Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[BlueD954]

How cheap can the Type 32 be wrt Type 31 costs?

[Roders96]

How cheap can the Type 32 be wrt Type 31 costs?

If we turn it into a pleasure yacht could probably get it for 200m GBP.

Not sure we want pleasure yachts though - what kind of specification were you thinking?

[BlueD954]

How cheap can the Type 32 be wrt Type 31 costs?

If we turn it into a pleasure yacht could probably get it for 200m GBP.

Not sure we want pleasure yachts though - what kind of specification were you thinking?

Type 31 was planned to be 250 million pounds-ish. That wasn't possible initially I believe. There's high likelihood there won't be much anti-surface/ship capability in the 5? Type 31s and smaller number of Sea Ceptors than Type 23s, no ASW capability.

So for the Type 32, the cost will be based on the 31's final cost.

[Roders96]

Credible points but I think it depends entirely on whether they continue with the new shipbuilding model.

With the rise of GFE the MoD seems to be a much more intelligent customer, only time will tell if it works out. Either way, it's broken the inflation cycle.

[Ron5]

It would be best to not conflate "small" with "lower cost".

and

I would guess the main driver of export success would be the final cost

I don't think I was making that particular mistake

This bit made me think you were ..

A smaller clean sheet/ re-licensed/ purchased design focused on the export market (T31 is, after all, probably too much ship for many navies), with five entering RN service - somewhere in the 3-4000t range

[Ron5]

Like many others, I fear you are confusing the RN's definition of "General Purpose" with "All Purpose".

Two mistakes to point out:
- I never said GP; you are putting words in my mouth
BUT far more pertinently for two decades the RN has been trying to get away from too prescriptive labels, in favour of surface combatants
- you may have missed that? Which exactly was my point, perhaps too subtle for you: The Lone Survivor, as a specialist, for the foreseeable future being ASW

I am pointing out that the RN has declared Type 3X's to be General Purpose Frigates. You wish to make that mean "All Purpose". The two phrases do not mean the same thing.

Is that so hard to understand?

[bobp]

Announcement from commons library regarding Type 32 but nothing new really...

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/pr ... 2-frigate/

[Lord Jim]

As I believe has already been stated the simple solution for the T-32 would be a more capable Batch 2 T-31 with possible larger bays for RHIBs and unmanned vehicles. The building infrastructure would be in place and the design is easily adaptable for the installation of further kit. This would give Babcock the opportunity to increase its design capability with the alterations to the T-31 necessary Batch 2s and possibly put them in a position to either compete or partner up with BAe for the Dxx programme.

[Roders96]

I'm coming closer and closer to the view T32 will be an escort / amphib hybrid similar to the absalons.

Would explain where the budget (not yet announced) will come from if they're to replace Albion / Bulwark also.

[Poiuytrewq]

Any clearer?

[ArmChairCivvy]

" All-rounder" ... the term I used, but that seems to be hard to understand for some, is somewhat captured in this (though it is just an opinion):

@NavyLookout
·
3h
As we previously reported, @BWallaceMP
confirms the Type 32 concept is for general purpose frigates to follow on from the 5 Type 31 frigates which are all due in service by 2030.

He says “The navy has requested another class of combatant”.
[...]

@NavyLookout
Replying to
@BeaverWestminst
and
@BWallaceMP
Indeed. Not guaranteed, but RN has a realistic aspiration for 24 escorts by late 2030s

Expect T32 to feature greater automation and AI and greater use of bays for deploying offboard uncrewed systems.

[bobp]

Expect T32 to feature greater automation and AI and greater use of bays for deploying offboard uncrewed systems.

Yes I think you hit the nail on the head, technology has gone a long way in recent years.

[Ron5]

So what the heck is this (from the twitter above) .. ?



Got a RN ensign but a weird looking config.

[Ron5]

Expect T32 to feature greater automation

I wonder where @Navylookout thinks they may be found. Opportunities are scarce when the crew size gets as small as the T31s.

[Poiuytrewq]

I wonder where @Navylookout thinks they may be found. Opportunities are scarce when the crew size gets as small as the T31s.

Without a shadow of a doubt it will be the autoloading magazine under the Mk45

[Poiuytrewq]

DS also said the T45's are going to run on a bit longer.

Has this been announced previously?

[SD67]

It looks like the t31 funnel arrangement, a 57mm up front and no 40mm. I don't really understand it and frankly if the Navy has requested a new class when there's already 2 in parallel build I think there should have been a robust challenge

[Repulse]

https://lbndaily.co.uk/cammell-laird-re ... -warships/

[ArmChairCivvy]

I wonder where @Navylookout thinks they may be found.

Base crew + mission modules (that come with their manning, whether the controls they'll use are built in or 'containerised'?

[Jensy]

So what the heck is this (from the twitter above) .. ?



Got a RN ensign but a weird looking config.

It's the original CG model of the Arrowhead 140, from the front of the 2018 Team 31 brochure:




- 76mm Oto Merala up front,
- 2x 30mm aft
- Slightly rubbish rendering on the bridge wing extensions that had been incorporated.

That brochure has been supplanted by the latest 'export' focused version on their website. Can't find a way to link it here.. but if you type 'Arrowhead 140 PDF' into Google it should be the top result.


As an aside, with the specific label of 'combatant', I'm still convinced that Type 32 is destined to have a 'multipurpose' rather than 'general purpose' role.

All the other specialisms (AAW/ASW/GP) are at least adequately met by existing or future platforms. Would be absurd to try and duplicate them when between the Type 26 and Type 31 designs, all the above three could be met.

[tomuk]

Re Ben Wallace and the select committee.
While discussing the funding settlement and T32 he talked about maintaining shipbuilding orders/throughput and specifically 2030 when T31 build ends. Therefore T32 will be Babcock and T31 based. How different from T31 we will have to wait and see.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Re Ben Wallace and the select committee.
While discussing the funding settlement and T32 he talked about maintaining shipbuilding orders/throughput and specifically 2030 when T31 build ends. Therefore T32 will be Babcock and T31 based. How different from T31 we will have to wait and see.

Good point and will be the end result, as such.

But, what limits it is the annual funding profile, not necessarily waiting for the Rosyth to be empty. So even if the design be a new one, and NOT T31 batch2, building T32 AFTER 2030 is nothing new. Also note that even if the design might be new, it does not mean it will not be build in Rosyth.

From their saying, it was clear from the beginning that T32's build cost is NOT included in the £16.5B announced. But the concept design phase will be, I guess.

Anyway, I totally agree the most possible result looks like T31 batch2 to be built in Rosyth after the 5 T31s are delivered. But, anything can happen...

[ArmChairCivvy]

orders/throughput and specifically 2030 when T31 build ends.

He is the shipbuilding czar, after all.

[Pseudo]

Ben Wallace? I mean, come on. He's not dependable.

[Tempest414]

Starting to sound to me that type 32 is all about keeping Babcocks going until the type 4X comp comes along also sounds to me that type 26 will crawl along until then to