Type 32 Strike Frigate

[H_K]

Starting a new thread on the Royal Navy’s Type 32. First some messages from the Type 31 GPFF thread:

British Navy plans to introduce five Type 32 frigates

According to a report published by the UK’s House of Commons Defense Committee on December 7, 2021, the British Royal Navy is planning to introduce five Ty

www.navyrecognition.com

According to a report published by the UK’s House of Commons Defense Committee on December 7, 2021, the British Royal Navy is planning to introduce five Type 32 frigates, which would increase the escort fleet (frigates and destroyers) from 19 to 24.

During the DSEI, British defense exhibition in September 2021, British company Babcock International revealed it was pitching its Arrowhead 140 design, used by the Type 31 frigate, as the base design for the Type 32.

According to information from the UK’s Minister for Defense Procurement Jeremy Quin, the new Type 32 frigate will be a platform for autonomous systems, adding to the British Navy’s capabilities for missions such as anti-submarine warfare and mine countermeasures.

Citing British navy military experts, the Type 32 will offer an ability to host MMCM modules in addition to supporting littoral operations by the Royal Marines. Initiated in 2012 under a cooperation agreement between France and the United Kingdom, the MMCM program develops a prototype autonomous system for detection and neutralization of sea mines and underwater improvised explosive devices (UWIEDs).

There was some speculation that the Type 32 might be another batch of Type 31s, but it seems that the programme's heading in a new and interesting direction.

Type 32 Frigate to focus on operating drones

The Type 32 Frigate will be the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

“The Type 32 programme will be the first of a new generation of warships with a focus on hosting and operating autonomous onboard systems that add mass and a cost of complexity upon our adversaries. Many of these autonomous capabilities and other complex systems will be delivered in a modular manner, which offers the potential to simplify the host platform whilst retaining the flexibility to optimise it for a range of specific tasks. It also provides a route to delivering the adaptability that will be essential for all future Royal Navy ships to enable them to outpace evolving threats and capitalise on emerging technology.

Is the type worth a new thread of its own yet?

 

[H_K]

Updates from Euronaval 2022… now called the « Adaptable Strike Frigate »:

Royal Navy builds operational concept for Type 32 frigate - Naval News

The UK Royal Navy (RN) is continuing to build the operational concept for its Type 32 class future frigate.

www.navalnews.com

Euronaval 2022: BAE Systems details Adaptable Strike Frigate design with Type 32 and exports in mind | Shephard

With Type 32 and exports in mind, BAE details Adaptable Strike Frigate design

www.shephardmedia.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582313178809057280

View: https://twitter.com/harry_lye/status/1582313178809057280?s=20&t=eLPVjgQjnVSPMtXylQ6A9Q

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582129713882886144

View: https://twitter.com/redunley/status/1582129713882886144?s=20&t=lS89Pb2Yx2qGJQUkG9GaUQ

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582334926695043072

View: https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1582334926695043072?s=20&t=eLPVjgQjnVSPMtXylQ6A9Q

 

[TomS]

"Adaptable Strike Frigate" is BAE's guess at what the Type 32 requirement will look like, right? It seems like this is still pretty nebulous from the RN/MoD side.

At a glance, this looks like a clean sheet design, rather than a warmed over corvette like their T31 Leander offering. It's clearly a lot bigger (Chinook flight deck instead of Lynx, much less cramped foredeck). And of course the hull is quite different, with the now-fashionable plumb bow.

 

[zen]

If we want to keep design 'in house', then a warmed over Ivar Huitfeldt hull is obviously questionable.

 

[irishjihad]

with the now-fashionable plumb bow.

Gives it a nice County Class cruiser vibe.

 

[Moose]

Plumb bow and fairly dainty deckhouse has this looking the most Dreadnought-esque of any recent concept I can recall.

If we want to keep design 'in house', then a warmed over Ivar Huitfeldt hull is obviously questionable.

