T32 basically already doesn't exist.
Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I know.new guy wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 16:21T32 basically already doesn't exist.
And future MCM ships won't either.
That's the reason why I said that.
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 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
they will over T32 be it 10 times so.abc123 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 16:22I know.new guy wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 16:21T32 basically already doesn't exist.
And future MCM ships won't either.
That's the reason why I said that.
Also 3-4 LSV would be £300m to £500m vs 5 T32 at £2-2.5bn.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Perhaps you are misremembering this from 2021:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
A reply that's entirely consistent with that made last year i.e should the Type 32 be a Type 31 batch 2 or given the fast pace of technology, a new design or a more heavily modified T31.Chair: It would be a one-way trip. We do not want to digress on that. I have one question on the Type 32. Who first came up with the number 32?
Admiral Tony Radakin: I am trying to think whether it was me or the Second Sea Lord.
Chair: Could it have been somebody not in the MoD?
Admiral Tony Radakin: I don’t think it was. If I am honest, the Secretary of State asked individual service chiefs to pitch at the Tower of London. We had a debate about Type 31s; we said that we were building a batch 1, and what we should be doing is building a batch 2. More from a marketing point of view, we felt that did not describe the conversation that we have just had. We thought that we should be demanding that the new batch—or new class—was substantially different from the previous one because of the pace of technology. We deliberately avoided saying, “Let’s put a bid in for a batch 2 of Type 31. Let’s try and describe it as a new class of ship.”
Chair: Forgive me; I thought perhaps it might have been a typo, but clearly you have given justification.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
No. And is completely consistent with what I said.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 16:54Perhaps you are misremembering this from 2021:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
No.RichardIC wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 17:57So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
At the meeting where he was more candid he explained that T32 was just a sexier name for T31 B2.
At subsequent meetings he and others as no firm funding has come through have given more anodyne statements, no decisions have been made, still in concept phase etc.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Great, another Pointless Class, just what we need. Let’s hope sense prevailstomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 18:25No.RichardIC wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 17:57So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
At the meeting where he was more candid he explained that T32 was just a sexier name for T31 B2.
At subsequent meetings he and others as no firm funding has come through have given more anodyne statements, no decisions have been made, still in concept phase etc.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Don't give your interpretation of what he said. Don't paraphrase. Provide the actual words.tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
Because what Radakin said above is clearly that T32 could be a "completely different ship" from a Type 31.
But I still think the most likely outcome is that T32 will at some stage be dropped. Probably by the next Labour Government, who will say that no money was in the equipment plan and since November 2020 virtually no work had been done - it was just a few lines in ministerial responses with nothing tangible to back it up.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I think the reason for the T32 class is pretty simple. The RN did not want to commit to a T31 B2 there and then (i.e. hand the contract to Babcock), so give itself a little wiggle room by calling it something different (for now)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I doubt the RN had very much input. It was political window dressing.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
No Ron's quote is from a completely different meeting. T32 started out as a sexed up rebrand of T31 B2.RichardIC wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 19:02Don't give your interpretation of what he said. Don't paraphrase. Provide the actual words.tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
Because what Radakin said above is clearly that T32 could be a "completely different ship" from a Type 31.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
No T32 was bid by the RN.RichardIC wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 21:10I doubt the RN had very much input. It was political window dressing.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.Repulse wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 18:57Great, another Pointless Class, just what we need. Let’s hope sense prevailstomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 18:25No.RichardIC wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 17:57So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:58Different meeting.Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:54What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:tomuk wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 15:35It has been when he appeared before the defence select committee. To paraphrase what he said. RN were bidding for additional projects and wanted more frigates, T31 being the quickest route to get there. To make their pitch sound better RN called T31B2 T32 and sexed it up with autnomous guff.
Chair: What has happened to Type 32?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: Type 32 is still a programme that is to be funded.
Chair: Not a typo from Type 31?
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin: There will be a decision as to whether Type 32 becomes Type 31—does it become Type 31 batch 2, or is it is a completely different ship?
At the meeting where he was more candid he explained that T32 was just a sexier name for T31 B2.
At subsequent meetings he and others as no firm funding has come through have given more anodyne statements, no decisions have been made, still in concept phase etc.
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
They absolutely are if all we are doing is defaulting to a solution without defining the question and ensuring it’s a priority.
