In November, the Prime Minister announced surprise plans to develop a new Type 32 Frigate to expand the Royal Navy fleet. This was unexpected, so what actually is the Type 32 Frigate?
The Royal Navy already has two new types of frigate on order, the Type 26 and the Type 31 Frigate.
Parliament has taken a keen interest in the procurement of warships and the Commons Library has published several briefing papers on this topic, this article is sourced from them.
What are the Royal Navy’s current plans?
The Royal Navy’s existing fleet of thirteen Type 23 frigates will begin to leave service on an annual basis from 2023.
Frigates can be used in a variety of roles, including warfighting, maritime security, counter piracy and international engagement. Some vessels are designed for a specialist anti-submarine warfare role with a quiet hull.
They will be replaced by two new types of frigate:
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.
Echoes of 2015?
The Government made a similar surprise announcement about frigates in the previous defence review, the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), in 2015.
Rather than confirming the expected build of 12 Type 26 frigates, the Government announced plans for eight Type 26s, supported by five new general-purpose frigates (the Type 31s).
The SDSR said:
“We will also launch a concept study and then design and build a new class of lighter, flexible general purpose frigates so that by the 2030s we can further increase the total number of frigates and destroyers.”
The Prime Minister’s announcement of the new Type 32 frigates comes in the context of the current defence review.
The 19th of November statement on the integrated review also announced the review’s work would conclude in early 2021 and informed the House of Commons of its “first outcome“: an increase in defence spending of £24.1bn over the next four years.
What is the Type 32?
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 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.
More information may be provided in the integrated review or in the update to the 30-year Naval Ship Acquisition Plan, due to be published after the integrated review.
What will the new ships do?
In his statement, the Prime Minister spoke of plans to “deploy more of our naval assets in the world’s most important regions”. This may include Asia-Pacific. The Royal Navy has visibly increased its presence in Asia in recent years and HMS Queen Elizabeth is to sail to East Asia in 2021.
The Royal Navy has also begun to permanently base frigates overseas (in the Gulf). The First Sea Lord, Admiral Tony Radakin (head of the Royal Navy), has said forward presence is a priority, suggesting more ships could be permanently based overseas with crews rotating from the UK. The Royal Navy will also soon have five new offshore patrol vessels in service.
However, in the medium-term there remain concerns about the timing of the retirement of Type 23 frigates and the entry into service of the Type 26s and Type 31s. There is a potential shortage of frigates around the mid-2020s. There is also the question of crewing.
The Royal Navy is understrength by 5.9%, as of the 1st of July 2020.
It is not clear when the Government intends to bring the new Type 32s into service.
The potential options are?
Absalon or Damen Crossover type vessel to support FCF
Lighter covert type vessel/littoral combat shipp
Multi-role vessel support MCM
A type TX ship
A mid ranged ASW Frigate
Anything else?
Smudge on the piece of paper Boris read & everyone else has committed to?
Place your bets
A cheap to operate missile boat in the traditional park a frigate off the coast of a country and launch a couple of Tomahawks against training camps/people of interest tradition.
I am thinking 8-16 AA missiles for self protection, 16 or 24 strike tubes, a landing pad for a light helicopter but none carried as standard (possibly a foldable hanger structure), a 4.5 or 5 inch gun, enough spare berth capacity for a squad of marines and their inflatables.
and fast build capable
It could just be a ” Next Generation Frigate ” that’s how BJ Described it.
often wonder why there was never a batch 2 type 21? i loved it on active
I agree with the Damen Crossover on the condition that they have Anti ship and Sea Ceptor missiles with a containorised towed array. It would be a good multi-purpose surface combat ship. The only question is can the Crossover take 2-4 MCM autonomous vessels or 2-4 CB-90s or a mix of two each.
but overall for me it has to be a warship and not a gunned up opv
or maybe an upgraded opv please not and forward base one gibraltar.
IMO T32 needs to be a 2nd batch of refined and moderately up-gunned T31’s utilizing the same hull design and production line. An entirely new frigate class of only 5 vessels makes zero sense!
What’s also needed in addition to this is a basic corvette sized platform (in the Venari or Black Swan mold) that can replace the Hunt’s, Sandown’s, Echo/Enterprise and the older River’s in the RN using modular, containerized kit but that crucially could also be easily up-gunned to appeal to prospective buyers.
With T45 eventually replaced by a T26 derivative the UK would then be in a great position to offer high, medium and low options in terms of size, price and capability on the export market.
I suspect the T32 will be what the RN wanted before they were forced to accept the T31. In other words it’s a properly armed T31. A 5inch gun, more Sea Ceptor SAMs, anti-ship missiles and containerised ASW, recce drones or MCMs. Sounds good to me, especially if they retrofit batch 1.
I’d personally prefer we carried on with T31 I’m pretty sure at least 10 is doable. The only possible reason for a new class is something that has a completely different capability.
But I don’t think there’s much you can’t do with a T31 design from AAW to ASW the design allows for raft mounted engines & the vessel is capable on 1 engine running add towed array sonar & it’s no T26 but capable. If we adopted the same radar fit as Iver Huiltfeldt we’d have a capable AAW vessel again no T45. If we invested in T26 & T45 we could have a very credible high/low mixed fleet.
So to justify the Type 32 it must do something different either better facilities for FCF, MCM, littoral combat, home waters defence?
The other consideration could be Artisan and maybe other GFE, there is currently 13 sets for T23? 5 are not now being used by T31 so say you purchased 5 Leander with BAE CMS you could use those sets?
There’s no reason why an enlarged T31 design couldn’t replace T45 – it shouldn’t be a T26 derivative sure thing IMO. T26 is an almost dedicated ASW solution & none of that super quietness is useful next to an aircraft carrier.
If cost could be kept down then 3 or 4 T26 ASW could be purchased.
T26 could still be enhanced in AAW cheaper AESA MFR with Artisan as a secondary sensor then CAMM-ER to supplement sea ceptor.
Maybe T32 would not be a completely different capability to T31 but a more modern platform perhaps, with first delivery late 2020’s or first half 2030’s. Arrowhead 140 was the expedient choice for T31 as a proven, low risk, highly capable platform, needed rapidly, with a lot of flexibility to support different roles and increase capabilities over time and most important, achievable at low cost. There was no time to engineer anything new, hence the warmed over designs from others in the competition. IMO A140 was by far the best option for the UK but it doesn’t mean we cannot do better in future. That said it would still make a very capable platform for a follow on order, if the brand new design option becomes too expensive or otherwise impractical.
Marine engineering is continually developing to improve operating characteristics including operational costs. For example the Italian PPA Thaon di Revel class with its unusual wave piercer bow. Then there’s the Dutch experimentation with a stern mounted hydrofoil on their Holland class OPV to see if the potential 10% fuel savings modeled actually materialise – https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/dutch-navy-to-test-hull-vane-hydrofoil-on-hnlms-zeeland-opv/
The French and the Italians probably could have just kept making FREMM but instead they have both designed new intermediate class frigates with the French FTI program and the Italian PPA program.
We might see further design efforts to reduce thermal signature, improve propulsion systems for efficiency and emissions, reduce radar signature, improve hull form. Perhaps most importantly it keeps marine engineering, and in this case military marine engineering, continually innovating. People hold up the Arleigh Burke as a success for its long life as a platform, but the reality is that this has allowed US naval design capability to atrophy by reusing an existing design for too long.
So a T32 might look spec-wise somewhat similar to a PPA or FTI intermediate frigate design.
More modern than Type 31? It hasn’t been built yet, how much more modern can you get?
New doesn’t mean modern.
The T31 is based on the Iver Huitfeldt, which in turn is based on the Absalon, the latter being a late 1990’s/early 2000’s design. Its a highly practical, effective and affordable design to build and operate, but it doesn’t mean that the marine industry has learnt nothing in the last two decades. That is why I provided a couple of examples.
If you follow the link to the Dutch navy evaluation you’ll see that a hydrofoil at the stern has not only modeled a 10% fuel saving, which is a major operating cost saving, it enables a higher top speed at the same engine power. It also reduces wake, making it less visible from the air and from space. It also makes the stern more stable, enhancing helicopter, UAV and boat embarking/disembarking. All valuable attributes for a warship.
The hydrofoil is a more radical example. But simply the ability to better model fluids with modern processing power can enable a better hull design. Similarly a modern CODAG design like the Italian PPA but using 1x MT30 turbine and 2x diesels might give more desirable operating characteristics.
Over £700M was spent on R & D for T26, £3.7Bn for the first 3. Also millions more spent on more long leading components for beyond the first 3 T26s.
A a very wasteful procurement policy, I would say!
agreed, but we can pull it back if we can upgrade the Radar and use the platform to replace the 6 T45’s
Alternatively order 6 more for ASW and put the AAW capability on the T31 which is already proven in Danish use.
This could possibly be less expensive as its already designed and is BMD certified I believe.
In all cases I do believe we will end up with 12-14 T26 in the end and they should come in under £1bn each if we get this volume
I agree its an excellent platform that is very scaleable.
I also think we could add in an additional deck and create an updated Absalon class (Huitfeldt is an update on Absalon minus 1 logistics RORO deck)
So I think we have missed a trick here and believe for this particular class Absalon is a better vessel if we can apply the lessons they learned and applied to the Huitfeldt class.
that extra deck can take a company of marines and launch CB90’s so worth having
Hi Simon a type 26 spected as per the Canadian versions would be a great replacement for the T45, maybe need a section add like the batch 3 Type 42
it would be great to see a fleet mainly consisting of frigates of a similar type as werre the old leanders.we’ll have 20 of those pls.
and be built at a rapid rate.
What makes sense on the T31 is to get them up a running and see if they are any good. If it is an excellent platform then build whatever variations we desire otherwise we need to start again and get it right.
We know its a good hull design based on Danish service. Issue is how much kit for the yet to be revealed budget. Will be interesting to see if tendering / negotiations are based on…
1. What capability for this budget… Or
2. What price this capability
Would like to think the MoD have got future option prices for T31 generally locked into existing contract with some ‘functional’ optionality also already priced up.
P
Hi Mark how about a push to get a Type 26 and 31 in the water and see what we have bought
I can’t see past a batch II 31 either, like you say, yet another different class would lead to different stores etc, if there’s nothing wrong with the T31’s other than being lightly armed then there will be more bang for your buck (if you excuse the pun) in up arming what we have. I would imagine budget will still play a large part so if we’re knocking out more very similar platforms the cost will come down leaving more cash to spend on guns, missile and sensors.