Babcock/the UK owns the Type 31 design, and their (BAE's) national capacity to design surface combatants can be sustained with the Type 45 replacement. If a T31 variant is offered, it should not be dismissed out of hand.

 

[TomS]

Datasheet for BAE's Adaptable Strike Frigate concept. Certainly some unusual ideas here, like using the midships topsides mission space for UAS operations (looks like a mid-sized quadcopter of some sort)

The boat ramp shows three options: an SDV (or maybe a large UUV?), some sort of boats (I think this is the same as the model, but I don't recognize the specific design), and a larger craft that looks like a miniature combatant, complete with its own UAS flight deck.

 

[H_K]

some sort of boats (I think this is the same as the model, but I don't recognize the specific design)

Those look like ARCIMS, the 11m Atlas Electronik minesweeping USVs bought for “project Wilton”.

Royal Navy Takes Delivery Of Her Last Drone For Her Crewless Minehunting Programme - Naval News

The third and final Royal Navy autonomous minehunting boat has been delivered to Clyde Naval Base.

www.navalnews.com

 

[TomS]

some sort of boats (I think this is the same as the model, but I don't recognize the specific design)

Those look like ARCIMS, the 11m Atlas Electronik minesweeping USVs bought for “project Wilton”.

Royal Navy Takes Delivery Of Her Last Drone For Her Crewless Minehunting Programme - Naval News

The third and final Royal Navy autonomous minehunting boat has been delivered to Clyde Naval Base.

www.navalnews.com

Thanks. That also explains the boxy things in the boat bay on the model -- SWEEP modules towed by ARCIMS.

 

[Blackbuck]

The strangest feature to me so far (notwithstanding the plumb bow and substantial knuckle) is the choice of a contra-rotating centre shaft with pods, when as I understand it (possibly incorrectly) that shock hardening pods for warships has been seen problematic in years past.

 

[TomS]

The strangest feature to me so far (notwithstanding the plumb bow and substantial knuckle) is the choice of a contra-rotating centre shaft with pods, when as I understand it (possibly incorrectly) that shock hardening pods for warships has been seen problematic in years past.

I don't see a centerline shaft. I see two different propulsion options -- traditional shafts or pods.

In theory, the pods should be more efficient and maneuverable. They've had a couple of decades to work on issues like shock hardening, so hopefully it's acceptable now. There are a couple of naval classes with pods now, so they may have a track record.

 

[Hood]

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.

Arguably Type 32 might be the better buy moving forwards. I feel that the whole £250million ceiling nonsense crippled the Type 31 programme - leading to the imposition of an existing hull (Ivar Huitfeldt) but also a much reduced equipment and armament fit compared to what the hull is capable of taking. Within a few years the Type 31s could be looked upon as poor relations.

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?

 

[Blackbuck]

The strangest feature to me so far (notwithstanding the plumb bow and substantial knuckle) is the choice of a contra-rotating centre shaft with pods, when as I understand it (possibly incorrectly) that shock hardening pods for warships has been seen problematic in years past.

I don't see a centerline shaft. I see two different propulsion options -- traditional shafts or pods.

In theory, the pods should be more efficient and maneuverable. They've had a couple of decades to work on issues like shock hardening, so hopefully it's acceptable now. There are a couple of naval classes with pods now, so they may have a track record.

From the brochure. The model at Euronaval also has the centreline prop featured, you can just about see it in one of the twitter images, here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582310342964965376

View: https://twitter.com/oliver_morton/status/1582310342964965376/photo/2

IMO It would be odd to feature different methods in the same renders and models, and the combination of the two isn't uncommon on civilian vessels, just strange on a non-auxiliary warship.

 

[TomS]

The strangest feature to me so far (notwithstanding the plumb bow and substantial knuckle) is the choice of a contra-rotating centre shaft with pods, when as I understand it (possibly incorrectly) that shock hardening pods for warships has been seen problematic in years past.

I don't see a centerline shaft. I see two different propulsion options -- traditional shafts or pods.

