Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

[Tempest414]

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?

What the RN have purchased is a large NATO frigate hull that has good speed , range to this they have added a sensor & gun fit for the GP role as for CAMM and NSM numbers we will have to wait and see

Also as for role that is clear it is global patrol and keeping SLC open the same role the Type 26 GP's were to carry out and the same job the T-23-GP's were doing until they become worn out and were gapped by the RB2's

[Tempest414]

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.

one thing only the ASW's got the new S2051 HMS so unless the RN are running 3 training streams for 3 different HMS system it has been said a number of times that T-45 don't always carry a sonar operator for its HMS

[new guy]

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.

So no tail and I remember no upgraded sonar, it's the old one, probably without operators?

[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.

one thing only the ASW's got the new S2051 HMS so unless the RN are running 3 training streams for 3 different HMS system it has been said a number of times that T-45 don't always carry a sonar operator for its HMS

And the T23s are only getting the new Sonars now as part of the LIFEX. Given the GP T23s are all out of service in the next couple of years then of course they aren’t getting new sonars.

Whether a sonar operator is assigned to a T45 or not is an operational decision, whether a ship has one in first place is not.

[Repulse]

What the RN have purchased is a large NATO frigate hull that has good speed , range to this they have added a sensor & gun fit for the GP role as for CAMM and NSM numbers we will have to wait and see

Also as for role that is clear it is global patrol and keeping SLC open the same role the Type 26 GP's were to carry out and the same job the T-23-GP's were doing until they become worn out and were gapped by the RB2's

Your first paragraph is not defining a requirement, just a summary of what has been purchased.

If they are replacing the RB2s they aren’t replacing them in a “keeping the SLOCs open” role, as they aren’t doing it. Apart from Kipion, what is this role? You can add the Red Sea scenario but that requires a T45 not a light frigate.

[Tempest414]

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.

one thing only the ASW's got the new S2051 HMS so unless the RN are running 3 training streams for 3 different HMS system it has been said a number of times that T-45 don't always carry a sonar operator for its HMS

And the T23s are only getting the new Sonars now as part of the LIFEX. Given the GP T23s are all out of service in the next couple of years then of course they aren’t getting new sonars.

Whether a sonar operator is assigned to a T45 or not is an operational decision, whether a ship has one in first place is not.

I agree but equally to say Type 31 is blind under the water when S2170 has been ordered for it. I know they can't hunt subs however it is far from blind in the same way type 45 can't hunt subs but it defend its self from threats

[donald_of_tokyo]

...You can add the Red Sea scenario but that requires a T45 not a light frigate.

Why? Aster 15 was used by French navy. Why not CAMM?

[new guy]

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.

I notice you carefully deleted the actual Radakin quote which was:

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.

That does not in any way support to your claim that he said:

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.

To paraphrase correctly what he said was that in a discussion with his fellow Admirals (including the Second Sea Lord) ahead of the Tower of London meeting, they decided not to request just a T31 Batch 2 because that might preclude the need for the new ships to be substantially different than the T31s due to the fast pace of technology. So they decided on Type 32 which would enable new design but still leave the door open for a T31 batch 2.

He restated that view in July 2023.

QED

[Ron5]

Apologies if this has already been shown but it is news about the Type 32:

Next-gen warships will need half the crew of current vessels
Defence contractor Babcock hopes to build frigates manned by just 50 sailors
Matt Oliver, Industry Editor 12 February 2024 • 3:00pm
Related Topics

The next generation of British frigates will be crewed by as few as 50 sailors amid a recruitment crisis at the Royal Navy, according to defence contractor Babcock.

John Howie, the company’s corporate affairs chief, said technological advances were expected to bring crewing requirements even further down following significant reductions on the most recent vessels.

He said while the Type 31 frigates currently being built for the Navy require a core crew of about 105 sailors, the company believes the next generation – often referred to as Type 32 – should only require half that number.

It comes as the armed forces battle recruitment shortages, with the Navy reportedly considering plans to mothball the amphibious assault ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark owing to a lack of personnel.

In the year to the end of March 2023, the Navy fell 27pc short of its annual recruitment target.

Mr Howie said further technological advances may ease pressure on staffing problems, pointing to how crew sizes have reduced significantly on some ships already.

