The Ministry of Defence has provided updates on the Type 32 frigate programme, addressing inquiries regarding the in-service date and funding for the new fleet.
James Cartlidge, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, stated, “The Type 32 project has not yet reached the level of maturity to publish specific In-Service dates. On current plans, the Type 32s are due to enter service in the 2030s.”
Further inquiries about the programme’s funding were raised and responded to.
“The Type 32 project has not yet reached the level of maturity for full budget allocation. To date, approximately £4 million of concept funding has been spent.”
The UK Government have repeatedly committed to new Type 32 frigates, be it as a new design or a second batch of already-in-build Type 31 Frigates.
According to Alex Chalk, then-Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, changes were to be made to make the vessel more affordable.
“There are currently no plans to withdraw the Type 32 Frigate Programme and it remains a key part of the future fleet for the Royal Navy. The Programme is currently in its concept phase and work continues, across a number of defence organisations, to ensure the programme is affordable. Defence Equipment and Support (DES) have been allocated overall funding to develop various concepts on multiple projects. It is therefore difficult to delineate precise costs, but we would estimate that approximately c.£4 million of this funding has been allocated to the T32 programme.”
When I spoke to Chalk in person at the steel cutting for a new Type 26 Frigate, he insisted it remained “overwhelmingly likely” the ships would be built.
Maybe I’m cynical but I have a suspicion that we have no concrete plans for the class as they’ll never be built, and instead are a trap for Labour to cut once they’re in power so the Tories can bash them over the head with it
100% trap for Labour.
That’s perhaps being overtly cynical. Realistically, its the MoD’s version of the fantasy fleets we’re all guilty of drawing up on sites like this. The navy wants another 5 frigates, but unlike the armchair admirals they can’t simply say “defence spending should increase to X% of GDP, then we could afford these ships that cost exactly XYZ amount”. They can hash out rough numbers and concepts, but there’s no point drawing up detailed plans for a project with no allocated funding or timeframe. There’s also the technological aspect to consider; the RN doesn’t know what form or function its next… Read more »
The entire MCM fleet is going and T32 along with RFA Stirling Castle is what’s likely to replace it.
So it’s not really an uplift and building 5 of them is far from fantasy fleets, they are paying to develop the concept, it is ongoing their just not signing contracts for the 2030’s because they don’t need to at the moment.
the LSV’s replace the MCMV fleet.
Love this post. A nice dash of realism.
So there’s no concrete plans because there’s no concrete budget, and there’s no concrete budget because there’s no concrete plans?
Close. There’s no concrete budget for T32 because the existing equipment plan is already over budget, the world is going tits up, the economy is on a knife edge, manpower is disastrous, and we’re due a general election.
Long-term planning is all up in the air currently, the only long-term procurement is the surefire stuff; Tempest, SSN AUKUS, Type 83.
Type 83 is surefire?
FADS is a fairly critical aspect of the navy’s future force structure; the T45s retiring with no successor is about as unimaginable as the RAF dropping the capability to shoot down planes.
The form T83 takes is still being debated, but the fact that they’ve already termed it the T83 tells us the preferred option is a large, multirole cruiser-destroyer.
If there’s an extra 5 ships will this also mean extra 5 helos for RN? Or is the helo pool already big enough? Wasn’t there talk here of an additional T31(4-6?) on a previous post? Maybe covering the same required?
Doubtful, but you never know. Due to the extended timeframe involved, T32 is going to be coming in around the same time as whatever succeeds Merlin; as with the frigate programme itself, it’s too early for anyone to be sure what that successor will look like.
It could be a bespoke new helicopter, it could be an upgraded Merlin, it could very well be multiple much lighter drones with separate detection and weapon delivery systems.
The trap for labour and indeed anyone else is that Rosyth will close in 2030 without the T32 and no one wants that.
Labour very aware of this as well. T32 means continuous ship building program in two UK yards for escorts.
A good point. Here’s hoping the unions keep them honest
The so-called Labour trap could be far greater than anyone can imagine. We have a major conflict in Europe and the current membrane that retains it within Ukraine is in danger of rupturing. Sluggish supplies from the US and a turn of good luck for Russia and we could rapidly enter an extremely dangerous period. Whichever government is in power the call could be to boost UK military spending and fast. In regards to the new ships for the RN, they are simply too far away from commissioning to be of any short-term use. Things are not looking good for… Read more »
I would be concerned if A) Russia was not a third world military powers run by Donkeys B) Poland, The Baltic and Nordic countries were not all tooling up C) Russia had a boarder with the UK. Biggest threat to NATO is MAGA. If the US pulls out of NATO then we all just move up to 3% of GDP On defence and job done. That kind of uplift in government spending is very easy to justify in the face of a major shift like a war or the US leaving NATO. It’s very hard to justify in the face… Read more »
Jim, Russia is a first-world nuclear power and to believe Putin is not a threat would be to underestimate his ability to further destabilise Europe. Russia will fight to the bitter end and as long as the current government is in control no one can sleep easy. There is growing unease surrounding what may happen next, third-world power or otherwise. The US will not leave NATO as it has too much invested in Europe and the Dollar is king.
I agree, this leaving NATO talk is to rattle European members who are riding American coattails. It’s often been said, why should a hard working American Mr X, be paying extra tax to defend Europe, when some European NATO countries spend sod all and splurge the cash instead on social spending? Meanwhile, Mr X has to pay for health insurance for his family! It’s a perfectly reasonable question and one that would certainly rile me if I was American. NATO does require reform, so that a minimum of 2.5 GDP is spent on defence, not advisory, but compulsory. This amount… Read more »
If the EU nations alone spent 2.5% on defence their combined budgets would make the second most powerful military on the planet and one very close in budget to the US’s.
With Russia and China no longer a concern to them I fail to see why they would continue to take orders from the US.
Like your comments here on a muscled up Europe. I’m picturing a paired pair wrestling 🤼♂️ match between the four nuclear blocs. And the other nations with this capability, who they choose to align or non-align with. Back to my morning ☕.
This. And as I often point out the thing is the US doesn’t want a Europe that pays it’s way. It wants a European MIC and Military that plays second fiddle to its American counter parts and lacks strategic autonomy. If the US really wanted to maximize European Defence it would push for a united EU military which would free up enough funding to create a military second only to the US and China.
The “We are paying to defend Europe” thing is really internal popularism, trying to drum up votes unfortunately.
Agreed…..Orwells 1984 geopolitics.
that’s a good analogy Mate.👌
insightful commentary Dern.
I’d add that America also appreciates the weapons sales to Europe.