We cannot afford the crew to forward base the existing T31s, so we already have a platform looking for a role and assuming we keep it (I hope we don’t) it’s going to take up precious resources to make it into something useful that wasn’t planned and take from elsewhere.
This means the B2s aren’t going to fill the B1 gap, so yes if we are effectively making the T31 decision again let’s learn the lesson and make the right choice more T26s combined with more OPVs.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
You default to your position of more OPVs. (and top escorts we can't have or are tied up at home in you surge fleet)Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:27They absolutely are if all we are doing is defaulting to a solution without defining the question and ensuring it’s a priority.
We cannot afford the crew to forward base the existing T31s, so we already have a platform looking for a role and assuming we keep it (I hope we don’t) it’s going to take up precious resources to make it into something useful that wasn’t planned and take from elsewhere.
This means the B2s aren’t going to fill the B1 gap, so yes if we are effectively making the T31 decision again let’s learn the lesson and make the right choice more T26s combined with more OPVs.
T31 isn't looking for a role and isn't taking resources from elsewhere it is replacing the five gp T23s it is that straightforward. If the crew from those T23s have been used elsewhere in the meantime they are only returning to their proper role.
You won't get any more T26s until the mid 2030s.
- These users liked the author tomuk for the post (total 4):
- Caribbean • Tempest414 • new guy • abc123
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
The top escorts (as you put it) would be tied up they can be deployed from the UK using the same rotation / availability model used by the RN for decades. Three OPVs to replace the B1s (or actually free up the B2s) isn’t “more OPVs” it’s maintaining what we have - same with MHPCs to replace the Hunts.tomuk wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:58You default to your position of more OPVs. (and top escorts we can't have or are tied up at home in you surge fleet)Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:27They absolutely are if all we are doing is defaulting to a solution without defining the question and ensuring it’s a priority.
We cannot afford the crew to forward base the existing T31s, so we already have a platform looking for a role and assuming we keep it (I hope we don’t) it’s going to take up precious resources to make it into something useful that wasn’t planned and take from elsewhere.
This means the B2s aren’t going to fill the B1 gap, so yes if we are effectively making the T31 decision again let’s learn the lesson and make the right choice more T26s combined with more OPVs.
T31 isn't looking for a role and isn't taking resources from elsewhere it is replacing the five gp T23s it is that straightforward. If the crew from those T23s have been used elsewhere in the meantime they are only returning to their proper role.
You won't get any more T26s until the mid 2030s.
As for saying that nothing can change in a decade is a programme that has purposely been put on a slow build drumbeat - I don’t believe you. The real problem is that things won’t change for the better until people stop putting frigate numbers ahead of requirements/outcomes.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
So how do you speed up T26?Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 08:09The top escorts (as you put it) would be tied up they can be deployed from the UK using the same rotation / availability model used by the RN for decades. Three OPVs to replace the B1s (or actually free up the B2s) isn’t “more OPVs” it’s maintaining what we have - same with MHPCs to replace the Hunts.tomuk wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:58You default to your position of more OPVs. (and top escorts we can't have or are tied up at home in you surge fleet)Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:27They absolutely are if all we are doing is defaulting to a solution without defining the question and ensuring it’s a priority.
We cannot afford the crew to forward base the existing T31s, so we already have a platform looking for a role and assuming we keep it (I hope we don’t) it’s going to take up precious resources to make it into something useful that wasn’t planned and take from elsewhere.
This means the B2s aren’t going to fill the B1 gap, so yes if we are effectively making the T31 decision again let’s learn the lesson and make the right choice more T26s combined with more OPVs.
T31 isn't looking for a role and isn't taking resources from elsewhere it is replacing the five gp T23s it is that straightforward. If the crew from those T23s have been used elsewhere in the meantime they are only returning to their proper role.
You won't get any more T26s until the mid 2030s.
As for saying that nothing can change in a decade is a programme that has purposely been put on a slow build drumbeat - I don’t believe you. The real problem is that things won’t change for the better until people stop putting frigate numbers ahead of requirements/outcomes.
T31 is just replacing T23 GP just maintaining what we have.
And what requirement is more OPVs fulfilling?
