Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by dmereifield »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 16:27 IMO the likelihood of the T32 programme being scrapped just went through the roof.

A mix of additional T26 and T31 looks like the most sensible way to proceed if HMG are really serious about growing escort numbers.
Unlikely to see more T26. If we're lucky we might get a batch 2 of uparmed T31 if batch 1 comes in on schedule and price....

Would be the sensible option if we could rustle up say £1 billion for 3 properly kitted out Tier 2 escorts
These users liked the author dmereifield for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by jonas »

These users liked the author jonas for the post (total 2):
PoiuytrewqTempest414

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Ron5 »

dmereifield wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:51 Would be the sensible option if we could rustle up say £1 billion for 3 properly kitted out Tier 2 escorts
What can or cannot be done by a tier two vs a tier one?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 09 Dec 2022, 15:27
dmereifield wrote: 29 Nov 2022, 17:51 Would be the sensible option if we could rustle up say £1 billion for 3 properly kitted out Tier 2 escorts
What can or cannot be done by a tier two vs a tier one?
That depends on what limits each tier and the task/ tasks asked of them

jonas
Senior Member
Posts: 1110
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by jonas »


User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

Ben Wallace said type 32 was a way off mid 2030's this now leaves the question was is built at Rosyth after type 31

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 11:14 Ben Wallace said type 32 was a way off mid 2030's ...
The two information does not contradict, I understand? Concept design it cheap. We can do lot's of concept design, until money be found to actually build it.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 13:09
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 11:14 Ben Wallace said type 32 was a way off mid 2030's ...
The two information does not contradict, I understand? Concept design it cheap. We can do lot's of concept design, until money be found to actually build it.
But it is clear from the boss of the MOD type 32 has been push back until 2035 or so

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 13:09
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 11:14 Ben Wallace said type 32 was a way off mid 2030's ...
The two information does not contradict, I understand? Concept design it cheap. We can do lot's of concept design, until money be found to actually build it.
Exactly, the T32 is currently an aspiration getting ping-ponged around looking for inspiration….and funding.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
donald_of_tokyo

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 18:29
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 13:09
Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 11:14 Ben Wallace said type 32 was a way off mid 2030's ...
The two information does not contradict, I understand? Concept design it cheap. We can do lot's of concept design, until money be found to actually build it.
But it is clear from the boss of the MOD type 32 has been push back until 2035 or so
Which is good. I can see no chance RN man power be increased enough to fully man the already ordered ships.

Currently 4 T23 are in LIFEX, and two T45 in PIP. Although another two T45 may be in CAMM-adding modernization, all T26 will be active and all T31 as well. With its lighter equipment, T31 can be at sea even longer than her crew can tolerate, meaning crew rotation (x1.5 like OPVs or even x2 like KIPION T23GP) shall be needed.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacserge750

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by tomuk »

Tempest414 wrote: 16 Dec 2022, 11:14 Ben Wallace said type 32 was a way off mid 2030's this now leaves the question was is built at Rosyth after type 21
Yes another great win for the ship building strategy just as BAE open their covered hall at Govan to build the T26 batch 2s Babcock will be closing theirs with no work to do. :wtf:

BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by BB85 »

Gives them an incentive to win some actual export contracts over the next couple of years. New Zealand are bound to need new frigates ordered soon.

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

tomuk wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 00:04 Yes another great win for the ship building strategy just as BAE open their covered hall at Govan to build the T26 batch 2s Babcock will be closing theirs with no work to do. :wtf:
This for me underlines the folly of trying to build hi/lo frigate classes in parallel. Both yards need sustainable drumbeats, and the RN having first tier class ships (T45/T26 etc) is non negotiable if it wants to remain a credible global (albeit limited) player.

Babcock and the RN needs a class of warship that can deliver the MHPC / forward based requirements whilst affordable enough to secure a ship every 18-24mths drumbeat.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

BB85 wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 09:44 Gives them an incentive to win some actual export contracts over the next couple of years. New Zealand are bound to need new frigates ordered soon.
There are some export opportunities, but mainly its design and local build support, with possibly construction of more complex modules. Not complete ships.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
Anthony58
”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: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 10:43
tomuk wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 00:04 Yes another great win for the ship building strategy just as BAE open their covered hall at Govan to build the T26 batch 2s Babcock will be closing theirs with no work to do. :wtf:
This for me underlines the folly of trying to build hi/lo frigate classes in parallel. Both yards need sustainable drumbeats, and the RN having first tier class ships (T45/T26 etc) is non negotiable if it wants to remain a credible global (albeit limited) player.

Babcock and the RN needs a class of warship that can deliver the MHPC / forward based requirements whilst affordable enough to secure a ship every 18-24mths drumbeat.
Drumbeat and what is sustainable depends entirely over what period you are wishing to replace vessels. 8-10 vessels being pushed thru each yard generates a drumbeat provided you’re prepared to replace vessels around every 24 years. You need only add 1-2 export sales thru a progressive trade policy to add resilience. Such as deliver one for your own yard while local production gets up to speed ect ect.

Babcock and RN has that class type 31.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

I ready don’t see this being too difficult.

Build the five T31s as planned then gift them to Ukraine as the T32s are completed.

Simple.
These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
serge750

serge750
Senior Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by serge750 »

Under the foreign aid budget.....or try to sell a couple to NZ

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 365
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Phil Sayers »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 12:06 I ready don’t see this being too difficult.

Built the five T31s as planned then gift them to Ukraine as the T32s are completed.

Simple.
I fear T31s operating in the Black Sea would be sitting ducks in any renewed hostilities. They really would not be well suited to fairly confined waters in which there is a potent SSK threat and hostile aviation nearby in large quantities. The Ukrainians would be better off acquiring a Swedish or Finnish style surface fleet consisting of well armed but fast and stealthy FACs / Corvettes etc.
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post (total 2):
donald_of_tokyoRepulse

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 12:06 I ready don’t see this being too difficult.

Build the five T31s as planned then gift them to Ukraine as the T32s are completed.

Simple.
Selling T31 will not earn £2Bn they spent, and MOD is lacking money to build T32. I'm afraid your proposal will just result in losing 5 T31GP frigates to get 2 T31. And, this will, of course, never keep the "2nd escort builder". You need 20 T3X to actually do it, which cannot be budgeted nor manned in any sense by RN.

Ordering T32 to keep Rosyth busy is just pointless. Just wait for money to be prepared, and hope it can be ordered around 2033-2035. What is more important now is to order something else to Rosyth to keep it working. No hope any escort be ordered, but there will be other candidates.

How about the 4 LSV of MCH program? How about a block of FSSS? Or, Point-replacement?
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 13:25 How about the 4 LSV of MCH program? How about a block of FSSS? Or, Point-replacement?
That’s the problem none of these are essential and even then none need to be built in a relatively expensive yard. Three OPVs to replace the B1s maybe, but I’d still be pushing for a longer term “MHPC T32” design which should not be complex and therefore a design in 5 years should be possible.
”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

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 4583
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Repulse »

SW1 wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 11:24 Drumbeat and what is sustainable depends entirely over what period you are wishing to replace vessels. 8-10 vessels being pushed thru each yard generates a drumbeat provided you’re prepared to replace vessels around every 24 years. You need only add 1-2 export sales thru a progressive trade policy to add resilience. Such as deliver one for your own yard while local production gets up to speed ect ect.

Babcock and RN has that class type 31.
You are of course right that the lifespan of the ships in RN service is a factor, but you end up with a small navy to make it work financially.

A vessel every 20 months seems to be towards the top end of what can be made efficient, the 5 B2 River order balanced out on average at less than 12 months per vessel. To get a lifespan of 24 years you need a fleet of at-least 12 ships per yard. More likely it will be 30 years and 15 ships.

The RN cannot afford 30 frigates / destroyers, it’s doesn’t seem to be able to afford 24 both for the construction and operating costs. That is why it’s best IMO to have one high end class and another lower end OPV/MHPC level, with each of the two yard’s optimised towards one of them.

Yes, you could pad by exports but why would anyone want ships fully built in expensive yards, apart from the RN who gets a sovereign capability.
These users liked the author Repulse for the post:
wargame_insomniac
”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

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Repulse wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 14:23
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 13:25 How about the 4 LSV of MCH program? How about a block of FSSS? Or, Point-replacement?
That’s the problem none of these are essential and even then none need to be built in a relatively expensive yard. Three OPVs to replace the B1s maybe, but I’d still be pushing for a longer term “MHPC T32” design which should not be complex and therefore a design in 5 years should be possible.
I understand T31 is NOT a fully complex warship.

See Iver Huiltfeldt class. Hull was built in Estonia and Latvia, largely reinforced merchant ship hull. CMS was integrated by Danish naval engineers. The ship is specifically designed with large internal space to make ease the CMS integration. (which means the 6500t large hull is not so "large", because many of its size are "already used" for this purpose, and also to "float-mount" equipment from shock with absorbers) .

In case of T31, hull is built by Babcock and CMS integration is lead by Thales UK, a subsidery of Thales Netherlands.

Therefore, building four hulls of MHC-LSV hull will be more than enough to keep the hull building technology. CMS integration now-how is, partly just imported from Netherlands, and another half in Babcock is not so easy (because T23 LIFEX program will also end soon), but somehow find it. Anyway, "four hulls of MHC-LSV" will be able to save the day in most of the part, I guess.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
serge750

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 13:25 Selling T31 will not earn £2Bn they spent, and MOD is lacking money to build T32. I'm afraid your proposal will just result in losing 5 T31GP frigates to get 2 T31.
HMG can easily gift anything to Ukraine and provide funds for replacements if it so wishes. It just takes political will.
Ordering T32 to keep Rosyth busy is just pointless. Just wait for money to be prepared, and hope it can be ordered around 2033-2035. What is more important now is to order something else to Rosyth to keep it working. No hope any escort be ordered, but there will be other candidates.
The target is 24 escorts for RN.

