Type 32 never really existed, at least according to a friend in the RN - it was a typo that became an imaginary program in common discussion but it never really had legs.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Not just a warm-over, they are Type 31 hulls with different systems.
See Babcock’s ARMOR poised to deliver Royal Navy’s Autonomous Ambition on Command - Babcock International Group for the concept Babcock proposed for it for Hybrid Navy last year.
The RN scrapping of the type83 in favour of a drone motherships doesn’t really surprise me.The idea of a drone mothership surrounded by uninhabited missile barges seems much more sensible to me than Trump’s battleship proposal.
www.navylookout.com
BAE Systems’ large uncrewed warship proposal - Navy Lookout
As part of the Royal Navy's Future Air Dominance System (FADS) concept, BAE Systems has proposed low-cost, rapidly-built uncrewed/ minimally crewed vessels to supplement the Type 83 destroyer. Drawing on the legacy of the Triton trimaran demonstrator built for the RN in 2000, the proposed...
www.navylookout.com
Most key points covered here.
The only ones I would add is the maturity of these proposed systems at scale and the corresponding execution risks.
No doubt USVs are going to be a significant element in the future but CONOPS, operating cost are evolving. Is this the right time to make it the center piece of RN 2040?
www.navylookout.com
The only ones I would add is the maturity of these proposed systems at scale and the corresponding execution risks.
No doubt USVs are going to be a significant element in the future but CONOPS, operating cost are evolving. Is this the right time to make it the center piece of RN 2040?
All in on the hybrid navy – the Royal Navy’s surface fleet gamble - Navy Lookout
The Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will confirm the RN’s most significant shift in surface warfare for decades. Rather than replacing the Type 45 destroyer with another generation of large air defence ships, the RN intends to build a distributed force of crewed and uncrewed vessels designed to...
www.navylookout.com
OldTex
Well-Known Member
The RN has to start developing the CONOPS, as well as the knowledge and experience of operating a hybrid fleet. It has to start some time and sooner would be better than later. It will be an iterative process of many small steps, all building on the successes and failures of the previous iterations. That is how it will become the centerpiece of the RN (although maybe not by 2040)Most key points covered here.
The only ones I would add is the maturity of these proposed systems at scale and the corresponding execution risks.
No doubt USVs are going to be a significant element in the future but CONOPS, operating cost are evolving. Is this the right time to make it the center piece of RN 2040?
All in on the hybrid navy – the Royal Navy’s surface fleet gamble - Navy Lookout
The Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will confirm the RN’s most significant shift in surface warfare for decades. Rather than replacing the Type 45 destroyer with another generation of large air defence ships, the RN intends to build a distributed force of crewed and uncrewed vessels designed to...
OldTex
Well-Known Member
If the proposed Type 91/92/94s are going to be optionally manned, there will be a whole new range of CONOPS to be developed and evolved. The other aspect that will need attention is the legal aspects (e.g. are they warships or not, the status of any crew during conflict, navigation and operation in confined or congested waters, "salvage", etc).
The 32 never actually existed , except as a likely mistake by Boris which was then grabbed by the RN and MoD, and Boris never had the guts to admit he had made a mistake in a speech.
They are betting an awful lot on being right here - they might well be, but the bleeding edge of technology is always a challenging place to be. Most projects fail in that area, at least early in the technology’s life, which this still is wrt drones capable of oceanic deployment. Seen as a bold move if successful, lunacy if not! Must admit, if it was to be done I would prefer to have seen it with a Naval officer as 1SL, not a Bootie. Better optics if nothing else; and I have a niggling worry that he doesn’t have the gut understanding of oceanic warfare that an NO would have.
Given that the first Type 26 (along with other ills in RN) have been in the fitting out phase since 2023, I am skeptical.that something this ambitious and far out can executed or even followed thru.
Most other Navies (example Italy, Japan, Australia) are going for larger platforms, more platforms while USV remain exploratory.
Welp, what do I know. Maybe RN will have their new HMS Dreadnought moment again.
Most other Navies (example Italy, Japan, Australia) are going for larger platforms, more platforms while USV remain exploratory.
Welp, what do I know. Maybe RN will have their new HMS Dreadnought moment again.
I think we're gping to be short of frigates whatever we do, but carrying on the same production line (& speeding up build if possible) should avoid the risk of delays in whatever else we buy to fill the gap left by retiring the River B1s without replacement.
That is of course, if they intend to replace the B1's - they've been one of the hardest tasked, most available classes the RN has had in service recently.
As you say, hot production line, Babcock have hopefully gotten their build sequence right.
Mind you, the latest DIP is ...well, lets just say the only firm dates are the withdrawal of key units (Wildcat, T45 etc) - everything else is in the "to be announced" category.
Most concerning.
As you say, hot production line, Babcock have hopefully gotten their build sequence right.
Mind you, the latest DIP is ...well, lets just say the only firm dates are the withdrawal of key units (Wildcat, T45 etc) - everything else is in the "to be announced" category.
Most concerning.
Putting some context on the state of Large (L) USV testing. Prior to the current clusterfuck ("Golden Fleet") with the USN, they had advanced steadily with firing trials of containerised SM-6s under PM 406. (see below)
RN USVs proposed USVs (based on the comparison of sizes with a Type 31) would be several orders of magnitude larger and sophisticated (purpose built, integrated systems). These are not your Ukrainian type Magura drone types. With projected retirement dates of the Type 45 from mid 2030s onwards, the only way I see this happening is they are getting support from the US and being able to sustain investments for rapid protoyping at scale for a decade.
Until we see real contracts backed by the HM Treasury, I would keep an open mind but be skeptical.
CRSonUSVs
www.documentcloud.org
U.S. Navy Sets Sights on Fleet-Wide Family of Unmanned Ships - Naval News
The Modular Attack Surface Craft (MASC) USV program was announced by the U.S. Navy's Unmanned Maritime Systems Program Office (PMS 406) this week. It seeks to deliver up to three different USVs for wide scale operational use in the U.S. Navy. The program is a culmination of years of testing and...
www.navalnews.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The "disconnected lethality" quote is what registered with me. Fair point about the utility of these USV dedicated vessels for non-combat/waving the flag missions which manned traditional warships often perform. If this all works out...great export potential. However a ton of risk IMHO.Most key points covered here.
The only ones I would add is the maturity of these proposed systems at scale and the corresponding execution risks.
No doubt USVs are going to be a significant element in the future but CONOPS, operating cost are evolving. Is this the right time to make it the center piece of RN 2040?
All in on the hybrid navy – the Royal Navy’s surface fleet gamble - Navy Lookout
The Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will confirm the RN’s most significant shift in surface warfare for decades. Rather than replacing the Type 45 destroyer with another generation of large air defence ships, the RN intends to build a distributed force of crewed and uncrewed vessels designed to...
Flag waving missions depend on the crew - it’s they who do the waving! From local football matches through spending in bars to painting orphanages and hosting CTPs, that needs people. I’m not sure an unmanned platform being controlled from afar would have the same effect. In fact it might be seen as quite sinister! Also, there are no real rules as yet around third party port visits, or anything else much, for USVs. I’m not sure, for example, that they would enjoy the flag State immunity that manned warships do. To be more prosaic, how would they comply with pilotage, or pollution control requirements? The next few years are going to be full of interesting developments!
40niner_com
New Member
How solid is the 'electronic umbilical cord' especially when events goes hot?
Cyberwarfare/ECM/ECCM would be vital in maintain control and the datalinks to the unmanned 'daughter' crafts. No question on deterrence and peacetime presence. Having multiple unmanned platforms doing various tasking in multiple areas is no-brainer vs a singleton Type31 or Type26. But per navyoutlook's article, there are still a lot of questions that needs to be answered.
Cyberwarfare/ECM/ECCM would be vital in maintain control and the datalinks to the unmanned 'daughter' crafts. No question on deterrence and peacetime presence. Having multiple unmanned platforms doing various tasking in multiple areas is no-brainer vs a singleton Type31 or Type26. But per navyoutlook's article, there are still a lot of questions that needs to be answered.
It'll require rapid prototyping with very strong risk management. Given that we can't even build a MOTS solution like Ajax, I'm not optimistic.
It does address some of the issues the RN is struggling with - namely, recruitment and retention - less crew needed, but there are so many what if's in there.
And the timeline...eek.
It does address some of the issues the RN is struggling with - namely, recruitment and retention - less crew needed, but there are so many what if's in there.
And the timeline...eek.
The issue is if the control ship cant adequately defend itself from high end threats yiu dont just lose it, you lose the drones.The RN scrapping of the type83 in favour of a drone motherships doesn’t really surprise me.The idea of a drone mothership surrounded by uninhabited missile barges seems much more sensible to me than Trump’s battleship proposal.
BAE Systems’ large uncrewed warship proposal - Navy Lookout
As part of the Royal Navy's Future Air Dominance System (FADS) concept, BAE Systems has proposed low-cost, rapidly-built uncrewed/ minimally crewed vessels to supplement the Type 83 destroyer. Drawing on the legacy of the Triton trimaran demonstrator built for the RN in 2000, the proposed...
The whole idea should be to think of the drones as the destroyer flotilla and the crewed vessel as the larger, more capable, destroyer leader. This role in WWII was often filled by a cruiser.
Destroyers and frigates have been growing for quite some time. Realistically they are now what cruisers used to be.
It appears optionally crewed vessels with be the spiritual successors for destroyers, corvettes and sloops.
Except that Ajax is so heavily modified that it might have been easier to start from scratch. Or, of course, buy something close to what the British army wanted & just put in UK comms & a BV.