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
T31 isn’t replacing the T23 like for like - what has been purchased is a platform with 12-24 CAMM and which is blind under the water. Sure, things can be added, but it’s not what was originally funded and to make it relevant money needs to be taken from other things.tomuk wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 08:16So how do you speed up T26?Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 08:09The top escorts (as you put it) would be tied up they can be deployed from the UK using the same rotation / availability model used by the RN for decades. Three OPVs to replace the B1s (or actually free up the B2s) isn’t “more OPVs” it’s maintaining what we have - same with MHPCs to replace the Hunts.tomuk wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:58You default to your position of more OPVs. (and top escorts we can't have or are tied up at home in you surge fleet)Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:27They absolutely are if all we are doing is defaulting to a solution without defining the question and ensuring it’s a priority.
We cannot afford the crew to forward base the existing T31s, so we already have a platform looking for a role and assuming we keep it (I hope we don’t) it’s going to take up precious resources to make it into something useful that wasn’t planned and take from elsewhere.
This means the B2s aren’t going to fill the B1 gap, so yes if we are effectively making the T31 decision again let’s learn the lesson and make the right choice more T26s combined with more OPVs.
T31 isn't looking for a role and isn't taking resources from elsewhere it is replacing the five gp T23s it is that straightforward. If the crew from those T23s have been used elsewhere in the meantime they are only returning to their proper role.
You won't get any more T26s until the mid 2030s.
As for saying that nothing can change in a decade is a programme that has purposely been put on a slow build drumbeat - I don’t believe you. The real problem is that things won’t change for the better until people stop putting frigate numbers ahead of requirements/outcomes.
T31 is just replacing T23 GP just maintaining what we have.
And what requirement is more OPVs fulfilling?
What’s with the more OPVs? One for one replacements for the B1s either directly or indirectly, and yes they will be doing exactly what they are doing today. Otherwise, what are you planning to gap?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
On the question on how do I speed up the T26 production line, I say to BAE that if they commit to squeezing another two out by 2035 a variant of the T26 will be used for the T83 and be willing to back it with an order.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Are the type 23 general purpose sonars operational and manned?Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 08:23T31 isn’t replacing the T23 like for like - what has been purchased is a platform with 12-24 CAMM and which is blind under the water. Sure, things can be added, but it’s not what was originally funded and to make it relevant money needs to be taken from other things.tomuk wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 08:16So how do you speed up T26?Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 08:09The top escorts (as you put it) would be tied up they can be deployed from the UK using the same rotation / availability model used by the RN for decades. Three OPVs to replace the B1s (or actually free up the B2s) isn’t “more OPVs” it’s maintaining what we have - same with MHPCs to replace the Hunts.tomuk wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:58You default to your position of more OPVs. (and top escorts we can't have or are tied up at home in you surge fleet)Repulse wrote: ↑14 Feb 2024, 07:27They absolutely are if all we are doing is defaulting to a solution without defining the question and ensuring it’s a priority.
We cannot afford the crew to forward base the existing T31s, so we already have a platform looking for a role and assuming we keep it (I hope we don’t) it’s going to take up precious resources to make it into something useful that wasn’t planned and take from elsewhere.
This means the B2s aren’t going to fill the B1 gap, so yes if we are effectively making the T31 decision again let’s learn the lesson and make the right choice more T26s combined with more OPVs.
T31 isn't looking for a role and isn't taking resources from elsewhere it is replacing the five gp T23s it is that straightforward. If the crew from those T23s have been used elsewhere in the meantime they are only returning to their proper role.
You won't get any more T26s until the mid 2030s.
As for saying that nothing can change in a decade is a programme that has purposely been put on a slow build drumbeat - I don’t believe you. The real problem is that things won’t change for the better until people stop putting frigate numbers ahead of requirements/outcomes.
T31 is just replacing T23 GP just maintaining what we have.
And what requirement is more OPVs fulfilling?
What’s with the more OPVs? One for one replacements for the B1s either directly or indirectly, and yes they will be doing exactly what they are doing today. Otherwise, what are you planning to gap?
- These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
- donald_of_tokyo • new guy
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I haven’t seen a source to suggest they are not, have you?
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Seen it strongly hinted at by some that they are not.
- These users liked the author SW1 for the post (total 2):
- Tempest414 • new guy
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5629
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
I can't get over why people think that type 31 are blind under the water they will be fitted with S2170 SSTD meaning they are defended from sub surface threats
The simple fact is there will be a T-31-B2 order because Labour can't be seen to shut down Rosyth
The simple fact is there will be a T-31-B2 order because Labour can't be seen to shut down Rosyth
Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]
Any references?
The T23s were all built to have hull mounted sonars, with an hull / engines designed to be super quiet, and all 13 can take a TAS with some work, it’s inherent in their design.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston