Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

[Tempest414]

This why defence gets poor value we you agree a build contract stick to it change nothing!.

We have agreed a contract and so far we are sticking to it in as much as we agreed the build cost would be 1.25 billion and other program costs would come to 750 million which would include GFE this was all known about and agreed before the first steel was cut

[SW1]

This why defence gets poor value we you agree a build contract stick to it change nothing!.

We have agreed a contract and so far we are sticking to it in as much as we agreed the build cost would be 1.25 billion and other program costs would come to 750 million which would include GFE this was all known about and agreed before the first steel was cut

Yep so we should not be changing any of it for the first 5 vessels no matter what anyone thinks need added now

[donald_of_tokyo]

The crossover type vessel or Strike Frigate concept has been around for a long time....
Much better to combine a MCMV with an Amphib and leave the escorts to be escorts....
The major issue with the hybrid Frigate concepts remains damage control and maintaining buoyancy when damaged. Those wonderful open architecture mission spaces would flood in a flash and high levels of compartmentalisation on escorts are there due to hard lessons learned in previous conflicts.

Agree. Looks like Cross Over type vessel not popular. Even though with great sensational debut, there was no order or no "something alike" of Absallon class.

The AH140 was always a missed opportunity. The use of space is dreadfully inefficient primarily due to making minimal changes to the existing design.

Disagree. Simply the ship was too large, 50% larger than expected. It is NOT a big ship with limited armament. It is a ship will limited armament built with very big hull. Big is good for good sea keeping, longer range and future improvements, but will be bad for fuel consumption.

I'm not saying it is bad, just saying let's not forget the origin of T31. There is zero missed opportunity. We are just lucky to have a 50% larger hull than needed.

If changes are to be made to the mission spaces on the T31s then the time to do so is rapidly running out.

What are you talking about? The chance has gone years ago. It is a fixed price contract, and they say, fixed specitifation is essential on making them cheap to build. The moment you "unlock" it, all the pre-planned arrangement will dismiss, and the cost will increase significantly "un-locked".

[Tempest414]

This why defence gets poor value we you agree a build contract stick to it change nothing!.

We have agreed a contract and so far we are sticking to it in as much as we agreed the build cost would be 1.25 billion and other program costs would come to 750 million which would include GFE this was all known about and agreed before the first steel was cut

Yep so we should not be changing any of it for the first 5 vessels no matter what anyone thinks need added now

Quite right we should keep with in the program as laid out which allows for the ship to come on line with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , CAMM ( 12 , 24 or more as the RN sees fit ) Mk-41 FFBNW once the the ships have been delivered and handed over we can add NSM before first deployment

All the other stuff like a 143 meter ship and a mission bay is for the Batch 2 ships

[Tempest414]

The crossover type vessel or Strike Frigate concept has been around for a long time....
Much better to combine a MCMV with an Amphib and leave the escorts to be escorts....
The major issue with the hybrid Frigate concepts remains damage control and maintaining buoyancy when damaged. Those wonderful open architecture mission spaces would flood in a flash and high levels of compartmentalisation on escorts are there due to hard lessons learned in previous conflicts.

Agree. Looks like Cross Over type vessel not popular. Even though with great sensational debut, there was no order or no "something alike" of Absallon class.

The AH140 was always a missed opportunity. The use of space is dreadfully inefficient primarily due to making minimal changes to the existing design.

Disagree. Simply the ship was too large, 50% larger than expected. It is NOT a big ship with limited armament. It is a ship will limited armament built with very big hull. Big is good for good sea keeping, longer range and future improvements, but will be bad for fuel consumption.

I'm not saying it is bad, just saying let's not forget the origin of T31. There is zero missed opportunity. We are just lucky to have a 50% larger hull than needed.

If changes are to be made to the mission spaces on the T31s then the time to do so is rapidly running out.

What are you talking about? The chance has gone years ago. It is a fixed price contract, and they say, fixed specitifation is essential on making them cheap to build. The moment you "unlock" it, all the pre-planned arrangement will dismiss, and the cost will increase significantly "un-locked".

Type 31 is locked in now the chance referred to is any Batch 2 ships. As said the Indonesian ships will be 143 meters with VLS between the A & B turrets this design work has been done and building is under way as of 10 days ago so we could see babcocks able to move straight from the Batch 1's to a 143 meter Batch 2 with a mission bay

[Poiuytrewq]

I'm not saying it is bad, just saying let's not forget the origin of T31. There is zero missed opportunity. We are just lucky to have a 50% larger hull than needed.

The idea that RN needs 30% to 40% of its Frigates to be configured with only the most basic defensive weapons in the current era is mad. It’s crazy. The T31’s inability to strike another vessel at medium to long range is inexcusable as is the lack of any ability to find, track and if necessary destroy targets below the surface. Totally relying on the embarked Wildcat is foolhardy.

If the T31’s are commissioned without an offensive/defensive package comparable to the the T23GPs it will without a shadow of a doubt be a missed opportunity.

What are you talking about?

Very simple.

If RN decide before 2028 that the T31s actually require 32x Mk41 Strike cells amidships, a Mk45 with auto loading magazine plus 2150 and 2087 then major alterations would have to be made. It’s all GFE but it will still result in considerable structural changes.

In the same way if RN decide that the superstructure amidships needs to be altered to accommodate a new PODS system then it will have to be altered. GFE or not is immaterial.

If PODS are the future for RN and RFA vessels then the T31 design is starting to look compromised already. If the T31s are commissioned unaltered I think the likelihood of a quick sale vastly increases.

Unlocking the potential would not be that difficult or expensive IMO.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Now all the information says the MOD/RN cost is still tight for coming 10 years. They not only postponed T32 and MRSS, but also even failed to fund T83 designing activity (including new AAW weapons system design).

I think improving the T31 will cost a lot. Altering the design in the middle of the program is very very expensive. It is not just "let's move this wall by 5 meters". It is redesigning the wire, power and water-pipe paths, certifing the new design again, and redesigning all the programs they prepared.

To improve the T31, from where you get that money? I guess, a modest improvement (to have, say, all 5 T31 with 24 CAMM, 8-16 NSM, CAPTAS4-CI) will require at least £500M in total, and if including 32-cell Mk41 option (of course not only the cells, but all the systems you need to integrate to make it work) not surprised to see £800M-1000M more needed. If the latter, you are proposing to kill one T26? or 6-7 F35B? If the former, MHC will be shrunken, or 2 F35B not added, or something else.

I prefer to see all 5 T31s be built as planned, and later gradually added with 8 NSMs re-used from decommissioning T23ASW, and a small hull sonar (mainly for mine avoidance, and short-range ASW monitoring). Regardless of Russian issue, Iranian and Houthi-rebels will be there, against which T31 is the best suited.

[Tempest414]

I think it is time to move over to C & F Escorts thread chaps

[Ron5]

If remember correctly Babcock had wtitten into the contract that no changes or modifications could made to the ships specification once it was agreed...

You read the contract?? Yeah right.

[Ron5]

This why defence gets poor value we you agree a build contract stick to it change nothing!.

If it's not eggnog, did you have a stroke?

[wargame_insomniac]

I'm not saying it is bad, just saying let's not forget the origin of T31. There is zero missed opportunity. We are just lucky to have a 50% larger hull than needed.

The idea that RN needs 30% to 40% of its Frigates to be configured with only the most basic defensive weapons in the current era is mad. It’s crazy. The T31’s inability to strike another vessel at medium to long range is inexcusable as is the lack of any ability to find, track and if necessary destroy targets below the surface. Totally relying on the embarked Wildcat is foolhardy.

If the T31’s are commissioned without an offensive/defensive package comparable to the the T23GPs it will without a shadow of a doubt be a missed opportunity.

What are you talking about?

Very simple.

If RN decide before 2028 that the T31s actually require 32x Mk41 Strike cells amidships, a Mk45 with auto loading magazine plus 2150 and 2087 then major alterations would have to be made. It’s all GFE but it will still result in considerable structural changes.

In the same way if RN decide that the superstructure amidships needs to be altered to accommodate a new PODS system then it will have to be altered. GFE or not is immaterial.

If PODS are the future for RN and RFA vessels then the T31 design is starting to look compromised already. If the T31s are commissioned unaltered I think the likelihood of a quick sale vastly increases.

Unlocking the potential would not be that difficult or expensive IMO.

The Danish Navy had developed StanFlex as a modular mission payload system and included it in the designs for the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes. I believe that the UK wanted their own version of StanFlex and thus PODS system is similar to the Danish StanFlex but scaled up to fit standard shipping containers.

If the Iver Huitfeldt class was designed with StanFlex in mind, and PODS were based on StanFlex but just upscaled, and the T31 is a revision of the Iver Huitfeldt class, then the T31 should be able to cope with PODS.