Laughably out of date perspective. The US today absolutely do want a Europe that pays its way, they couyldn’t care less about garissoning the continent. Hence the hesitancy on financing Ukraine. There’s a reason operation Reforger has not been practiced for a couple of decades. The US want Europe to own the Putin problem while they (and Japan and Australia) own China. If “the big one” drops then the USN will be 110% occupied in the Pacific, we have to learn to look after ourselves. And the reason there’s no united European military is because in the centre of Europe… Read more »
Most Americans haven’t a clue about foreign spending but even if they did, the US multinational companies would close down the government if Europe was left exposed by leaving NATO. US interests in Europe are huge and the Dollar is King and nothing gets in the way of making money. The fact that some alliance members take advantage of the US contribution means nothing in the bigger picture. Plus the fact, leaving NATO would sink the World’s money markets in days.
I hear this money is king argument applied by all sorts of people, typically those who want to assure all is well because the money people wouldn’t like change. I’ve heard it about the business leadership in China to assure me that there will be no invasion of Taiwan, and about the Russian oligarchs to assure there would be no war in Ukraine. When it comes to business as usual, money talks, but war isn’t business as usual. A phased withdrawal from NATO, rather than a big declaration wouldn’t sink the markets. It would be phrased as a reemphasis on… Read more »
I agree with your rational assessment of a phased US withdrawal from NATO. However, Russia would need to pull out of Ukraine completely and sign a declaration with the UN that it no longer had designs on its national boundaries. Any announcement of US withdrawal before such a development had been achieved would be strategically worrisome and financially destabilising. Having lived in the States and worked for them for many years, I can assure you the Dollar is king. To think otherwise would be misguided and witnessing their fiscal control at first hand clarifies DIK perfectly.
For sure Russia is a first rate nuclear power but no matter what we spend on defence it won’t change the nuclear calculation. But it’s a third world industrial and military power.
In the event of a dire emergency and urgency to increase fleet mass, the only in option open to us in the short term is to accelerate the builds that are ongoing, order further batches of T31/T26 and in addition to this keep T23 in service with continuous life extension refit cycles and re-engining. Possibly add the 57mm and twin 40mm guns, too. If defence money was released in an emergency, say an increase to 4%, if things were looking dire, that would be our only choice. Their availability would I am sure decline, but it’s exactly what we did… Read more »
In the late 30s, the UK also bolstered its fleet by lease lend destroyers from the US, a pattern that may be required in an emergency. Due to poor procurement strategy, the RN faces the current dilemma. Build rates for T26 should improve once the new facility for under-roof construction is commissioned. However, regarding the Ukraine crisis, we are talking ostensively short-term, the retention of as many T23s is a wise policy.
The US has as big if not a bigger surface fleet problem than we do so we won’t be getting any ships from them in any kind of lend lease unless you want some LCS.
Jim, the state of the US Navy in 1940 was far from perfect but they still handed over some of their war reserve destroyers. The main reason for their generosity was to ensure the Atlantic was still safe to navigate and at that time, it was down in large part to the RN. Even so, they still charged us a lease-lend rate.
Or the 9 Tico’s the US has in Reserve
They are completely knackered, worn out, they have been flogged to death.The absolute proof of that is Congress has been pretty well nixing the USN taking ships out of commission. But not these Tico’s (too old and too far gone).
So just like the Clemson’s that where given to us in the Destroyers for Bases deal.
And maybe double crewing of some T-45’s, to increase availability.
Yes, retaining the best of the T23 is the only way to increase fleet numbers quickly. Remove everything not needed for duties as Atlantic convoy ASW escort. Put the money in more Merlins.
I agree but who in Westminster has the what ever to get it done.
I agree that retaining aging Type 23 frigates in service would be one obvious means of enlarging our frigate numbers in the short term. The problem here is that certain items of vital equipment currently fitted to Type 23 frigates are panned to be transferred to building Type 26 frigates before they can be completed. Not necessarily a insurmountable problem perhaps, but a issue nevertheless. Also we are critically short of trained RN/RFA personal to crew any additional ships of course. Another rapid means of increasing escort numbers in a emergency might be acquire existing ships from another nation –… Read more »
It would become too expensive to keep upgrading the Type 23 just to keep it in service, far better and cheaper to just build lots more type 31’s and adapt them to different roles such as AAW and ASW
Agreed if time and money was available, but it takes around 4 years per frigate to build from scratch. Whereas refitting a T23 could be done in 6 months in an emergency situation. However, lets be frank, if it kicks off at any time, within the next 5 years…we are screwed!
Agree with you. With the T23s windingdown and transition to T26 maybe a few extra T31s to bolster the numbers. Kind of needed right now though. Might as well max the Lifex’s of all the remaining T23s. Not sure if it’s worth donating 1-2 Ukraine for later on or selling others to anyone.
Labour are trying to give the impression that they are the party of defence. Many of the corbynistas however will quite happily tell you on the doorstep that the UK will only be having a coastal defence force. Kier will be dumped five minutes after becoming PM (should that happen) and replaced by someone who reflects the dominant hard left of the Labour party. Or at least that is the plan ….
Agreed I think if Labour get the the Green light , Kier won’t last long .Has for coastal defence force will keep new chancellor happy 😏 💰
Yeah like Brown supported the military 🙄 try and defend Abbott McDonnel Corbyns ideas of the military,ask any of them about would they press the button in retaliation,god luck on getting a straight forward answer.
Don’t expect one ,all of above wast of time 😞
Wrong again!
You’re so full of ****, you just made every bit of that statement up.
Which bit Jim? We live in strange times, I’ll guarantee Labour will have the shortest honeymoon period in Britain electoral history, their approval rating will be through the floor within one year and they will have to fight like mad for a second term…. Starmer is weak, his team is dull and uninspiring to say the least. The hard left that is still present will start rocking the boat too, just as soon as they get the keys to No’s 10 and 11. Strikes will carry on ( quite possibly worse), as the new government won’t be able to pay… Read more »
Kier not lasting long for a start.
Labour wanting to scale the navy to a costal defence force for number two.
That’s everything you said and it’s all ****
Evening Jim, a little touchy arn’t we?
I guess we will see, all sh×t you say, I admire your optimism that Labour will be any different, I think you will be horribly disappointed..