For example, the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth can operate with a crew of about 750 – down from the thousands previously required for vessels of her size.

Meanwhile, the Type 23 frigates have a complement of about 185 crew.

Plans for the Type 32 were announced four years ago but little progress with the programme has been announced since then.

Babcock and BAE Systems are among the companies that are expected to bid to build the future warships.

Asked whether further advances could help ease recruitment issues, Mr Howie said: “If you take HMS Queen Elizabeth, she was designed with a core crew of about 750. But on the old carriers it was a couple of thousand.

“A lot of that’s been done… through the highly-mechanised weapons handling system. On a US carrier they’ve got 250 people doing something that needs just a handful on Queen Elizabeth, because it’s been mechanised.

“Type 31s have a core crew that is much lower than Type 23. So some of it you’re getting through remote monitoring and compartments, some of it through automation.

“People talk about a Type 32 frigate – we like to refer to it as Type 31 batch two. We’re doing a crew of about 105 on Type 31, so realistically we should be aiming to half that number for batch two.”

Mr Howie added that even bigger crew reductions could potentially be delivered, taking numbers below 50 in future, but that this would depend on decisions about how to manage damage control in modern combat, for example to put out fires and deal with hull breaches.
HMS Albion sailing from HMNB Devonport for an autumn deployment to the Mediterranean region
Amphibious assault ships like HMS Albion are to be phased out because of a lack of personnel Credit: Alex Ceolin/Royal Navy

Mr Howie said: “That’s something I think the Navy are looking at. To what extent, in the age of hypersonic missiles, do you just have to assume that ships are, if they get hit, gone? And therefore they just need to stay afloat long enough to get the crew off?

“If that’s the case, does that change the way you influence damage control?

“I think there’s also a broader cultural piece, which is how do you attract people to go to sea for long periods when there are other jobs available that might involve staying at home and going out with your mates on a Friday night?

“Sending people to sea on platforms that don’t have internet access, that don’t allow them to call on a regular basis – the armed services are like the rest of us, having to try to modernise and attract people into the workplace.”

Crew sizes have been gradually decreasing for centuries. In the age of sail, a frigate such as HMS Naiad fought in the Battle of Trafalgar with a complement of 284 sailors.

Numbers remained at a similar level for the first steam-powered vessels, such as HMS Amphion, which was commissioned in 1847 with 320 crew.

By the Second World War and the Cold War, frigates were down to less than 200 men.

Five of Babcock’s Type 31 frigates, also known as the Inspiration Class, are currently under construction.

They are all due to be in service by 2030, replacing the older Type 23 “Duke Class” frigates.

Each will be the length of 11 London buses and will be equipped with a helicopter flight deck, boat bays and advanced weaponry, including vertical launch systems capable of firing Standard Missile SM-2s, SM-3s and SM-6s, Tomahawk cruise missiles and SeaSparrows among others.

The first two, HMS Venturer and HMS Active, are currently being built by Babcock in Rosyth.

Venturer is currently expected to enter service in 2025.

[new guy]

Discussed a bit upthread, my opinion is that it is complete and utter nonsense, Just like when the RN said the total crew of MROSS would be 15, whereas in reality it is now 76. Made even worse by the fact that he also says it will be T31B2.

[abc123]

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.

If the HMG wanted more than 8 T-26 frigates, they might easily have them, at least one from BAEs proposal plus 2-3 more from money spent on T-31.
But, they didn't.
Because of many reasons. Something similar happened with T-23, they might have all of them ASW variant, but, some were GP.
So, no, cancelling T-31 isn't something that will get the HMS to buy more T-26. It will leave the RN with only 8 ( if that ) T-26 plus a few newly built OPVs like River class.

[Ron5]

Discussed a bit upthread, my opinion is that it is complete and utter nonsense, Just like when the RN said the total crew of MROSS would be 15, whereas in reality it is now 76. Made even worse by the fact that he also says it will be T31B2.

Sorry for the duplicate and I agree, it's totally wishful thinking.

[Tempest414]

What the RN have purchased is a large NATO frigate hull that has good speed , range to this they have added a sensor & gun fit for the GP role as for CAMM and NSM numbers we will have to wait and see

Also as for role that is clear it is global patrol and keeping SLC open the same role the Type 26 GP's were to carry out and the same job the T-23-GP's were doing until they become worn out and were gapped by the RB2's

Your first paragraph is not defining a requirement, just a summary of what has been purchased.

