Type 31 and Variants - NEWS

Should beware jumping to conclusions.
Seems a factor might be interest from Argentina in the Ivar Huitfeldt class.
Obviously that could get bogged down and Denmark might also be reevaluating the threat of war in the next few years.
Time might be so tight for the risk of future conflict that disposal could be delayed until the threat receeds.

Equally rise in rocket artillery might now be skewing Danish priorities. That new rocket fuel plant coming on stream for example.

Babcock be trying to secure a longer term order book and the RN is under increasing pressure to deliver operational vessels at sea. That the squeeze on available vessels opens up greater domestic demand. So Babcock is pushing out media pieces to secure that money by public pressure.
 
Sell the current five to New Zealand, Chile, Brazil, et cetera. Heck, see if Uruguay want some of them instead of the OPVs.

Then, build five new ones for the RN.
 
Reuben James said:
Sell the current five to New Zealand, Chile, Brazil, et cetera. Heck, see if Uruguay want some of them instead of the OPVs.

Then, build five new ones for the RN.
Click to expand...
At the moment we're running out of available ships we can put to sea.
So doing that would massively exacerbate the situation.
 
zen said:
At the moment we're running out of available ships we can put to sea.
So doing that would massively exacerbate the situation.
Click to expand...

The logical step would be to just order a Batch 2, possibly with some minor modifications for drone and counter drone ops (just enough to keep the design folks employed).
 
Last edited:
zen said:
Should beware jumping to conclusions.
Seems a factor might be interest from Argentina in the Ivar Huitfeldt class.
Obviously that could get bogged down and Denmark might also be reevaluating the threat of war in the next few years.
Time might be so tight for the risk of future conflict that disposal could be delayed until the threat receeds.

Equally rise in rocket artillery might now be skewing Danish priorities. That new rocket fuel plant coming on stream for example.

Babcock be trying to secure a longer term order book and the RN is under increasing pressure to deliver operational vessels at sea. That the squeeze on available vessels opens up greater domestic demand. So Babcock is pushing out media pieces to secure that money by public pressure.
Click to expand...

Could this be a way for Babcock to push for a T31 batch 2, or have a couple of T32 based on AH140 design? The messaging from them is similar to Leonardo before the AW139 was selected for the NMH programme
 
zen said:
At the moment we're running out of available ships we can put to sea.
So doing that would massively exacerbate the situation.
Click to expand...
Tbf, that could be solved by building those five additional ships, using the original five in the interim, and then selling those original five once their equivalent new ships are completed.
 
Reuben James said:
Tbf, that could be solved by building those five additional ships, using the original five in the interim, and then selling those original five once their equivalent new ships are completed.
Click to expand...
That sounds a lot like subsidising other countries' frigate orders as I doubt we would be able to pass the first of class costs onto the customers especially if we'd been using them for a few years.
There are plenty of orders that could go to Babcock aside from new T31s, any escort fleet money is going to go on the T91s and T92s as they provide the quickest route to expanding capability without cutting into other build programmes.
 
Reuben James said:
Tbf, that could be solved by building those five additional ships, using the original five in the interim, and then selling those original five once their equivalent new ships are completed.
Click to expand...

That was in fact the original plan....
 
timmymagic said:
That was in fact the original plan....
Click to expand...

Not quite. From John Parker's suggested UK National Shipbuilding Strategy:

Specifically, the Type 31e should be kept in service for its economic service life or for a lesser period if an alternative sale in support of an export campaign is required. This approach should create attractive export opportunities for the UK and will also provide the greatest flexibility to the RN, to update the vessel batch by batch and introduce new capabilities over time per ship.
Click to expand...

I don't think this sentiment was carried forward to the final Strategy.
 
Last edited:
Ron5 said:
Not quite. From John Parker's suggested UK National Shipbuilding Strategy:



I don't think this sentiment was carried forward to the final Strategy.
Click to expand...
So this would be replacing the ships c.2040 as technology moves on and the RN requirements change. Makes sense and a decent chunk of our global influence used to be due to arming small countries and operating closely with their ex-RN navies; the RB2s' job is the spiritual descendent of that though we aren't selling ships any more.
It heavily relies on a contract between the RN, government and the shipbuilders that the lost ships will be replaced, however.
 
