The MoD has confirmed to the BBC that all five new Type 31 frigates currently under construction in Rosyth, will be based in Portsmouth.
Previously the base had been home to five of the Type 23 frigates but they have all now moved to Devonport to see out the remainder of their careers as the force has shrunk to just eight ships. Portsmouth is home to the six Type 45 destroyers, two Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, the six surviving Hunt-class mine hunters and the batch I and batch II OPVs.
Basing Type 31s in Portsmouth will theoretically restore the balance of support work, following the move of the Type 23s to Plymouth. However under current plans, some, or all of the Type 31s are to be forward-deployed overseas for long periods so the amount of time the new frigates spend in Portsmouth may be limited. The Batch II OPVs are nominally Portsmouth-based but are now forward-deployed for and will not return to the UK for several years.
There is an ironic inversion of roles as Type 31 builder, Babcock, owns and operates the dockyard at Devonport while conversely, BAE Systems, which constructs the Type 26 frigates, provides warship support in Portsmouth. The previously announced decision to base the 8 Type 26 frigates in Devonport, despite BAE Systems’ presence in Portsmouth, is influenced by Devonport’s role as the RN’s anti-submarine warfare (ASW) centre of excellence. It has already been decided that the Type 26 frigates will come to Portsmouth for recertification docking approximately every three years (for about 13 weeks). However, their on-going Fleet Time Support Periods will be undertaken at their home in Devonport.
It is not yet clear if where the Type 31s will undergo major refits. The covered dry docks in the Frigate Support Centre in Devonport are too narrow to accommodate both Type 31 and Type 26s. The long-term future of Devonport’s frigate support capability is subject to ongoing discussions as major work will be needed in addition to the submarine support infrastructure investments already underway.
There is a case for all the frigates being based in Devonport, especially as Plymouth is no longer a submarine operating base and, at least for the foreseeable future until the arrival of MRSS, has lost the support work for the decommissioned LPDs. The Naval Base is somewhat under utilised and has more berthing space than Portsmouth. However, if the Type 31s are mostly forward-deployed and maintained overseas, the UK basing arrangements have much-decreased significance.
I assume these ships will be forward-deployed to Bahrain and Singapore, given that they represent the areas of most British military interest, outside obviously of Europe (but Europe is served by home-based warships). With the River-class OPVs being relocated to home waters, and the Type 31 frigates being a larger, more complex class, would a reduction in British presence not then be unavoidable. The main benefit of the River-class OPVs was their high availability, and I hope that there will be a dedicated replacement for them soon. If Type 32 is cancelled, Babcock will need something to build.
River class don’t need replacement, they’re brand new
The Batch1 Rivers were only extended after Brexit. They are all 20+ years old and have worked hard. Their current out of service date is April 2028. I agree that the Batch2 ships are practically brand new.
The Batch 1 OPVs will be coming up to three decades in service by 2030.
2033, as the commissioning date is the best indicator for service life
Batch 1 do go in a few years. The bean counters may see some Batch 2 as a source of a few £m if replaced on station by T31.
At least one in Portsmouth for FRE.
I think batch 2 river’s will probably be restricted to the Atlantic area.(But i Still think they need an upgrade!) T31 will probably be used in Med & East of suez. S-Atlantic. Expect 3 more t31 to be ordered from Babcock before next ELECTION!!! followed by t32 sometime mid 2030s. By that time hopefully? defence budget 3%+ of GDP! allowing increase in Destroyer & Frigate fleet to increase to 30,
Possibly 6×t83,& 8×t31,t32 ,t26….
Would like to see commitment to 8+ SSNs in future in SDR.
This SDR is not going to bring any good news just more babble
Hugo
👍👍👍
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I think 1-3 more Type 31 is the only one on that list that is probable. I doubt Type 32 will survive the SDR. It’s been the only one of the major naval projects they’ve been reluctant to comment on recently and it’d be an ‘easy’ cut to make.
The only upgrade that might make the River-class any better at their current role would be a small extensible hangar, perhaps. This could shelter UAVs, but not helicopters.
My view on River class(B2) upgrades revolve around the helicopter usage (North atlantic) & the pop gun forward,(something a bit more capable!) .As for t32, All I would say is IF t32 is cancelled it would leave the navy with a fleet of no more than 22/24 for the long term future. I suspect that’s why no one has done it up to now! It would also cause a lot of longterm problems with Babcock
shipbuilding & Britains,”longterm building strategy”! NOT sure how the YANKS would take to it either!
Pause, why do you think the River Batch 2’s will be operating in the North Atlantic. They’re constabulary vessels, not warships. After Type 31 enters service, they’re going to be restricted to local waters.
After a “Bedding in Period” I’m confident the some of the T31’s will longterm deploy. I would say it’s next to certain one of them will go to the Gulf. I also think one more will go east Suez, the Pacific is still very important.
Anything within 200miles of UK its a lot of Area! Three Seas,A Number of channels & A Ocean.
How sure are we that we’ll continue to forward deploy? Noises coming out that we need to focus on Europe. The US has stated that. Interesting to see what the SDR says.
So what will become of the frigate sheds in Plymouth? they are no use to man or beast!
Accommodation for overseas visitors.
SSN dismantling? RM Training facility? If all T26 and T31 work was at Devonport you could think about converting 3 docks in to 2.
Graham, Ivan and Andrew
Your statement (above) has quite-correctly analyised the issue…..
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I have a better solution. Fill in the dock and use them as hard standing refit under cover. Just a lift barge to raise to the ground level.
The reverse of the ship construction process which are built on the level ground and then moved to a ‘floating dock’
Even better one dock at a time can be infilled while the T23s continue in the others, or infill the whole water area outside as well ?
For the inevitable naysayers , T31s are 1m only more in beam
T23 = 16.1m
T31 = 20.36m
T26 = 20.8m
The new ships are more than 4m wider in beam
A Recent pic of an Ivor and a Duke together showed a very visible beam width difference, 4m is a fair % bigger and it showed.
What’s the max length & beam & draught for Plymouth Sheds?
I understand there looking at a beam of 23.7mts for t83, anyone with any info?
Thats a Destroyer size
Thats AI generated numbers. Even wikipedia doesnt have a reliable source for water line beam
Wheres the official source for T31 ?
Ive previously said 19.8m but cant remember where that came from
Figure 5 in this paper published by Babcock last year. The people building T31 should know what the beam is
https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/From-UMS-to-Full-Autonomy-Experience-from-a-Complex-Warship-Programme-WARSHIPS-2024-Babcock-002.pdf
Will the Plymouth Sheds fit a t31,t26 or even a speculated t83 or t32 ?
No, modern warships have got bigger since the T23.
Thanks for that .
Babcock have also said 19.8m beam
https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Babcock-Type-31-Programme-briefing-09.10.2020.pdf
No one’s going to lift a competed ship back onto the pierside.
In fact a lifting barge probably wouldn’t even have the depth
This is how they are floated off when built.. Fill most of the water dock in except for a part that is deep enough for a lifting barge to nose into.
Theyre not completely finished when theyre launched
Australia lifts its frigates and destroyers back on the flat dock for deep maintenance.
See the image of the lift dock and the moving equipment to roll the whole ship to the maintenance area
HMAS Perth at the overhaul yard Henderson WA, image ADM
The floating dock/barge would double as a short term hull maintenance as a bonus
Again, Devenport is far too shallow
Wont be able to support those large ballistic missile subs like Victorious then.
The Tamar river depth in the Devonport dockyard area is 15-20m
They have to come in empty and at high tide. So no, we’re not going to see a lift barge there
15-20m river depth along the Hamoaze says differently. The facts dont support your claim.
If the lift barge can do in the Clyde river it can do so in Tamar ( they are defueled and ammunition and missiles removed.
The tide already affects the coming and going into the basin leading to the sheds
Rubbish are they.
You might want to check your statement, let us know how you get on.
I never said ‘rubbish’ ? I was talking about the existing frigate dockyard and possible changes , preferable to knocking it all down
You may also wish to Google something called “air draught”.
A far bigger limitation on that shed.
Done and done. Babcocks RINA paper. Not too materially different to the T23 is it.
Well done. Now – what happens when you fill in the dock?
Bottom of dock to top of the ceiling is 70m- NL lookout story on the the overall Devonport dockyard
The dock depth say 10-15m , that leaves 55m say from floor to ceiling
Or AI says T23 ‘air draught’ – from keel to top mast- is 37.2m which could about right . Do you have a larger number ?
Radars and other heavy sensors or weapons can be lifted off outside.
NL data off. The doors – the limiting factor are 40m high from waterline. Take off a metre or more to get to the quayside level. Then you need to allow for a couple of metres of sonar dome – even the comedy steel one on T31. Plus a couple more for crawler / docking cradle.
Right on the edge. For a fifty year old building which is approaching life expiry. That’s before we examine how any barge could be manoeuvred into 2 basin, or more importantly docked down. Before you know it, you’re having to do your docking down near the breakwater, which also means getting past Smeaton Pass.
Chinese fire drill…..
What about River and/or t32 at Plymouth!
Like you even know what a T32 is.
The t32 if it is built will be enlarged version of the t31,probably gas turbine/diesel like the t26 with same gun armament of the t31.it will probably feature laser technology and carry updated VLS & DRONES (Both airial & subsurface).Its likely to be more multipurpose than t26,t31.t83….
It’s more likely to be a far cheaper design even than 31 if we’re ever to actually afford them
Agree with you there.There likely to be highly modular in construction, possibly the most modular warships of their size,with a build time & cost reduction to match!.But getting the MOD/NAVY to agree to a design and sticking to it?…
Pure speculation on your part.
I think I’m pretty close to what they intended initially! But I agree, it is pure speculation and what comes out at the other end if anything we will have to wait
And see!
Already totally modular in construction. Have been doing ‘blocks’ since the 1970s for all warships sizes
This is T26 hull ‘modules’ moving down the Mersey. The carriers were built the same way around the nation.
I was thinking more,how finished the modules would be!
Thats called fitout, and already happening too
Glasgow being joined together
https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/webImageWebp/20210501134832/1434665456475.webp
How about using them as covered dockyard spaces for unmanned vehicles, a bit like U-boat shelters from WW2?
The cranes inside might well be able to lift an entire CABOT USV or UUV out of the water for refits and maintenance, and as long as the surface vessels don’t reach 10m beam it will still be possible to move them past each other to the far end of the docks.
I imagine as the technology progresses it might also be useful to have an enclosed space for initial testing away from prying eyes!
Sailorbouy
Those 1980’s era concrete frigate refit sheds are now not just useless
So, if you are really so personally attached to keeping decrepid old concrete stuctures
Then may I politely suggest that the RN now copies the French and German Navy’s best practice
Base sous-marine : 22 000 m² équipés de panneaux solaires | Site de la ville de Bordeaux
Then Plymouth could rival the Tate at St Ivesl
Tate St Ives | Tate
That would really put Plymouth on the tourist trial in the South West
The arty types really like coastal settings (i.e. Tate Modern in London on the River, next door to HMS Belfast: Tate St Ives: the Guggenheim in Bilbow and the aforementioned Bordeaux)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
For the eleventh time, GCSEs were last year, I’ve already done them.
I actually have my mid-course A-level exams starting tomorrow!
What’s structurally wrong with the frigate sheds? They’re still in use for T23, surely, and can’t be all that bad.
Anyway, even a full refurbishment wouldn’t cost nearly as much as building an equivalent facility from scratch in a new location.
Sailorbouy
It would cost far less just to knock them down; then to use all the concrete rubble as hardcore and to just then build a proper set of steel framed sheds:
That “very sensible procurement policy” might even give some gainful employment to the Scunthorpe blast furnace workers…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
…what used to be called “having a really good sulk” when I was your age!
Isn’t the expensive bit building the new drydock?
You’d have to completely drain the land and redo it if you wanted 2 new ‘fat’ docks, which is something we haven’t done in decades.
Surely better to do up the sheds (or even knock them down and start again) and leave the existing earthwork as it is, saving the majority of the cost.
PS They don’t do GCSEs in ABC anymore, it’s 9-8-7. I did well enough for what I want to do later, but we were actually the first year where the results went down after COVID, back to the original standard.
Sailorbouy
Digging big holes in the ground, even next to the River Tamar is – as is proven elsewhere in the world on a very regular basis – relatively cheap. As is filling in part of the very big hole with lots of reinforced concrete, so as to make a proper set of modern drydocks
As is putting in a modern quayside: one with proper wide hardstandings (i.e. for modern things like “mobile cranes” and “motor lorries (with those new-fangled internal combustion engines) and “container handlers” and “forklifts ” and “telehandlers” to use = efficently
Please see photos previously published on Navy Lookout of RN ships at efficent docks and quaysides at Rotterdam, Oman, Bahrain, Bombay etc etc etc
———————–
These quaysides often also have concrete barriers along the edge – which are a modern safety feature – designed to
———————
The expensive part with constructing UK defence infrastructure all starts off when MOD / RN / DES then gets involved:
Herebe four examples of infrastructure cock-ups
PLAN A
Correct project management procedure at Plymouth / Devonport ough to be to:
and thus the UK then has a set of shiney new modern drydocks for the RN to properly service its surface ships
OR
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
PS
When I describe the Babcock dockyard at Plymouth as “working”….
……..I do hope you all know what I really mean…
Hmm, I seem to have triggered some long-buried PTSD over Navy project management in Faslane.
If replacing 3 small dry docks with 2 big ones would be manageably cheap, then I say go for it, but as you imply the RN isn’t very good at big infrastructure, so leaving the groundwork as is would be the safe option and still extract some good from the site.
Rosyth does not have the room for 2 dozen decommed submarines, having 2 drydocks working in Decom is far better than one
Can i say the QE class badly need a dry Dock in Portsmouth the Rosyth option is not very satisfactory! ,I belive an option to turn two docks into one was an option? And may have been large enough for a US carrier!
Lots of cost for a marginal benefit.
Forget about US carriers. Firstly you couldn’t get them into Portsmouth the entrance is too shallow. Second have you any idea of the infrastructure needed to support a nuclear ship when it’s out of the water?
My point was Rosyth is very very restricted both in times a QE class can Dock and the amount of effort/cost it takes,remember the lock and the dry Dock only have inches of tolerance!
Actually it’s not that restricted. There’s one particular limitation with the dock. It’s manageable
This limitation at Rosyth ?
For which the ship was designed and isn’t too much of a drama. There’s another limitation which can be much more of a pain, but again manageable.
Can I point out,that if the RN chose to replace QE CLASS down the road, it stands to reason you can’t build a new class and maintain the old class in the same Dock!!!
You can say it. But trying to turn C&D lock into a carrier dock would be a moneypit of biblical proportions.
Which is why when it’s looked at more than superficially common sense breaks out.
The dry docks in them is to narrow for a modern warship. The are also to low for a lot of ship types to fit into.
There were originally built for ships of a few classes ago and modified for the T23. They are now beyond modernisation for the forthcoming classes of escorts.
That’s why I am suggesting using them for unmanned vessels, smaller than full size escorts.
If the beam can be kept to half of a T23 (which is realistic for the CABOT vessels) then they could be stored two abreast, which massively improves capacity.
Peter,
There is St Nazaire, too. A nice big bunker used as musuem.
Some of RN guys (on HMS “Smiter” and “Example”) went there to commemorate the 1942 March 28th raid.
May be they have visited the “Espadon”, an old fifties french museum sub still afloat, which was inspired by German U-boot type XX?
Or may be they have visited the Chantiers de l’Atlantique, the shipyards where the MN “Jacques Stosskopf” replenishment ship is in achievment?
Little Froogy
Thank you – very useful….
Peter (Irate Txapayer)
One thing will limit overseas permanent deployment of the T31’s MANPOWER.
At the moment there is no way the RN could double crew all 5 T31’s. If you made me guess 1 T31 will go to the Gulf, 1 will roam between East Coast of Africa and the Pacific as needed and 3 will work out of the U.K. I suspect the B2 River assignments will stay the same. This will allow HMG to say they have “increased our commitment to the Asia-Pacific” at a relatively low cost. The 3 T31’s will be particularly useful if RN T26 deliveries are delayed to facilitate sales to Norway.
I totally agree with you,the elephant in the room is MANPOWER! It’s the one think No10 & No11 do not want to talk about!
I would just add to my comments about t32,Once t26,t31,t82 are finished in 2040ish there’s no obvious work for BAE (CLYDE) OR BABCOCK(ROSYTH) ,A major surface fleet of 20/24 ain’t going to keep either going!(the oldest vessel will be 15yrs! Tops).
I did mean to put 20yrs for vessels expected to last 30yrs+….
I would not be surprised if 3 t31 were not within 3500miles+ of pompey most of the time!
Tide class replacement, Point class replacement, River class replacement, HMS Endurance and HMS Scott replacement. Plenty of work to tide us over until the 2050s, when we can starting looking at Type 26 and 31 replacements and begin the cycle anew.
The POINTS will need replacing within the next 10yrs, outside the building time frame of both yards.the large dry Dock at Rosyth is now required for the QE2 class! Not sure the “Sheds:” of BAe ClLYDE or BABCOCK ROSYTH large enough for either TIDES OR POINTS replacements anyway! Can’t see more than 3 River Class replacements with more Frigates available.Endurance & Scott likely also to be replaced in the next 10yrs! With the same above problems , possibly Appledore or H&W!
It only leaves the t32 or things will get very messy down the road.
MRSS & Norway t26 may plug PART of the gap but it still leaves a big hole down the line,It’s the price of having to build a large number of vessels in a relatively short time period rather than having it spread out as it should have been!
Suspect MRSS will be assembled at H&W!
There is no batch 1 River replacement
No ambition and continuing mediocrity for RN says some!
Bazza
The Tide class was built in Korea
At least one for FRE.
When does the defence review get published?
16 September 2025 13 October 2025
22 July 2025 1 September 2025
22 May 2025 2 June 2025
1 May 2025 6 May 2025
One of above
None of the above, as I have proved.
“The government has not committed to an exact date. When first announced, the MOD indicated Lord Robertson would report in the first half of 2025“
Thats the only date thats been announced, Others are just ‘speculating’
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10153/
Pompey getting the Type 31s. About time we shoved something big, loud and half-cut back into the basin. Did my time on Dukey — rough round the edges, bit of a scrapper, and always up for a terrible idea after midnight. These new ships might spend most of their time poncing about overseas but when they’re knackered, leaking and full of bad decisions, they’ll come slinking back to Pompey for a rub down and a brew.
Forward-deployed or parked up getting welded back together, doesn’t matter. More ships means more runs ashore, more messy dockyard nights, more mornings waking up on the wrong ship in the wrong kit wondering where your boots went.
Pompey’s back in business, lads. Stand by your hammocks and get your dits polished — it’s about to get lively.
Gee I think I recognise the Old Blockhouse but not the building behind it. My time was in Dolphin several decades back at the submarine school but that building wasn’t there then or are my locations a bit off?
I understand RN currently operates 2 T23GP, one double crewed. If this is true, each crew is made of 200 souls, which equates to 600 in total.
As a T31 (with a Wildcat team) will need 120 souls as a crew, the 3 T23GP crew team can generate 5 T31 crew team. I guess
By the time all 5 T31 will be commissioned on early 2030s, three River B1 (with 30 souls each) will be decommissioned. In place, I guess two River B2 will be sent back to British water for home water tasks. If the River B2s in home water will NOT have “x1.5” over-crewing, this will relieve 60 souls.
In total, 90 souls from the three River B1, and 60 souls from two River B2s back in Britain, will provide 150 souls. This will enable yet another = 2nd T31 to be double crewed. Then,
Just guess and guess.
Type 23 is 174 manning.
exact details who and how many doing what
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2016-01-26/24282
Thanks. The same number for T31 is 105, as I understand. So it is 174 vs 105, and my argument is almost not affected by the definition.
PS Many cases,T23 deployment notes crew of nearly 200. In addition to the Wildcat flight team (about 11), who are additionally onboard?
Ticket clippers , who return home after 1st port of call.