I know ‘sense’ is a dirty word in some places but I’m not sure you need to ***** it out on this forum.😂 Clearly you haven’t had the joy of a by-election with two different people on the doorstep giving the same answer virtually word for word – uncanny. To be fair I might have been exagerating with the 5 minutes. Kier might get a pause whilst the media find the key to the filing cabinet containing all the dirt on Labour MPs and Kier changes the wallpaper in the no 10 flat. I suspect everyone will understand the meaning… Read more »
I think mark is spot on
I think mark is full of **** 😀
I think you hope Mark is full of **** but are worried he might just be spot on 😂
👍
That is the hope of many a Labour activist. Britain would actually have been safer if Corbyn had retained the Labour leadership.
Possibly true Brian – there is always someon worse out there. Personally I don’t think Corbyn was a bad man – just unfortuneately dangerously incompetent.
It’s hard to think of any PM in the last 20 years or so who wasn’t “dangerously incompetent”. The Tories have trashed their reputation for being either the party of financial responsabilty, defence or law & order. Will labour be any better? I’m not holding my breath.
We need a bigger fleet so I hope T32 will be built to boost the fleet size & will be a rounded escort first of all.
Oh I’d say we have had a bit of a mixed bag since WW2 with a handful of decent ones. Excellent leaders are out there however they are unlikely to put themselves forward and be destroyed by unwanted media attention on things which bear no relation to a person’s ability to do the job.
Agree we need more kit plus we need to have a greater ability to deal with the new threats like drones etc. Hope the T32 will address some of these problems. I also think we need them quite quickly.
👎
What Corbynistas? You are aware that he isn’t even a member of the Labour Party? There is no chance of Momentum or anyone else on the far left of the party hijacking its identity or policies, and even less chance of Starmer being replaced by them. Sheer made up fictional fantasy!
He is (I believe) still a member of parliament as are the vast majority of the Corbyn’s 2019 Labour MP intake (he was leader at the last general election). Both parties have their factions and the left wing faction is currently massive in Labour. Why is there no chance of a little hijacking going on? Blair had a great deal of difficulty keeping the lid on the left wing during his time – engineering the deputy slot for Prescott won the day. I would suggest that Kier is no Blair and thus will have difficulty keeping sensible policies that the… Read more »
Let’s just what is in the Manifestos and where each side plants its colours. TBH I’m actually struggling to think how any future Govt can be worse than this lot we have had.
The Manifesto on both sides will be interesting. On the subject of previous Governments I am not sure how any leadership in the past would have managed to cope with a financial crisis, Covid & the war in Europe better than the “lot we have had” as you put it. You can only play the hand you are dealt – when all said and done.
Not true, a lot of the corbynistas have left Labour party to join the Greens, which still have extreme policies!
There is only one green MP last time I checked. The Greens generally just advocate abstinence as a policy. Don’t drive anywhere, don’t, don’t, don’t …. which has never and will never have any traction with the British public. Corbyns young followers will I’m sure simply grow up and take more realistic and less idealistic positions on life the same as previous generations have.
I don’t agree its a trap, there is solid justification to grow the size of the fleet. If it was a trap the government would be proposing, or making commitments to a fleet growth to more than 24 surface combatants and propose a range of other RN and RFA assets, including even more F35 for the carriers. Lets remember that Labour left the Tories a situation where they had BAe telling them they needed to order multiple platforms, including ocean replacement, to honour commitments made and keep them in work.
Perhaps the Tories will, later this year, introduce an increase in funding based upon increased productivity improvements which they might push over the next few years. That would tie all parties into the plan and get it by the OBR – or if they bottle out look incompetent.
“The UK Government have repeatedly committed to new Type 32 frigates, be it as a new design or a second batch of already-in-build Type 31 Frigates.”
This really, really needs to be just a second batch of Type 31s. Anything else is just an expensive waste of money and we don’t need three types of frigates.
Get a second batch of at least 5 ordered to increase frigate/destroyer numbers to 24 ships, get them a decent armament (24x Sea Ceptor minimum, plus 8 NSM missiles and 5″ gun, plus defensive armaments).
Not to pick over details but if you want simplistic then don’t go changing the main gun loadout.
Also T31 doesn’t have the space for the multi mission set the Royal Navy has in mind, something will have to be modified
Agreed, Babcocks concept of a stretched T31 looks like a good idea. Keep everything the same but insert a flex deck under the flight deck or remove the forward 40mm gun replace with 16 Mk41 cells, insert a T26 multi mission bay midships and give her two CIWS systems.
The main gun needs to change. 57mm was a poor choice from the start. Shove it on the T26 (or preferably the T45), or if your desperate, River B2, if you really have to. T31/32 is the logical ship to get a 127mm (5”) gun (below deck auto ammo handler optional). I also think the days of River B2 style underarmed long rage OPV is at an end. The Red Sea fiasco has shown why. The new norm needs to be closer to an underarmed corvette. Eg 40+mm, 12+ CAMM, room for an organic armed helicopter (not necessarily carried) &… Read more »
When is an OPV ever going to be deployed offensively or defensively, its a patrol vessel, its not worth the cost to arm it for something it’ll never do.
And the main gun isn’t a bad choice, the whole point of the T31 is it’ll be dealing with drones and small water craft which its gun loadout is suited for and cam be dome cheaply, the 5 inch is not an AA gun
Sounds like it has no purpose at all, except burning diesel and sucking up sailors that could be used on useful assets.
The UK could establish a proper coast guard and move non-combatants into that org.
The OPVs do a great job and take up very few sailors. You’d barely crew 1 frigate by decommissioning all of them.
We had a proper coastguard it got amalgamated into customs and became borderforce
Agreed about the OPV things, absolute waste of time and money. For the size of them they easily SHOULD be armed with at least a 57mm gun,SSMs and a CWS.
The designers of warships (and navy) now seem to be obsessed with disaster relief capability,leave that to the OPVs and leave warships to being what they’re supposed to be for.
Not sure what you are saying.
Uparm the OPVs and stop them doing work that can be left to the OPVs?
OPVs even with more armament would never get assigned to any kind of conflict involving anti ship missiles etc.
Ideally, theoretically, yes. But war is messy & soon bursts the bubble of peacetime supposisions.
Anyone remember the HK patrol ships? Far smaller than River B2, but carried a 76mm canon…..
And then they’d cost 3x as much to build, have half the sea days and soak up a lot more in time and maintenance meaning the actual frigate fleet would have to take over in defence engagement roles….
It’s not a matter of being deliberately deployed, it’s the stark reality that even with the best/most naive intentions, in war OPVs will get caught out, outmatched, out gunned, vulnerable.
No enemy is going to pass up the opportunity of targeting any RN vessel in todays world & tech means nowhere is safe.
Yes but we have far bigger issues than upgunning the OPVs for a theoretical war.