[tomuk]

The idea that RN needs 30% to 40% of its Frigates to be configured with only the most basic defensive weapons in the current era is mad. It’s crazy. The T31’s inability to strike another vessel at medium to long range is inexcusable as is the lack of any ability to find, track and if necessary destroy targets below the surface. Totally relying on the embarked Wildcat is foolhardy.

If the T31’s are commissioned without an offensive/defensive package comparable to the the T23GPs it will without a shadow of a doubt be a missed opportunity.

You seem to be criticising the platform based on its weapons fit. The platform is more than capable of being fitted with some Anti Ship missiles, sonars and even torpedoes. The RN have to choose to fit them and have the cash to do so, a criticism of the Treasury\MOD\RN rather than the platform.

As regards the other escorts in the fleet and their capabilities, how many are fitted with harpoon and how many serviceable harpoons do we have left? This now at least seems to be being addressed with the announced NSM purchase.

Again with Sonar what is the true situation? T45s sailed with defective sonar due to 'non-waterproof' cabling. The T23GP HMS hasn't been upgraded like the T23ASW and announced maintenance contracts have alluded to 8x ships, is it servicable? More recently due to manpower issues it has been suggested T45s have a had the sonar mothballed to free up sonar operators for other vessels. Again what is the true capability?

If RN decide before 2028 that the T31s actually require 32x Mk41 Strike cells amidships, a Mk45 with auto loading magazine plus 2150 and 2087 then major alterations would have to be made. It’s all GFE but it will still result in considerable structural changes.

In the same way if RN decide that the superstructure amidships needs to be altered to accommodate a new PODS system then it will have to be altered. GFE or not is immaterial.

In what realistic scenarios are the RN going to decide to fit any of that? To me I can't really see the justification for the 'platinum standard' Mk45 with Autoloader on the T26 let alone on a T31.

As regards considerable structural changes there just wouldn't be any, excluding autoloader\automagazine, you can have T31 with a 127mm gun if you want.

The space between the foremast and the funnels is practically empty space. The bathtub as it is known is a flexible space to allow the stanflex modules to slot in. The Mk41 VLS is a more substantial permanent fixture to the earlier layout. Although the RN have gone for extra boat bays raising the deck height and and permanently fixed CAMM this isn't a fundamental change to the structure.

If PODS are the future for RN and RFA vessels then the T31 design is starting to look compromised already. If the T31s are commissioned unaltered I think the likelihood of a quick sale vastly increases.

Unlocking the potential would not be that difficult or expensive IMO.

PODS is just a load of buzzword bingo for 20ft shipping containers nothing new. If the ship needs a UAV why not fit it in the hangar. If the ship needs some weapons what's wrong with a VLS. To provide the same capability as a permanent fit the PODS system requires a lot of overhead in handling gear that wouldn't be required for a permeant fit see the none fitment of Stanflex to T31. No Stanflex is cheaper.

[Phil Sayers]

I don't think there is any practical way it could be done but for me it would make far more sense for the 127 mm gun to be on T31 and the 57 mm gun on T-26. My thinking is that T26 will generally be far out to sea way beyond range for NGFS, if hostile surface vessels have closed to within gunfire range of a carrier task group something has gone badly, badly wrong but that it might be quite useful to have a potent AA gun.

In contrast T31 will already have 2 x 40 mm guns for the AA role and for engaging small vessels but could easily find itself operating sufficiently close to the shore that NGFS would be a useful capability; doesn't have to be in direct support of Royal Marines ashore as, for example, 114 mm guns were used to engage Libyan artillery pieces during Op Ellamy.

[tomuk]

I don't think there is any practical way it could be done but for me it would make far more sense for the 127 mm gun to be on T31 and the 57 mm gun on T-26. My thinking is that T26 will generally be far out to sea way beyond range for NGFS, if hostile surface vessels have closed to within gunfire range of a carrier task group something has gone badly, badly wrong but that it might be quite useful to have a potent AA gun.

In contrast T31 will already have 2 x 40 mm guns for the AA role and for engaging small vessels but could easily find itself operating sufficiently close to the shore that NGFS would be a useful capability; doesn't have to be in direct support of Royal Marines ashore as, for example, 114 mm guns were used to engage Libyan artillery pieces during Op Ellamy.

Completely agree Phil the big automated gun on the T26 is wasted (Well unless this gun launched depth charge ever becomes a thing) it seems a hangover from the Global Combat Ship days. The Canadians have intrestingly chosen the Oto Melera 127mm rather than the Mk45 for their version.
Having the 127mm on the T31 with 40mm would be a good fit for NGFS and FIACs in the littorals.

[BB85]

Yeah the proliferation of coastal anti ship missiles puts an end to any thoughts of coastal bombardments especially on larger ships. I'm not sure if a smaller unmanned hull would be an option for coastal bombardment, but assume the hull needs a minimum weight to handle firing each round.
The extended range of the rounds is pretty impressive, but not if anti ship missiles force ships operate 200km from the coast as they have in the black sea.

[wargame_insomniac]

I have said before that I would have preferred the 127mm gun on T31 and I also like the idea of fitting 8*NSM on T31. I think having both weapons would be important as it gives options for dealing with a variety of threats, especially in the Littoral environment where it seems the T31 are most likely to be deployed e.g. in the Mediterranean, Gulf of Aden and Persian Gulf etc.

The Ukraine war has shown that we need a variety of munitions - from cheaper unguided shells and bombs through to more expensive precision guided missiles.

[donald_of_tokyo]

It is no more T32 news, so shall we better move across to escort thread?

[Tempest414]

It is no more T32 news, so shall we better move across to escort thread?

said this yesterday

[serge750]

Current planning assumptions are for the Type 32 frigates to enter service over a period of three years commencing in 2032.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/details ... l-in-2032/

[Jensy]

Current planning assumptions are for the Type 32 frigates to enter service over a period of three years commencing in 2032.

All in service by the end of 2035? That's rather ambitious by UK standards. No doubt the steel can be bashed, but fitting out and sea trials don't happen overnight.

No direct mention of numbers. I wonder if plan is still for "up to five platforms", or dropped to balance out greater capability?

The concept phase will end once the requirements for the platform have been finalised, and once overall programme funding has been confirmed.

Nothing set in stone then yet...

Sounds to me that anything other than a further modified Iver Huitfeldt is going to be challenging to deliver over that timescale and implied budgetary pressure. Which suggests that it's Babcock's to lose, mainly dependant on how smoothly they deliver T31.

The BAE ASF design is definitely what I would have rather built in place of both classes, however we are where we are and paper ships are paper ships.

[tomuk]

T32 the sexed up name for T31 Batch 2.

[dmereifield]

If it's a properly armed T31, that would be the perfect outcome. It's the only way to get a 2nd Tier Frigate at an affordable price and quickly

[Tempest414]

What is properly armed we don't know yet how Type 31 will be armed on her first deployment as said my guess is T-31 will be fitted with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 x CAMM & 8 x NSM plus a Wildcat able to carry 20 x LMM , 4 Sea Venom or a mix of both making it a good Global Patrol Frigate

What I would like to see from Babcock's is a 143 meter AH-140 with the VL cells between A & B turrets and the full width mission bay this should be straight forward as the 143 meter AH-140 start its build in Dec and we have seen that Babcock's say they can fit a full width mission bay if they move the VL cells

[dmereifield]

What is properly armed we don't know yet how Type 31 will be armed on her first deployment as said my guess is T-31 will be fitted with 1 x 57mm , 2 x 40mm , 24 x CAMM & 8 x NSM plus a Wildcat able to carry 20 x LMM , 4 Sea Venom or a mix of both making it a good Global Patrol Frigate

In later life, yes, I'll net they'll look lime that. But not until after the T23s have bowed out and donated their NSMs. For now they'll have the remaining kit you suggested, and I wouldn't be surprised if they have a cheap HMS, too (if not now, then later)

[Ron5]

Current planning assumptions are for the Type 32 frigates to enter service over a period of three years commencing in 2032.

All in service by the end of 2035? That's rather ambitious by UK standards. No doubt the steel can be bashed, but fitting out and sea trials don't happen overnight.

No direct mention of numbers. I wonder if plan is still for "up to five platforms", or dropped to balance out greater capability?

The concept phase will end once the requirements for the platform have been finalised, and once overall programme funding has been confirmed.

Nothing set in stone then yet...

Sounds to me that anything other than a further modified Iver Huitfeldt is going to be challenging to deliver over that timescale and implied budgetary pressure. Which suggests that it's Babcock's to lose, mainly dependant on how smoothly they deliver T31.

The BAE ASF design is definitely what I would have rather built in place of both classes, however we are where we are and paper ships are paper ships.

ASF could fill the gap in Bae orders between the T26 and T83.