Arrowhead is expected to sit at 5,700 tonnes and 138.7 metres in length.
Babcock’s offering requires a ships company of around 100 with space for an embarked military force of 60. Babcock’s Team 31 has selected the in-service Iver Huitfeldt frigate design as the baseline for their offering.
Endurance/Speed/Range
The requirements here are pretty straightforward, the Ministry of Defence demand that “T31e shall operate globally with sustained forward presence” and that it must have “the speed for interdiction of commercial vessels and maintaining station with adversary warships in UK waters”.
- Speed of 28 plus knots
- Range of 9000 nautical miles at 12 knots
Armament/Weapons Capabilities
Arrowhead features Medium Calibre Gun options up to 5” (127mm) for maritime interdiction, self-protection and engagement of surface and land targets. Small Calibre Guns up to 40mm calibre can be located in predesignated upper-deck weapon positions.
Additional capability options include:
- Provision for up to 8 canister-launched SSGW
- Up to 32 Vertical Launch cells, capable of hosting SAM/SSGW/Land Strike/ASW ordnance.
- Installation of Close-In Weapons Systems, such as Phalanx.
- Towed array sonar
Babcock say that the ability to fit the existing systems and equipment from the parent design, the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate, is retained to provide flexibility in the capability supplied at build and through the life of the platform. The company say that, for example, this retained capability means that (just like on the base design) a 32 cell Mk41 Strike Length silo can be fitted to incorporate a combination of a larger number of anti-air missiles, vertical launch anti-surface missiles, precision land attack missiles or ASW weapons such as ASROC.
This particular adaptability feature they say, alongside the ability to install a 127mm medium calibre gun, host an organic helicopter such as Merlin, install sensors such as a towed array/variable depth sonar and re-introduce a magazine-launched torpedo system, amongst other proven features, will allow the platform to be tailored on build and through-life to suit operational requirements from low-threat maritime security to task group operations.
Mission Bays and Boat Bays
The vessel features 4 large dedicated Boat Bays with flexible launch & recovery arrangement to cater for varying operational roles, including the deployment of RHIBs, USVs & UUVs.
The Mission Space which is located under the flight deck, say Babcock, offers significant operational flexibility allows for numerous TEU (Twenty Foot Equivalent Unit) containers, extended stores, or personnel accommodation space.
Aviation Capabilities
Arrowhead’s flight deck can land a Merlin sized helicopter and the vessels hangar will be capable of storing one or if required, according to Babcock, two Wildcat helicopters together.
Build Programme
Babcock say that the Arrowhead design lends itself equally to either a single build strategy, or a cross–site build strategy bringing together modules – an approach used for aircraft carrier assembly at Rosyth.
In some respects, this concept reminds me of reading about the USN Spruance Class back in the 80s and 90s. They were originally envisaged as ASW escorts sized with significant growth potential hence looked under-gunned in comparison to USSR contemporaries – and initially came in for a lot of stick as a result. I seem to recall that what led them to early-ish retirement was lack of Area air defence, high maintenance cost and large crew numbers. On paper from what we know now, Arrowhead (and so RN as a whole) should be able to dodge some of these bullets but the underlying lesson is valid i.e. the class needs to be perceived as a credible warship and while compromises are inevitable, I hope there are no glaring capability gaps to limbo-dance under a cost hurdle eg. Deletion of any meaningful ASW capability.
The hull does not really mean much in isolation, the key is the fit out.
We know for sure it won’t have the towed sonar on the UK version. The question on whether it will have the VLS or Canisters and if so how many. Plus which main gun will they select.
As it stands, the ships could easily be a useful war fighter or a stretched river class (not a war fighter).
My money is on basic fit for phalanx (no additional units being brought, so regularly sailing without) and fitted for but not with VLS
Steve, I’m not so sure that it will be that bad. I suspect that most of the weapons fit will come from decommissioned T23s. So that would mean the 4.5 inch gun, two 30mm guns, the Sea Ceptor VLS possibly the 2050 bow sonar, Artisan radar and the five sets of the new Anti ship missile that is being ordered. The 30mm could be also equipped with the LMM.
So possibly one set of new equipment would be needed unless there is some in reserve such as the 4.5 inch. Once that is done then as the second T31 is built the first decommissioned T23 would give up its equipment, get it refurbished and installed when the next T31 is in the fitting basin. The major issue is the CIWS we do need more of these firstly for the T26 but also for the T31.
The only thing that would be missing is a towed array sonar, possibly two or three sets of a light weight towed array could be bought and installed when needed.
Who knows but if the ship yard gets there act together it could be possible to build 10-13 of these as the new T26s would not be using the 4.5 in, the Sea Ceptor VLS, the 2050 sonar etc a lot of the expensive bits.
It would be good from my point of view if they would also use the torpedo tubes of the T23 on the T31.
Yes I know there is a manning issue, but it is possible that more peope would join the RN if there was more ships meaning that the crews do not spend so much time being deployed. Also with 10 T31s the big ships could then operate in task groups meaning that they would have less sea time ass there would only be one carrier group at sea at any one time unless there needs to be a surge.
I’m kind of hoping they ditch the 4.5″ guns and keep the ones off the T23’s as spares for the T45s. The Type 26 is going to be using the BAe Mk45/50 5″ Gun, so it would make sense to keep the T31 in the same supply line as the T26, especially when the eventual replacement of the T45’s will, if we are still using traditional guns, likely also feature a 5″ main gun.
It would be good if the RN could standardise on the 5 inch as this may save money on only supporting a single system. CIWS is an issue as the T23 did not have CWIS – a massive oversight given that it was supposedly designed with the Falklands lessons leant. So more Phalanx would be needed. I just hope they do not share out the Sea Ceptor giving each ship 16! It is just the sort of short sighted penny pinching they may do.
My guess not. The whole MOD purchased equipment being part of the budget mess feels like a stealth cut in costs, so even if the sea ceptors/sonars were sold by the MOD for relatively cheap, they still would knock a fair chunk off the money going to the hull itself.
It would be good if they do take the sea ceptor from the existing frigates but how that works out time wise considering the t26 are also stealing from them is a big question mark.
Why is no phalanx on a T23 a “Massive Oversight” I served on 2 of them and phalanx was never needed. We did goalkeeping duties on HVUs and we looked after ourselves when we needed to,. The T23 was when designed supposed to sit in the GIUK gap conducting towed aray patrols and killing soviet subs. Seawolf was fitted purely for self defence in the event of attack when acting as singleton TA units.
The reason batch 3 T22 got Goalkeeper CIWS was that there was no where else to put them and the deal with the Dutch involved us getting Goalkeeper if they bought RR engines.
Since they were never really combat tested, never needed is the equivalent of saying i don’t need car insurance because i haven’t had a crash. Phalanx/Goalkeeper is meant to be there as a last ditched defence, when the main weapons fail for whatever reason.
The lessons during the falklands war was frigates designed for sub hunting, might also be needed in other situations and designing them for a single task was a mistake.
Those lessons seem to have been forgotten again with the t23 or simply affordable.
Gunbuster appears to have insider information, so maybe knows something that isn’t public about it, but on the surface it seems like a poor decision.
As Gun buster points out Seawolf is a CIWS and intentionally designed to operate as a last ditch inner layer defence.
The early iteration of Seawolf using the trainable launchers were designed as a missile point defence system, basically a CIWS. The thought was that it could defend the ship and leave the area protection to the T42s. It’s range was incredibly short at just over 5km this compares with the Phalanx’s effective range of 2km.
Then came the Falklands. The problem with tracking, let alone destroying sea skimming missiles was well known; which was one of the reasons the Navy also had Exocet. The Seawolf system was the only one available that could not only detect but also track a sea skimmer.
The Seawolf system was further developed with better radar and an infra red/optical tracker. The missile was then developed to be vertical launched by adding a booster rocket, which effectively doubled the range. This upgrade still only gives a modicum increase in range as the targets can only be attacked well within visual range. This was probably one of the reasons why Phalanx was never added to the T23.
The SeaCeptor system is a quantum leap in performance and capabilities over Seawolf. It can handle many more targets simultaneously. In essence it could fire off the complete magazine in one engagement, assigning a missile to each detected threat. The SeaCeptor is not a point defence system but a local area system, as it has the capability of intercepting threats beyond the ship’s radar horizon. In fact its range is very close to the early marks of the Sea Dart system.
Was not seacat the era version of seawolf?
Ok seacat had 500 yards min range, but still effectively was there to do the same role as seawolf which is to protect the frigate.
The T23 was never ever designed to get a CIWS. Lessons learnt where applied in lots of other areas of the T23 regarding damage control and survivability.
The only pure Asw frigates down south where the 2 X T22s and I was on one of them. Post Falklands, Seawolf was proven against exocet in trials off the Welsh coast involving HMS BRILLIANT shooting Seawolf and HMS Jupiter shooting exocet.
Ceptor as stated by DaveyB is a whole different weapon. No trackers so no multi path issues at low level. Longer range and active homing.
Add in the still quite good T23 stealth features and it makes a T23 a lot harder to target and hit than a T22. A T22 stuck out like a sore bollock on a radar display hence the added Rash and temp Ram mats added on in later life. A T23 has never needed it with its profile being comparable to that of say a medium size stern trawler.
I agree that a lot of the lessons were learnt around metals used, damage control, radars being able to track land targets etc but the ciws was a specific recommendation on top of the missile defence, something that US ships had of the day.
There is some concern that Boris’s No Deal strategy could create considerable difficulties for Scotland. So much so, they could be running for the independent ballot box anytime soon! Regardless if Scotland could make a go of it, these ships will have to be withdrawn causing further delays to their ISD’s.
CIWS was fitted to vessels that did not have Seawolf. That’s why the T42s where fitted with it. I was on Brum refitting in Rosyth in the 80s when we had it fitted.
It was a huge undertaking above and below decks. Something like 200+ tonnes of ballast was required to counter the additional top weight.
That resulted in the quarterdeck being underwater in a choppy sea and the ship developed a corkscrew type roll at medium speed.
We also had RASH and RAM fitted to the superstructure to reduce the radar cross section.
The lessons learnt in the Falklands are nearly 3 decades old, and bear not point of reference for the Modern Navy. really when would these light Frigates go up against a land-based fighter/bombers. when did the RN Last lose an Aircraft carrier in action, yet everyone is a expert but doesnt seem to work in that field…
Back in the very early T23 days there was a brochure from Yarrows that intended for a T23 Batch 2 to be fitted with Goalkeeper (if memory serves) either side of the funnel and for an extra 8 VLS Seawolf pack to be fitted to the side of the hanger (similar to the Dutch M-class frigates). Obviously with the extra top-weight the hull was increased in length and beam.
