Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

[new guy]

IMHO, the best option for the RN would be to buy 5-6 MCM motherships like that Dutch/Belgian/French project, and just name it Type 32 frigates... With maybe better range and speed than tipical MCM ship.
After all, the Hunts are really long in the teeths...

That's what the LSV programme is.

Yes, but does the RN has resources for both?
As we can see with current fleet, there simply isn't enough sailors or the money...

T32 basically already doesn't exist.

[abc123]

IMHO, the best option for the RN would be to buy 5-6 MCM motherships like that Dutch/Belgian/French project, and just name it Type 32 frigates... With maybe better range and speed than tipical MCM ship.
After all, the Hunts are really long in the teeths...

That's what the LSV programme is.

Yes, but does the RN has resources for both?
As we can see with current fleet, there simply isn't enough sailors or the money...

T32 basically already doesn't exist.

I know.
And future MCM ships won't either.
That's the reason why I said that.

[new guy]

IMHO, the best option for the RN would be to buy 5-6 MCM motherships like that Dutch/Belgian/French project, and just name it Type 32 frigates... With maybe better range and speed than tipical MCM ship.
After all, the Hunts are really long in the teeths...

That's what the LSV programme is.

Yes, but does the RN has resources for both?
As we can see with current fleet, there simply isn't enough sailors or the money...

T32 basically already doesn't exist.

I know.
And future MCM ships won't either.
That's the reason why I said that.

they will over T32 be it 10 times so.
Also 3-4 LSV would be £300m to £500m vs 5 T32 at £2-2.5bn.

[Ron5]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

Perhaps you are misremembering this from 2021:

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.

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.

[tomuk]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

Perhaps you are misremembering this from 2021:

No. And is completely consistent with what I said.

[RichardIC]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.

[tomuk]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.

No.
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.

[Repulse]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.

No.
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.

Great, another Pointless Class, just what we need. Let’s hope sense prevails

[RichardIC]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

Don't give your interpretation of what he said. Don't paraphrase. Provide the actual words.

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.

[Caribbean]

T32 basically already doesn't exist.

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)

[RichardIC]

T32 basically already doesn't exist.

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)

I doubt the RN had very much input. It was political window dressing.

[tomuk]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

Don't give your interpretation of what he said. Don't paraphrase. Provide the actual words.

Because what Radakin said above is clearly that T32 could be a "completely different ship" from a Type 31.

No Ron's quote is from a completely different meeting. T32 started out as a sexed up rebrand of T31 B2.

[tomuk]

T32 basically already doesn't exist.

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)

I doubt the RN had very much input. It was political window dressing.

No T32 was bid by the RN.

[tomuk]

No its nothing to do with Boris. It has always been T31 B2.

Radakin has said it is T31 B2.

Source?

I mean it makes sense but it's not been stated.

It 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.

What Radakin said last July to the defence committee. In its entirety:

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?

Different meeting.

So what he said was Type 32 could be a completely different ship from Type 31.

No.
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.

Great, another Pointless Class, just what we need. Let’s hope sense prevails

The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.

[Repulse]

The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.

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.

[tomuk]

The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.

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.

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)

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.

[Repulse]

The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

[tomuk]

The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

So how do you speed up T26?
T31 is just replacing T23 GP just maintaining what we have.
And what requirement is more OPVs fulfilling?

[Repulse]

The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

So how do you speed up T26?
T31 is just replacing T23 GP just maintaining what we have.
And what requirement is more OPVs fulfilling?

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.

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?

[Repulse]

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.

[SW1]

The T31 are not pointless they will provide a lot more utility going forward than another batch of OPVs.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

So how do you speed up T26?
T31 is just replacing T23 GP just maintaining what we have.
And what requirement is more OPVs fulfilling?

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.

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?

Are the type 23 general purpose sonars operational and manned?

[Repulse]

Are the type 23 general purpose sonars operational and manned?

I haven’t seen a source to suggest they are not, have you?

[SW1]

Are the type 23 general purpose sonars operational and manned?

I haven’t seen a source to suggest they are not, have you?

Seen it strongly hinted at by some that they are not.

[Tempest414]

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

[Repulse]

Are the type 23 general purpose sonars operational and manned?

I haven’t seen a source to suggest they are not, have you?

Seen it strongly hinted at by some that they are not.

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.