It won’t be fantastic if it’s in place of 2 T26s though IMO, as has just been mentioned on the T26 thread the PM has stated we are committed to 6 T26s, hopefully this was just a mistake and not the plan.Roders96 wrote:They're definitely likely to go for the lowest risk option, and this may mean the T32 is quite close to the Iver Huidtfelt in Danish service.
This would be a fantastic thing, ofcourse.
Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Depends if you think more AAW is needed rather than increased ASW.Roders96 wrote:This would be a fantastic thing, ofcourse.
If the T32 turns out to be an Iver Huitfeildt with 16x Mk41's, a Mk45 and 8 or 16 NSM 's then great especially if hybrid propulsion is added but work really needs to ramp up on off board ASW systems asap or the UK would be much better off with 2 or 3 additional T26's rather than 5 T32's.
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
(Thales) 12th November 2020
Thales is working on the Type 31 programme as part of Babcock’s Team 31, providing the Royal Navy with the most advanced mission systems to protect UK maritime interests on a global stage.
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I read earlier in the year the Danes are looking at fitting towed array sonar to the IH's? We know they're FFBNW and this means asw work on T3x is definitely a possibility.Poiuytrewq wrote:Depends if you think more AAW is needed rather than increased ASW.Roders96 wrote:This would be a fantastic thing, ofcourse.
If the T32 turns out to be an Iver Huitfeildt with 16x Mk41's, a Mk45 and 8 or 16 NSM 's then great especially if hybrid propulsion is added but work really needs to ramp up on off board ASW systems asap or the UK would be much better off with 2 or 3 additional T26's rather than 5 T32's.
Realistically, 2-3 extra T26 would cost 2-3bn. Delivering more highly specialised ships in low numbers, and, unless BAE change their habits, at inflated prices.
5 T31/2 will definitely come in atleast half the cost per unit, and will probably come with towed array, it is important, afterall. They would arrive in numbers that I'm certain the admiralty want, as they were undeniably in the driving seat behind all this and are, believe it or not, the subject matter experts.
They are definitely general purpose, and this would definitely be a good thing. Especially for a fleet so specialised already.
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
The graphic in the Daily Torygraph showed Type 26 - 8, Type 31 - 5, type 32 - numbers to be determined. I'm guessing type 32 is a Batch 2 type 31 upgunned with mk 41, it's difficult to imagine what else it could be. Three FSS ship is good news as well, betting on Mersyside, as it fits in with the levelling up agenda. And HMS Scott replacement at Appledore?
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
France sent a Frigate, and is selling a dozen second hand Rafales, presumably at knock prices. It's not nothing, and has not gone unnoticed. French relations with the Erdogan regime have been tense for years. But the Greeks will no doubt "buy" from whoever charges them as close to zero as possibleRon5 wrote:France showing support and actually providing it are two different things as so many Arab nations found out.abc123 wrote:Considering that only France did show support against Turkey recently, IMHO it would be stupid for Greeks to buy anything than French frigates...
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
The price quoted for the Rafales was certainly not "knock down". As for sending a frigate, it backed down from the Turkish warships.SD67 wrote:France sent a Frigate, and is selling a dozen second hand Rafales, presumably at knock prices. It's not nothing, and has not gone unnoticed. French relations with the Erdogan regime have been tense for years. But the Greeks will no doubt "buy" from whoever charges them as close to zero as possibleRon5 wrote:France showing support and actually providing it are two different things as so many Arab nations found out.abc123 wrote:Considering that only France did show support against Turkey recently, IMHO it would be stupid for Greeks to buy anything than French frigates...
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I think t32 could be up gunned t31 ,but just for shits and giggles and thinking outside the box ,with Germany building 160mtr frigates and Italy building 170 MTR frigates and everybody else starting to go bigger ,I'm wondering would they build an almost cruiser size class to support the carriers like the usn tico class or the Chinese type 055 class, a class of 3 ships for the rn but just call them frigates , doubt it myself but maybe if mod gets influence from seeing everyone else going larger ships even if only a class of 3 lol
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Wouldn't it really be better to use te money for T32 to uparm the T26 and T31? To add say NSMs, ASROCs, towed sonars (T31) etc.
Plus, where will the RN find crews for additional 5 frigates?
Plus, where will the RN find crews for additional 5 frigates?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
This is the sort of area I see the T4X hitting.inch wrote:I think t32 could be up gunned t31 ,but just for shits and giggles and thinking outside the box ,with Germany building 160mtr frigates and Italy building 170 MTR frigates and everybody else starting to go bigger ,I'm wondering would they build an almost cruiser size class to support the carriers like the usn tico class or the Chinese type 055 class, a class of 3 ships for the rn but just call them frigates , doubt it myself but maybe if mod gets influence from seeing everyone else going larger ships even if only a class of 3 lol
A 10,000t 165-170 stretched T26 with next gen Sampsons and going all Mk41.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
From what I have heard today, the intention is to bring the total number of UK escorts up to 24. I believe the RN pitched for 26, but will no doubt be quite happy with 24.
It also appears that the 5 extra ships will be GP frigates, not ASW frigates and not AAW destroyers (either of which would cost a lot more).
So why not just call them Type 31 batch 2? That is the interesting question.
A second batch of Type 31 would have to be ordered from Babcock without much chance of competition. So it would appear that by using the name Type 32, the RN is indicating it is keen for there to be a competition for the new frigates.
Given the success of the procurement process used for the Type 31, I would expect the RN to follow a similar process. This would specify a set budget per ship and a baseline capability level, except for the Type 32 both the budget and baseline would be higher than what was set for the T31.
It will then be down to the bidders to decide what ship design and system fit they wish to bid against the requirements. Given that BAE will have likely been contracted for 8 T26s (plus 9 Aus and 15 Can versions), I would have thought that they may well be in a position to bid a more affordable GP T26 based ship. Babcock would be expected to bid based on an uprated T31. There may even be further bidders.
Interesting developments...
It also appears that the 5 extra ships will be GP frigates, not ASW frigates and not AAW destroyers (either of which would cost a lot more).
So why not just call them Type 31 batch 2? That is the interesting question.
A second batch of Type 31 would have to be ordered from Babcock without much chance of competition. So it would appear that by using the name Type 32, the RN is indicating it is keen for there to be a competition for the new frigates.
Given the success of the procurement process used for the Type 31, I would expect the RN to follow a similar process. This would specify a set budget per ship and a baseline capability level, except for the Type 32 both the budget and baseline would be higher than what was set for the T31.
It will then be down to the bidders to decide what ship design and system fit they wish to bid against the requirements. Given that BAE will have likely been contracted for 8 T26s (plus 9 Aus and 15 Can versions), I would have thought that they may well be in a position to bid a more affordable GP T26 based ship. Babcock would be expected to bid based on an uprated T31. There may even be further bidders.
Interesting developments...
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
We are very fortunate to be in this situation - with T32 delivering a very realistic threat to BAEs dominance of high end escorts, I wonder how much lower defence inflation (in the naval sector) will be over the next few years.Aethulwulf wrote:From what I have heard today, the intention is to bring the total number of UK escorts up to 24. I believe the RN pitched for 26, but will no doubt be quite happy with 24.
It also appears that the 5 extra ships will be GP frigates, not ASW frigates and not AAW destroyers (either of which would cost a lot more).
So why not just call them Type 31 batch 2? That is the interesting question.
A second batch of Type 31 would have to be ordered from Babcock without much chance of competition. So it would appear that by using the name Type 32, the RN is indicating it is keen for there to be a competition for the new frigates.
Given the success of the procurement process used for the Type 31, I would expect the RN to follow a similar process. This would specify a set budget per ship and a baseline capability level, except for the Type 32 both the budget and baseline would be higher than what was set for the T31.
It will then be down to the bidders to decide what ship design and system fit they wish to bid against the requirements. Given that BAE will have likely been contracted for 8 T26s (plus 9 Aus and 15 Can versions), I would have thought that they may well be in a position to bid a more affordable GP T26 based ship. Babcock would be expected to bid based on an uprated T31. There may even be further bidders.
Interesting developments...
Add onto that the efficiencies derived from the multi-year settlement, and we're in a very good situation. A very good one indeed.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
It's all very confusing, even if we're sure that T32 is actually something for the RN (and that it doesn't come at the expense of other hulls, and leads to a genuine uplift in escort numbers - which is not clear yet) the timeline seems off. They're not going to be able to start manufacturing them within 4 years (the scope of the budget settlement) and it wouldn't be wise to build 3 classes concurrently (even if we had capacity to do so)....so it's most likely they wouldn't be in build until late 2020's when the T31 programme is wrapped up...indicating that contracts won't even be signed for another 3-4 years, which means payment for the programme will be (mostly, if not fully) outside of the 4 year settlement period....
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Alternatively:The Armchair Soldier wrote:I've added Type 32 to the topic title. Freel free to discuss any news regarding it here.
2s ASW
3s all-rounders (like Canada's T26s)
4s... end of the line for 'specialists' - other than ASW, as per above
- hasn't T4x come into the discussion from other than Gvmnt sources?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I think all that we will see of the T32 in the next four years will be requirements, proposals etc. and some design work, but if it moves some of the construction phase money for T26 and T31 into the next four years (so that orders can be confirmed etc), then hopefully that will free up some money in the period after that for the start of construction of T32.dmereifield wrote:They're not going to be able to start manufacturing them within 4 years (the scope of the budget settlement) and it wouldn't be wise to build 3 classes concurrently
Hopefully, some of the money will be used to wind back some of the cheesparing needed to get the current T31 through "on budget", with some of the "optional extras" being taken up (24 CAMM confirmed, ASMs, HMS and possibly an upgrade to the main radar to NS200 as examples - no structural changes, just fitting more of what it is already designed to carry).
As for the nature of T32 - I'm hedging my bets until we see the requirements.
To my mind, the most likely scenarios are:
- An upgraded Arrowhead design, with improved ASW/AAW capability (five additional, with replacement batches on a 10-15 year cycle)
A smaller clean sheet/ re-licensed/ purchased design focussed 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
A similar sized clean sheet design, to replace the existing 5 T31 (which would hopefully continue in production as an export design) and add a further five.
However the second option is also quite likely, if the industrial strategy is to drive exports and Xav's source is correct.
As an industrial strategy, it would seem reasonably coherent. We would retain the capability, with T26 and T4X and BAE, of designing complex top-end escorts from the ground up, alongside a secondary capability of upgrading/ developing existing designs on a regular basis with T31 and Babcocks, as well as the capability to build small batches of "non-combat" military vessels on a one-off/ licensed basis with Appledore and other commercially-focussed yards
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
A far out idea but maybe there has been outside interest in the Leander design from other countries but only if the RN has it plus it could be felt Babcock's would be the place to build FSS following the first few T-31's say starting in 2025
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Well - not too far-fetched. A ship designed to be built to four different lengths from modular components, with correspondingly configurable capabilities and for roles from patrol ship to frigate would seem like a decent candidate for the export market I would guess the main driver of export success would be the final cost - T31 has laid down a fairly tough target to beatTempest414 wrote:A far out idea but maybe there has been outside interest in the Leander design from other countries but only if the RN has it plus it could be felt Babcock's would be the place to build FSS following the first few T-31's say starting in 2025
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I'm not sure your idea is that far out.Tempest414 wrote:A far out idea but maybe there has been outside interest in the Leander design from other countries but only if the RN has it plus it could be felt Babcock's would be the place to build FSS following the first few T-31's say starting in 2025
If RN want another 5 more capable escorts why not just upgrade the 5x T31's? All of the upgrades that any T31 Batch2 would receive are already optional extras of the Arrowhead design and that includes a hull mounted sonar and a VDS. They can be in the water within five years if HMG so desires.
One benefit of upgrading the first five T31's would be to finally resolve the RB2 mess. They could be kept within the UK EEZ, a tasking for which they are ideally suited.
This would allow an additional five modest patrol vessels to be built with a T31 spec,wildcat hanger, 57mm, 2x 30mm/LMM, 12 CAMM, (8x NSM FFBNW) and Artisan. With an LOA of 105m, a UPC of around £200m to £250m would seem plausible. BAE can build the Frigate factory and use the extra Leaders to speed up the T26 builds and keep the drumbeat going to T4X.
This T31 spec may be seen as OTT for deployments to the Falklands and Caribbean but in that case simply keep the CAMM tubes and the hanger empty thus reducing crew numbers and cost.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1749
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Just a heads up. I know yesterday's announcement will lend itself to speculation but can we keep it out of this topic please. Feel free to speculate in this topic instead: viewtopic.php?f=41&t=701 Let's stick to confirmed details/news in this topic.
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Interesting thoughts but are really assuming a great deal too much. Until requirements for the new class have been established, and that won't happen for a few years yet, this is all extremely speculative. Even the GP designation.Aethulwulf wrote:From what I have heard today, the intention is to bring the total number of UK escorts up to 24. I believe the RN pitched for 26, but will no doubt be quite happy with 24.
It also appears that the 5 extra ships will be GP frigates, not ASW frigates and not AAW destroyers (either of which would cost a lot more).
So why not just call them Type 31 batch 2? That is the interesting question.
A second batch of Type 31 would have to be ordered from Babcock without much chance of competition. So it would appear that by using the name Type 32, the RN is indicating it is keen for there to be a competition for the new frigates.
Given the success of the procurement process used for the Type 31, I would expect the RN to follow a similar process. This would specify a set budget per ship and a baseline capability level, except for the Type 32 both the budget and baseline would be higher than what was set for the T31.
It will then be down to the bidders to decide what ship design and system fit they wish to bid against the requirements. Given that BAE will have likely been contracted for 8 T26s (plus 9 Aus and 15 Can versions), I would have thought that they may well be in a position to bid a more affordable GP T26 based ship. Babcock would be expected to bid based on an uprated T31. There may even be further bidders.
Interesting developments...
By the way, a "more affordable" type 26? Srsly?
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Not so confusing if you imagine Boris asking for something to spice up an otherwise dull announcement.dmereifield wrote:It's all very confusing, even if we're sure that T32 is actually something for the RN (and that it doesn't come at the expense of other hulls, and leads to a genuine uplift in escort numbers - which is not clear yet) the timeline seems off. They're not going to be able to start manufacturing them within 4 years (the scope of the budget settlement) and it wouldn't be wise to build 3 classes concurrently (even if we had capacity to do so)....so it's most likely they wouldn't be in build until late 2020's when the T31 programme is wrapped up...indicating that contracts won't even be signed for another 3-4 years, which means payment for the programme will be (mostly, if not fully) outside of the 4 year settlement period....
"we're going to give the Navy enough money to do what they already are planning on doing" doesn't quite have the same ring
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Like many others, I fear you are confusing the RN's definition of "General Purpose" with "All Purpose".ArmChairCivvy wrote:Alternatively:The Armchair Soldier wrote:I've added Type 32 to the topic title. Freel free to discuss any news regarding it here.
2s ASW
3s all-rounders (like Canada's T26s)
4s... end of the line for 'specialists' - other than ASW, as per above
- hasn't T4x come into the discussion from other than Gvmnt sources?
Perhaps 8s would be better for that.
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
It would be best to not conflate "small" with "lower cost". The RN has just managed to get over that hump, let's not encourage them to regress.Caribbean wrote:I think all that we will see of the T32 in the next four years will be requirements, proposals etc. and some design work, but if it moves some of the construction phase money for T26 and T31 into the next four years (so that orders can be confirmed etc), then hopefully that will free up some money in the period after that for the start of construction of T32.dmereifield wrote:They're not going to be able to start manufacturing them within 4 years (the scope of the budget settlement) and it wouldn't be wise to build 3 classes concurrently
Hopefully, some of the money will be used to wind back some of the cheesparing needed to get the current T31 through "on budget", with some of the "optional extras" being taken up (24 CAMM confirmed, ASMs, HMS and possibly an upgrade to the main radar to NS200 as examples - no structural changes, just fitting more of what it is already designed to carry).
As for the nature of T32 - I'm hedging my bets until we see the requirements.
To my mind, the most likely scenarios are:
Personally I think the first is the most logical - enhance an existing design, allocate a larger build budget and get more capability in later batches, with perhaps a small class of "heavy" OPV/ patrol ships to replace the River B1s as they go out of service (potentially an RB3, but also could include a number of license-built Vard (or other) designs - would make a good project for Appledore).
- An upgraded Arrowhead design, with improved ASW/AAW capability (five additional, with replacement batches on a 10-15 year cycle)
A smaller clean sheet/ re-licensed/ purchased design focussed 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
A similar sized clean sheet design, to replace the existing 5 T31 (which would hopefully continue in production as an export design) and add a further five.
However the second option is also quite likely, if the industrial strategy is to drive exports and Xav's source is correct.
As an industrial strategy, it would seem reasonably coherent. We would retain the capability, with T26 and T4X and BAE, of designing complex top-end escorts from the ground up, alongside a secondary capability of upgrading/ developing existing designs on a regular basis with T31 and Babcocks, as well as the capability to build small batches of "non-combat" military vessels on a one-off/ licensed basis with Appledore and other commercially-focussed yards
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
andRon5 wrote:It would be best to not conflate "small" with "lower cost".
I don't think I was making that particular mistakeCaribbean wrote:I would guess the main driver of export success would be the final cost
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 31 & Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Two mistakes to point out:Ron5 wrote:Like many others, I fear you are confusing the RN's definition of "General Purpose" with "All Purpose".
- 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
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)