Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 15 Feb 2024, 09:10 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.
APT(N) and APT(S) have not been a priority requiring frigates for a decade or more.

Kipion is relevant but only as long as it’s seen as a priority.

The Red Sea / Houthi incident is new and has been addressed with a T45 or now a ASW T23 (though the former is more appropriate).

NATO standing groups have had a variety of assets assign to them temporarily over the years - given that there are already plenty of frigates / corvettes available then the UK should aspire to not to just add more of the same.

Unless the T31s are UK based then they will drain crew from other ships impacting directly what you are saying we need to do. If they are UK based they cannot replace 3 of the B2 Rivers.

Whichever way you want to position it there is no need or priority for more T31s, and it’s debatable if we should have those already on 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

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5805
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 15 Feb 2024, 14:51
SW1 wrote: 15 Feb 2024, 09:10 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.
APT(N) and APT(S) have not been a priority requiring frigates for a decade or more.

Kipion is relevant but only as long as it’s seen as a priority.

The Red Sea / Houthi incident is new and has been addressed with a T45 or now a ASW T23 (though the former is more appropriate).

NATO standing groups have had a variety of assets assign to them temporarily over the years - given that there are already plenty of frigates / corvettes available then the UK should aspire to not to just add more of the same.

Unless the T31s are UK based then they will drain crew from other ships impacting directly what you are saying we need to do. If they are UK based they cannot replace 3 of the B2 Rivers.

Whichever way you want to position it there is no need or priority for more T31s, and it’s debatable if we should have those already on order.
2023 for APTN, 2017 for APNS

The Arabian Sea is not the Red Sea the Arabian Sea has HMS Lancaster operating there.

If you don’t wish to contribute to nato task group ok but as it’s our principle security considerations seems odd choice but ok

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5632
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Repulse wrote: 15 Feb 2024, 13:57
Tempest414 wrote: 15 Feb 2024, 09:55 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.
3 things happened in 2014

first type 26 design was still not complete and more design work was needed and the contact for that final design work was singed in 2015

Second due to Type 26 delays TOBA was triggered and the first 3 RB2's were ordered with more delays to T-26 the second order for 2 more followed in 2015

third the first Type 23 entered life ex and was found to be in a very very poor state and work would take longer and cost more

What followed was Type 26 design work overran again by 12 month into 2017 and build work started

I will tell you now what would of happen if the MOD had singed for all 9 (8 +1 extra ) BAE would have got to ship 7 and said they needed more money for ship 9 sure as eggs are eggs
These users liked the author Tempest414 for the post:
SD67

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 15 Feb 2024, 15:19 2023 for APTN, 2017 for APNS
Ok, we’ve deployed warships a handful of times in the past decade. However, even without light frigates this could still be done occasionally as the need arose.
The Arabian Sea is not the Red Sea the Arabian Sea has HMS Lancaster operating there.
True - so a frigate in Kipion is dead? It’s still the only tasking that has merit, but not convinced it needs its own class, much better would a T26.
If you don’t wish to contribute to nato task group ok but as it’s our principle security considerations seems odd choice but ok
We definitely do need to contribute, but we don’t need to do so permanently and when we do we can add assets that offer additional ASW / AAW / Command capabilities that the other ships do not have.
”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


new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1263
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

they posted this article 9 days too late
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
RichardIC

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Scimitar54 »

Or 356 days too early!

Digger22
Member
Posts: 349
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
England

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Digger22 »

Another waste of money, 4M to be precise. Just build a batch 2 T31.

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by jedibeeftrix »

new guy wrote: 09 Apr 2024, 16:35
they posted this article 9 days too late
can you explain this, please?

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4110
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Digger22 wrote: 09 Apr 2024, 22:57 Another waste of money, 4M to be precise. Just build a batch 2 T31.
If the T32 budget is around £2.5bn including GFE another 5x T31 isn’t necessarily the right approach.

A mixed procurement of 2x T26 @ £875m unit plus 2x (ideally 3x) T31 at £375m unit costs the same amount.

The T32 is a complete distraction from the fundamental priority of adding mass back into the fleet.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1263
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

jedibeeftrix wrote: 10 Apr 2024, 09:00

can you explain this, please?
It's a joke, 9 days ago from me saying that was April the 1st.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
jedibeeftrix

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1263
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 10 Apr 2024, 09:21
The T32 is a complete distraction from the fundamental priority of adding mass back into the fleet.
That is literally the purpose of the programme.
These users liked the author new guy for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

I have a feeling that the T32 and MRSS requirements and programs are about to get blurred.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 2):
Poiuytrewqdonald_of_tokyo
”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

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 4110
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

new guy wrote: 10 Apr 2024, 10:57
Poiuytrewq wrote: 10 Apr 2024, 09:21
The T32 is a complete distraction from the fundamental priority of adding mass back into the fleet.
That is literally the purpose of the programme.
To add mass by introducing a third class of Frigate when two classes are currently under construction?

When was the last time RN had 3 classes of Frigate in-build simultaneously?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1263
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

Anyone else found multiple posts here deleted?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1564
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

new guy wrote: 15 Apr 2024, 17:44 Anyone else found multiple posts here deleted?
Yes
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
new guy

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1378
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by RichardIC »

There was loads of complete off-topic stuff about gas prices (I think - only skimmed them long enough to think WTF has this got to do with T32)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1717
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Scimitar54 »

Powered by Gas Turbines?

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1263
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by new guy »

RichardIC wrote: 16 Apr 2024, 10:26 There was loads of complete off-topic stuff about gas prices (I think - only skimmed them long enough to think WTF has this got to do with T32)
I only noticed when I came back to try and quote a summary of T26 programme development woes that I put hear to find it and it wasn't here.
Just asking because we usually get told if posts deleted due to topic drift / not posting news

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4738
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

new guy wrote: 16 Apr 2024, 18:03
RichardIC wrote: 16 Apr 2024, 10:26 There was loads of complete off-topic stuff about gas prices (I think - only skimmed them long enough to think WTF has this got to do with T32)
I only noticed when I came back to try and quote a summary of T26 programme development woes that I put hear to find it and it wasn't here.
Just asking because we usually get told if posts deleted due to topic drift / not posting news
Let’s hope Admin doesn’t read the T26 News Only thread :D
These users liked the author Repulse for the post (total 3):
new guyserge750Ron5
”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

Online
User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1756
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

new guy wrote: 16 Apr 2024, 18:03
RichardIC wrote: 16 Apr 2024, 10:26 There was loads of complete off-topic stuff about gas prices (I think - only skimmed them long enough to think WTF has this got to do with T32)
I only noticed when I came back to try and quote a summary of T26 programme development woes that I put hear to find it and it wasn't here.
Just asking because we usually get told if posts deleted due to topic drift / not posting news
Yes, sorry, I should have posted a notice. Posts were deleted as they were off-topic.
These users liked the author The Armchair Soldier for the post (total 5):
new guyAnthony58bobpjedibeeftrixwargame_insomniac

Post Reply