The Red Sea shows that you don’t need to be deployed for war, war can come to you. There have previously been OPV’s from various navies operating in the Red Sea / Somalia coast area on anti-piracy patrols. Some, like from Chile, have an organic helicopter capacity & either 40mm or 76mm gun & have operated in that area. Where else in the world might Yemen type weapons turn up. Nearby Somalia? West coast of Africa? Southern Philippines? North coast of South America? If the SCS goes off, the entire Indian & Pacific Oceans will be no go areas for… Read more »
Its getting 32 VLS cells, so with SeaCeptor quadpacking, you could get way more than 24. Missile armament shouldn’t be a problem.
The current T31 is getting 32 cells from what we understand, doesn’t nessecarily mean the same for a potential T32.
Either way picking armament is a long way off for this potential program.
Sorry, I meant in the case of the T32s being a batch 2 group of T31s. In that case, I doubt they would reduce the cells.
Edit: typo
There are A140 designs (of which T31 is one), on Babcocks website where the mk41 area is repurposed & missiles are shifted to “B”. On IH, that is a stanflex module, so 12 ESSM module is an option. Using ExLS, 24 CAMM should be doable, perhaps more. If it’s more like Absalon class, they tend to run 36 ESSM in stanflex modules (no mk41).
I wonder if for the T31 B2/T32 there’s the option of 2*8 MK41s forward replacing one 40mm and still have the 24 CAMM on the roof and the rear 40mm and even the 2 Phalanx’s like with Babcock’s MRP concept? As also said by others they should seize the moment and maximise any benefits of the T32/T31 production costs being locked in and get a decent quantity ordered. I read on Naval News/Today that Norway is looking at getting 5 ASW Frigates so hope the T26 gets a look in or T31 or a variant of. Might be able to… Read more »
👍 sounds good
Sorry Ron, you wrote pretty much the same thing above earlier. I wasn’t plagiarising… honest! 😁
That’s fair enough, then. I thought they were going with 12 at one point, or was that wrong/changed and I missed it?
Unless as Babcock alluded to they can get crew numbers down to 50. Then a new design is totally worth it.
50 is very low for a crew. That’s too few for effective damage control in case of an accident or hit from enemy fire.
To be honest, I also don’t think the savings in crew numbers would offset the costs of designing and building a new class of ships. Keep it as Type 31 and then it saves on design costs as it’s already been done. Keeps the per-unit cost down.
If they’re doing the same basic job, which is as a GP frigate, then it makes sense to make them the same class of ship.
I agree. 50 crew seems ok until the ship takes hits & casualties, or even simple illness/food poisoning. Then crew are occupied treating casualties, involved in damage control, leaving operating the rest of the ship barely functioning. Plus there needs always to be sufficient crew to at least skeleton man any enemy ship captured etc.
I’d agree but go further. Next batch of type 31s should continue with mk41 vls, have a 5 inch gun for NGS, 2 Phalanx and or 40mm Bofors as well as a large sea Ceptor capability. Which could be a Ceptor mushroom farm or increased mk41 vls silos with quad packed ceptors.
Also need anti torpedo/ anti mine hard kill solution. I’d get the Italian system fitted on their Fremm frigates.
To be honest I’d be wary of adding too many additional systems to them, or else it might drive up the price too much and risk cutting numbers or even cutting a Batch 2 altogether.
As these are GP frigates I’d expect them to be working either alongside Type 23/26 and Type 45s in protecting a carrier, or be working alone/with similar vessels in a low/medium risk environment.
If for instance t32 turns out to be a 2nd batch of t31, would that have the requirements to have dragonfire on it?
It could be eight years before the first T32 goes operational and over twenty years before Dragonfire is of any greater use than a 40mm gun. Plenty of time for capability insertion planning.
If the Government wants to earn some brownie points order a second batch of T31 NOW, otherwise I think we can write the whole idea off.
Yep agree, need water tight contract that means if cancelled the supplier would get all costs plus some to ensure they get built.
👍For a government in serious trouble in seems a no brainer to me
We are in violent agreement Geoff, however, follow on order for 4 T26 B3 as well.
Even better. Also, if our French freiends can get an AA destroyer out of a FREMM surely we could do the same with the hull of a T26. A lot of commonality has to bring savings, I would have thought.
Mmm have you really had a good look at the French AAW FREMM, it’s not good, it really isn’t. If there is one thing the Houthis are teaching folks, it’s to not bodge AAW.
Funny thing is we got it right with the T45and SAMPSON, France and Italy are developing their own AESA to replace EMPAR.
If the overall Defence budget isn’t increased along with it, you’d just be forcing MOD to look to further cuts elsewhere, possibly in MRSS.
So are we saying that they have spaffed 4million because no one will admit that Boris Johnson got overexcited and misspoke..🤣😂🤣
Im betting that the moment Labour get in…someone will leak the fact that the the whole T32 programme suddenly came about the day after Boris announced it on the 20th of Nov..
Not so sure Boris for all his faults and bad ideas was very much of build stuff in the UK, his commercial trade ship was another idea, he wanted a new airport in the Thames and a bridge to Ireland. Not all great ideas but all were to promote UK. But T32 is dead its a Tory idea for global Britain, Labour are going to redirect funds to Land Forces and European defence. We don’t need more ships for that, we already have the wrong Naval force structure for regional defence. If they apply any logic (not emotion) to their… Read more »
Labours European focus concerns me in that we have commitments beyond Europe.and require a strong navy for that, they give me the idea they’re going to get the axe out.
But I think thats the voters focus at the moment with Ukraine, I noticed Labour changed it tune slightly when Red Sea problems started to impact European shipping. But thats politics, you play to the crowd irrespective of the logic.
The key problem with any capabilty cut is how difficult it is to reinstate it, if you axe a base in the far east or elsewhere then try in 5 years to re-establish it, well you won’t.
Lucky we have nothing in the far east to cut then, all our far east bases, Bahrain, Brunei, Oman, Diego Garcia and Singapore are paid for by other countries.
That’s funny a quick Google and in 2020 government announced 23m for invest in port of Duqm Oman. My 2nd Google I found labour asked a question of the defence minister in 2015.
The only 2 bases where portion of costs are covered to so degree is Nepal and Brunei
So from information available I beg to differ.
You bet they did, Healey reigned in his rhetoric big time when it was realised actually anything east of Suez may actually matter.
Just because they say Europe does not mean the Army. Zero chance the army is getting more bodies.