If they are replacing the RB2s they aren’t replacing them in a “keeping the SLOCs open” role, as they aren’t doing it. Apart from Kipion, what is this role? You can add the Red Sea scenario but that requires a T45 not a light frigate.

They are not replacing the RB2's they are replacing the T-23GP's or more to the point filling the gap left by the T-26GP's. The RB2's where only ever a filler firstly in the build program with the view the first 3 would replace the RB1's but when it became clear the Type 23's were shagged the MOD/RN added 2 more and they filled the gap of the GP frigates and kept the RB1's going

Also HMS Diamond has now left the Red Sea replaced by HMS Richmond a frigate with a 3D radar , CAMM & 30mm guns and not by another T-45

[Repulse]

They are not replacing the RB2's they are replacing the T-23GP's or more to the point filling the gap left by the T-26GP's. The RB2's where only ever a filler firstly in the build program with the view the first 3 would replace the RB1's but when it became clear the Type 23's were shagged the MOD/RN added 2 more and they filled the gap of the GP frigates and kept the RB1's going

Sorry, but they are replacing 3 of the B2 Rivers in their current tasks, stop gap or not. Otherwise we are three OPVs short for the UK. The fact that they were supposed to be forward based and there is not enough crew to do this is also a fact.

The order for 5 B2s was solely due to HMG not wanting to commit to a T26 order and to delay the spend. Not sure where you are getting your history from.

Anyway, circumstances change and we need more ASW and AAW ships not light frigates.

Also HMS Diamond has now left the Red Sea replaced by HMS Richmond a frigate with a 3D radar , CAMM & 30mm guns and not by another T-45

How many drones has Richmond shot down? Is it position the same as Diamond was offering area air defence?

[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?

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?

The T31s are replacing the T23 GPs, the fit is irrelevant. If you can't even acknowledge the facts then your point of view is worthless.

We already have replacements for the B1s three of the B2s. As for gapping what are the B1 currently doing? they don't do fisheries anymore apparently.

[tomuk]

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.

Unless you proposing to shutdown BAE on the Clyde T83 will go there as a matter of course. Your commitment is worthless.

[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.

Unless you proposing to shutdown BAE on the Clyde T83 will go there as a matter of course. Your commitment is worthless.

Jesus I’ve hit a nerve - there’s a difference between assuming it will go and confirming orders and being able to put money behind it.

[Repulse]

The T31s are replacing the T23 GPs, the fit is irrelevant. If you can't even acknowledge the facts then your point of view is worthless.

We already have replacements for the B1s three of the B2s. As for gapping what are the B1 currently doing? they don't do fisheries anymore apparently.

Talk about worthless - wtf to you think the B1s are doing currently, and what exactly will replace the B2s? You can’t answer basic questions.

[tomuk]

The T31s are replacing the T23 GPs, the fit is irrelevant. If you can't even acknowledge the facts then your point of view is worthless.

We already have replacements for the B1s three of the B2s. As for gapping what are the B1 currently doing? they don't do fisheries anymore apparently.

Talk about worthless - wtf to you think the B1s are doing currently, and what exactly will replace the B2s? You can’t answer basic questions.

From what I understand the B1s are doing navigation training.
As to the B2 they don't need replacing. The element of their role where they are filling in for T23GP will be T31 and their pointless very low level engagement\cockers p will end.

[Repulse]

The T31s are replacing the T23 GPs, the fit is irrelevant. If you can't even acknowledge the facts then your point of view is worthless.

We already have replacements for the B1s three of the B2s. As for gapping what are the B1 currently doing? they don't do fisheries anymore apparently.

Talk about worthless - wtf to you think the B1s are doing currently, and what exactly will replace the B2s? You can’t answer basic questions.

From what I understand the B1s are doing navigation training.
As to the B2 they don't need replacing. The element of their role where they are filling in for T23GP will be T31 and their pointless very low level engagement\cockers p will end.

B2s are just there for navigation training… oh dear. Perhaps read wiki beyond HMS Severn. Whilst your are educating yourself a bit more, now explain where you are getting the crew from to replace the B2s, unless you are saying they will be sailing from the UK and we are talking about one being EoS at anytime?