The hull doesn’t mean much?
Are you sure?
Two fundamentals of naval warfare are having the hull and it being able to manoeuvre.
The reason why Leander was never a fit for a global blue water navy is the hull.
Oh great Steve!, the old “fitted for but not with” nonsense again. We need 10 type 31 frigates to meet RN requirements, especially with Brexit around the corner, a resurgent Russia investing heavily in defence and asymmetric warfare and Iran+ China to be faced down.
I know the budget is tight but within a short period of time I would like to see these ships fitted with a 5inch main gun, sea captor x32 cell, 2 phalanx, cannister launched anti ship missiles but moving ideally towards VL mk41 strike cells.
In summary get them in the water but make sure these are real warships and make it happen pretty damn quick.- initial fit could be a 56mm gun, sea captor, ds30mm guns and helicopters but then move towards at first refit to the aforementioned weapons fit. Arrowhead at least is designed and intended to have ease of upgrade and the broad margin needed to make additional armaments fit relatively cheap and quick to install.
We can only hope that the lessons learned over the last few years IRT the “fitted for” but never fitted will cause the RN to dig in this time and insist that the ships be built with a decent combat suite from the start as opposed to waiting for Godot…
Cheers!
Its a cost issue. We know the initial bids were over the budget and the MOD tried to hide behind there being a confusion about the MOD provided gear being included or not within the budget (clearly non-sense as the industry would have had many discussions in person and would have not just relied on the tender document).
So we can assume the initial designs that were released were based around a higher overall budget (existing owned gear being provided for free on top of the 500m).
Which if taken together would kinda indicate that the ships are unaffordable and therefore fitted for but not with is the only way to make the budget.
Understood and agreed Steve. The T45 has never and probably WILL never receive the systems it’s fitted for. That will have to wait for the next generation T4X. I’m hoping that the RN and HMG is taking into account the fact that there are serious holes to be plugged in the current combined capabilities of the T45 and T26 that could be more cheaply filled by equipping the upcoming T31 with the systems needed to plug those holes as opposed to refitting the T45s and upgunning the T26s.
Despite the submarines being the current land attack capability for the RN, the fact remains that 7 Astutes will never be able to provide the coverage needed in anything more than a small dustup. Sovereign capability to go it alone in a Falklands style conflict is what is needed here. Not reliance on an increasingly stretched USN or an increasingly wobbly NATO. JMHO…
Cheers!
ENOUGH WITH ACRONYMS
SORRY!!!!
😀
The problem is the systems fit you propose is not cheap and would take the cost way over the program budget to the point you might as well drop Type 31 and order more Type 26!
This is always a circular argument in that the people demanding affordable Constabulary frigates always seem to want them with a high end weapon and systems fit…
You can’t have both!
I think the better thing to consider is how else can you enhance the capability of these budget frigates, the obvious choice to my eye is to integrate a data link and the dipping sonar on Wildcat.
Agree. I want these as constabulary vessels and I don’t want huge guns and Mk41!
I want numbers of RB2 and T31 to save our more limited high end assets for other tasks.
What would you have them armed with, though?
Given that these are frigates I feel they should be more heavily armed than a River, but clearly not as much as a Type 26, or else we might as well buy 5 more of those and keep the total at 13.
I think the following: either 4.5 inch gun taken from Type 23s or 76mm gun, 8 NSM missiles in two quad-pack launchers. 24 VLS tubes for Aster 30.
I dont think this would be too expensive as the weapons are all from current ships apart from the NSM (we have the quad launchers) and is not massively armed, but enough that in addition to constabulary duties they can also fight other ships and be useful to a QE fleet in an actual war and not be a sitting duck.
its worth looking at what the thais have done with their river hmts krabi has a 76mm oto melara main gun three 30mm cannon and are in negotiation for a martlet system to fit them. add an asw capability, and it would make a formidable and highly flexible ship.
They are first line escorts, taking over roles currently filled by T23. Every ship one of a scarce 19 units.
IMO, the design is worse than Arrowhead 120, because it fails on the most important criteria… not being mixed up with T26. This is a real danger for the ASW program. Manning requirements, fuel consumption and maintenance costs go up, for no good reason., because honestly, the weapons deck is a joke. CMS and radar still needs to be integrated, so I also expect cost to increase.
The reality is, we should order two additional T26, possibly with AAW kit, to fill up escort numbers for the CSG.
Constabulary tasks can and should be fulfilled by lean manned OPVs, with BAEs Avenger (or River Mk 4) being the obvious choice. A cheap and cheerful, easy to replicate sloop, to be acquired in numbers, snatchable into a common budget year and donatable to smaller Commonwealth allies.
Base them in Bahrain, Oman, Brunei etc, and we have got global presence.
donatable, f canada australia and whoever can afford type 26’s why should we fob off our own ships?
Why do we need 10 frigates with Brexit round the corner. Are you expecting trouble on the high seas from those pesky Remainers?
What does frigate numbers and brexit have anything to do with each other, the EU is not going to suddenly go to war with us.
Protecting our fishing using frigates is a complete waste of resource, well protecting them full stop is, when you consider the tiny amount of money fishing actually brings to the economy.
But Regaining the fishing grounds was one of the big campaign points of the leave campaign. It is clearly massively important to get that 12 mile exclusion zone set up where no one fishes anyway… The main fishing grounds are further out and will still be open for EU fleets… But that 12 miles will allow us to pretend we achieved something so we need the ships to protect it…
the tiny amount is due to the way fishing fleets no longer support the economies of towns like grimsby. eat more fish, close mcdonalds!
We need the 10 vessels! Regardless of politics.
Definitely, we haven’t enough as it is! Even if we had all ships available we probably wouldn’t have enough for what we need to do globally.
where are all the 23’s at?
At least 8.
12
No Herodutus, 26-30 escort vessels (dedtroyers and frigates) are what the afmirslty and the defence select committee state are the minimum numbers required to meet current peacetime deployments, training and refit/ repair requirements. The MOD and HMG choose to ignore those requirements when we scrapped the 4 batch 3 type 22s and sold 3 type 23s to Chile.
I was pulling your leg! I was just intrigued as to how you were linking destroyers with Brexit. But don’t count on Boris getting it right…he doesn’t know his Melton Mowbray’s from his cabinet. Although, I have seen more brains in a pork-pie!
another occasion of selling off the family silver, the type 22’s were all sold/dumped with very short mileage on them. keeping a few would have enabled them to be upgraded to destroyers with sea ceptor and artisan. formidable ships indeed
At least the Brits are attempting to build a modern, capable naval force unlike the rest of the EU that continues to count on the Americans to protect them.
Really, I don’t think that we are making more of an attempt than the French. Most nations are cutting their cloth according to its width. And all are looking at their immediate responsibilities. I think that the likes of Spain and Italy are producing some good efforts despite the limitations of their budgets. British defence procurement has been a joke for many years. Massive amounts of our money spent on bugger all! Try not to use the EU countries as an example of bad planning and expenditure…when it comes to that, we are at least as bad as the worst!
France and the Netherlands have some cutting edge Frigates planned for the late 2020’s. Germany naval strategy just seems to be a complete mess at the moment.
Good ships ,yes, but the RNN will be down to 6, six(!) destroyers-frigates.
Their Holland Class OPVs while not Warships are significantly better than the River Crap we are receiving for not much more money (4 ships opposed to the 5 we are receiving). I’m still not sure what the purpose of our 5 River class boats is other than to escort Russian ships through the Channel. Something a tenth of the price would have been plenty for fishing patrols and they are not much use for anything else.
The price of the OPVs was subsidy to BAES in another form to retain capabilities they otherwise wouldn’t, and which the UK needed for the eventual T26 build. We can complain about why it was ever needed but its water under the bridge now and its apples and oranges to compare against “normal” costs.
The OPVs will do fine for Falklands, Caribbean, Med migration, drug smuggling and domestic waters patrols and are designed for longer endurance in comfort including in rougher seas than smaller vessels.
i’ll just be glad when the word brexit is gone i’m utterly sick of the word and all those involved in this shabby mess
I agree, most people wish that it would just go away! But I’m afraid that Pandora’s box has been opened, and we won’t hear the end of it for many years to come
Surely it would make sense to simply transfer the 4.5 inch guns, sea ceptor batteries, 30mm cannon and towed array sonar from the Type 23’s as they decommission onto the type 31’s? Maybe even the hull mounted sonar?
It makes so much sense it won’t happen!, it would save so much money, and only the 8 heavy frigates will have the 5” gun, but I would like all frigates to have the 5”.
The Towed array Sonar will be transferred to the Type 26 frigates. Sea Ceptor wil most likely go somewhere.
Aren’t all the 8 ASWvtype 23 frigates systems going onto the 8 type 26 frigates, or Atleast some of them? I read some where, so then why the fudge are we spending a billion per type 26!! Makes sense transferring what we can into the type 31s though. We need to build 10.
The real thing I like about Arrowhead is its stability and good size yet small crew with the added bonus of range and speed. It therefore fulfills the basics which the other challengers don’t do.
fitted for, but not with from the carriers down to the archers, sums the whole thing up doesn’t it
I think it will probably get sea ceptor 16 or 32 cells, 5inch gun & phalanx, plus 1 wildcat allowing for self defence, convoy protection/waving the flag/anti piracy duties.
With a possible use of sea captor for short range anti ship capability, and limited asw sonar, allowing it to do what we want for the least amount of money, whilst not limiting it’s future upgrade potential.
With it having the option to add real offensive weapons at a later date. So long as it has the room for torpedoes, mk41 strike length and towed array which it does; this is the important part. Allowing us to give it some teeth for warfighting in the future, if the need arrises, this should be a good platform.
I hope this designe is the winner it’s the best all round, build a big ship based on an existing design for room to expand/upgrade the weapons fit in future.
So long as it has a limited anti-ship missile capability via sea captor this should be a nice addition to the fleet.
The most expensive elements of modern warships are high-end systems and crew. The Type 45 have a highly capable but expensive anti-air system in SAMPSON/Sea Viper and the Type 26 an equally capable anti-submarine capabilities involving a quiet hull and bow+TA sonar. They also have crew compliments of 191 and 157 respectively. On the basis of the Type 31e having the anti-air capabilities of the Type 26 and the anti-submarine capabilities of the Type 45, combined with a crew of 100, you have a capable but limited ship at considerably lower cost. It would be well suited for activities too demanding for a River-class vessel (anti-piracy off Africa, tanker escort in the Persian Gulf spring to mind), but where you are not facing off against high-end opponents, or as part of a battle group containing the Type 45 and Type 26, much as the Type 21 did alongside the Type 42 and Type 22 in the 1980s. A fit out of Sea Ceptor, whichever of the interim anti-ship missiles is chosen, a 4.5″ or 5″ gun plus a Wildcat would make a decent ship.
Type 31e will Not be as capable as a Type 26 for AAW, if it is not fitted with either Mk. 41 vls or Sylver vls.
While the Type 26 will have Mk41 VLS, there is no indication it will utilise them for SAM, except possibly to carry additional Sea Ceptor (which can be 4-packed into one tube); certainly not Standard or Sea Viper missiles for long-range intercept. Sea Ceptor + Artisan (as fitted to the Type 26) is a capable combination, but a step down from the Sea Viper + SAMPSON on the Type 45. The same Sea Ceptor + Artisan is the most likely combination for the Type 31e, if only to reuse the Artisans from the Type 23.
I agree with this combination!
It’s reasonable to assume that these ships will operate alone much of the time. I think inclusion of a Mk41 VLS at build would afford the opportunity to deploy a variety of weapons depending on the situation. Sea Ceptor would be a constant but ASROC, a SSGM and even SM3s for area air defence would be possible. An adversary would not be able to tell which weapons were being carried. This VLS would make the ship more flexible and attractive to potential export customers.
At least three of the UK Type 31es could be fitted with the Type 2087 towed-array sonar. We know that the MoD has purchased at least eleven sets and only eight will be needed for the Type 26s.
All in all, I think the size and flexibility of this ship makes it both credible as a frigate and the most attractive proposition in the competition provided it gets Type 41vls and at least a hull-mounted sonar at build. I don’t think the gun calibre will be a crucial determinant of capability, neither doesit need an area air defence system. Sea Ceptor reaches out to 40km or so, which will be sufficient for the protection of ships in the vicinity.
Now build more than five!
Very good news if true and in terms of future proofing and survivability most certainly the most capable design, a much larger hull, Merlin capable hanger, plus the speed and endurance of the A140, plus the fact it’s already in service and got flying colours at FOST swung it for me – however! The MoD has always been renowned for playing smoke and mirrors and this early leak just doesn’t make sense. Internally it has always been pretty much taken for granted that right from the bag Leander had it in the bag, Artisan , CAMM , and the BAE CMS being the deciding factors here, even though IMHO at only 3,600 tons very much an inferior hull . I guess we will have to wait for DSEI to see , but for this to turn out to have been fake news and to have an announcement favouring BAE would come as no surprise to me. Fingers crossed however !
I think the BAR Leander design should be retained as an anti-gay corvett large job armed with the 57mm gun, seaceptor (vls for 16), refurbished harpoon (8 launchers), containerized towed away sonar and BAE asked to build a minimum of 5 to supplement the River class opvs in constabulary duties in UK waters, the Caribbean territories and Falkland islands for £150 million each. These vessels essentially become the core anti-sub units in the North Atlantic for the Royal Navy. The Leanders will then free up the Type 31 for more demanding mission such as the single patrols undertaken currently by the Type 23 this leading the Type 45 and Type 26 to undertake the carrier protection roles
@Branaboy
The BAE Leander design(T31e) is still priced at £250m each, that is why the Arrowhead140(T31e) is better value for money for the same price. Do you mean £150 million in early 1980s? If so, that would be about £600m in today’s money!
There is No indication that BAE will accept £150m each for Leander!
Also the Leander is Not a specialist ASW vessel with rafted engines etc. it is Not in the same league as a Type 26 frigate. If it was the price would more likely be near £800m each.
Finally, Harpoon is obsolete, need to move on now to NSM!
If 5 Arrowhead 140 were to be ordered with basic armaments, next thing to do is NOT up-arming it, BUT to INCREASE its Full Time Trained Strength (FTTS) man-power. It is only 29090 now, while the requirement is for 30600. It is 1510 person shortage.
FTTS shortage is getting worse and worse, even though new-comer number is increasing. It is simply many FTTS are going away earlier. Without solving this 1510 person shortage, most of the T31e (or in place T45 or T23 or T26) will NOT be able to go to sea = just sitting in the port. (I guess RN/MOD needs pay-rise, for example). Much more important investment than buying more armaments or hulls. RN has already a few escorts with no crew, which can cover the tasks needed, even with no investment in hulls.
After this issue be solved, let us think about how to up-arm it.
I have read that for basic cruising, in home waters, it can run with a watch of 15. So that would give a crew of 46 (including the Captain!) By all means add in an extra signaller to send rude messages to the odd passing Russian via Aldis lamp.
I agree but T31 will require considerably less crew than T23 approximately 100 vs 185, T26 will also require less crew approximately 118. So if these vessels were in place it lessens the impact of FTTS. This does need addressing as you say, and I believe that certain trades are worse than others. But this doesn’t mean you should rob the equipment budget.
OK-I admit to being a pedant but the RN Ensign in the main pic above has a distinctly Made in China look to it. The Union Jack in the canton is a joke, the proportions are supposed to be 2 to 1 not 3 to 2, and the arms of the St Georges Cross are way too skinny.
Standards gentlemen, standards.
btw I have set as my new Screen saver-nice shot otherwise.
I have yet to see a publicity shot of Arrowhead or Leander fitted with a Phalanx system. The ideal place for any ship is covering the central mass that generates the largest radar return i.e. amidships. By placing a Phalanx here you would require two just like the T45. However, due to the Arrowhead’s design of using of-centre exhaust stacks. This would significantly hinder the arc of view rearwards. The main structure forwards would be a similar problem. To get round this sponsons would be required to allow the Phalanx to fitted further out thus giving them a clearer arc of fire. Or, a single Phalanx could be fitted above the hangar. But would require another mounted above the bridge like the T22s to give an all round arc of fire.
Look on navy recognition site for drawing of a140 with phalanx
I assume this is the one you’re talking about Ron…
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/august/7419-babcock-could-be-preferred-bidder-to-build-new-fleet-of-type31e-frigates-for-british-navy.html
It’s actually quite different. Unless my eyes are playing tricks and getting confused by perspective it looks to me as if the render in that article shows aligned rather than offset funnels.
Navy Recognitions’s made a mistake, posting an old image. That’s the Arrowhead 120 design, with aligned funnels. The openings in the side are in the wrong place for A140. So your eyes are good 🙂
Thanks.
If you go to the official Team Leander site in every image a single Phalanx is clearly depicted above the hanger aft, also an eight cell Mk 41 and 2 X 4 Harpoon mounts aft of the funnel as well .
http://www.leanderfrigate.com
Pongoglo-san
You can see the new Leander image in STRN site’s “BAE Systems issues updated imagery of Leander Type 31e Frigate concept (May 30, 2019)”.
No CIWS, no SSM, with “mushrooms” increased from 12 to 24.
We could quad pack the mk41 cells with anti air quadruples the numbers. That’s if we get the mk 41.
What about just 2 quad packs for anti-ship or land attack missiles, plus then a small number of VLS tubes for anti air defence; say 24 tubes?
That plus a 4.5 inch gun.
These could be taken off the Type 23s as they leave service.
I’m not sure if we will reuse the 4.5 guns most pictures show the 5” but makes sense to save money in the short term. And taking the type 23 silos would save money also, but let’s say we only put 24 mk41 cells onto the type 31 we can have 96 anti air missiles or even 48 then leaving the other 12 Mk 41 cells for anti ship missiles/land missiles even tomahawk fits. Makes sense and the type 26 could also quad pack 4 anti air into one single mk41 cell increasing missile numbers allot. The type 45 is fitted for 16 or so Mk41 cells but not installed, they could have a land atack capability or even double the anti air missiles it carry’s to almost 100 or over. It’ll be interesting to see what they reuse and what fit out the fleet will eventually get. But aren’t we selling some of our old frigates so we can’t strip them too bare.
Type 45 destroyer was Not fitted for Mk. 41 vls, even if space is found to fit Mk. 41 there is then the Integration problem with Sylver.
Type 45 were built with the vertical space to replace the Sylver A50 with Sylver A70 tubes and with a void between the gun and the A50 tubes with room for 16 mk41 VLS, that void is currently used as a gym.
Looking at a T45 from above, there is very little space between front of the Sylver silo and rear of the gun, a raised silo extension would breach the red gun arc line, which can be seen from about.
I think it was Gun Buster whom said there is space in front of the Bridge where some of T45s have Harpoon canisters.
Fitting and Integrating Sylver A-70 cells with the same VLS should be feasible.
I thought the type 45 would have a dedicated gym somewhere else with size of the ship, or maybe it has that space but it’s used for something else.
You can see photo of “Mk.41 gym” at
Navylookout twitter on 8/23 image,
#please add “h” at the top.
ttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECpW9-eUEAA6yCN.jpg
or can google “HMS Defender’s space for strike length VLS…used as gym. Sigh…fitted for but not with. “
Gunbuster has said that the FFBNW Mk41 space (currently gym) is aft of the existing A50 silo, between the silo and the bridge where the Harpoons are (when fitted) thus a consequence of fitting the Mk41 would be to lose the space for the 8 canister-mounted missiles.
If we were to accept that with the new QECs the T45 role is likely to be dedicated AAW escort pretty much all the time I’m still wondering whether, if a T45 upgrade was done, whether using the FFBNW space for a dedicated Sea Ceptor cold-launch silo would be the most cost-effective upgrade to boost total missile capacity, leave the Sylver 50 spare for more longer-range stuff, and be cheaper than fitting Mk41. Also, because strike-length Mk41 are so long and Sea Ceptor so much shorter, the crew might even get to keep the gym space just with less headroom.
There is space behind the gun for a single row of mk41s. And maybe the end of the A50 silo could free up some space when removing the silo front wall and installing a new front wall to surround the mk41 and AS50 together.
No there is no space behind the gun or below the deck. There are lots of other sytems in and around there.
There is Mk.41 gym. You can see image on 8/23 NavyLookout twitter feed (response to GordonH-san).
# there are another image on the web, which we can see its height is 6m or more.
And they say it is between the gun and Sylver.
Thanks.
It’s aft of the silo not fwd of the silo. It’s a big space but it’s just a space. No wiring, vent, sprays, foundations etc for fitting MK41 ito it.
The chances are that a similar deckhouse as used on the Aster silo would be needed as well
What about fitting 6 x ExLS 3 cell units in this space, quad packed with CAMM? This would give 18 quad packable cells for total of 72 CAMM, significantly boosting T45 missile count while being reasonably light weight & short. No need for mk41 or Sylver & least affect on topweight & below deck space.
They seem to be the ideal and logical choice. I have been studying the three designs with great interest. Arrowhead is designed with future upgrades in mind, with spare capacity throughout the ship. Exciting times ahead
Nice big ship for future upgrades ect. Can’t imagine they will be cheap to run though, the Royal Navy really needs some cheaper corvettes like the ones Russia has.
They should be cheap to run apparently Iver Huitfeldt can do 18kts on one engine and 9000nm.
Personally I think all opvs should go to a combined coastguard with police, border force etc. and cheap corvettes procured in their place the RN should be concentrating on potential Russian Sub-Surface and surface incursions. Not civilian matters such as, drug enforcement, fishery protection etc.
Therefore corvettes should be procured however not at a cost of frigates/destroyers these are needed to protect interests further afield
A report has already highlighted the vulnerability of underwater cables and Russian ships enter our waters on a regular basis, do we know how many Subs do? An OPV could be patrolling an area whilst underneath Russians could be scouting weak points in the cable network! Also in times of war a corvette can contribute, but what can an OPV do? Therefore to me it is a bit of a waste of money having poorly armed OPVs.
Also I don’t care what others say if the only surface vessel we can send to escort a cruiser is an OPV the Russians will take this as a sign of weakness and assume (probably correctly) we don’t have enough properly equipped surface vessels to meet them. To me it is like the RAF doing QRA with Hawks.
Was any information ever released about exactly how much the MOD was ‘selling’ the old equipment for as part of the overall cost?
If the Mod owns them I expect the only cost will be to remove them from the T26 and integrate them on the T31
Some level of refurbishment will be needed in order to ‘zero life’ the equipment. If the equipment does not meet current standards and the MoD or Babcock requires it to then that could be expensive. For example older elecrical equipment will use lead/tin solder and the current standard is lead free solder.
It must be a non-trival amount.
Even if it was 1m per ship, so 5m total, the difference in budget would have just been accepted, as such a tiny impact on the overall budget.
There was originally 3 different sizes of frigates going to be ordered for the RN right? So they must need them. wouldn’t the Royal Navy suit a smaller corvette like ship that’s cheaper to run and can still handle itself if needed.
I think the original plan was T26 large, T31 middle and River small. If the T31 can be built on budget though its versatility will go along way. The Danes can convert their ships into a hospital ship using the containers stored below deck. Corvettes don’t really offer much benefit to the UK when no one poses a threat to our own shores.
THESE FRIGATES ARE A GOOD DESIGN BUT 5 IS TO FEW WE NEED AT LEAST 10 AND TO EXPORT LOADS OF THEM TO WHO EVER WILL BUY THEM
Well, not quite “whoever will buy then.” If Russia or Argentina want some they can bugger off!
Quite agree with you there!
So let’s try and advance the discussion a bit. There is a common refrain about adding a 5″ gun without any discussion as to cost or utility of doing so.
A MK 45 5″ gun will cost $60M+. This is derived from the order for the first three guns and training system for the T26 at $245M according to the BAES press release in mid-2016. The Bofors 57mm Mk3 (MK 110 in US service) appears to cost ~$8M. Good sources for 57mm costs are hard to come by, so lets call it $10M for this exercise.
The difference is $50M. So would we rather have a 5″ gun for our money or say … an extra Wildcat with the trimmings (including maybe Flash dipping sonar), more CAMM missiles (assuming we are getting Sea Ceptor to begin with), better radar, sonar of some kind, 8x or 16x Mk41 with a few missiles? T31 is cost sensitive so we can’t have it all.
The oft quoted reason for the 5″ gun is NGFS. The problem is even with the new extended range shells the ship is going to be well within the range of even the most basic shore based ASM available on the export market.
Sure we should be able to shoot ASMs down, but its not guaranteed, and if we’re going to fire a number of expensive missiles to defend the ship, why not just use other expensive missiles directly on the target from outside common ASM range, say for example ship launched SPEAR 3 as potential future option?
So is the risk to the ship worth the reward? NGFS may achieve some surprise and distraction benefits but we have better more precise weapons if we’re looking for surgical strike (especially with today’s ROE). If we are seeking to suppress an adversary then we’ll have to fire a lot of shells, and as once again demonstrated in Irag and Syria, it takes a lot of heavy ordnance to do that and it still left many adversaries as Iragi troops found to their cost.
The vast majority of the cost of the first set of Mk 45s was the design and build of a very large, bespoke and fully automated magazine for it. The cost of the actual gun, with a standard magazine is probably closer to $15m
I agree that a 5″ gun would eat up a lot of the budget and you would be better a accepting a 57mm gun and spending your budget on better sensors, systems, weapons and kit. Which would give a more rounded better platform.
You could even consider a second 57mm gun aft. This would give you all round ciws coverage.
I’m expecting the 4.5 mod 1 guns to be removed from T23 and placed on T31. Babcock already has a contract for maintaining them so they will look to extend that as long as possible.
It would be possible to remove the 4.5″ mod 1 guns from the T23s and the Arrowhead 140 certainly could accomodate it on one of the two forward gun mounts.
However you would have to consider the arguments for and against doing this.
Yes reusing the 4.5″ gun would give you a larger gun for naval gunfire support (NGFS).
If the T23’s are to be sold on, the gun maynot be available for reuse. If it is available for reuse there would be a cost for its removal and fit to the T31. What would this cost be and can it be justified? Could these funds be used for something else for example a bow mounted sonar?
The gun would need crewing and hence would drive up overall crew numbers, how would this fit in with the lean manning the T31 is trying to achieve? There is a desire for interoperability with allies which the 4.5″ is unsuitable for.
The 4.5″ is being phased out with winding down of Ammo availability also.
How relevant is NGFS at the range a 4.5″ could achieve with the proliferation of shore based AShM that even non regular forces now seem able to get.
Is it better to fit 57mm (accepting no NGFS role) and reduce crew numbers and perhaps get a bow mounted sonar or something else ? And hope to get 5″ at a later date on the second free mount?
Is it better to fit 76mm and introduce a second main gun and associated costs and logistics tail.
Or blow the budget and fit the 5″.
I’m sure there has been lots of headscratching and headaches in the MOD /RN over what is the best route to take regarding the main gun.
I would go for 57mm on four of the T31 and try to secure funds to have one of the T31 fitted with a 5″ gun.
Don I think it depends on the expected service life of the initial T31 batch. From the national ship building strategy the plan is to have no mid life updates on these ships, but to sell them on. So 15 years ish I am expecting. Therefore they would go out of service just after the T-45s are supposed to start going out of service. Therefore making the sunset of the 4.5″ in RN service around the same time. I suspect that for now we will see the T31 with the 4.5″. If we get a second batch after the initial 5, then something else will replace the 4.5″.
Paul , that is a valid argument and you could be right in your assessment. Also others have suggested that with a bit of smoke and mirrors that the cost for removal from the T23 and fitting to the T31 of the 4.5″ gun maynot come out of the T31 budget but could be renegotiated out of the maintenance budget for the 4.5″ gun.
I still however would favour the 57mm be fitted for all the benefits it offers.
If the NSS is kept to! I can’t see how it can possibly make much sense to sell vessels every 10 to 15 years? If you look at the money we get when we sell it tends to be a pawltry amount. Yes we shouldn’t be running them in to the ground, but at least 20 years makes more sense. Where is the money going to come from to continuously buy more and more expensive warships? Are countries going to buy them unarmed? If so there is the cost of weapon transfer? If not it means we will be buying more weapons that were perfectly good and in service to put on and pay to integrate on a new ship?
T23 cost £130 million an although slightly more ambitious T26 cost £750+ reusing t23 weapons? So what will T27 cost?? 3bn? Money back from selling T26? £100-200 million? This part of the strategy must have been written by BAE systems!
Also designs such as Arleigh Burke and other ships built with space/true capability, are showing they can continue for sometime, unless future warships hover or teleport. I am not convinced we’ll need new designs as much as industry would like us to think.
We need to be equipping existing vessels properly. There’s no reason t45 shouldn’t be an absolute world beater.
What we should be doing is significantly expanding the fleet to give industry the work they need. We also need to be more flexible and look at at what we need assets to do, as if you look at Albion and Bulwark to provide the capability we really need they should be LHDs, but will soldier on with slow landing craft until the planned out of service date. We could replace and sell them to get the correct capability.
We have the situation where unless we deploy a massive aircraft carrier we have to deploy both RFA Argus and HMS Albion/bulwark.
The T23’s hulls will be worn out by the time they leave service, and a lot of the decent equipment (Artisan, Sea Ceptor, 2087, I-SSGW(?), …) is going to removed for fitting to the T26’s or put in storage as spares. Can’t see much of a market for them after that. If the Mk8 Mod 1’s still have some life left in them, why not stick them on the T31e? IMHO building a sixth T31e hull is much higher priority than fitting a modern MCG. Babcock should be well down the learning curve by T31e-06, and it would keep then busy for another 12-18 months even without export orders.
And we have plenty 4.5” guns so let’s build 10 type 31s.
It may be practical to use the 57mm as a CIWS, even though at face value it may not sound great. This is down to the rounds per second (rps) it can fire. The Mod 3 can fire 3.7rps which sounds good, with a max effective range of 8.5km. The Phalanx by comparison can fire at 75rps with an effective range of 2km.
With the visual horizon at 24km away from a height of 20m above sea level and a missile travelling at Mach 0.9 = 1111km/h or 0.31km/sec travelling towards a ship. It will cover the 8.5km distance to reach the ship in 27.4 seconds. In this time the 57 can fire 101 rounds from its max effective range to the missile hitting the ship.
If the missile speed is now at Mach 3 = 3704km/h or 1km/sec. It will take 8.5 seconds from the maximum effective range of the 57 to reach the ship. This means the gun can fire 31 rounds before the missile hits the ship.
This doesn’t sound great, but it is only considering dumb rounds. If we consider using the BAE ORKA rounds which are guided rounds, the chances of a hit are considerably greater and at the guns max effective range. The rounds also have combined proximity and impact fuses, so a miss may still damage or destroy the missile.
This does compare favourable with a Phalanx, which can only fire dumb rounds, effectively creating a screen that the missile must fly through. The tungsten rounds will tear through pretty much anything. However, there is a very good chance that as missile speeds increase, that the missiles “carcass” will still hit the ship and thus cause damage.
The only downside to the gun is where its being used to NGFS or attacking a larger sized vessels. The shell does not contain enough explosive to significant damage them, without a lot of shells being used. The OTO 76 contains 3 times the explosive content of the standard 57 HE shell.
The gun could therefore be used to replace both the Phalanx and DS30 as the ships CIWS and to counter small fast boats. For NGFS support the 4.5″ or preferably the 5″ would be better suited.
Great post. Good detail on missile engagement .
The greater range of engagement of the 57mm is a real positive over the phalanx in reducing damage from the missiles carcass.
If people take away two statistics from those you list it should be that Phalanx has an effective range of 2kms and that a Mach 3 ASM travels at 1km/s. Even if Phalanx is successful at hitting the missile at 2kms there is still a very good change the ship will be shot gun blasted with supersonic debris 2 seconds later, severely damaging or destroying sensors and taking the ship out of the action. It clearly gets worse the later the interception and destruction.
For subsonic missiles, UAVs and FAIC Phalanx is still useful as part of a layered defense though.
System complexity starts to raise its head when you split systems up. PHALANX is everything in a single box for this very reason..If you start splitting things up into trackers, radar, command system and weapons into distinct sub systems integration alignment and critical system failure start to add up..
Lose any one part and you are screwed. Engagement Delays are also introduced by the time it takes to identify track and engage a target with individual systems and to have those systems talk and pass info between them.
Phalanx does everything on mount. Radar identifies tracks, conducts threat assessment and the gun conducts the engagement. All of which just needs 440v and sea water cooling to the mount. Yes the LCP is also needed close to the mont but it is not a huge problem.
lose any individual other system and its endex.
I agree, which is why I find having only a single Artisan fitted to the T26 and T31 shortsighted! It is the ship’s primary sensor for detecting both surface and air threats. Yes, the ship has another radar, but its purely a navigation radar. If Artisan fails, there is no back up, so you’re effectively relying on close range sensors such as Electro-optics, RDF and ESM – not great!
The Phalanx is a great system, in that it is pretty much plug and play, the BAE 57mm is not! There are two flavours of this weapon system, the more common having the magazine below the gun requiring deck penetration. Or the rarer one that has the gun sitting on a magazine with no deck penetration. They both have a radar for ballistic tracking and a electro-optic sighting system. Unfortunately it relies on a primary feed from the main or a dedicated search and track radar. This would be the same problem of installing the OTO 76mm, in that it is not a complete stand alone system.
If money was no object, it would make sense to combine both systems as a layered defence, having the 57 and the Phalanx. Using the 57 with guided rounds to defeat targets near its max effective range and using the Phalanx as back up and for leakers. It would not take a lot to fit a dedicated search and track radar to the 57 mount. By including the pedestal magazine turning it in to a plug and play system means the system could be lifted between ships. I believe from the BAE specs, the magazine can dual feed and holds around 200 rounds.
It depends how much of the $245 was on the training package as well as long term support? These packages may extend over a long period and therefore include years and years of costs. Therefore without knowing the details I don’t think you can assume costs.
The issue with anti-ship missiles is not being out of range, but giving enough reaction time for air defences to react. If the 5inch can buy a few more seconds then that could save the vessel. The 57mm and 76mm would I believe not give anytime to respond. The issue is unlikely to be solved unless electromagnetic rail guns come along. However NGFS remains as valid as artillery in the land domain and could be even more vital in early days of amphibious assault.
SPEAR 3 is an exciting development especially as it does look as if there will be a naval version. I am unsure it will still give the instant fire support that troops in contact require. SPEAR 3 is probably the weapon you would more likely hunt the anti ship systems with.
NGFS is always always a risk and I am sure it is employed with much thought. The RN wouldn’t go up against batteries of missiles so you’re looking at 1 or 2 rogue launchers. The RN have already assessed NGFS in fact at one stage the guns were to disappear altogether, but post Falklands their importance to troops meant that all ships would get the 4.5inch.
In terms of surgical strike its not really the role of NGFS it is to support troops on the ground, plus the advantage to the 5inch is the USN (despite all it’s airpower) is continuing to invest in advance ammunition.
Well there is certainly some room for debate on costs, but regardless we do know that to support the first three Mk45 gun systems cost $245M. Would supporting three 57mm only cost $30M, perhaps not, but even at 2x or 3x its still a much lower cost, leaving budget for other uses. In addition there seems to be as much innovation being applied to 57mm ammunition as there is to larger calibre. Raytheon’s MAD-FIRES development in conjunction with DARPA is the latest 57mm example. The USN is interesting to observe in this context. They gave up on the concept of USS Zumwalt DDG1000 advanced guns (and the entire NGFS mission for those ships it seems) due to ammunition cost for the long range shells and their new FF(G)X frigate is specifying 57mm for the main gun.
I disagree strongly about NGFS utilty in today’s world, especially in support of anything more than the lightest of opposed amphibious landing. You can’t possibly put down enough weight of fire from even several 5″ guns to suppress even relatively modest numbers of opposition, especially if well dug in and concealed. This is why to remove opposition we have helicopters to attack and to land troops to outflank defenses, including landing numbers of 105mm light guns, not to mention F35s. If you really feel the need to fire something from a ship then MLRS or HIMARS from an Albion or Bay, as the USN has been experimenting with, would provide much heavier weight of fire.
The Falklands is often held up as a rational for NGFS but its a flawed example. There were no formal shore based ASM, but the one time the Argentinians lashed up an Exocet for land launched attack they hit and nearly took out HMS Glamorgan. Its a very different world today, 40 years later. In addition we can’t know for sure how many ASM missiles could be brought to bear, because the range of them allows positioning many kms back from the shore line. In addition when conducting NGFS the ship is necessarily operating in a relatively small area of the sea which then makes it more vulnerable to satellite targeting and long range ASM launch.
To make my point clear, we have to take risks in war, but not unnecessary risks. This marginalizes NGFS to the point that it becomes very expensive capability for a very limited effect and role. I doubt I’ll convince anyone to change their minds but we certainly cannot expect to fight future wars like we have in the past, Russia certainly won’t as they have already demonstrated.
So you know better than both USN, RN and most other navies that spend millions on NGS and have also risked ships in both of the Gulf Wars to provide NGFS? You’d better let them know before anymore guns are bought and they can remove them to save fuel. You’re looking very much from a navy ship point of view and not an army or royal marines point of view!
For me, light and medium armaments on T31, however I do think we should install just one bank of 8 Mk41 from the go. That way we can very quickly integrate additional missiles if things turn hot. For now, just quad pack them with seaceptor.
So 2x 30mm each with martlet launcher for the small stuff. 8x medium ASM such as the NSM so it has the limited ability to take out another ship if needed. 24 seaceptor cells taken from the T23’s plus 1×8 mk 41 for 32 more for a decent defensive fit. or say 24 more and throw in a couple of ASROC so they have something to go at subs with. 57mm gun and maybe phalanx if deemed necessary in very dangerous areas. Maybe just build the hard points on the sides, power and magazine space for them but ffbnw at this stage. Bow sonar for littoral asw work and Artisan.
The only things not reused from the T23’s would be the 57mm gun, say £10 mill and the bank of mk41 cells, another £10 mill, so Not a huge amount from the £250-300 mill budget. Asm missiles will come from another budget anyway.
That to me is a proper light frigate that is not over the top for constabulary duties but can step up when required. Remember this frigate has to be a frigate for the next 20-30 years against whatever is developed in the coming years, and for me missile numbers and possible types is imperative.
“So 2x 30mm each with martlet launcher for the small stuff.”
It’s already been explained to me that it takes time to get experience and confidence to prove a weapons system but T31e is still going to take a while to get into service. Would there be enough time to get confident with a naval version of CTAS 40mm also with a Sigma-type mount to include Martlet and maybe also Starstreak? That might help drive ammo prices down for Ajax and also be usefully more capable than current 30mm for not only T31e but also Bay, Tide, River, T23, T26, T45, Sandown, Hunt, etc – potentially loads of vessel classes. This seems to me like a development project well worth funding.
I think the Bofors 40 mk 4 has greater range but Thales do have the Rapidfire system which uses CTA 40mm and should also be able to integrate Starstreak one could be mounted fore and one aft on A140.
Otherwise I am unsure if a sigma mount could support CTA on a similar footprint to the 30mm guns and unsure if for the cost it would provide a justifiable increase in capability. The CTA in army use needs to penetrate armour so the CTA costs are justifiable.
The CTA does not need to penetrate armour of the Ajax. The method of mounting was purely determined by having the turret manned. Both BAE and General Dynamic produced an optional unmanned turret still using the CTA40. The Bofors super 40 does indeed have a greater range, as its using a much larger shell than normal. They have had great difficulty in integrating it in turrets due to the recoil length and ensuring the autofeeder can swing the round into the breech. However the case telescopic rounds used by the CTA 40 have a greater range than a “standard” 40mm as there’s more propellent surrounding the round.
The CTA40 could easily be adapted to replace the DS30s on a ship complete with a dual feed magazine.
Not penetrate the armour of Ajax, but of enemy IFVs hence the more propellant and expense of the rounds! Bofors is more anti air. I am fully aware Rapid fire is non deck penetrating. BAE are marketing the 40mm mark 4 in a non penetrating turret which would fit nicely on the upper fore deck of a140. I am not against CTA 40 but when Bofors adds another 2-3 km and has been proven in naval service
You’ve missed the point. The cta40 does not need to have the magazine in the hull. It could be a purely unmanned turret on the Warrior and Ajax. The only reason it does “penetrate” the hull is so that the turret can be manned by a crew of two. This was one of the Army’s requirements, as they believe by elevating the crews position gives better situational awareness.
The cta40 rounds could be given the extra range with additional powder. At the moment the shell case is not fully filled. It uses plastic spacers to centralize the round. You could replace the spacers with solid propellant, which would give the shell additional range.
I do like the cased telescopic concept as it allows a larger magazine for the same volume as standard shell. The main issues be erosion due to the lack of the cartridge making a seal with the breach when fired. The feed mechanism is no more complicated that a standard shell feeder.
I would go with this’d but as there is space on a140 for I believe a 57mm or Bofors 40mm on the upper deck. I would still bring across the 4.5 inch for NGFS, but ideally money should be found for 5inch.
I agree, the T31 should be the ship that is tasked with ngfs, not the T26. The T26 has a more important job with sub hunting. Sure if it was the only ship available! The BAE 5” with extended range ammo, gives the ship the ability to fire from below the horizon. The Leonardo volcano shells have an effective range up to 100km. The 4.5 even with extended range ammo I believe can’t do this?
Fingers crossed for this…
A large hull, good range, decent facilities for a Merlin, space a marines contingent, space for four ribs and mission bay.
Adding weapons/sensor fit, if it gets the kit from the decommissioned type 23s (4.5 inch, 30mm mounts, Seaceptor, sensors, soft kill) that’s a very good package and capability for is what is meant to be a light constabulary frigate (sounds more like a GP frigate to me).
Add in the ability to add 32 strike length launchers and a towed array, I’m not seeing much of a down grade from the original planned 5 type 26s to be honest.
Agree, I would be happy to see the latest Type 23 package transferred over to Type 31 especially since it looks like a decent cannister launched AShM with land attack capability like NSM will be added. Also very pleased to see Merlin capable hangar; would like to see NSM integrated onto Merlin. I could never understand how Leander would sell in the export market without a hangar big enough for the NH90.
@Jonathan
Yes it is a down grade from a Type 26 frigate,
It won’t have double raftted engines, so not super quiet like a T26. Over 12m shorter.
With all the shopping lists of what these ships may or may not be armed with, are they coming in at the £250 million price the MoD keeps saying is the maximum budget per vessel?
I assume most weapons and sensors are not included as they already exist on the T23s?
As I understand it the Type 23 weapons and sensors ( what the requirements etc docs call GFE …government furnished equipment) is not included in the £250m. To be honest I never did understand about the cost of removal and refurbishment. Maybe the accountants have found a way to charge that to the Type 23 Lifex project. The AShM will be a separate project. Its all smoke and mirrors so they can stay within the £250m for Type 31. You just allocate any increase in funding to different but related projects.
Thanks Paul.
In fact I think if the Government were to create a separate programme called say ” General Purpose future lethality upgrade” they could pretty much fit it with what they wanted. You may laugh bit there is a push now from a number of MPs to increase defence spending so who knows the great thing is A140 allows us to do this where the other designs don’t. So hopefully it has been selected.
So in reality (and if you had to buy the furnished equipment new) this is really a £400m+ frigate, not the £250m contract price.
They will almost certainly have the 4.5″ guns from the T23s, along with Sea Ceptor, 2 x 30mm, and GPMGs. Lets hope they get AShM later on, but I doubt it will be fitted any time soon.
Yeh. I think reality has dawned. But the original £250m budget can’t be changed so what they have to do is allocate the difference between £400m and £250m to other budgets e.g. you could renegotiate the Babcock contract for 4.5” gun ‘maintenance’ so it covers removal from Type 23, refurbishment and refitting to Type 31. Hey presto!
Are those midships boat bays uncovered or is it just that the renders always show them open?
I seem to remember way back that someone who seemed to know what they were talking about was criticising BMT’s Venator 110 concept because of the notching in the superstructure around the RAS stations on the basis that they would create nasty big radar returns for enemy radars. As I understand it (and I might be wrong) one of the core principles of reducing radar returns is suitably angled unbroken/uncluttered/smooth surfaces so I’m wondering about the effect of open bays on the reduction of radar returns, something I think every modern design strives for, if these bays are indeed uncovered.
IVER HUITFELDT frigate has a cover added, the same will be possible for Arrowhead 140, I guess.
Related, what I worry is the fact that Arrowhead 140 boat-bay are actually very small. It has 4 boat-bays for 9+m long boats, much shorter than T26’s mission bay (11-12m boat capable).
Leander design has two 11-12m boat-bays, in addition to two 9+m boat bays. Surely better.
Any USV/UUV as large as 11-12m, which can fit in T26, will not fit to Arrowhead 140. One of the defects, which shall batter be solved.
The Arrowhead can have 4 boat bays but on A140 these can be changed to 2 big bays or I think potentially 1 big plus 2 small. The 4 bays can all take the standard navy boats. As far as I can see most USVs are being designed around this size as they may want to deploy from T45 and other vessels as well.
> changed to 2 big bays or I think potentially 1 big plus 2 small.
Yes, very important, this is what I meant.
> ..most USVs are being designed around this size …
No so sure. From my view, many of USVs are aiming at 11-12m size.
AtlasE ARCIMS USV is 11.5 m long. French MCM-USV and Israeli SeaGull USV are 12 m long. I think this is why T26’s mission bay is 11-12 m asset capable.
# iXblue Drix USV is 7.5m long, good, but I think it will grow up to at least 11.5m long.
Hopefully they will go with either 1 large and 2 small or 2 large then
Have a look a Babcock’s Arrowhead walk through presentation found on Youtube. It initially shows the ship with four boat bays. But later show it with two, with the space of the 2nd boat bays taken up with more VLS cells and canister launchers. They even show the additional of a second radar mast that looks like its carrying a S1850 (SMART-L) radar. So in essence the ship design is fairly modular and can be adapted to suit the requirements.
If you look at most modern warships, you’ll see a distinct lack of 90 degree corners or tubular structure such as old style masts. There are a lot of similarities between the F117 Nighthawk and today’s ship design i.e. multi-faceting. This has a lot do with mitigating the large reflective sides of a ship. So some parts are angled downward, whilst others are angled upwards. The T45’s mast shape is a good example of multi-faceting.
Any open box like structure, such as boat bay will be a very good radar reflector. This is why on the T45 for example, the boat bays are covered. The T23 generates a very large radar reflection due to large gaps between structures and a very cluttered side structure. The T26 even though a much larger ship and having a greater surface area than the T23, will have a significantly smaller radar signature. The T45 was the first stab at minimising radar reflections, the T26 is the next progression. I’ve seen a video of the Arrowhead presentation showing doors covering the boat bays. The T31 will not be allowed to have a radar signature like a T23, as this would make it to easy to detect.
Thanks again Davey. I’m learning a lot today (or in this case having my previous understanding confirmed). Good to hear that there will be covers for the bays, not just for reduced radar returns but also because Arrowhead 140 will look so much cooler with the side doors closed 🙂
Could the high radar returns of the T23s be a justification for accelerated build rate for T26s and accelerated retirement of T23s?
By late 2020s, any adversary will be able to see a T23 from radar returns?
This is one for Gunbuster, but I believe that some of the high costs of keeping the T23s going is not only systems, but also structural. The poor radar signature of the ship is a concern. However, it does its other roles more than adequately.
I need to clarify the radar signature of the T23. Its radar signature is poor if compared with the T45. As Gunbuster quite rightly said earlier, it is significantly better than the previous T22. In some respects the smaller size of the T23 over the T22 goes some way towards this. But it’s more to do with the shaping of the structure. The T23 has been said to have the radar signature of a smallish trawler. This may be true, but also depends on what type of radar is illuminating it.
The T45 by comparison, being a much larger ship than a T23, has a significantly small radar signature. Some of this is down to the materials used, but it is mainly due to blending of the structure and faceting.
Thanks Davey B. for this info!
One for DaveyB here I suspect…
I’ve just revisited the savetheroyalnavy site with a table comparing the three T31e bids and looking at that table (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-31e-frigate-candidates-compared/) Arrowhead 140 leaps out as the most capable in pretty much every single category. Looking at the radar the A140 is listed in the table as “Artisan 3D or Thales NS100 AESA” so I thought I’d have a quick look how those compare, at least on scant public info – just out of interest obviously, the choice for RN would be cross-decked Artisan. Anyway, the publicity on Thales site describes the NS100 as a “4D” radar where as Artisan is described as “3D”. Is that just marketing fluff from Thales or is there some genuine differentiation between a 3D and a 4D radar?
From my physics days I’m still pretty familiar with general relativity and four-dimensional space-time so to me the 4th dimension that immediately springs to mind is time and any radar that can create a track and assign velocities must by definition be working with a 4th time dimension so I’m a bit (well, very) confused about this 3D/4D terminology on the radar data sheets. Can anyone shed any light on that?
I have yet to find a realistic explanation of what constitutes a 4D radar. I have feeling it has nothing to do with the quantum realm as depicted by Marvel’s Ant man.
What I can surmise though, is that the radar is still a multi-function 3D search AESA radar, but it is combined with other surveillance systems. Unlike some ship’s radars the NS100 can do both surface and air searches. It can do all the standard AESA radar functions of multi-beam searches, frequency hopping etc. But it also has a built in interrogator friend or foe (IFF), automatic dependent surveillance – broadcast (ADS-B) and ships automatic identification system (AIS). The ADS-B is now becoming the primary means of controlling air traffic. The NS100 can also be paired with electro-optic devices such as day/night cameras and infra-red search and track devices.
The NS100 does compare favourably with the Artisan in terms of range, but it is a generation ahead in capability. It is not in the same league as Sampson though. As to the use of a 4D radar, a lot of it is marketing spin where they are trying to differentiate their product from another similar product. By describing not only how multi-functional it is but also how it can be networked with other systems to enhance situational awareness.
Thanks Davey. That now makes a lot of sense and I suppose it’s not totally unreasonable to use “4D” as a crude indicator that it can capture additional data about tracked objects beyond their trajectories and velocities where all that additional data that can be atributed to a target could be considered as an extra dimension. With my pedantic physicist’s hat on I would argue that Thales should actually be using the term “5D” since both Artisan and NS100 are at the most basic level tracking targets through 4-dimensional spacetime rather than three-dimensional space and then you start adding any extra sensor integration as the additional dimension but I guess that really would confuse people so I can see why they decided to go with “4D” despite the technical inaccuracy.
Shame from an RN/UK perspective to hear that NS100 is “a generation ahead in capability”. Good for Thales for a job well done on the NS100, and good for BAE that Sampson is even so still top of the tree, but I’m disappointed if BAE is letting itself fall behind on the 2nd tier stuff (defining Sampson as taking the 1st tier slot).
From Janes article
“4D AESA radars (the company uses the term ‘4D’ to characterise radars able to provide Doppler measurement as well as bearing, range, and elevation information).”
Ref; Janes; “Euronaval 2018: Thales pitches NS50 dual-axis multibeam radar…” 23 Oct 2018,
Ah. Thanks Donald. Fair enough and again that makes sense – my pedantic 5D point in my reply to DaveyB not withstanding 🙂
Come to think of it, I retract my 5D quibble. If the manufacturers are talking strictly about the antenna capability then a non-Doppler-enabled system is only getting x, y and z coordinates from the object and the t (time) dimension is being added by the back-end tracking algorithms whereas for a 4D Doppler-enabled system, which I assume means that the receivers can detect frequency shifts on the return signal, gives them the ability to read the velocity directly (or at least the velocity component in the direction of the antenna) hence adds a time dimension at the antenna stage.
Sort of. Doppler radars are very good at detecting approaching or retreating targets. By using a mechanical scanner you can work out the targets bearing. However, there are number of issues with this type of waveform, so pulse-doppler was introduced. The technique compresses and shapes the doppler waveform so it has a distinct timing measurement, thus you can work out distance, bearing and speed. But if you fly tangentially to the beam you can practically disappear. With a pulsed continuous wave technique this does not occur, but there’s other issue with type of signal, so in the basic form doppler measurement can’t be done.
BAE and other radar manufacturers have be searching for a method of combining the benefits of the two main types of waveform without the negative aspects. Systems like the Tornado’s Foxhunter could do some of the combined techniques, the Captor in Typhoon was the first UK aircraft that could do it seamlessly, hence the multi-mode moniker. The problem with Captor is that it uses a plannar antenna, so the frequency generation is done by the main system and can only generate certain types of beamform at a time. The later PESA radars can do more, but it’s not until AESA was available that true multi-mode radars came into being.
BAE have a AESA development radar at Cowes, this was used as a test bed for Sampson. Sampson should be considered as a digital radar. Its performance is pretty much governed by software and in turn its ability to do complex signal processing. BAE developed multi-beam techniques at least 20 years ago using this development radar. This radar has the capability to transmit multiple types of waveform simultaneously. This is because the radar array is made of combined transmitter/receiver modules that can each generate the base frequency, but also do the beamforming. This means that the array can generate multiple beams of different waveform types. It can also transmit these beams at different frequencies within the band to minimise detection and jamming. The other benefit is that by transmitting different types of waveform at the same target, the doppler zero effect can be minimised. The other benefit is how it can better detect stealthy targets. Not only does the composition of the targets skin material play a very important factor, but also how the radar uses filtering to remove clutter to reveal the target. Different waveform techniques use specific filtering methods so if one type ignores the returned signal the other type may flag it up. This is doubly important in detecting missiles flying low level just above the sea.
So in effect if Thales are saying that their 4D radar can do doppler tracking as well as other techniques is a bit cheeky. As Sampson has been doing it for years.
From radartutorial.eu/02.basics/2D%20or%203D%20radar.en.html
Last sentence is the main point to answer your question.
“4D Radar?
Time is sometimes defined as the fourth dimension. Applied to the target coordinates of radar (azimuth, elevation angle and slant range) this would be the Doppler frequency. However, the Doppler frequency is also measured by classic 2D radars without them mutating into a 3D radar. Because a 3D radar measures Doppler frequencies as a fourth measurand (and any modern reconnaissance radar should be able to do that) should it suddenly be a 4D
So 4D radar is just a sales-promoting buzzword that has nothing to do with the fourth dimension in physics.”
Correct. 🙂
Each and every assets we propose to “add” to the basic 250M GBP T31e will mean, the same amount of investment be impossible for other assets. I think RN shall not arm T31e heavily UNTIL RN ARM T45, T26, CVF, F35 and P8 properly.
If adding Mk.41 VLS to T31e, why not add it to T45 or increase the T26’s Mk.41 VLS number in batch-2. Compared to adding more CAMM on T31, adding ballistic-missile/hypersonic-missile defense to T45 is more a priority, from my point of view.
Therefore, T31e as Arrowhead 140 or Leander (or MEKO A200) does not matter for me (of course, Arrowhead 140 is not bad).
Also, all such up-arming MUST come AFTER pay-rise to keep the trained man-power not leaving RN = fill the ever increasing gap (now ~1500) in trained man-power. As man-power is the most precious resource, I hesitate to mount 114mm gun on T31e, because it needs more man-power than 76/57 mm guns. Also 114 mm gun has little AAW capability, and may require CIWS to be added, which is also man-power intensive (needs large maintenance loads).
It is all about the balance in the fleet. (Of course, in addition, MOD faces ~10B GBP gap in its 10-years equipment budget.)
Basic T31e is the best solution, until man-power and high-end assets’ “under equipped” nature be solved. I think. So the only issue is, I think, how the “basic T31e” must be equipped?.
Mk41 – For T31 I guess it is easier at build to add a mk41. My guess if it is added it will be small at 8-12. T45 would need major work, T26 cannot be in 2 places at once so adding to T31 adds to flexibility and reduce strain on T26.
The main reason I could see it being added to T31 is that the class is not slated to get the interim missile system these being bought for t23 towed array, therefore hopefully the missiles will be mk41 capable and if mk41 fitted to T31 it would be able to use the missile and have a better anti-surface capability that just Wildcat. It would also add some flexibility with asroc and TLAM being options. T26 will not be with us until about 2027. But it is expensive so a sensible addition that will probably not happen.
In terms of the 114mm gun we have these in stock so cheap, I don’t think it will increase manpower requirements as mod 1 is quite modern plus Iver Huitfeldt has 2 guns upfront. CIWS is not a necessity due to the capabilities of sea ceptor and there is also the option to fit secondary armament of 40mm/57mm which could give extra protection again this wouldn’t necessarily increase manpower.
Ideal armament would be 4.5 inch (5 would be nice), 2x. 40mm, 24 sea ceptors, 8-12 vls, 30mm with LMM and torpedo tubes (why not? We have them and stingrays would be carried for helps anyway)
Probable will be fit 4.5 inch, 24 sea ceptors, 30mm with LMM
How about this for a simple weapons loadout for the T31?
76mm gun, 8 x NSM in two quad canisters, and 16-24 VLS tubes that could hold surface to air missiles for self defence, plus Phalanx CIWS.
We have the tubes already on Type 23 frigates, we have the quad canisters so all that is needed to purchase then are the NSM missiles themselves plus the 76mm guns. Should be relatively cheap and they’re not too overpowered for constabulary roles but at the same time wouldn’t be helpless in a war and could actually contribute as part of a QE fleet.
Thanks.
I think
– please not forget ESM/decoy system, which is essential.
– CIWS can be in rotation (fix only the mount/wire/cooling-water)
– NSM could be optional (SeaVenom on Wildcat is not that bad)
– but keep CAMM to be 24
– and not forget two 30mm guns with 5-LMM each.
Adding guided-round capabilities to the 76/57 mm gun will be the top priority for up-gunning, as we can omit CIWS with it = reduced man-power (but I’m afraid it is not so cheap).
Oto Malera 76mm with guided ammunition is a beast!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjR1Pzldc8E
It sounds like the interim missile system is only being purchased for the towed array t23. I can only hope this means mk41 will be bought for T31 otherwise lynx and sea venom will be as good as it gets. Unless SPEAR 3 can be added somehow
I think we may be getting unnecessarily despondant here at least as regards Sea Ceptor (CAMM). In all the CGI that Babcock have produced depicting Arrowhead 140 they have always shown a 24 cell ‘ Mushroom farm’ in place of the amidships 32 cell Mk 41 on the Danish ships. I think the fact that the latest BAE rendition of their Leander design also reflects the same , in this case 24 cell ‘mushrooms’ split 12 forward and 12 amidships again in place of the Mk 41 probably indicates that these are the bargain basement T31 intended for RN service, and not the T31e on offer elsewhere which for export purpose will have a much more capable fit. Again, and I think significantly , both have had the eight cell Harpoon SSM deleted that featured in the earlier renditions, and the single Phalanx mount which featured in the earlier designs would also appear to have gone. In both designs the DS30M’s remain. To my mind this indicates that 24 CAMM is the minimum baseline spec that the RN will accept and my money is on that which ever consortium is successful this will a key feature in the final design .Shame that you can’t attach images to comments on this thread, would better illustrate my point !
I still struggle a bit to come to terms with the packing density if the mushroom farm layout in the CGI renders is what comes to pass. Your comment Pongoglo throws that into stark relief…
“In all the CGI that Babcock have produced depicting Arrowhead 140 they have always shown a 24 cell ‘ Mushroom farm’ in place of the amidships 32 cell Mk 41 on the Danish ships.”
… so if there is deck space for a 32 cell Mk41 silo that in theory could be quad-packed to give 128 Sea Ceptors then putting 24 “mushrooms” in there is less than 5 times the potential packing density that could be achieved, and that’s assuming that quad-packed Mk41 is the benchmark for maximum possible packing density which I might not even be the case due to the unnecessary (for quad-packed Sea Ceptor) exhaust vents in a Mk41 configuration.
My point above isn’t intended to be advocating for quad-packing Sea Ceptor into Mk41, I realise that is an expensive solution and budget is VERY tight, I’m simply expressing some discomfort at what seems to be such space inefficiency.
Agree it is very low density package.
This is the same for T26. If we use quad-pack ExLS (stand-alone) in place of mushrooms, T26 will be able to host 192 CAMM/SPEAR3, while leaving the 24 Mk.41 VLS for FCASW and/or ASROC. Positively speeking, it is a good growth margin (at least in T26).
For T31e, even Leander with ExLS can carry up to 96 CAMM/SPEAR3 (of course, budget will never let it happen). Thus, I think “even Leander has good enough growth margin”. (I think not much growth will take place in T31, as I want to spend the money on T45/T26/CVF/F35/P8/P7 and drones).
I agree Donald. I do wonder though how much overhead even stand-alone ExLS adds in cost, size and weight vs a totally dedicated designed-for-purpose soft-launch silo. It does need a quad-pack adaptor after all. Does it have any exhaust venting or is it strictly cold launch?
Perhaps ExLS stand-alone is close enough to optimal (i.e. as much as is necessary to host Sea Ceptor but no more) such that MBDA believe that is the optimal launcher but if there is too much “fat” left in ExLS s-a when used to host Sea Ceptor though, either in cost or the other characteristics, then I wonder if MBDA might be willing to contribute funding to designing a totally dedicated launcher for Sea Ceptor to do the job as cheaply and space-efficiently as possible (and ideally sized to also be able to take CAMM-ER which would probably also allow SPEAR3-VLS if that ever happened).
I would have though that having a super-streamlined cost-effective modular cold-launch-only product could significantly increase the attractiveness and sales opportunities for Sea Ceptor and potentially CAMM-ER and/or SPEAR3-VLS in the future if one or both of those makes it into production (as mentioned, if ExLS stand-alone isn’t already at that optimal as-low-as-possible price point).
From the ExLS datasheet,
“Lockheed Martin and MBDA-UK co-developed and qualified the ExLS 3-Cell Standalone Launcher for Sea Ceptor Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (CAMM). Two successful CAMM ejection tests were conducted in December 2017, which completed the qualifications for 3-Cell ExLS.
CAMM integration into ExLS uses MBDA-UK’s CAMM canister and Launch Management System (LMS). The MBDA-UK LMS interfaces with 12 CAMM missiles. The LMS can prepare three of those 12 missiles for launch simultaneously. As a result, the basic building block to deploy is three cells, each cell quad-packed with four CAMM munitions.”
For CAMM is quad-pack cold launch but other hot launch missiles may be fitted, in which case a tube is required for gas eflux, so for example Longbow/JAGM is tri-pack + exhaust tube.
Thanks, and for the flurry of other really interesting and helpful replies to my other comments over the last hour or so. I’m learning a lot today.
I like that ExLS design concept, either 4 cold launch tubes or 3 hot launch tubes plus an eflux tube. Really neat how that retains flexibility but keeps all the complexity, including the exhaust venting, in the drop-in adapter rather than the fixed-to-ship installation. Clever design.