TorpedoJ said:
That sounds a lot like subsidising other countries' frigate orders as I doubt we would be able to pass the first of class costs onto the customers especially if we'd been using them for a few years.
There are plenty of orders that could go to Babcock aside from new T31s, any escort fleet money is going to go on the T91s and T92s as they provide the quickest route to expanding capability without cutting into other build programmes.
Click to expand...
Babcock are planning an extension at Rosyth with a new big construction shed for which planning permission has already been granted. That is going to have to be paid for. With it they will be able to take on additional contracts without interfering with RN work.
https://docs.planning.org.uk/20251218/194/T7DDXKHFFIE00/xuublm2bi0q6ngt2.pdf
https://www.theplanner.co.uk/2026/02/19/second-shipbuilding-hall-approved-rosyth-dockyard
 
How much equip
EwenS said:
Babcock are planning an extension at Rosyth with a new big construction shed for which planning permission has already been granted. That is going to have to be paid for. With it they will be able to take on additional contracts without interfering with RN work.
https://docs.planning.org.uk/20251218/194/T7DDXKHFFIE00/xuublm2bi0q6ngt2.pdf
https://www.theplanner.co.uk/2026/02/19/second-shipbuilding-hall-approved-rosyth-dockyard
Click to expand...
Thing is, they haven't got additional contracts at the moment, will they actually go through with a second build hall with nothing beyond the last 31?
 
I was under the impression that it was the lack of dry-docks for fitting out that limited T31 production, not the build hall.
 
Reuben James said:
I was under the impression that it was the lack of dry-docks for fitting out that limited T31 production, not the build hall.
Click to expand...
"Looking ahead, later ships may not need to enter the dry dock, moving directly from the hall to a berth for final outfitting. This reflects confidence in the considerably increased level of completion achieved before launch and mirrors best practice seen in other high-throughput naval shipyards."

https://www.navylookout.com/buildin...al-purpose-frigates-type-31-programme-update/
Only No.3 dry dock is available for completion works. No.1 is reserved for the carriers. No.2 is being used for SSN decommissioning and scrapping.
 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...akes-hit-after-assembling-royal-navy-frigate/

But Babcock International, which holds the contract to make the warships, has admitted it built the first two in the wrong sequence, forcing it to spend months making £140m of changes.

In a trading update on Wednesday, Babcock said: “During the outfitting stage we have experienced higher-than-expected levels of rework as a result of design changes and the long-term impacts of out-of-sequence build activity earlier in the programme.

“Whilst the number of such rework events is not entirely unexpected, the work is being performed in the later stages of completion and therefore is more complex and more costly.”

The company also admitted that although the main problem was with the first of the five ships, HMS Venturer, some of the same errors were repeated on HMS Active.
Click to expand...
 
zen said:
Take a moment to appreciate they realised they messed up, have gone public and be working to fix things.

This is how you get better.
Click to expand...
Well as not as life-threatening as gluing bolts together on nuclear reactors but hardly a good call for a shipbuilding company to not be able to organise shipbuilding...
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
Well as not as life-threatening as gluing bolts together on nuclear submarines but hardly a good call for a shipbuilding company to not be able to organise shipbuilding...
Click to expand...
10-to-1 odds it's down to training and experience
 
Hood said:
Well as not as life-threatening as gluing bolts together on nuclear reactors but hardly a good call for a shipbuilding company to not be able to organise shipbuilding...
Click to expand...
Babcock isn't a historic shipbuilder, though. They're learning fast, but shipbuilding isn't quite the same as ship repair. Ten years ago, the number of ships which had been built in Rosyth was, if not precisely zero, then at least less than one.
 
Ron5 said:
Are you forgetting the two carriers?
Click to expand...
Neither of them were complete ten years ago, and they were the first ships built in Rosyth. Even then, that's with a moderately generous definition of 'built'.
 
Well, I'll put my money (metaphorically speaking) on the FDI.