[tomuk]

The T31s are replacing the T23 GPs, the fit is irrelevant. If you can't even acknowledge the facts then your point of view is worthless.

We already have replacements for the B1s three of the B2s. As for gapping what are the B1 currently doing? they don't do fisheries anymore apparently.

Talk about worthless - wtf to you think the B1s are doing currently, and what exactly will replace the B2s? You can’t answer basic questions.

From what I understand the B1s are doing navigation training.
As to the B2 they don't need replacing. The element of their role where they are filling in for T23GP will be T31 and their pointless very low level engagement\cockers p will end.

B2s are just there for navigation training… oh dear. Perhaps read wiki beyond HMS Severn. Whilst your are educating yourself a bit more, now explain where you are getting the crew from to replace the B2s, unless you are saying they will be sailing from the UK and we are talking about one being EoS at anytime?

I didn't say the B2s are for navigation training. I said that is what I understood the B1s were doing. Maybe you could educate me on what the B1s are actually doing.

Using B2s for navigation training would be a waste but maybe there are other ways of doing it. Maybe in the past this training was carried out across the larger number of active escorts? Or maybe the Archer class replacement could do it.

As to your other point make it a bit more coherent and I may answer.

But I would say in general picking\specifying your fleet on the crew you have is back to front. What are your requirements, what ships do you need, then what crew do you need to man them.

I'd rather two capable escorts alongside due to lack of crew (that could be manned in an emergency with the starboard crew of a double manned vessel) than five OPVs out and about doing low level meaningless tasks.

[Repulse]

The T31s are replacing the T23 GPs, the fit is irrelevant. If you can't even acknowledge the facts then your point of view is worthless.

We already have replacements for the B1s three of the B2s. As for gapping what are the B1 currently doing? they don't do fisheries anymore apparently.

Talk about worthless - wtf to you think the B1s are doing currently, and what exactly will replace the B2s? You can’t answer basic questions.

From what I understand the B1s are doing navigation training.
As to the B2 they don't need replacing. The element of their role where they are filling in for T23GP will be T31 and their pointless very low level engagement\cockers p will end.

B2s are just there for navigation training… oh dear. Perhaps read wiki beyond HMS Severn. Whilst your are educating yourself a bit more, now explain where you are getting the crew from to replace the B2s, unless you are saying they will be sailing from the UK and we are talking about one being EoS at anytime?

I didn't say the B2s are for navigation training. I said that is what I understood the B1s were doing. Maybe you could educate me on what the B1s are actually doing.

Using B2s for navigation training would be a waste but maybe there are other ways of doing it. Maybe in the past this training was carried out across the larger number of active escorts? Or maybe the Archer class replacement could do it.

As to your other point make it a bit more coherent and I may answer.

But I would say in general picking\specifying your fleet on the crew you have is back to front. What are your requirements, what ships do you need, then what crew do you need to man them.

I'd rather two capable escorts alongside due to lack of crew (that could be manned in an emergency with the starboard crew of a double manned vessel) than five OPVs out and about doing low level meaningless tasks.

HMS Severn is a B1 River, and as part of its UK EEZ patrol/foreign ship escort / monitoring role it is used for training navigation.

HMS Tyne and HMS Mersey, both again are critical UK EEZ assets used for foreign ship escort / monitoring and have operated in NE European waters aupporting JEF/NATO operations.

With increased incursions by Russia via warships, subs and more crucially spy ships, these ships are critical part of UKs domestic defence.

You are still struggling to answer the question on how these ships will be crew and operated to allow them to free the B2s up.

And just to be clear I know the T31s to fill the gap on the wall chart left by the five GP escorts. However, apart from Kipion they aren’t doing much apart from being alongside which no isn’t a priority requirement. The requirement is to replace what the B2s are doing currently and Kipion, on the former we are investing three times the resources (minimum) to do roles that are currently being performed to the level required. Rather than five light frigates alongside, I would go for OPVs and another 1-2 T26 at sea any day.

[SW1]

These don’t fill a spot on the wallchart.

There reason is to support the Arabian Sea deployment, the nato standing naval task groups in the Mediterranean and the North Sea/ Baltic regions.

The Atlantic patrol task north and south and the fleet ready escort around the UK.

These are all on our principal sea lines of communication and sources of energy and mineral commerce.

The deployment of a worked up escort to these locations allows for contingency in response maritime security issues in relation to that trade. That is what type 31 is for what type 23 general purpose vessels were for and one of the principle reasons for being of the navy since it was invented.

[Tempest414]

They are not replacing the RB2's they are replacing the T-23GP's or more to the point filling the gap left by the T-26GP's. The RB2's where only ever a filler firstly in the build program with the view the first 3 would replace the RB1's but when it became clear the Type 23's were shagged the MOD/RN added 2 more and they filled the gap of the GP frigates and kept the RB1's going

Sorry, but they are replacing 3 of the B2 Rivers in their current tasks, stop gap or not. Otherwise we are three OPVs short for the UK. The fact that they were supposed to be forward based and there is not enough crew to do this is also a fact.

The order for 5 B2s was solely due to HMG not wanting to commit to a T26 order and to delay the spend. Not sure where you are getting your history from.

Anyway, circumstances change and we need more ASW and AAW ships not light frigates.

Also HMS Diamond has now left the Red Sea replaced by HMS Richmond a frigate with a 3D radar , CAMM & 30mm guns and not by another T-45

How many drones has Richmond shot down? Is it position the same as Diamond was offering area air defence?

Before this sorry lot started we had 4 OPV's the first 3 RB2's were ordered as said due to Type 26 delays these were going to replace the RB1's as we all know Severn , Tyne Clyde were paid off . Due to further delays 2 more RB'2 were add at the same time it became very clear that the T-23's were in very poor state and they needed nursing

The RN wanted 13 type 26 8 x ASW and 5 x GP these were to replace one for one type 23 once the budget ran away type 26 was doomed just as Type 45 had been when the RN and BAE was allowed to over cook that budget now the RN to my mind is pulling off a blinder it was told it could not have the T-26GP's it wanted so it is slowly building the next best thing and if the RN are allowed to go on and type 31 ends up with 24 CAMM , 16 MK-41's and a VDS for 400 million unit price then the UK will have a very good GP frigate

So with the type 31's we are back to having 13 frigate once this happens we will get rid of the RB1's and we will be up 1 OPV now if we need more AAW and ASW ( which I think we do we can add it )

As for Richmond she has replace Diamond in the Red Sea she is not to make up the numbers and how many drone total have been shot down since the 7th of Feb and as has been said other light frigates have shot down drones in the Red Sea

[Repulse]

Due to further delays 2 more RB'2 were add at the same time it became very clear that the T-23's were in very poor state and they needed nursing

Can you provide evidence that this was the case, I cannot find any reference and at the time it was clear more OPVs were ordered so the MOD could meet its TOBA commitment.

The RN wanted 13 type 26 8 x ASW and 5 x GP these were to replace one for one type 23 once the budget ran away type 26 was doomed just as Type 45 had been when the RN and BAE was allowed to over cook that budget now the RN to my mind is pulling off a blinder it was told it could not have the T-26GP's it wanted so it is slowly building the next best thing and if the RN are allowed to go on and type 31 ends up with 24 CAMM , 16 MK-41's and a VDS for 400 million unit price then the UK will have a very good GP frigate

The T45 was a mess because the government was taking money away to pay for its religious nation building adventures at the time. Whilst BAE are not as pure as snow, how could they react to a government that wouldn’t commit and ultimately cut the programme short - we needed atleast 8 and still do. What’s more the engine issues were directly caused by political interference.

Yes, the RN wanted 13 T26s, the government could have committed to all of them and got a discount. Reportedly, when they went for 8 ASW variants they were offered one free if they would commit to a single order to all BAE to plan properly.

What they have are 8 war fighting frigates, and 5 light frigates which we aren’t sure will have more than 12 CAMM - there is a lot of wishful thinking going on about MK41 VLS and more CAMM, none of which is funded. Anyone remember the promise of CEC when the T45 order was cut? Also, no one can explain how these ships will be used and how they can replace the B2s on station today.

Feels a lot of wishful thinking, anti BAE rewrite of history, and ending up with a fleet that is not fit for purpose and even then cannot be crewed even if it was.