In theory, the pods should be more efficient and maneuverable. They've had a couple of decades to work on issues like shock hardening, so hopefully it's acceptable now. There are a couple of naval classes with pods now, so they may have a track record.

View attachment 685867

From the brochure. The model at Euronaval also has the centreline prop featured, you can just about see it in one of the twitter images, here.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1582310342964965376

View: https://twitter.com/oliver_morton/status/1582310342964965376/photo/2

IMO It would be odd to feature different methods in the same renders and models, and the combination of the two isn't uncommon on civilian vessels, just strange on a non-auxiliary warship.

Ah, yes. I see it now. That is profoundly weird. Can only think it's for a combined drivetrain of some sort. Maybe a GT on the shaft for sprint, diesel-electric on the pods for loitering. But it seems very unnecessary.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Type 32 (among many other things) may be dead on arrival, given current events.

 

[timmymagic]

Looks like the 57mm and 40mm is here to stay...

And Dragonfire laser above the bridge and hangar

 

[TomS]

Looks like the 57mm and 40mm is here to stay...

And Dragonfire laser above the bridge and hangar

There are pics floating around with a laser in place of one of the CAMM nests

Edit: Like this one. Seems to be associated with the "Cube" concept of modular systems. Even the CAMM nests seems to be hosted in an ISO box footprint.

 

[TomS]

Thanks to @Grey Havoc I think the midships drones in the brochure might be the T-650 drones mentioned here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mbda-brimstone.4720/post-558639

Official page:

T-650 Heavy Lift Electric UAS Concept Vehicle

www.baesystems.com

All-electric drone, emphasis on payload, less on range/endurance.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

What are the advantages of this specific hull layout?

Also, what can the design of the frigate reveal about any potential requirements for the Type 32?

 

[jeffb]

Navy Lookout article on same:

In focus: BAE Systems’ adaptable strike frigate concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

From the article:
The ASF has an unusual 3-screw arrangement consisting of a direct drive propeller on the centreline and two azipods. This solves the problem of space at the stern occupied by the mission bay and stern ramp and removes the need for rudders and steering gear.

 

[duker]

If we want to keep design 'in house', then a warmed over Ivar Huitfeldt hull is obviously questionable.

Hulls dont mean much , its the insides that fit in the hull that matter. Its generally no longer a valid approach to change the hull below the weatherdeck for the sake of it.
Becuase of the historical RN issues with budget blowouts when new types are indroduced, its only worthwhile for a bulk order [T45 was supposed to be 12, T26 actually is 8 (proposed) and the T31 is only 5 ] so to make the most of the time and money spent on the T31 dont go to a new T32 hull along with its inside systems , but just do a modification version

 

[duker]

Navy Lookout article on same:

In focus: BAE Systems’ adaptable strike frigate concept | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

From the article:
The ASF has an unusual 3-screw arrangement consisting of a direct drive propeller on the centreline and two azipods. This solves the problem of space at the stern occupied by the mission bay and stern ramp and removes the need for rudders and steering gear.

Its certainly innovative but that raises another issue , previously it was considered that a stern ramp wasnt the optimal place for loading and unloading when underway compared to alongside. There are also 'known unknowns' about pods for this class of warship. They seem to have been used for larger amphip types ( with large windage) which need the manoeuvrability to get alongside wharves in usual and unusual places

 

[Grey Havoc]

BAE Systems centres Adaptable Strike Frigate on autonomous systems

The concept is designed around a core of autonomous systems and modular architecture to enable rapid re-rolling.

www.naval-technology.com

 

[Hood]

For now we can say that this is BAE's concept based on what it thinks the MOD/RN wants in the absence of a detailed specification in competition with whatever Type 31 variant Babcock is likely to offer.
Doubtless once a specification is released the design will be firmed up and alter in details.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we want to keep design 'in house', then a warmed over Ivar Huitfeldt hull is obviously questionable.

Hulls dont mean much , its the insides that fit in the hull that matter. Its generally no longer a valid approach to change the hull below the weatherdeck for the sake of it.
Becuase of the historical RN issues with budget blowouts when new types are indroduced, its only worthwhile for a bulk order [T45 was supposed to be 12, T26 actually is 8 (proposed) and the T31 is only 5 ] so to make the most of the time and money spent on the T31 dont go to a new T32 hull along with its inside systems , but just do a modification version

Hulls matter immensely, because it's the hull shape that determines a ships buoyance and speed through the water. Without a proper hull design what's inside will be about as useful as an electric coat hanger. If a ship's hull is to broad for its length then it will sail and wallow like a pig. Some ships will roll on wet grass and they aren't much fun to serve in. Another point about a hull is that, for example and ASW ship like the Type 26 City, CSC and Hunter Classes have a specific hull that is designed to be quiet.

Plumb bow and fairly dainty deckhouse has this looking the most Dreadnought-esque of any recent concept I can recall.

If we want to keep design 'in house', then a warmed over Ivar Huitfeldt hull is obviously questionable.

Babcock/the UK owns the Type 31 design, and their (BAE's) national capacity to design surface combatants can be sustained with the Type 45 replacement. If a T31 variant is offered, it should not be dismissed out of hand.

Babcock have a business agreement with OMT (Odense Maritime Technology) who are the original designers of the OMT F370 FFG design. That design is a derivative of the RDN (Royal Danish Navy) Absalon Command Ship and is the Iver Huitfeld Class FFG Class, currently in use with the RDN. One noticeable difference between the Absalon Class and the Iver Huitfeld Class is that the Absalons have nine decks and the Ivers only eight. The Absalons also have a very large mission bay down aft that they can use as a vehicle deck with drive on / off access from the port side when alongside, and by stern ramp when at sea. They also can fit 20ft TEUs in the mission bay for a hospital, C2 (Command & Control) and any other use that they can think of. However, the Absalons only have two diesel main engines instead of the four on the Ivers, so are somewhat slower, about 24 knots from memory against the Ivers 29+ knots. The Iver's speed is suspected to be a bit more than that because they have little trouble keeping up with a USN CBG.

The Ivers are very good ships and the USN really like them. The RDN use the Stanflex modular system on them, their Absalon Class, and on their OPV / Corvette Class. However it's bespoke system and has a different footprint than the 20ft ISO TEU system that the SH Cube system uses. It also takes a lot longer to re-role a ship than the Cube system. The Babcock Arrow Head 140 is an updated OMT F370 design. It's only updated in that it has include space for mission bays. It can and does take the 127mm / 5in gun and can have up to 32 Mk-41 VLS cells with at least 24 of them being strike length. The strike length cell will take the Tomahawk LACM. The Mk-41 VLS cells will accommodate quad packed ESSM Blk II and quad packed Sea Ceptor capsules. Lockheed Martin claim that they can fit quad packed Sea Ceptor into the Mk-41 but we'll see. Of course Sea Ceptor also fits in Lockheed Martin's ExLS VLS quad packed. The beauty about ExLS is that it can be fitted anywhere on a ship. It doesn't penetrate the deck. The ship's machinery can be rafted in order to quieten the ship. Rafting is an expensive option.

One of the reasons why the RN has cost blow outs is that it changes its mind even after a design is finalised and the ship is being built. It wants things added or changed and that is expensive cost and time wise. They have a reputation amongst the other FVEY (Five Eyes) navies for doing that. They would be better settling on one design and building in tranches. One FVEY navy that I know of built a new fleet of frigates, which took them about 15 years. They went and bought everything for all of the ships before the steel was cut on the first ship. By the time the last ship was commissioned the first of the class was undergoing a Mid Life weapons, comms, and sensors upgrade, whilst the new ship was out fitted with nigh on 20 year old kit. That was a very expensive lesson.