My reasons being:
  1. Proven, in-service design.
  2. Full-spectrum capability in AAW, BMD, ASW and ASuW without the requirements for significant changes to the established design's armament.
  3. Rapid delivery available.
  4. Existing defence relationship with France.
Ideally, I'll be proven wrong, though a small part of me still thinks that if T31 fails to receive further orders, the UK will be forced to order a couple more to keep Rosyth in business.

The major sticking point will be the smaller degree of Swedish involvement in the programme.
 
The British government is probably hoping the FDI wins so they can be done with this silly shipbuilding fad in Scotland.
 
Reuben James said:
Well, I'll put my money (metaphorically speaking) on the FDI.

My reasons being:
  1. Proven, in-service design.
  2. Full-spectrum capability in AAW, BMD, ASW and ASuW without the requirements for significant changes to the established design's armament.
  3. Rapid delivery available.
  4. Existing defence relationship with France.
Ideally, I'll be proven wrong, though a small part of me still thinks that if T31 fails to receive further orders, the UK will be forced to order a couple more to keep Rosyth in business.

The major sticking point will be the smaller degree of Swedish involvement in the programme.
Click to expand...
I mean the offer from Babcock is the "Arrowhead 120" rather than a straight up Type 31, so how much risk does that add to the procurement, as opposed to the suggestion by France that one of the current FDI's could be transferred asap to Sweden?
 
sparky42 said:
I mean the offer from Babcock is the "Arrowhead 120" rather than a straight up Type 31, so how much risk does that add to the procurement, as opposed to the suggestion by France that one of the current FDI's could be transferred asap to Sweden?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I said about the FDI being a 'proven, in-service design'. Neither AH140 or AH120 are proven.

The other issue I see brewing is that Sweden wants long-range air defence capability. Unless they plan to switch to Standards, Mk41 is really quite limiting for European nations.
 
However SAAB is involved in the AH120 proposal from Babcock, and will provide the CMS. Making for a degree of continuity with existing Swedish Navy vessels and that aspect of the ship will be built in Sweden.
 
Reuben James said:
The other issue I see brewing is that Sweden wants long-range air defence capability. Unless they plan to switch to Standards, Mk41 is really quite limiting for European nations.
Click to expand...
Adopting the US Standard missile family has become so expensive (because of AEGIS radar/combat management system costs) that no one in Europe has gone down that route in 20+ years. Unless you're Germany and desperate (or willing) to hand billions of dollars in cash to Uncle Sam ($12B for 8 AEGIS shipsets for their F127 class!! Not counting missiles).

Aster 30 seems to be the far better choice for a cost-effective high-end missile with BMD capability. With CAMM/CAMM-ER, Mica VL or RAM on the lower end. No other option out there until someone pays for CAMM MR navalisation. So a big question for Arrowhead 120 in Sweden and 140 in Denmark is are Saab/Thales NL able (and allowed) to integrate Aster 30 and Sylver launchers on a BMT platform.
 
Last edited:
H_K said:
So a big question for Arrowhead 120 in Sweden and 140 in Denmark is are Saab/Thales NL able (and allowed) to integrate Aster 30 and Sylver launchers on a BMT platform.
Click to expand...

The flipside is if the UK will allow Naval Group to integrate CAMM to FDI...otherwise its rather short of missiles...
 
timmymagic said:
The flipside is if the UK will allow Naval Group to integrate CAMM to FDI...otherwise its rather short of missiles...
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't we help that if increases MBDA sales to Sweden.

Honestly that's the silver lining for the UK here.
Because once we get CAMM on FDI, others may follow. Even if they're buying FDI.....

For all we know NG might actually want to offer something other than PAAMS and MICA-VL. Sweden being just the start.
 
zen said:
Because once we get CAMM on FDI, others may follow. Even if they're buying FDI.....
Click to expand...
Greece for example would probably have preferred a version with 24 Aster 30B1NT and 24 CAMM/CAMM-ER
 
Titus K said:
Greece for example would probably have preferred a version with 24 Aster 30B1NT and 24 CAMM/CAMM-ER
Click to expand...
Retrofit at some future update ?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom