New Royal Navy general purpose frigate to be known as Type 31

BAE Systems

In November 2015, the Royal Navy cut plans to build 13 Type 26 frigates.

LONDON — The British Government sprung a surprise Nov. 23 when it launched its 2015 strategic defence and security review announcing it was to build a new class of general purpose frigates for the Royal Navy.

Now, three months later, the process of launching a concept study is underway and the Royal Navy has decided on Type 31 as the number for the warship, according to sources familiar with the naming process.

Speculation the Royal Navy would opt for Type 31 for the new warship has been around almost since the SDSR was published but sources here said the decision has now been made.

A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Defence declined to confirm or deny whether the new general purpose frigate had been allocated a type number.

Replacing the Type 23 frigate starting around 2022, the 7,000 ton Type 26 was to have operated in a general purpose role as well as undertake its primary anti-submarine warfare mission.



http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-contracts-awarded-type-26-frigates/31152813/

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-contracts-awarded-type-26-frigates/31152813/
The Type 31 program emerged as part of an SDSR announcement cutting numbers of the new Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates to be built from a planned 13 to eight.

The new class of lighter, cheaper, general purpose warships will make up the difference in numbers and bring frigate strength back up to the 13 originally planned.

The SDSR even held out the prospect of ordering more frigates for the Royal Navy in the 2030s, a pledge few are holding their breath over at the moment.

The review said the lighter, more flexible warship would also have a better chance of securing export orders for Britain's naval industry.

Splitting the frigate requirement is effectively a reversion to an earlier scheme to build anti-submarine warfare frigates alongside a more medium-weight general purpose warship. That idea was dropped several years ago in favor of the one-size-fits-all approach of the Type 26.



Details on the new general purpose frigate, including the likely timelines for implementation of the various phases, remain scarce.

“The timetable for the procurement of the general purpose frigate program has yet to be determined. Work on the program will be scoped initially during the concept study outlined in the SDSR,” the MoD spokeswomen said.

Sources said several hull options were being considered, including a cut-down version of the Type 26 and foreign designs.

Details on the way forward for the general purpose frigate program are likely to start emerging when the government takes the wraps off a new national shipbuilding strategy scheduled to be rolled out later this year.

New Royal Navy general purpose frigate to be known as Type 31

It is a bit misleading to have Type 26 images with this article. The Type 31 might well be something more along the line of the BMT Venator 110 (development of vessel delivered BAE to Oman)

Zarvan said:

The review said the lighter, more flexible warship would also have a better chance of securing export orders for Britain's naval industry.

Click to expand...

Same reasoning behind the French move to FTI frigates!

Just sayin' Tay.

Taygibay said:

Same reasoning behind the French move to FTI frigates!

Just sayin' Tay.

Click to expand...

It is about finding the right balance between quality (naval capabilities, nature of the task) and quantity (area / number of tasks to be covered).

Yes Penguin ( and hello BTW ) but the element of choosing a somewhat downsized ship
to perform full *cough, cough* frigate duties, apart from the cash saved by tonnage & price,
is motivated by what importers are looking at. Both programs incorporate this, especially as
compared to the ships they complement ( replace in part in fact ), Type 26 and FREMMs.

The trend allowed by technology of downsized personnels per ship has its limits and this new
decrease in tonnage could fall a bit below full spectrum.
That is what is now accepted to reach hull numbers fueled by the rationale that fitting export
demands will also bring in cash!

I disagree! Because seeing this as a closing Fibonacci spiral, we can predict the end result :


That's not my vision of a Navy!


Great day to you and all at home, Tay.

Taygibay said:

Yes Penguin ( and hello BTW ) but the element of choosing a somewhat downsized ship
to perform full *cough, cough* frigate duties, apart from the cash saved by tonnage & price,
is motivated by what importers are looking at. Both programs incorporate this, especially as
compared to the ships they complement ( replace in part in fact ), Type 26 and FREMMs.

The trend allowed by technology of downsized personnels per ship has its limits and this new
decrease in tonnage could fall a bit below full spectrum.
That is what is now accepted to reach hull numbers fueled by the rationale that fitting export
demands will also bring in cash!

I disagree! Because seeing this as a closing Fibonacci spiral, we can predict the end result :

One guy in a flocking canoe holding a lap-top with Satcom.
And then there were none!​

That's not my vision of a Navy!


Great day to you and all at home, Tay.

Click to expand...

THere are plenty of examples of ships much smaller than 6-7000 tons, that perform full frigate roles very well. E.g. Dutch M-frigate (3,320 tons full load) and see also Singapore's Formidable class. Tonnage is not the issue. Besides, you can create an oversized but highly automated ship with a very small crew (I recall a commercial UK design of the 1980s). You need to look at tasks and from that derive needed capability, given budget constraints.

Budget constraints below 3% of GDP are none of my concern!

The rest was the same thing I said but you draw a conclusion as of now.
I'm saying things will go down that slippery slope faster than butter melts in a hot skillet.

Just for future reference, you could not know of course, I consider all nations that have
a mature industrial base, modern economy and ad hoc governance should put at least
3.33% of GDP each for Education, Health and Defence, strictly functional minima IMHoO.

More is better for the first two of course, Tay.

Taygibay said:

Budget constraints below 3% of GDP are none of my concern!

The rest was the same thing I said but you draw a conclusion as of now.
I'm saying things will go down that slippery slope faster than butter melts in a hot skillet.

Just for future reference, you could not know of course, I consider all nations that have
a mature industrial base, modern economy and ad hoc governance should put at least
3.33% of GDP each for Education, Health and Defence, strictly functional minima IMHoO.

More is better for the first two of course, Tay.

Click to expand...

Nato countries should essentially have 2% of GDP for Defence alone (not that they actually do ;-), which would leave 1.33% for education and Health (on the low side imho), so definitely ' at least' ;-)

EACH mate! 10% total if you will.

1.34% combined for Health and Education ... OMG!

Taygibay said:

EACH mate! 10% total if you will.

1.34% combined for Health and Education ... OMG!

Click to expand...

LOL.

Dang, how one little four letter word changes everything!