As for the ‘Arleigh Burke’ argument, it doesn’t really stand up for me, its not like we’re planning on knocking another 10 or 20 of these as far as I know and we’re still building T26’s and T4X’s are being looked at when the T26’s are finished.
as well as anything else i believe, as well as being cost effective they should be of a fast build design at the moment despite all the sprojected frigates, the orders won’t all be delivered until the 2030’s(hoping the new frigate factory will improve production. but an enhanced type 26 design would be a good starting point for the t45 replacement.
It’s not helpful being left with only speculation on the T32. Could even be the replacement for the T45.
It beggers belief that now we’re still a very rich country with record population we can’t(or won’t) afford to recruit & look after more crews for our tiny fleet. We make the same mistakes generation after generation, getting caught short every conflict.
Its the same problem as the army, the funding is there for the positions but there arent enough recruits so we end up thousands below target manpower. They tried outsourcing army recruitment but it was a disaster so its been taken back in house again.
Its not a case of affording it. Its a case of the right people wanting to join.
It doesn’t matter how rainbow coloured and fluffy you make life in a blue suit, if they don’t want to join up , they don’t join up.
An silver lining of the current COVID situation makes today similar to the early 80s in that there are no jobs for youngsters. I can see that recruitment will go back up because there are no other opportunities available.
Heck, I grew up in the late 70s in Liverpool. I joined the RN aged 16 in Jan 81. Looking back at the job situation in the Northwest of England then its no surprise that the RN did not have a recruiting problem. My entry of Tiffs was over 300 strong in just that quarter. After the first year that was down to maybe 100 still standing!.
Those waste full days of recruiting are long gone but the numbers are on the way back up. However there are still pinch points with regards to Engineers that just cannot be cured no matter what cash incentives are thrown at them.
Morning GB, I’ve a couple of mates in recruiting and interest has definitely gone up, a lot of ‘re entries’ too, both guys who have been out a while and guys who have only been out a relatively short time. For clarity, this has been since covid so it has made a difference.
Hi GB. I’ve every sympathy with you for those days. I was 16 in 1978 but had a full scale mental breakdown aproaching my GSE’s so after recovering(took years really) spent a year in the re-take year before doing 2 years doing A-levels in the year below mine.
What we found was those of our year who left school at 16 in 1978 all found jobs or good apprenticeships, but after that it was very hard times indeed. I never had the nerve for the military life.
We clearly need to value servicemen & women while they serve throughout their careers. They are putting their lives on the line unlike politicians, treasury bean counters or mean spirited “entrepraneurs” who think everybody except them must be squeezed into poverty.
Hi Frank. I’ve just had a quick look at the “Save the RN” website. Apparently there is a 30% uptick in recruitment, Raleigh is full with a class of over 300, BRNC is starting an extra entry, and 500 more are starting at Collingwood in January. The problem may not be the recruits it might be finding the instructors. And taking up what Gunbuster said, how many will actually make the grade?
Yes that is encouraging. It’s natural that some find they’re not cut out for the service & I think that’s fair enough.
I think the RN has been really proactive with a strategy of getting TV programmes on air
Chris Terrill did a fantastic job with QEC, then the T45 series and lastly the SSBN programme have all been really good pieces of PR.
Chris also did an RM programme and was pretty inspirational I have to say.
If ever there was a friend of the RN, Chris is it
Very clever by the RN and you can’t help feeling part of a longer term strategy that is really starting to pay off now.
Apparently there is another navy series coming soon…… has anyone got any information please……
Not sure about the RN new intact course, I went to a Army Apprenticies College, the drop out rate in the first six months was huge, then over the next few years of trade training they were still wittling down. I think by the time we graduated in summer 81 there was only about 50% of the lads left. Yet when I saw the work carried out by our civilian counterparts we rejected better.
The RN is undergoing a huge Transformation exercise. I am surprised the briefs and videos put out by the powers that be have not been more widely seen.
There are still issues with manning though.
3 French Navy and 11 US Coast Guard engineers are being used in the RN to overcome the short falls in marine engineering maintainers.It could be said its an exchange program but the exchange only goes one way!
Commonwealth recruits have been and remain a massive boon to manning . However the jobs they can do and what branches and specialisations they can do is restricted. 5 Eyes and UK Eyes Only security caveats mean that OPS Room/Comms and Weapon Engineering branches are a no go for them.
An overhaul of the work load of some engineer maintainers is ongoing.
My former branch of “Gunbusters” are struggling with the 24/7 maintenance of upper deck and force protection weapons. Maintaining the weapons in a clean and fit for use condition ( For an FF/DD thats twice daily 2-4 x Mini Guns, 2-4 x 50 cals, 4 GPMGs, 2 x 30mm, the main gun and all the ammunition for them plus small arms and anything the Flight need for the helo) , formally signing your life away on Preps for Firing, accounting for ammunition , explosives and magazine safety ( another formal sign your life away job) , and still doing all the other stuff that comes with being the maintainer and a man manager has lead to an upsurge in Notice to Leave submissions.Another engineering pinch point!
Overhaul of the promotion and rank structure is also ongoing. WO2 rank is being brought in for ALL branches. This is just after they got rid of it for engineers as it was a cause of massive discrimination which lead to the surge in Notice submissions in the engineering branches being so high. Bringing it in for everyone levels the playing field.
The advantage of having a WO2 rank is that the WO1 cadre can be reduced. This saves on pay and pensions. It also frees up spaces at the top level of the rank structure and stops the current issue of having people in dead mans shoes being at the top of the tree for 15 years stopping the people below getting promoted.
The WO1 cadre is going to split into 2 streams. One will have you being an SME in your branch which is great for engineers. The other stream will be “executive” where you become a general employment WO1 doing Command WO jobs, Admin or tri service jobs. This means more opportunities for sea dodging white shirt wearing mafia ( they know who they are Loggies!) to actually get out of the office and do some sea time!
If it was AAW it would be a Destroyer in RN parlance.
AAW is very well covered off with credible radar and missile dit’s on T45/23/26/31.
You can argue about numbers of missiles per ship but I am confident the systems are sound.
The best way of boosting the effective umbrella would be to add the cooperative engagement system.
T32 needs to bring something different to the party.
So to be different either T32 needs to be geared towards just being an AShM Or its a UAV mother ship type.
But more likely again to be General Purpose, a phrase which I don’t like
Heavily armed GP to do gunline, anti ship and AA with Cooperative Engagement.
Would need VLS to do that.
The fleet isn’t tiny ,tiny by what standards ? The US , China. Russia ? the RN is a true blue water navy only a handful of nations have the ability we posses. Only a handful of nations have a higher fleet tonnage than us. The new ships we are building require significantly less crew a T31 will have almost a 50% less crew requirement than a T23. The QE class at 70,000 tons same crew numbers as Invincible class at 22,000 tons.
I won’t disagree with your sentiments on how we manage recruitment and generally getting caught with our panties down but that’s the inept political establishment to blame . Bottom line when it comes to the ability to prosecute all out war this amazing ??island is in the pro category .
“war is a hard school but the British once compelled to go there are attentive pupils”. ??????????? W Churchill 1942
Hi TAFKALPC, historically we’re tiny in terms of warship hulls, escorts & sailors. Probably smaller than ever in the last 400 years or more. If we’re hamstrung by lack of engineers to run our ships we obviously need to up our game to provide a far more attractive & supportive career. What dullards we’ve been to get into this situation.
In battle we’ll see wether the small QE crew can cope with damage control, after casualties for such a large vessel & wether once the lauded crew saving automated weapon handling system is inoperable, aircraft can still be re-armed or wether the ship is effectively neutralised.
Frank62, You hit the nail on the head there. Although in WWI & WWII the Royal Navy were relatively OK, it was the Army in both I & II and the RAF in WWII who were caught with their pants down. Old equipment, troops who were never really told they had a real fight coming. We are an island, therefore easy to cut off, that means food and other stores. There’s no “Home Fleet” unless they intend to make the Aircraft Carriers expensive targets by doing circles.
The Army is up a creek without a paddle. A fighting force of circa 32,000 men is far, far smaller than in Dunkirk. Yes it was a different time, France had 96 Divisions yet still surrendered because they still had WWI era weapons. Defence is firstly in depth. We have none. The German Leopard Tanks are a shining beacon for the way to go. Not gis £4.5m per Tank up the wall in extending the life of an already old platform in merge numbers. I remember when we had two Tank Divisions. Even then, they had just got rid of the other two Divisions in 1st & 2nd Army group. The Russans will enjoy their drive to the French Atlantic coast!
The RAF is in the worse shape I have heard of in my life. We have 100 Typhoons, no more fighters than that. The Politicians like to brage, but the Sweedes have 114 more fighters than the RAF. I feel ashamed our government(s) have allowed our defence to come to this.
It’s a waste of time and money spending all we go on a Nuclear deterrent, when our conventional forces will not last the first 72 hours of any conflict!
More big promises. Will wait and see if this comes to reality……
“What is the type 32 ? “Answer, Nobody knows.
What about a couple of barrage ships loaded with long range cruise and anti Ship-weapons ? Convert a few cargo ships and load with vls cells and hand control to escort frigates / type 45 ? Enough firepower to decommission power networks / ports / airfields of any mid-tier african / mid east trouble maker ( likely focus ).Just the presence alone as part of a carrier group would be enough to make any islamic trouble make rethink.
I’ve often thought about this concept and I think it would be a big asset to any RN task force…
Image ships like them appearing an firing multiple rockets or Ashm at an Enemy
the key for me with this investment is to map a coherent fleet and strategy that ensures we have a good drumbeat that supports the industrial base to provide these vessels at better VFM than in the past.
this necessitates a 25 year plan that builds 3 major surface ships annually and a submarine bi-annually, with 100 smaller enabling vessels per annum. this is hardly fantasy fleets stuff it is a surface fleet for the RFA/RN of circa 75 vessels and 12 submarines (admittedly an uptick – but method to the madness.
Combat Surface Fleet (BAES / Babcock)
12 no. C1 – T26 @ £1bn each to replace T23 ASW (8) & T45 (6)
12 no, C2 – T31 @t £500m each to replace T23 GPF(5) & Echos (2)
25 no. C3 – T82 @ £250m each new class to replace Rivers (8)& MCM fleet (13)
note: T26 will need a radar upgrade to become combined ASW/AAW asset.
Large Support Vessel Fleet (CL/HW – Liverpool/ Belfast)
4 Tides (for the carriers) cost £200m each
12 Karel Doorman Style Joint Logistics (for everything else) cost £400m each
4 FLO FLO’s cost £100m each
5 Specialist Hulls cost £250m each
Submarine Fleet (BAES Barrow)
10 no. SSN @ £2 bn each
4 no. SSBN @ £7.5 bn each
Enabling assets
Things like Tugs, CB90’s, Safeboats Mk 6, Caimens, Ship 2 Shore Connectors, Atlas MCM etc.
100 per annum @ £5m each average cost
The above equates to £5bn capital expenditure for every single year of the 25 year plan, provides industry with a known pipeline, removes expensive life extension programmes and should ensure we get the best price possible as we standardise on common hulls and Mech.
This is not fantasy fleet – we have most of this already and I have tweaked the force slightly.
It won’t work unless industry invests in the latest tech to make these ships efficiently, it may necessitate a single frigate factory or 2 that compete and launch 1 ship per annum.
This would give us the drumbeat and cost base highlighted in the NSS and I would think save us a load of money as industry can finally invest in their yards.
The type 32 is an unknown, likewise who will build it. Shipbuilding capacity is limited so the industry will need a heads up to recruit. Maybe BAE will start to move away from being so dependent on external contractors and go back to employing more of its own staff, but for that it will need some guarantees of contracts.
The FSS could be built with external support from a foreign shipbuilders, hence H&W could build with Spanish input.
But frigates , a bit more complex, options for T32 are numerous and range from.
A batch 3 T26 with a different weapon and sensor fit.(BAE)
A batch 2 Type 31
with a different weapon and sensor fit.(Babcock)
A Leander (CL)
or ??,
I think we should just wait and see now.
Yes, all we can do after initial speculation. Ity’s a bit like trying to commentate on a premier league footie match before kick off!
Exactly mate. We all know bugger all as of yet.
I think Next Generation Frigate says what it is – also the aspiration to have the largest navy in Europe suggests they will not be built as replacements for the T45 / T26 / T31 but as supplements, so sooner rather than later.
A more intriguing question is what are these ‘multi-role survey vessels’. The plural was used in the statement. We know HMS Scott needs replacement urgently for the SSBN force and Echo and Enterprise as not far behind, but there are also hybrid threats to undersea cables and other threats that these ships might be aimed to address.
We also have an MCMV requirement. I wonder if these will be mother ships – Black Swan like – for a range of offboard systems. They could host very interesting and new capabilites such as XLUUVs as well as offboard surveillance, ASW and MCM systems.
Logically this will be a new UK designed ship rather than a follow on of T31s, which iirc was originally to be an “exportable” ship hence the daft “e” suffix. Ironically T26 has exported better than any UK design since Leander and T31 is a UK built variant of someone else’s export design!
By the time T32 gets going T26 will be in build and the design teams and R&D effort will have nothing to do. T45 have been used lightly and I think will be 40year ships whilst Sea Viper/Sampson have no obvious replacement path (but do have siginificant upgrade potential, BMD/new radar/new missiles etc) – so I expect to see them serve well into the 2040s as we shift to getting more US style lifetimes out of things.
Hence T32 is a project to retain UK design base between T26 and T4X noting T31 doesnt do that. It’ll be a GP ship with T31 general purpose type capabilities so neither ASW nor AAW nor Land Attack (although could have elements if any if/as the threat changes).
Numbers wise note the MCMVs will go as this enters service, whilst the retained River Batch 1s likewise so T31/32 can replace the deployed use of River 2s which return for “pure” UK patrol (if still a Rn Task). That’s how crewing will be managed I suspect.
I thought that one objective of the “export frigate” was that RN ships would be sold off as 2nd hand to be replaced by new T31s as and when the T31s have reached their first serious maintenance period. I may have misunderstood the British Shipbuilding Strategy, but the point of this was to ensure that we just kept building ships and sell them on as we needed. The T26 has been ‘exported’ in the sense that intellectual copyright has been exported. The nuts and bolts are built elsewhere.
But that being the case (?) it seems to me that the T32 would be a new concept. But to get to what the design is based on, an existing or a new platform, then surely we all should define what it’s ROLE is first??
I think those here who are hoping this is going to be an up-gunned T31 are going to be sorely disappointed.
Firstly I would say the spending announcements including T32 is politically driven tied into Johnson trying to distract from other events ongoing at the moment with an eye on the Scottish Independence debate when it comes to future ship building as well.
T32 is certainly a thing but it looks like at best a place holder that might lead to a second batch of T31 or a similar vessel produced by another manufacturer.
Back to my original point it is highly unlikely that the T32 if it happens will be up-gunned over the T31 or T26. I would say quite the reverse, they would probably to keep costs down have a very limited systems and weapons fit. A basic radar like the Terma Scanter fitted to the River class, CMS of some kind, no missiles and a gun no better than a Bofors 57 and no worse than a Bofors 40. Maybe a couple of DSM 30 MK 2 as well (more on that later). So an enlarged OPV in a frigate sized platform. Able to do constabulary work but only able to operate in areas with peer/near peer rivals with an Escort. What they could be very useful for is in a MCM mothership role.
Considering the 1SL has made peace with the idea that the MCMV fleet is going five T32 could act as the perfect motherships for a future MCM capability, something that has been talked about in the past. You could even lift the MCM optimised NAUTIS 3 CMS out of the Hunt class plus the specialised Type 2193 sonar. Other equipment like the DSM 30 Mk2 could also be lifted from the retiring MCMV vessels as well. With a large mission bay maybe even including the vehicle ramp like the Absalon class along with a hanger and large helicopter deck gives you quite an interesting capability. As long as you leave the option of adding in things like Sea Ceptor at a later date it is a reasonable path.
Interesting. I’d read MCMV out of service is from 2028? So there will be a gap.
Isn’t it more likely the MHC Motherships will be cheaper STUFT type vessels that carry the autonomous stuff and RNMBs?
Maybe, I think it is all a speculative placeholder driven by politics at the moment. Fusing T32 with MHC Mothership idea has some strong logic, frankly the country as a whole has more major issues that will decide the future of the shipbuilding from Brexit through Scottish independence.
HMS Echo and Enterprise come in at 3700 tons and 90m. River 2 with its big flat deck and crane, is 90m and 2000 tons. BAE said their longest 117m Leander came in at 3700 tons with options for 110m and 99 m designs; all I assume with the Rolls Royce style mission bay and crane. BMT came up with an interesting design a while back; a sort of rearranged Echo class with a flight deck sandwiched between the stern cranes for launching UUVs and a hanger. Had room for a small gun forward. Could be built at Appledore too I think….very much a multi-role ship.
https://www.bmt.org/industries/defence-and-security/surface-systems/bmt-venari-85/
Interesting perspective. I agree that a lot of what we are seeing and hearing in the news is a deliberate diversion, probably to distract media ( and Redneck Tory MPs) attention from the Brexit talks. It looks like a deal is there now: the negotiating teams are doing a read through of the treaty wording.
As regards T32 as you point out it might not be a more heavily armed T31; you could simply have a T31 refit program to do that. Although the BAe Leander proposal lost the T31 contract I think it did have a better mother ship style ‘mission bay’ which BAe had modelled on the one they designed for the T26.It also had a diesel electric drive; sort of a stretched naval spec River 2 hull with Khareef propulsion as I recall.
Depends what the RN want but it might be a better mother ship for remote UAVs. And I presume it met the £250m cost requirement and is an ‘oven ready’ design.
If you look at the commonality with T31 and the capability it offers something like an Absalon class should be close to a shoe in. I think the only disadvantage would be that it can only do 24 knots, so could not keep up with the carrier if it was really moving. But how often does that happen?
and if you wanted to up rate it then design the ship with the same engine fit as the T31. That would mean a bit of a stretch, say 10/12 metres, but that would allow extra accommodation and more tankage and stores. You could then carry say up to 300 boot necks, or a lot of personnel for disaster relief, or whatever the task might be. If you have the same equipment fit as the Absalon you have a very capable ship for multi tasking. There has been comments above about the need for MCM capability, a ship of this sort to carry and support several autonomous MCM systems. And still have very capable GP systems.
All a bit fantasy fleet, but you never know.
“Able to do constabulary work but only able to operate in areas with peer/near peer rivals with an Escort” – which would be an issue as we’d be tying up two ships and two crews, which would be at a premium in such a circumstance, when only one of each is required.
For mission module based MCM off a hostile shore we’d want current T31 level armament. If its domestic waters/peacetime then a commercial platform would do. That’s the advantage of the mission module approach, we can tailor the platform to the mission, and fly the modules to anywhere in the world we have our own platform, or that of an ally. We might even support core full time RN mission module teams, augmented by RNR mission module teams, for a significant uplift in overall MCM capability beyond the current 13 platforms, without significantly increasing peacetime operational costs and while leveraging RN world leading expertise in the MCM role. No advantage for the UK in a dedicated platform to replace current assets.
The mission module approach was the driver behind the USN LCS program. That has now died a death. LCS will now be fitted out for a designated task and retain that task. No swapping in and out of it as required. They simply could not get the mission module concept to work.
Though not a great example of how to do multi purpose ships it is a bob on warning of how not to do it!
Its amazing to me how badly the whole LCS program has been managed. I presume eventually they will end up with ships that can serve a useful purpose, albeit at the price of a frigate.
As to the utility of mission modules. I think we do have to be careful about how far we assume the flexibility goes. Just because we might, in theory, swap modules in and out frequently, which seems to have been the original LCS concept, doesn’t mean that it is either smart or desirable to do so. I look at it as providing flexibility across a ship’s 20-30 year life, not across or within a ship’s annual deployments. For example in the current Gulf application, or in protecting the Clyde, its likely the mission modules would be semi-permanent on their respective vessels.
That said, I do see in extremis value for rapid deployment. Consider a scenario where a critical pinch point, like a major port or like the Malacca Straight is mined. It could crash financial markets and significantly upset economies, let alone potential loss of ships and life. Having the ability to fly out MCM mission modules plus dedicated MCM teams, arguably the most skilled and experienced in the world, to a forward deployed T31 plus allied vessels at Singapore, might rapidly help address the situation in conjunction with less experienced local partners. A conventional MCMV might take 1-2 weeks to get there from the Gulf, even a MCM equipped T31 the better part of a week from the Gulf.
The Aussie Aruntas have mission modules. Most are semi permanent and only changed out when its upgrade time. The new modules are upgraded ashore. They literally unplug and un plum the container on the ship and then swap them over.
With the advent of reliable unmanned surface assets you don’t need a surface ship. In the Gulf you could fly the modules in on a C17 along with the boats and run them from a shore station.
Your friendly neighborhood RM forward deployed detachment provides Force Protection ashore for the Muppets and Bubble Heads.
Saying that you could use a STUFT oil rig support vessel. The big open rear deck is ideal for a container city of containerised modules and most ORSV’s have cranes that are capable of lifting 30+Tonnes easily.
I had wondered whether ships were necessary for the Gulf versus using shore stations. I suspect there are many commercial ship variants that might be taken up, leased, operated by someone like SERCO, or just bought as low cost platforms for RN use, where a military vessel isn’t required.
I’m curious on whether you think MCM (and possibly other) mission modules might be a way to use RNR to add to full time RN capability? My understanding is that its challenging to sensibly integrate RNR into a full time ships complement in peacetime, but perhaps mission modules would be practical? So for example we might retain 13 RN MCM teams, corresponding to the current ships capability, or we might justify more teams if we don’t have the cost of dedicated ships. The RN teams form the core center of excellence. We then add some number of RNR teams that occasionally deploy alongside the RN teams for enhanced training, but are predominantly independent and domestic focused, being either shore or STUFT based. We would have the cost of the mission modules to support them, virtually all being benignly warehoused somewhere, but the manpower costs stay low. They might share training assets and a commercial ship, with different teams training at different times.
Type 32 sounds like nonesense and wasteful project
Instead start work on developing Type 46 and equip Type 31 so it’s fit for purpose
It is relatively safe to assume that the T31 will get extra munitions fitted once if leaves Babcock’s hands.
Reason being is that if it is after handover there will be no accusations of cost creep which is what the RN will want to avoid.
Wasting this Golden Goose money in the old ways would ensure that this kind of largess is never repeated. In any case the budget for producing the T31 platform is perfectly sensible and it is a very decent platform.
Honestly I do believe that the T32 will be T31BII but with a bigger gun fitted and possibly VLS so it can do land strike and other interesting things.
I fully agree.
For Type 32 to be anything other than Type 31 batch II is a waste of money. It’s a frigate so it makes no sense to spend money on a 3rd class of frigate.
Type 26s are dedicated anti-submarine frigates, Type 31 is general purpose. There is no other role for a frigate to fulfill that isn’t filled by another type of ship.
I can’t see it being MCMV as all the talk is on expanding the escort fleet and reducing the MCMV fleet from 13 ships to 5 would be a huge reduction. They were also specifically called “frigates.”
The MoD isn’t going to get another cash injection of this size again for some time. If the money is wasted on designing a completely new class of ships, with no specific purpose that isn’t simply overlapping other ships, then a lot of that money goes down the drain. If the MoD is seen as wasting this money then they’ll never get this again. There will be no sympathy from HMG in future if they waste this and then later complain of insufficient funds.
The most logical use is a 2nd batch of Type 31s, with more capability and weapons added. A 2nd batch of 5 increases the fleet from 19 to 24 ships whilst costing approx. £1.5billion* which is just under 1/10th of the total extra funding the MoD is getting.
*I’m assuming a 2nd batch with more bells and whistles would cost extra, so say £300million per ship. Even if it were £350million it’s still the best value for money.
Type-31 as it is, is a £400million per ship vessel, because its total program cost is £2bn. Yes its build cost is said to be £250million per hull, but the same number for T25 is not known yet, to my understanding.
By the way, T32 as a batch2 T31 is one of the good candidates, I agree. It will also support Rosyth sites future (Even if T31 were to be exported to Greek, none of the hull is to be built in Rosyth (as they say).)
On the other hand, keeping the ship designing capability is very important. T31 batch2 will not cover this aspect. It is anyway Danish design with small modification. (Modifying existing design shall be an order of magnitude easier than designing a new class of ship.)
How can UK keep the highly successful T26 designing team active until late 2030s, by when the T4X design work shall start. This is a serious problem I think. In this sense, “T32 design NOT based on T31” has some rationale or possibility.
So I think anything can happen. Again, T31 batch2 has its own rationale. But new design also has some.
It looks like the RN will need reinforced structure for Type 32 and T31!
Russian Navy has threatened to Ram a USN AB! Latest news!
Hard to see how their ships will get up to ramming speed being pulled along by tugs!
I’d really like to see that.
The anti-air component of the RN’s fleet is spread rather thinly! Due to only 6 T45s have been procued. 5/6 anti-air support frigates like Iver Hatfields will remedy the short fall.
Given the crewing problems mentioned,wouldn’t the best use of any extra money be to make the T31 a proper warship? The Iver Huitfeldt class has a full weapons fit- AShM, sonar and anti sub, decent load of Sam missiles.
I remain very suspicious of this announcement of more funds ahead of the full review. Is it just to soften up potential critics once the full plan with yet more actual cuts is published?
With such a small escort fleet we can’t afford to have 2nd rate frigates. Every escort needs to be credibly capable for surface, air & ASW. So I agree the T31 should be upgraded with a proper MG, AShMs & a larger fit-out of SAMs. For CIWS the 40mm is far more capable than Phalanx, so that is one thing worthwhile they’ve done.
Its interesting reading all the different takes on it, some quite varied views, some maybe more in hope than expectation.
The one thing we do know is that we know sod all. I wouldn’t read too much into BoJo’s next generation stuff, he does like to gild the lily/prone to hyperbole (take your pick).
“more in hope than expectation”
Ain’t that the truth!
Andy …he meant to say 31 and got it wrong…….hopefully he will realise and admit his mistake …. before we waste millions on design a new frigate so he saves face
No I think T32 is deliberate.
It is interesting that all discussion centres around T31 & T26. There no discussion about progressing the T45 platform which only seems to have one real flaw in the recuperator implementation.
Or is there something I should know and don’t know about T45 -> T4X idea?
I highly suspect he misread type 31 for type 32 !
Then you’d be wrong.
The JMSDF cracking on with a New Frigate Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3cF7wkU
If it is called Type 31 Batch II then Babcock are a shoe in. So it is called Type 32 and MoD can run another competition, allowing BAE and Cammell Laird to bid again – and probably lose again.
Completely off topic but brilliant to see Kuno the dog get his doggy VC, the Dickin Medal. Everyone went together man & animal alike. Extra love & Winalot for you.
Winalot?!
Bugger that, give that dog a steak!
Ha! Rob. Brilliant. I was just coming here to post the same and you beat me to it.
I am always deeply moved by Dickin medal recipients. Simon the cat is my fav but love them all and they are worthy of remembrance. I’d like to go to the animal cemetery in Ilford where many of them lie.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-military-dog-to-receive-pdsa-dickin-medal-after-tackling-al-qaeda-insurgents
Ditto. Mine is Rob the para dog who, I think I’m right in saying, made every major combat drop of WW2.
What’s the mission / purpose
Whats the risks and possible threats associated with mission
What functional spec / capabilities to deliver mission and mitigate risks
Consider and Contract solution / solutions to best provide that spec.
Maybe they are looking at a common hull to replace echo, enterprise, Scott and the mine countermeasure vessels with a common frigate hull that can be fitted with mix of mission modules. After all a lot of mine warfare and survey work can now be done with autonomous/semi autonomous small vehicles. If these frigate sized modular mission based ships also have a flight deck and hanger, they can be moved from escort/patrol vessel to, disaster management, survey to mine warfare,
Here is a good piece on that subject. The RN did look at it in the 2000s with a 90m vessel doing MCMV and Survey work fitting mission modules as required.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/04/unmanned-mine-countermeasures-update/
It has been very good to read all the excitement and pride about the t32 and extra funding for the RN in these articles
Some good news for once, eh? Most of us aren’t used to so much good happening in defence after so many decades of decline. I will also say that I am a huge admirer of the Russian military and industry, so no matter how much our Governments squabble its nice to have mutual appreciation and respect with the actual Russian people
Forgive me for slow reply Levi, new job taking much of my attention. I am interested to see what design is chosen for type 32, so much speculation in the comments and in my mind but the clear excitement by the gentlemen here is infectious and makes me happy. Our government squabbles as you say, that needs much work but unfortunately will not happen anytime soon, maybe a new approach is needed, instead of formal meetings, try a chat over a beer at the pub ?. Either way, it is interesting for me to read and talk to people here, maybe we get better understanding of each others view even if our politicians cannot get their shit sorted
If only I could go to the Pub ………………………….. .
lol.
I’m thinking a Utility Frigate that you put a few basic systems like an 8 cell vls system and a 4.5 gun but rapidly expandable with more than enough electricity. Half-crewed. Make 25 of them. 4,000 ton range!
I thought about the requirements of the T32 for some time. From my understanding it needs to be a mother ship for MCM capability, have some amphibious capability and operate as a frigate when need be, so I would think some ASW capability such as a towed array and a quiet hull.
The next issue is time frame, it looks like the government want these by 2030, strangly enough although this increase of ship numbers has caught many off guard it was information I have known about for several years. Several replys from the MoD to letters I have written have always stated that the Government intends to increase surface combat ship numbers to about 25 by 2032. It seems that the replys to my inquiries are correct.
Anyway back to the T32, there are several possibilities to achive the needs of the RN quickly.
All three possibles should have a 57mm gun or 5 inch, 2x40mm guns(CIWS), 2x 30mm+LMMs, 24 Sea Ceptor, 24 Mk41 or SYLVER A-70 VLS, 4×0.5 Gattling guns and 2x ASW torpedo tubes. The multi mission bay under the flight deck should be able to launch a vessel a bit bigger than a LCVP Mk5 plus two offshore raiding craft or any combination for example two autonomous MCM craft and several UROVs etc. The flight deck should be Chinook capable but the hanger should be for two Merlins and four UAVs. The ship should have a speed of 28 knots and a range of 7,000 miles with a crew of about 100 plus 100-200 Marines or specilists. There should be a vehicle deck to support the Marines or to take containers for the ROV/UAV controllers. Radar should be either discarded ARTISAN or the Thales NS-200 and a containerised CAPTAS-4 for the towed array.
This would be a truly multi role combat ship able to operate alone, as part of a fleet, to undertake Commando raids or act as a mother ship, they would even be useful in the humanitarian role. As much as I would prefer either the Damen Crossover or the reworked T26 due to time and cost I think a RN version of Absalon would be the better idea.
with all these new ships and carriers, maybe a new mediterranium fleet?