 

[uk 75]

The RN should look back over its experience with the Type 12, 22 and 23 frigates.
For me lessons learned are:
- ships serve longer than originally planned.
-a good seakeeping hull form is essential.
-the ships should be as roomy as possible.
-refitting can be expensive and inconvenient so sometimes never happens.
-weapons and sensors can take many forms and shapes and sizes.
-a large flat deck for helps and UAVs is always used.
-do not incorporate too many untested systems and designs in one vessel as they will compromise it and one another.
-hi and lo end versions tempt the Treasury to build the lowest number of lo end ships.
-a good general purpose frigate is easier to convert to specialised roles than a single role design is to adapt later.

 

[zen]

I'll add it helps if you have a design that can be enhanced in weaponry and systems. Which is sold as a reduced capability, but can be brought up to a higher standard.

 

[TomS]

Lockheed Martin claim that they can fit quad packed Sea Ceptor into the Mk-41 but we'll see. Of course Sea Ceptor also fits in Lockheed Martin's ExLS VLS quad packed. The beauty about ExLS is that it can be fitted anywhere on a ship. It doesn't penetrate the deck.

ExLS comes in two versions. Host ExLS.is specifically designed to sit inside a Mk41 cell, so Sea Ceptor/Host ExLS quads by definition can fit in a Mk41.

The 3-cell Standalone ExLS does require a deck penetration. But it's much more compact (and shallower) than Mk41.

 

[Hood]

Could the Type 32 be heading for cancellation before its even begun?
Rumours are that it might be cut in March given the budget pressures.

Whether this means more T31s will be ordered or if effort will switch to T83 is anyone's guess. Of course what this means to MCM is probably more vital - maybe tying up that role with a frigate-platform wasn't such a smart move after all?

The Type 32 frigate programme – over before it began? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[TomS]

Whether this means more T31s will be ordered or if effort will switch to T83 is anyone's guess. Of course what this means to MCM is probably more vital - maybe tying up that role with a frigate-platform wasn't such a smart move after all?

Hasn't the RN bought one commercial ship as an MCM support ship, with more on the way? I'm not sure if Island Crown is one of the three Logistics Support Vessels planned for the future MCM force but it feels that way.

Mothership to support autonomous mine hunting systems arrives in the UK | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[bobthemonkey]

Whether this means more T31s will be ordered or if effort will switch to T83 is anyone's guess. Of course what this means to MCM is probably more vital - maybe tying up that role with a frigate-platform wasn't such a smart move after all?

Hasn't the RN bought one commercial ship as an MCM support ship, with more on the way? I'm not sure if Island Crown is one of the three Logistics Support Vessels planned for the future MCM force but it feels that way.

Mothership to support autonomous mine hunting systems arrives in the UK | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

It’s additional to the three. Seems the three are intended to be deployable (albeit with one based in the Gulf) with Island Crown as a 4th vessel dedicated to home waters & North Atlantic.

eta: source is the Defence Equipment Plan - page 28. https://assets.publishing.service.g...2/The_defence_equipment_plan_2022_to_2032.pdf

Original post should read 4 deployable LSV with Island Crown as a 5th hull - marked OSV.

 

[TomS]

Whether this means more T31s will be ordered or if effort will switch to T83 is anyone's guess. Of course what this means to MCM is probably more vital - maybe tying up that role with a frigate-platform wasn't such a smart move after all?

Hasn't the RN bought one commercial ship as an MCM support ship, with more on the way? I'm not sure if Island Crown is one of the three Logistics Support Vessels planned for the future MCM force but it feels that way.

Mothership to support autonomous mine hunting systems arrives in the UK | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

It’s additional to the three. Seems the three are intended to be deployable (albeit with one based in the Gulf) with Island Crown as a 4th vessel dedicated to home waters & North Atlantic.

Ok. So, the RN/RFA gets four dedicated MCM support vessels under this plan. They don't seem to be relying on the Type 32 for that function very much, so losing it doesn't hurt them in the MCM realm.