It makes little difference to Babcock/Rosyth if some of the vessels that are constructed end up abroad or all stay in the UK. It doesn’t matter beyond keeping the drumbeat going.

Perhaps RN keeps the T31s and Babcock builds 8 to 10 fast patrol craft as Phil Sayers suggests before moving onto the T32 programme. Lots of possibilities but the Ukraine/Babcock link is already set.
How about the 4 LSV of MCH program? How about a block of FSSS? Or, Point-replacement?
Actually I am less and less convinced by the direction of travel set out in the IR especially now that everyone is having to adapt to a new reality, both financially and politically. The six MRSS and five amalgamated Frigate/MCM hybrid T32 vessels looks like a “cost cutting in plain sight” exercise for a different era. However in my opinion the LRG/LSG concept still looks credible if properly funded and resourced.

The ultimate outcome of these programmes is wildly unpredictable at present but IMO current planning may actually be the least likely to materialise in the end.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by SW1 »

Repulse wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 14:48
SW1 wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 11:24 Drumbeat and what is sustainable depends entirely over what period you are wishing to replace vessels. 8-10 vessels being pushed thru each yard generates a drumbeat provided you’re prepared to replace vessels around every 24 years. You need only add 1-2 export sales thru a progressive trade policy to add resilience. Such as deliver one for your own yard while local production gets up to speed ect ect.

Babcock and RN has that class type 31.
You are of course right that the lifespan of the ships in RN service is a factor, but you end up with a small navy to make it work financially.

A vessel every 20 months seems to be towards the top end of what can be made efficient, the 5 B2 River order balanced out on average at less than 12 months per vessel. To get a lifespan of 24 years you need a fleet of at-least 12 ships per yard. More likely it will be 30 years and 15 ships.

The RN cannot afford 30 frigates / destroyers, it’s doesn’t seem to be able to afford 24 both for the construction and operating costs. That is why it’s best IMO to have one high end class and another lower end OPV/MHPC level, with each of the two yard’s optimised towards one of them.

Yes, you could pad by exports but why would anyone want ships fully built in expensive yards, apart from the RN who gets a sovereign capability.
It can be done with around 10 each for your own navy as by the time ship 1 is reaching 24 years in service ship 1 of your new/updated ship is being build to replace it. Benefit is you’re not spending excessively on maintaining aging and obsolete ships and equipment, rather than ann expensive mlu at this point they’re scrapped/sold and new bought instead.

You have that already type 26 is high end and type 31 is lower level patrol vessel. The proliferation of simple to use higher end missiles given to state proxies (houthis rebels) with high end missile/ drones these will be used in 1 and 2s which will require a level of defence capability above off shore patrol vessel standard for for conducting the historical and traditional Maritime security and protection of trade routes, essentially what type 31 was built for. The fact they are big enough and simple enough to be reliable and persist as well as having space to use off board systems is ideal.

For the same reason France and Italy have done it. As part of winning contracts and making deals with countries you can offer the country in question a chance to get capability early but giving up either a finished or nearly finish vessel from your own line with the knowledge this will be replaced, while you help set up production of the further vessels in the order in their own yards.

It has to be centred around a government strategic policy of free trade, industry and export and have the finance provision to allow it. The RN is a tool to achieve that policy.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Type 32 General Purpose Frigate [News Only]

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 17 Dec 2022, 15:17HMG can easily gift anything to Ukraine and provide funds for replacements if it so wishes. It just takes political will.
Lack of money is the key. Political will cannot earn money. You need to either increase Tax or cut something else to earn money. Yes, it is political will. And, HMG decided NOT to fund enough to let MOD fund T32 now. That's it.
The target is 24 escorts for RN.
Yes, and it does not require T32 to be ordered soon after T31. Not only lack of money, but also man power. No need to hurry.
Perhaps RN keeps the T31s and Babcock builds 8 to 10 fast patrol craft as Phil Sayers suggests before moving onto the T32 programme. Lots of possibilities but the Ukraine/Babcock link is already set.
Not a bad idea, looks like.
How about the 4 LSV of MCH program? How about a block of FSSS? Or, Point-replacement?
Actually I am less and less convinced by the direction of travel set out in the IR especially now that everyone is having to adapt to a new reality, both financially and politically. The six MRSS and five amalgamated Frigate/MCM hybrid T32 vessels looks like a “cost cutting in plain sight” exercise for a different era.
MHC-LSV, 4 hulls, are clearly written in the 2023-2032 equipment plan. It means it is funded. Big difference compared to MRSS and T32. This is why I propose as such.

Post Reply