Type 32 Strike Frigate

Hood said:
We could possibly debate all day about which of the two (T31 and T32) are more mission adaptable or strike adaptable or mission configurable. On the face of it Type 32 looks like it has a smaller and lower tonnage hull but is better equipped (space for 3 VLS on the forecastle, same gun armament, fixed Thales arrays, capability for MCM operations and it seems to have more comms/EW aerials and equipment too). Still no A/S torpedo launchers though.
Click to expand...
Shipboard LWT launchers are the modern equivalent of depth charges.

Even assuming the sub is attacking with torpedoes, heavyweights have such a range advantage that you're not presenting any threat to the attacking sub. You have to use helo/drone-dropped torpedoes or ASROC equivalents to present a threat to a submarine attacking with torpedoes.

And good luck if that sub is using antiship missiles instead of torpedoes.



Hood said:
I presume with USV/UUVs doing the dangerous work of mine clearance at distance from the ship the designers might feel that the shock risk is reduced for using pods?
Click to expand...
There's still the chances of some sneaky bastard applying a torpedo to you.
 
Ultimately what will count is numbers and before anyone says that's impossible. Just remember how large the RN was in personnel, back when the population the UK was not even a third of today's figures.
If the need is pressing, the solution will be found.

In context I do think we're at a crossroads over whether to go for Batch II Type 31 or drive forward some sort of lean manned system dependant on AI.
Industrially this might ultimately be decided by chip provision domestically and amongst neighbouring allies.
 
Considering the silence from the government on the Type 32, I think the decision to join the Norwegian offshore support ship/drone mothership is interesting.

Not only does it fill the only major requirement mentioned for the Type 32 (control and support of drones), the Vanguard design, for example, has the capacity for containerised air defence systems, amongst other options.

My concern would be where the ships are planned to be built. Presumably, if, like HMS Stirling Castle, the ships are intended to be operated by the RN, they'd need to be built in the UK.

I wonder whether these ships might also be folded into the plan to replace the three Batch 1 OPVs that are set to retire soonish.
 
Reuben James said:
Considering the silence from the government on the Type 32, I think the decision to join the Norwegian offshore support ship/drone mothership is interesting.

Not only does it fill the only major requirement mentioned for the Type 32 (control and support of drones), the Vanguard design, for example, has the capacity for containerised air defence systems, amongst other options.

My concern would be where the ships are planned to be built. Presumably, if, like HMS Stirling Castle, the ships are intended to be operated by the RN, they'd need to be built in the UK.

I wonder whether these ships might also be folded into the plan to replace the three Batch 1 OPVs that are set to retire soonish.
Click to expand...
What plan to replace the B1 River's thought the B2's were going to be replaced by the 31's and they would then replace the B1's, haven't seen any suggestion of a new OPV order?
 
I was talking more generally about a need to replace lost hulls overall, rather than a specific B1 OPV successor. Having a more capable mine mothership that can take on some patrol frigate/OPV roles as well as being used for minesweeping would allow more of the B2 OPVs to be kept abroad in the very low threat environments in which even a Type 31 is overkill - for example, the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

I believe several of the RN's last generation minesweepers also take on patrol duties and the escort of Russian warships.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom