate that can be in six places at once with attack boats with a speed of up to 60 knts, or a frigate that can do everything, cost a lot of money be only in one location and have a swarm of 20m boats with hand held launchers coming at you.

    Then think about the potential enemy, say again Iran, their boat swarms expect to loose some boats but for them 20 or 30 boats in a swarm and loose 5-10 against a frigate or destroyer is a good return. Now think what they will when the stand alone frigate, which is a target, now becomes the threat when she would launch 4-5 fast attack boats herself and mix it up close and personel. You go from ok this is easy, we will loose a few but we will damage or sink a big ship a price worth paying to holly crap, we are being attacked by a like kind of boat and a mother bear standing overwatch. So it is my opiniopn that any RN ship that will be ordered into choke points, confinded seas etc should have the ability to launch 3-5 fast attack assault boats to act as an outlaying guard. Some nations have in the water at this time small armed unmanned vessels. When i say armed I don’t mean an mg but anti ship missiles backed up with some air defence ability all on a 18-20m stealth hull. A range of 400 km, two ships equiped with four such vessels can extend the radar coverage of a carrier group by an extra 100 miles. By the wy some nations such as Turkey China have such boats so why cant we.

    Let me go back to the point that I was trying to make, you might say but its only four or five boat against 20-40 boats. Yes true, but what the four boat have done is broken up the formation, they have caused chaos, the enemy cannot fire back for fear of hitting thier own boats and you still have mama bear with her better radars, CMS and weapons fit coming down on you. Think of the Battle of Britian and the dog fights, the RAF did not have the numbers but the better control system, The RAF was very often outnumbered but won the daily air battles, reason better intel but the main reason was time, the few seconds that a German gunner needed to id is it friend or foe. thoose few milliseconds is the diffrence between life and death. The same in the English Channel, MGB vs E-boat, outnumbered and out gunned the MGBs were for the E-boats a nightmare, reason the MGBs knew what to expect when they saw it, the E-boat had to check what they saw to approve it. Again a few seconds but that all that counts.)

    Possibly a SBS task is needed so the T32 would carry for example the submersible canoe or the Mk11 Shallow Water Combat Submersible (SWCS). Again this needs a below flight deck space with stern ramp.

    These two tasks means that the T32 should have a below flight deck hanger deck a space for equipment to be launched through a Stern Ramp and two Boat Bays with a further two Boat Bays as a closed unit. Each boat bay should be 18-20m long and 6m deep, the sternramp at this point should be 6 meters wide, with one boat left and right of the stern ramp for stowage should be 20 meters. With this stern dimension a ship about the size of the T45 is needed.between the multi mission deck and the two independent boat bays a strengthend bulkhead/armoured bulkhead should be built to take the wieght and twist of the main ship to the open area. Forward of the stand alone boat bays/ ops rooms a further strngthend/armoured bulked seperating the ship in multi mission/frigate. Ths closed boat bays could be used for any boat that would fit in the bay but once loaded they cannot be internally changed.

    So now we come the helicopter hanger, to house two Merlins you will need a hanger of 25 m length, 16 m width and 10 m hieght. This would give the ability to re-engine a whirlybird, fix a tail rotor and general mantaince on both Merlins at the same time. If the stern is a minimum of 20 ms it means that the hanger would have 4m+ or stores/workshops port or starboard plus office space/ crew space on the deck above.

    From the above details we can now see how the multi function deck space is going to look, a below flight deck/hanger deck of 36m x 20m of space plus two fixed bays of 18m x 6 m. Between the fixed bays would be one deck for RM equipment/UUV/RUAV/USV equipment and one deck hospital space/royal marine/ air group ops rooms each measuring 8m x 18m . An overall stern usage of 54m x 20m over two decks say 3m each in hieght. These spaces could be also used for CAPTAS 2/4 containers, UUVs, automated minesweeping vessels etc. As an example we could have two Minesweeper USV at the multi deck doors, the space between the two could be for ROVs, there would be space to carry a CAPTAS 4 lite port side , a SBS SWCS on the ramp and an attack boat The hanger is able to have two Merlins, a Merlin Wildcat, Wildcat Apache, a helicopter plus 6 RUAVs.So the stern is very flexible so now we build a frigate. Above the hanger port starboard aft we put two 40mm guns with the magazine in the bottom corners of the hanger, in the middle aft we have a rasied structure say half a deck in hight for a SeaRam. Midships we have 24 SeaCeptor, 2x 30mm possibly with LMM/Starstreak eight short to medium range anti ship missiles 40km-120km (containers) and eight long range/land attack missiles 100km-350km (containers) ( my opinion is the NSM is the better option but the RBS-15 MkIV will also do the thrick.and forward a 40mm raised, 57mm main or 127mm. However, if we have the 127mm then we need 2x 40mm two deck below the bridge on a raised wing one deck above main deck level giving a 40mm box formation. So I would prefer the 57mm on cost grounds and flexibility. Fore the missile compliment forward then I suggest 16 Mk41s, better yet due to cost 16 Sylver A-50s from the T45s and 12 Sea Ceptors. With this load out of vls tubes if we say we take the more expensive route of MK41s it could mean 36 local air defence, 16 cruise missiles 8 land attack and 8 anti ship missiles, if the T32 was working as a part of a land attack force. If she was working in a high threat aera, alone then it would be 36 Sea Ceptors, 32 SeaCeptors ER (twin pact into MK41VLS, plus 8 land attack and eight anti ship. As a carrier escort it could mean 36 Sea Ceptors, 16 SeaCeptor-ER and eight VL-ASROC with 16 anti ship missiles. Whilst all the time carrying four fast attack assault boats, 100-120 RMs or any mix belowdeck.

    So this in my prefrence would give an armerment of 1x 57mm, 3x 40mm, 2x 30mm with LMM, 36 SeaCeptors, 16 MK41/A50 VLS tubes, 1x SeaRam. So as a frigate she could look after herself, work ar part of a group or become a forward deployed assualt ship. Work as a mother ship or be deployed to carry out sneek stuff. Combine two of these with say a future LHD and you have an independent assault group. As a Multi Roled Mother Ship she could have the weapons of a frigate carry 60 RMs with two CB90s plus a Merlin two USV minesweepers, a SWCB, 16 UUVs and 6-8 RUAVs.

    So now to motivative power, yes it is possible to operate on diesels alone but for a quick turn of speed I am not sure if thats a good idea so a mixed MT 30 plus two MTU M53B diesel generators for motivative power a third MTU M53B to be used for signal generation for UUVs/RUAVs/USVs. Yes I have done a hull co eff to power ration on the T26 and the max speed quated is well below what is possible. Anyhow, using the calculations my T32 could cruise all day long at 18knots and give 6,000 sm range. Open her up and 30-31knts would be possible, warm fuel and warmed up diesels and she will be ready to move out in 30 mins. Oh and by the way working out the hull co eff to power output the T26 might break the T42 record for speed.

    Now come the electronic suite, so first radars, well we need to make them cost effective for the job required, so a NS 100 the same model as the T31 combined in a singel mast with the SM-400 AESA S-band four plane fixed array, a hull mounted sonar tanken from the T23s when available and a CAPTAS 4 container. All linked with the Thales Tacticos CMS, extra two way communication antenna for USV,UUV,RUAV data links. So are we reinventing the wheel, no we are make the wheel work for us in the best way. Does this concept design work, well Damen seems to think so with their Crossover concept. All I have done is extended the aft section Helicopter hanger/flight deck area by a further 10 meters.

    Yes we can build this on a vessel about the same size as a T26/T45, using a length to beam ratio of 7.2 it would mean a main beam of 21m and a length of 150.78m this would give a approx displacment of 7,271.87 tons. Possibly 7,500 tons as I would have two armoured bulkheads aft. The first seperating the multi mission deck from the ship the second seperating the hanger, boat bays, RM ops rooms RM store room from the ship.

    So my idea, we take a design Damen Crossover that has been worked out, from a company that knows what they are doing, play with it a little bit and build a multi function ship of war. Design her to take damage and in the words of Jackie Fisher to hit first hit hard and keep hitting.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here