Which starts to raise the question of what the Type 32 does that a much cheaper Type 31 Batch II can't. Type 31 already has some mission-adaptable space that can be used for UUVs/USVs. Seems like a minor stretch or rearrangement could go a long way toward fulfilling the desire for more hulls without costing a lot more.

 

[BlackBat242]

Could the Type 32 be heading for cancellation before its even begun?
Rumours are that it might be cut in March given the budget pressures.

Whether this means more T31s will be ordered or if effort will switch to T83 is anyone's guess. Of course what this means to MCM is probably more vital - maybe tying up that role with a frigate-platform wasn't such a smart move after all?

The Type 32 frigate programme – over before it began? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Funny... just a couple of weeks after this announcement (could Navy Lookout be ignoring the government's press conference?)

Despite earlier rumours that the class is set to be cancelled, the UK Government have insisted that “the Type 32 Frigate programme remains a key part of the future fleet”.

According to a statement dated the 26th of January from Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, the type will remain, but changes will be made to make the vessel more affordable.

“There are currently no plans to withdraw the Type 32 Frigate Programme and it remains a key part of the future fleet for the Royal Navy. The Programme is currently in its concept phase and work continues, across a number of defence organisations, to ensure the programme is affordable.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/government-insist-no-plans-to-scrap-type-32-frigate/

 

[Hood]

Could the Type 32 be heading for cancellation before its even begun?
Rumours are that it might be cut in March given the budget pressures.

Whether this means more T31s will be ordered or if effort will switch to T83 is anyone's guess. Of course what this means to MCM is probably more vital - maybe tying up that role with a frigate-platform wasn't such a smart move after all?

The Type 32 frigate programme – over before it began? | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

Funny... just a couple of weeks after this announcement (could Navy Lookout be ignoring the government's press conference?)

Despite earlier rumours that the class is set to be cancelled, the UK Government have insisted that “the Type 32 Frigate programme remains a key part of the future fleet”.

According to a statement dated the 26th of January from Alex Chalk, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, the type will remain, but changes will be made to make the vessel more affordable.

“There are currently no plans to withdraw the Type 32 Frigate Programme and it remains a key part of the future fleet for the Royal Navy. The Programme is currently in its concept phase and work continues, across a number of defence organisations, to ensure the programme is affordable.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/government-insist-no-plans-to-scrap-type-32-frigate/

I think the confusion is that the MOD is saying its ongoing (with cost cutting exercise) and yet the National Audit Office in November was saying that the RN has dropped them from its plans as affordable.
It could well be that the MOD is anxious to keep the national shipbuilding plan alive and has insisted these go ahead and the RN will have to grit its teeth it gets something better than a glorified tugboat.

Which starts to raise the question of what the Type 32 does that a much cheaper Type 31 Batch II can't. Type 31 already has some mission-adaptable space that can be used for UUVs/USVs. Seems like a minor stretch or rearrangement could go a long way toward fulfilling the desire for more hulls without costing a lot more.

I would very much agree with this, with MCM undertaken by other (and better suited) UUV mothership platforms its hard to see the need for two ships doing much the same role especially when we know that the T31 has growth capability within it.

I'm skeptical about the supposed cost cutting on T32. T31 was meant to be a £250M ship and has come out at £268M and isn't exactly the world's most formidable frigate with a lot of "fitted for but not with" that might never be fitted. If it proved impossible to develop T31 as a cheap frigate it's hard to imagine that T32 being a clean-sheet design could work out much cheaper unless its basically a repeat of the River-class OPV formula and does the RN really need an OPV - a strike OPV doesn't exactly sound impressive...

Rolling out a T31 Batch 2 - which note the RN never ruled out - would be more cost effective and might be the better way to lower unit costs.

 

[Oberon_706]

Babcock showcases Arrowhead 140 Multi-Role Naval Platform concept with view to Type 32 frigate competition | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com