I do fear we become more of a European Army if Labour party become next government. 😞🇪🇺
Labours not redirecting money anywhere. Everything about European defence they are spouting can mean frigates and aircraft as much as the army. Naval construction provides jobs in key labour marginal seats in Scotland. Increasing the size of the army does nothing for labour. The TUC is all about keeping Barrow open and building more SSN’s. The TUC is also very heavily focused on Warton, so GCAP is safe. Land vehicle production is all but gone in the UK, current programs are committed already but once they are done the plants will close as there is zero export potential for Ajax,… Read more »
I did say anything would ve closed the one thing that’s certain is Labour will happily support blue collar jobs that’s given.
I’d love to take your word for it but I’ll wait for their first review on the makeup of the armed forces. Or is all this decided an they will put it in the manifesto
After all they can’t bang on about change and change nothing but nothing wod surprises me with the the political class in the UK.
Still won’t be voting for them or the tories.
To be honest I agree I think the Type32 is probably dead. But I do think Labour will instead order at least another tranche of the T31…probably announced a plan to with a definite order after the first T31 completes its first in class trials…to be honest it would not surprise me if there was not also an order of another tranche of T26… a few reasons as doing this would have many advantages 1) Labour is very committed to developing industrial capacity..and this would be a very useful stimulus. 2) Labour needs to knock the crap out of the… Read more »
But now if we take that argument beyond the relm of defence by then end of the first term, labour want to be spending 28b on green energy. That’s huge and steel fabrication will be key. It provides the stimulus and work for yards. And for Scotland the knock implications for generating power and selling back to England is massive. Labour will want to own that. Then we look at the human factor we don’t have enough skill people to work on Labour’s big energy plan rejigging ship building would be a very good way to secure some of that… Read more »
Im not sure I would guarantee a second term, there are things that could knock it off course…there are some really nasty risks out there at preset, which could lead to some nasty economic shocks…But I agree it’s likely that we will see a two term Labour government..not sure on three. I think energy is going to be really big to be honest…fossil fuel supplies are going to be more and more at risk due to instability..and the fossil fuel market rife with inflation, supply insecurity and competition. if Labour can get the UK energy market right and make the… Read more »
On energy it should be nuclear first its the most reliable and as the most power dense the easiest to.protect. irrespective of what the political clas say nuclear is the most secure from a economic abd military perspective. Then tidal as the second most predictable. But we need to let hydrogen and other technologies have a crack. There’s also some real.good things going on with fuel.burnings engines. Which shouldn’t be discounted especially as military need a power dense portable fuel. Basic physics are stacked against all other fuel sources. If Labour make changes to the electoral system, even shocks will… Read more »
Slightly off topic, if I was Kier Starmer, I’d be very worried about the news that Shell could quit the UK than the next frigate buy. With others like BP and Glencore following. That would be a massive hit for the UK. We’re not getting inward investments, so to see companies with funds generated from their global business leave is not good news.
I don’t see Defence spending playing any part in Scottish Politics, sorry but it’s a dead duck. The proof of that is when you look at the SNP key Nationalist Heartland it’s the areas where the ship building is. The area with the highest % of votes for independence was Glasgow, and for every person who works in the Yards there are 100 that don’t and are blind to the consequences. Funny enough pushing Defence as an issue will play incredibly well in the old Labour Heartlands in the Red wall that Bo Jo knocked down. If Labour put it… Read more »
Labour will use Europe as an excuse to freeze anything to do with global activity. Royal Navy look out.
I actually just had a quick squint at the 2020 review where these were announce. If you read it as non political article (forget the Tories wrote it) its fairly good and apart from a few points I would expect Labours to be pretty similar. I suspect I’ll get shot down by the various party supporters for that comment, thats expected though as they can’t bare to think there’s some common ground😀.
The problem is with it, is its not been delivered.
I suspect the only big difference will be a bit more focus on industrial capacity from Labour….I expect the industrial military complex will be far more integrated..which is something the conservatives have been woeful at to be honest..and no nation wins in the long run without a good industrial military strategy and well built complex ( no matter how much people whinge about gravy trains..major wars are won on industrial output).
It took a long time to turn that round.
Spreadsheet Phil wasn’t any help.
It was actually Gavin Tarantula Williamson who started the ball rolling……but BW actually had the force to prioritise things as necessary.
Yes it’s been getting better, shipbuilding is starting to look ok, 2 competitive escort builders with modern yards…HW development of modern a large military vessel yard in Belfast as well as investment in appledore for building modules of the larger ships…expansion of Barrow with decent capacity for submarines..expansion of the RR nuclear plant production…..it’s actually looking good on the military ship building capability…which I suspect we will need in the next 10 years….as a major conflict will shift up production requirements in the late 2020s and 2030s.
Defence is very far down on labours list, no one wants to rock the boat on the next labour government least of all on defence. The budget already cut to the NATO minimum so no money savings for them.
“The Type 32 project has not yet reached the level of maturity for full budget allocation” and “ Defence Equipment and Support (DES) have been allocated overall funding to develop various concepts on multiple projects.”
So in plain English, we have not decided on the role of T32, where it fits in the defence strategy or whether we need it?
We need more hulls, but yes they need to have some role we can use.
Johnson’s announcement of T32 was typical of him; he relied a lot on instinct. His instincts were often right and they were right about the need to increase the ‘19’ to ‘24’ frigates / destroyers. The debate now is what do we want T32 to do. I see the DT today carries an article arguing that given the situation with Putin and the structure and age of the USN fleet that North Atlantic convoy escorts might be a priority.
From earlier articles on this site
The revised National Shipbuilding Strategy, released in March 2022, suggested that the Type 32 frigates were likely to be “the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems“. Earlier comments by the then Minister for Defense Procurement, Jeremy Quin, also suggested that the new Type 32 frigate will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the Royal Navy’s capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.
Understood. But priorities can change. If you can find a cheaper, creative way of achieving that objective but which enables you to strengthen your response to a strategic weakness then you would adjust your approach. I guess we will see what emerges from the concept work. What comes out of the work we are doing with the Dutch on MRSS could also be interesting. Not saying we will but supposing we decide to replace the LPDs and the Bays with half a dozen 120ft Enforcers and to arm them with 40mm guns and Sea Ceptor. As the saying goes, necessity… Read more »
Damn, the navy is in a bad place if the next class of landing ships are only 120 feet long 🙃
Straw man. The rationale would be a ‘squadron’ of 2 or 3 = an Albion but you are not putting all your eggs in one target and the ships are more useful for LRG work; rather than sitting around waiting for another Falklands. Similar to the Black Swan idea that was floated a while back.
Oh, I thought that was a typo and you meant 120 metres, my mistake.
40 metres is just ridiculous, on that tonnage you’ll need 20 to match an Albion for payload and you still don’t have the stability for amphibious ops.
If you’d meant 120m I’d agree with you and say we should get 10 of them.
No, I did mean 120m, 9k tons. 90 crew and up to 250 RM is the smallest in the Damen range. They do larger models up to 180m….Albion sized 155 crew: and mid sized …direct equivalent to a Bay.
Yes, I would agree with that as long as the MOD make sure that all of them get built. One massive amphibious platform, without the number of escorts the USN have, is hugely vulnerable. A couple of smaller, more heavily armed ships are much more flexible and less likely to get destroyed.
Indeed it was my understanding that the increase in escort fleet size was due to the crews from the decommissioned mine warfare vessels being used..with the assumption that the mine warfare capability would be carted around in frigate mission bays….i imagine that any batch 2 T31 ( T32) would simply be a batch of T31 hulls with optimised mission bays, hanger and flight deck for autonomous systems….
Isn’t T32 to be used for off board systems essentally unmanned vessels. Otherwise it would just be T31. From earlier articles on this site The revised National Shipbuilding Strategy, released in March 2022, suggested that the Type 32 frigates were likely to be “the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems“. Earlier comments by the then Minister for Defense Procurement, Jeremy Quin, also suggested that the new Type 32 frigate will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the Royal Navy’s capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine… Read more »
def need it just for hull numbers and taskings
Agreed. At least 5, preferably more.
Yes, remember they are still evaluating RFA Stirling castle this will inform the T32 role as will the completion of the first T31.
Good point. If the Sterling Castle idea works out, we might have a 80% fix for mine clearance for 20% of the cost. Both T26 and T31 have mission bays. I’m sure you could rig up a way to launch a Sea Fox drone from a batch 2 River. More straightforward design options open up if T32 does not need a well deck or a stern slipway.
The Iver Huitfeldt has had some serious issues with weapons systems in the Red Sea, Hopefully Babcock, Thales and other suppliers are all oven this and apply any lessons learnt. Hopefully due to the different systems and weapons their nothing but can’t hurt to do the analysis.
Not relevant as a comparison as we use completely different weapon system, sensors and CMS. If anyone should be worried it would be the Germans and Dutch who use similar systems.
The base hull design, MTU engines, MK41 and Navigation radars and I think that’s about it really.
I thought T31 uses Tacticos CMS, which is where some of the problems were highlighted. Is it using BAe’s CMS?
No, no & no.
The Danish use Terma’s C-Flex CMS on their frigates, which almost no-one uses on high end warships. Alternative options from the likes of Thales & SAAB are in widespread use on warships. Thales & SAAB are used to dealing with high end radars & missiles, their own & others. Terma, not so much.
Now we know why the Danish ships were so incredibly cheap to build 😀
DJ beat me to it. The Terma C-Flex is a Danish system and was previously used on their Absalon Ships.
So it’s not the most recent system around.
Iver Huitfeldt’s CMS is integrated and tested by Danish navy personnel, not under the responsibility of Thales. That is the simple reason those ships were “built” cheap.
It is very different from T31, on which Thales UK is responsible for.
Well I would hope so as it’s nothing whatsoever to do with Thales, it’s a Danish Terma built CMS.
There were many reasons they were built cheaply, but mainly by using an adapted version of the Absalon class they saved big on design costs. And they reused a lot of kit from other ships.
No point in discussing the T32 until the RN has finished to concept phase and produced the basic design/spec.
Or we have a new government and they have concluded their defence review.
Let’s be honest about it this is a decision that can actually be delayed a couple of years. And is probably a wise call, you’ll forgive me if some of this is repetitive. So far Babcock have delivered zero ships, neither they nor Rosyth have ever built any ships from scratch. So until we see the first one do her trials, get accepted and commissioned I wouldn’t order any follow ups. Even if some more T31 were ordered we wouldn’t see any in service till the 2030’s and who knows what we will actually need or want. Until someone sensible… Read more »
I must have missed a development so sorry if this is an annoying question – but what has changed as regards T31 to upgrade it (presumably you’re referring to a weapons loadout)? Last I heard the T31 was considered undergunned
There has been talk of plans for fitting Mk41 vls to the T31’s. However, that change would delay the completion of the ships so would increase costs. Babcock were quick out of the blocks saying that couldn’t happen (contract), so the Mk41 will have to be fitted to the ships as part of the normal refit / maintenance cycle. SB, has talked about fitting additional missile launchers to in service ships in the past (NSM for T23 and I believe VLS for Sea Ceptor on T45, if I remember rightly). Most of the work can be carried out during maintenance… Read more »
Cheers!
The MOD announced about a year ago that they would have 4x mk41 VLS units, each of which would carry 8 FC/ASW of either or mixed type (cruise/high speed ASM), 32 CAMM/CAMM-ER (25+km or 45+km) with EXLS quad pack or 16 CAMM-MR (90+km) with twin pack. Maybe also a potential VL Stingray rocket if BAE get that moving any time soon. That’s a pretty capable anti-surface fitout, matching most other navies. However, it isn’t clear yet whether the first ships already in build will get the mk41 straight away or still have the 12 CAMM tiny fitout that they had… Read more »
I agree, there is absolutely no point committing to another class, or at least order, of ships from Babcock until HMS Venturer completes trials and we (or at least the MOD) know the yard and design are worth sticking to. Until then it will be waffle, but that doesn’t matter as the new ships would (excepting a major new design) be stuck on the end of the current T31 run and a drumbeat made up. Long term I think Babcock will make the River replacements, perhaps one or two of the MRSS but not break into the “Top Tier” warships… Read more »
I seem to remember both Babcock and Rosyth building two ships from scratch a few years ago. I think they called the Queen Elizabeth class or something like that 😀
Then your memory doesn’t extend to the blocks being taken from the the shipyards they were actually built in to Rosyth where they were put together. Not really from scratch.
“Until someone sensible is running the country”, We live in hope but that could be a long wait.
The smart money is on never.
The current government does not have time to commit to T32 before it is out of office.
Thats not what they will say when the next government cancels it 😀. SNP will cry betrayal and the Tories cuts, cuts n cuts (that’s cuts I said 😜)
2039?
“The Type 32 project has not yet reached the level of maturity for full budget allocation. To date, approximately £4 million of concept funding has been spent.” I’ve never worked in the MOD so plead ignorance and put this to the wider community… How is it possible to spend £4m on something that doesn’t seem to be off the first stage of drawing board yet? That just seems an astronomical figure for something that is still in a lot of peoples eyes, a pipedream. Surely for that price you would have had detailed plans and an imminent tender process at… Read more »
A single “good” engineer needs £200-300k per year to work (about a half or less is his/her salary). (May be even more). £4M means 13-20 man-years has been spent. It has been three and a half year, since T32 program starts. In other words, if 4-5 staffs (on average) have been working on this concept study for 3.5 years, it amounts to £4M. [DELETE] This is surely private venture of BAES and Babcock : For example, for the Strike frigate concept of BAES, surely many man-hours are needed. Similarly, for the MP version of T13 concept by Babcock, the same… Read more »
What planet are you on ?
A time served shipyard worker is starting at £35K + 33% shift pay so £47K for a plater, welder, fitter or Sparkie etc etc. If qualified on the Nuclear side then it’s a lot more.
If they are only paying £10-15K in Japan you need to move to Glasgow.
Corrected. “A single “good” engineer needs £200-300k per year to work”.
Living in JPYen world, I made a simple mistake on my calculator.
“£47K for a plater, welder, fitter or Sparkie etc etc.” is just for worker. Engineer for design is much much expensive.
And of course, to pay £100k to worker, you need to pay £200-300 for the company. (they need to train those worker, they need all the infrastrcuture and workers who are maintaining everything, and also they need may paper works to do).
Its not just engineers there will government reviews with civil service, contracts people etc.
Isn’t that budget split accross the suppliers, so BAe, BMT, Babcock RR Thales etc 4m isn’t much tbh.
Agree. £4M is not much.
Thanks for this. That sort of engineer salary is beyond anything I would of expected but I don’t work in that sector. With that in mind i can see how the money soon disappears.
I take the train into school each day.
For a few weeks there was an ad to work at AWE with a QR code. A few of them had a look at the salary and suddenly all of my friends wanted to join me in engineering for some reason
If i could see a ‘like’ button that a comment i would have hit it for!
I don’t see the T32 being built, for the basic reason that there is no spare money in the naval budget with which to do so. The current budget stretches to building one escort a year. On the current plan, building the projected 19 escorts means 19 years of construction and a couple of years between classes. The oldest ships will be about 25 before they get replaced, which is far older than the RN’s ideal 18 years. Once the last of the Batch 2 T26 frigates is commissioned in 2034 or so, work will need to switch to building… Read more »
A good rule of thumb in the oil & gas industry is about 1% of the total project cost being spent on the concept development phase. Would have thought military shipbuilding might be similar. Benchmarks from around the world over many decades have shown that if you go cheap on this, it’s very likely the project/programme will fail (ie. cost overruns, schedule delays or not meet its functional specification). That’s a technocratic answer – there is of course the added ‘benefit’ that we’ve chosen not to spend more on defence for now so can’t afford to build the T32 any… Read more »
I’m not particularly against them not having a clear idea of what the T32 would be at this stage of the game; the threat of anti-ship ballistic missiles is proliferating, and our shift in strategy towards the east needs to be revised at least slightly to deal with the fact the Putin isn’t about to give up on his idea of a wider Russian Empire- even if he doesn’t succeed in Ukraine. Like others here, T31B2 seems to make sense, although the changes for me may be towards wider area air defence than just Sea Cepter. I think the potential… Read more »
I’d be very surprised if CAMM-ER doesn’t get put on T31 et cetera, (not sure what you meant but yes, that is a thing that exists with CAMM-MR on the way). That gives 45+km range comparable with ESSM in a quad-pack, with the MBDA plus meaning “It’s quite a bit more, but we don’t want to tell you that”. CAMM-MR is supposed to have a range of 100+km but can only be twin packed in mk41. T31 with mk41 pretty much covers all of your requirements, except perhaps the UU- and USVs, which need a mission bay so you have… Read more »
Fair point- wasn’t especially clear what I meant when I said “CAMM-ER”. I was thinking of a missile that had at least the range of Aster 15, if not more- allowing a wider engagement envelope for all escorts- not just the air defence destroyers. It would also benefit the Army’s Land Sabre system. I’m not sure if the existing CAMM-ER (I absolutely should have remembered that we’ve been developing that with Italy, apologies) fits that bill- although what you reference as CAMM-MR certainly should do it. No worries about twin-packing either, if it can reach out that far. To be… Read more »
Aster 15 only does out to 30km, so CAMM-ER works well.
I agree and don’t understand quite why our missiles have so much of a shorter range.
Part of it will be that SM6 etc. take up the entirety of strike length mk41 (Tomahawk size) which is a whole 2m extra missile and twice the weight of A30.
On the whole I think it’s good that we have avoided the SM system because of the exorbitant cost. However, it would be nice if there were an “Aster 45” option that had real wide-area capability.
That’s a fair point, Standard missiles are really big. I agree that we made the right choice in choosing Aster and later CAMM, we just need to improve their range now. “Aster 45” is a great idea, particularly for the land-based SAMP/T system. By their nature, ships can easily keep pace with whatever they are protecting, or remain in place as required. Land systems may have to protect multiple fixed and moving locations (command centre, ammo dump, airfield, logistics routes with moving convoys, frontline positions, attacking units, for example) from a position that keeps them safe without being able to… Read more »
Expensive set of crayons. Who’s running the project, PARA?
(With apologies to Airborne).
I do think the next Gov has a real problems on its hands. The last defence review ( both good and bad bits ) was based upon a view of both the world and the UKs role which was very much follow on from a cold war peace dividend but still trying to maintain a UK presence on the world stage. As such a powerfull indervidual presence at the cost of capability to actually fight on the lager scale. The world and us have had a shock with recent events, some of which have attracted the publics attention – mainly… Read more »
I’m a bit perplexed with the new clampdown on fraud surely that should have been the go to before raising any other taxes!! Seems to be a shake of the piggy bank otherwise it would have been the goto on day 1 I recently went to the HMRC site to see how my tax was spent, here’s the breakdown. I’d say debt should be number one priority cut that and you get bucket loads for defence. I know where I would cut to pay for debt reduction, not defence. Health (19.8%) Welfare (19.6%) National Debt Interest (12%) State Pensions (10.3%) Education (9.9%) Business and Industry (7.6%)… Read more »
Was pondering the other day on what the Navy would do if there was a sudden and serious escalation somewhere which led to a general mobilisation. Clearly we would need to go with what we have since there wouldn’t be much that accelerated building of 26/31 could achieve in a meaningful timeframe – let alone the T32. Obvious answer would be to get what have manned & moving and then perhaps up-gun the OPVs (in the broadest sense – could actually mean just launching UAVs or whatever). Beyond that it’s difficult to imagine what else could be done in a… Read more »
Pods Could mean an auxillary ship like a small or mid sized container ship could be loaded up and used as an ad-hoc 2nd line escort for Atlantic convoy duty or protection of our EEZ.
A general mobilisation I’m afraid won’t deliver much more firepower. You fight wars with the personnel, equipment and munitions you have to hand. That is why our current armed forces size and weakened state is so massively dangerous.
Lets be real here, the T32 is a pipe dream which came about because Boris did not read his brief correctly. We need to build 5 more T31’s so we have 18 frigates and 6 xT45’s by the early 2030’s. That at least brings us back to 2010 hull numbers. We can consider further options after the next election. If you want ships to act as mother vessels for UWV’s, Stirling Castle or a similar is the way to go. 20th of the price and available from the commerical word easily with crew numbers of 15-24. It is a no… Read more »
The one naval threat the UK faces is the still substantial Russian submarine fleet. The T31s will have no ASW capability leaving us with just 8 T26 and 7 Astutes. Some of these will be needed for carrier escort, leaving even fewer platforms for wider ASW operations. Any additional surface ships really must have full ASW capability. Buying more general purpose frigates without that capacity makes no sense. I’m not convinced RN leadership knows what it is doing.
That’s why a further batch of type 26 would be sensible. If the current batch is sped up, the new frigate factory being built could squeeze in 4-6 more type 26 out of the programme before construction switches to the type 83 destroyer programme. Cost of type 26 has reduced from +£1.26 billion each to around £800-850 million each. So £3.2 billion would buy 4 more ships, which we all agree are desperately needed. I’d still advocate for a second batch of type 31s but configure for NGS and surface strike. Let’s hope the next government aren’t going to be… Read more »
Two extra T-45 with upgraded tech, would be a much better buy, than 4 or more T-26!
Absolutely frigates must have ASW capability , has for leadership maybe it’s more to do with politics and money rather than what the RN want .👍
You are forgetting the growing fleet of P8’s being operated in and around UK waters.
you mean all 9?
No,the countries which have chosen it around the UK as well as our 9.
aah – I see you point , my apologies.
So much for the national ship building plan. So much for the Tory government’s claim the RN is going to grow and return to at least 24 frontline frigates and destroyers. It’s all just more of the same. We’ve had this for the last 14 years. Nothing but lies, rowing back on promises and not achieving any improvements. Our country is now much much much worse off, ill prepared and militarily weaker. Time for a new government and fingers crossed for at least two terms of labour and hope after they’ve sorted out the huge mess that the Tories have… Read more »
Mr Bell, whilst I admire your enthusiasm, I cannot see Labour doing any better, (unless they significantly increase defence spend). Sadly, they face too many other priorities – health and the illegal migrant crises (or debacle if you will). Dumping the current mess on the Tories is also a little naïve. Based on prior Labour government behaviour, I have no doubt they would have imposed similar cuts, had they been in power. I do however understand your valid point that the last 10 yeasr happened under a Tory government. In summary , both are exceedingly poor option for the British… Read more »
It might be fun for UKDJ or ANOther to arrange an opinion poll for the roles we’d like the navy to perform and then have someone who knows what they are talking about design us a fleet from there. My tuppence FWIW: 1. Keep the nukes safe, 2. Secure energy, food supplies & get the army over to Europe, 3. Keep a single fully tooled-up carrier group at sea and deploy it into a high-threat environment, 4. Land and support a marine brigade indefinitely anywhere in the world, 5. Deter/support in overseas territories, 6. Antarctic support, 7. Invites for Mrs… Read more »
Never happen will it? Everything that came out of Johnsons mouth was a lie. Look at his Covid antics. Hopefully Labour will do their “historical” thing and appease Scottish yards with concrete orders, after an honest review. That to me is forgetting Pacrim and concentrating on the Atlantic, Arctic and our realistic sphere of influence.
It seems ridiculous to be spending any money at all on a future low end option when the type 31 project has barely got started. I hope this is just based on analysis of R&D staff time cards and not on real investment. We need to get our high end options sorted first and foremost. If there is spare money accelerate the Type 26. Once that is done accelerate the type 31. Or buy some good quality military accommodation with it – 4 million should buy at least 8 good quality houses.
I don’t think it will it’ll be one of the first cuts labour will inflict on the RN.
I think your observation is likely to be accurate Andy.
If a UK Government wants new money to fund T32, then why not copy Trump & raise tariffs on Chinese imports? Just level the playing field. UK goods often pay 30-40% tariff when they go into China, yet when Chinese goods come into Britain, they only pay 3-4% tariff.
And it should be done all across the board, not just china. They’d immediately do the same thing to us
They will be built. Perhaps the most straightforward solution would be to just go from building the Type 31’s, straight onto the construction of a Batch 2 design.
The. Design must be if a fast build and delivery type. Th navy cannot a d should not be continuing waiting for 4 years to get a vessel not a lot bigger than a OPV which is what I think will be what we will get
Babcock are really ramping up staffing numbers at Rosyth. But with no export orders to construct (baring one small P50 Fast Inshore Attack Craft for Ukraine which has been on hold since the Russian invasion over two years ago) or in strong prospect, their work load will fall off a cliff in 2028 as the last T31s are completed. If a Labour government doesn’t order the T32’s by 2027 then they will be losing a lot of Scottish votes come the 2028/29 general election.
Labour is not in a position to make defence decisions yet, until the G.E. and most likely after SDR in 2025.
HMG have put planning and action on hold and they regurgitate the same soundbites if asked. That is not repeated commitment. The response to the Defence Select Committee about a year ago was that they weren’t moving T32 out of Concept until a particular integration stage had been reached on Type 31. There was no good explanation as to why one was relevant to the other. Back then, I thought the first T31 was to be launched by the end of last year and integration work tested during fit out around now. I thought the delay was unnecessary then and… Read more »
The navy needs those ships NOW not whenever the incompetent,lazy, badly led and subject to the rabid whims of militant unions. Who should finally be told to get their act together or see orders reduced.
On the subject of Trump and allies I strongly recommend reading “The Room Where It Happened” by John Bolton on his time as National Security Advisor during part of Trumps presidency.
Despite what’s been stated about Type 32 , think we’ll be lucky to receive any at all. Labour may have other plans ,And for our Aircraft carriers ? Will we still have two 🤔 🇬🇧 I know the conservatives have made a mess of our forces but I do fear what a Labour government will do 😕 🙏
Ditto from me 🙏
198 posts…..ukdj should open a book on it!
Like the cartoon ship shilouette above. Silly question, but is it meant to be indicative? Looks like a compressed T26-T31-River B2 hybrid!