You’re probably right re mushroom farm being a transplant from T23. If yes then it’s a shame we really are so cash strapped because it does sacrifice a lot of packing density. I understand why it was a sensible and expedient technique for T23 to slot into the old Sea Wolf tubes but it’s such a shame if that same compromise gets inherited by T31e. I wonder what the price differential is between transplanting the mushroom farms vs re-hosting in ExLS. As you say in your other comment though, if the space ever got converted to Mk41 it all becomes history, but we know the dangers of FFBNW (or in this case possible upgrade) not happening.
Something else to think about. What would we put into MK41 on a T31? We don’t have any approved weapons for Mk41 at present. Its possible that the BAES CMS doesn’t have support for Mk41 missiles either at present, although ironically Thales Tacticos probably does, as Thales has already deployed AAW support for both US and European missiles.
We’ll presumably qualify missiles for the T26 and qualification might well wait until the first ship for that to happen for test launches. Even then we may start with Aster, assuming we don’t migrate away to US AAW VLS weapons for commonality with the Dutch/Belgians, Spanish, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Canadians and Australians as well as USN.
So we could be almost a decade away from deploying any missiles in Mk41.
Yeah, that’s a really good point. If Mk41 did go into T31e then one would assume that the choice of available missiles would be those integrated for T26 and since T31e is supposed to be on a more accelerated timescale than T26 then the first T31e in the water would almost certainly be waiting for T26 to get its Mk41 act together (integrations and subsequent volume purchase of missiles) so if the ultimate aim is Mk41 on T31e, even a limited 8 cell silo, then the cheapest possible interim Sea Ceptor fit (aka mushroom farm) does start to make sense. There is of course a bit of a leap of faith at the end (“if the ultimate aim is Mk41 on T31e”) in terms of hoping the upgrade does happen and not get sidelined & quietly forgotten about but if it does happen then credit to the planners, perhaps this is a good plan. I still tip my hat to the ExLS designers for that 4-cold or 3-hot-plus-exhaust insert thing though.
The interim anti-ship missile hopefully as otherwise T31 will be dependent upon Wildcat as only T23 towed array are planned to get the cannisters for interim system.
Julian
The T23 Sea wolf VLS can also be quad packed with sea captor. The RN has chosen not to do this for various reasons.
My understanding is that for Seaceptor the VLS are relatively inexpensive tubes. If this is the case I suspect the decision is cost driven. But I also believe on T31 that the “bathtub” capability of the original design is retained in some form, but only time will tell.
The original design allows for 4×8 cell mk 41 and whilst I do not believe this will be implemented. I do feel that that is an opportunity lost, especially given we could use the stanflex model of the original design.
The export version of A140 has support for “Flexible space for VLS– up to 32 variable length cells” which seems to confirm the A140 design retains the space of the original design.
I didn’t follow your Stanflex comment though? The Iver Huitfeldt ESSM silos on either side of the 32x Mk41 are Stanflex but not the Mk41 – did I miss your point?
I believe the Mk41 are also Stanflex, as it has 6 Stanflex points on a huitfeldt, with four of them taking 8 Mk41’s.
that’s my understanding anyway. could be wrong, but the abalone is similar and has 5 Stanflex points I believe
OK. Just for your interest. If you do a Google search on “OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014″ there is a PDF from OMT that seems to show Iver Huitfeldt with five Stanflex – 2x 76mm gun positions, 2x ESSM midships and 1x 35mm CIWS over the hanger.
It also shows Absalon with what appears to be 1x forward gun, 3x ESSM and 2x Harpoon mid-ships and 1x 35mm CIWS over the hanger, all in Stanflex, although I read that the 5” is permanently mounted. This also suggests the Harpoon in IH might be Stanflex as well rather than fixed.
All that said, a Stanflex module is only 2.5m in height and a strike length Mk41 is 7.7m tall, so that doesn’t seem practical versus say the implemented Mk56 VLS for ESSM which is only 4.65m high. If the Stanflex mid-ships are all mounted in the same plane then the top of the Mk41 would be ~3 metres higher than the Mk56.
@Pacman27 – For T23 my understanding is that the reason for the mushroom farm there was to minimise hull/steel modifications during the conversion by putting one Sea Ceptor tube where one old Sea Wold tube went hence the low packing density. That was entirely understandable and sensible in that context since it saves cutting out the Sea Wolf silo entirely and redoing that whole deck area to create the different required deck aperture, making good around it, and then reworking the below-decks structural support for say ExLS stand-alone 3-cell launchers which would need different structural support points and bracing within the ship vs the old Sea Wolf silos.
My understanding is also the same as you re the Sea Ceptor tubes being (relatively) simple. The gas soft-eject mechanism is certainly in the canister not the tube. I researched that a while back and various people sent me links to technical papers and detailed diagrams which I failed to save unfortunately since they had already answered my simple question of whether the gas ejection mechanism lived in the canister or the tube. I confess that I was also sceptical that it was gas eject – that’s quite some ejection mechanism to be able to throw a missile the weight of Sea Ceptor 30m vertically into the air. It’s essentially derived from car air bag technology apparently but most definitely an air bag actuator on a hell of a lot of steroids. I wouldn’t want something like that going off in my car! Impressive.
I read that the original Iver Huitfeldt bathtub design has a centre section for 32 x Mk41 but also provision for extra non-Mk41 tubes along the port and starboard sides of the Mk41 for other deck-penetrating (but not as deep as Mk41) silos. That port & starboard space has been lost in T31e due to the increase from 2 to 4 in the boat bays.
Hi Julian.
I believe they have used the old sea wolf tubes and inserted a single sea Ceptor tube within
Agree it makes sense, but can’t help wondering why the Rn don’t standardise by the time t26/31 come into service we will have 3 different VLS silo types. Surely we need to standardise wherever possible
I was also wondering why for the t31 they don’t move the silos where the 2 aft boat bays are and have a single straight through mission space with a single gantry crane able to load 4 boats or containers. Surely this would be more cost efficient especially as I don’t see any future configuration. Of this vessel that would include strike length silos
Can the Mushroom farm launch all 24 camm simultaneously (which would be extremely useful in a
saturation attack) where as a quad packed vls would be restricted to launching only one camm per quad pack cell???
With so little time to react to incoming missiles if this is the case then a vls could be at a disadvantage. You may have the same number of missiles as the Mushroom farm but they are no good if you don’t get the chance to launch them.
Good point and something I have no data on. In both cases the system has to allow enough time for a missile to launch, tilt over and fire the rocket before launching the next, to ensure no interference between the two. But a ripple fire could happen pretty rapidly, particularly if smart about which missiles in the array get fired when to maximise distance between subsequent firings. Perhaps also a reason why T26 splits up its Sea Ceptor silos.
I would imagine that you could ripple off the T23’s whole magazine using staggering without any problems. The video of HMS Argyle firing off a pair of Seaceptor’s shows the missiles launching from the same side column, but separated by a couple of cells. It also shows the frangible caps (mushrooms) that cover the tubes being split apart by the rising missile and going at least 30ft in the air. So even though there is no booster rocket creating debris, there is still some being produced by the cold launch. Think this would create some issues on a carrier, requiring a fod sweep post launch.
Looks a lot like they are just taking the existing T23 mushroom farm and dropping it into the space of the 32x Mk41 cells for even more savings. So T31 would be FFBNW Mk41 and instead CAMM cells are fitted. If down the road it seemed necessary to fit Mk41 then the mushroom farm would come out and the CAMM either quad packed into the Mk41 cells or located elsewhere in the locale.
From my understanding is it is far from ideal but they will be taking the 24 launchers from T23 and you are correct this is a waste of space, however there will be at least space for an 8 cell mk41 and I would be surprised if there wasn’t room for more as the deck space looks double the size of the seaceptor silos. Whether there is anything underneath preventing using all space I don’t know?
Personally I think this is sensible, the RN is getting strike missile on its Surface fleet for the very first time with T26 and Seaceptor is a cracking product that significantly changes the dynamic. Allowing a T45 to go to sea with far more missiles than it would normally whilst upgrading the Aster 15 to Aster 30 or NT standard.
Add the new Martlet enhanced 30mm and some CIWS (which will be added as they are now, upon deployment) and you have a solid T23 replacement that can be modified further as required.
Personally I am very happy with the selection of arrowhead as it allows for these items to be swapped in / out for minimal cost.
For an article that actually provides some detail see, savetheroyalnavy.com, The Arrowhead140 T31e frigate. It seems the MOD is again about to deprive the vessel of forward and aft CISW/med calibier guns. The increasing global threat suggest the underarming of the RN vessels will have consequencies. Yes, I am aware of the Sea Ceptor capabilities but this system will not deal with the anti ship missiles that it will be facing, such a the Brahmos-NG or new systems that incorporate AI guidance.
I hope In late 2020s Arrowhead could be armed with a laser, it has potential for power generation upgrades.
Why do you assume Sea Ceptor cannot address Brahmos-NG or other Mach 4 class missiles?
Sea captor can address these missiles, it has nothing to do with the speed of something travelling towards you but how much notice you get, the quality of radar on an RN ship is exceptional and it is the range of tracking and ability to intercept that is key.
Seaceptor only has to be launched and get in the way of a missile, that is irrelevant of the missile speed. The key is the launch window and the further out our radar can spot a Brahmos the better, irrelevant of the speed of the intercept missile.
Yes I know 😉 But thanks for the response. I just got lazy so didn’t respond at length, but didn’t feel the statement should stand unchallenged.
What I should have posted was that MBDA in particular is confident of its abilities enough to state in their data sheet “Through the use of new advanced technologies, Sea Ceptor provides complete protection against all known and projected air targets.” I’m guessing they know about Brahmos and a great deal more besides to make such a statement to their target markets.
The Ceptor ARTISAN tracking radar is apparently limited targets travelling up to Mach 3. The new generation of ASM are expected to be travelling at Mach 5+ The Artisan radar is a mechanically scanning system with an dish / antenna rotating at 30rpm in contrast to more modern electronically scanning radars. This limits the target speed such a radar can track.
I think the Aussie and Candanian T26’s will have modern AGEIS radar systems. If correct this re-enforces my original point that the MOD is again penny pinching.
Probably best to separate the CAMM missile and Sea Ceptor system from the radar. For example A140 has been quoted with Thales NS100 AESA radar which might be the option fitted rather than Artisan. Not that this means Artisan isn’t suitable.
Regardless, neither NS100 nor Artisan need to track a missile for CAMM. CAMM can accept data link inputs to help with targeting but doesn’t need fire control/illumination radar, which is a major advantage in a saturation attack.
In addition there are other sensors, such as thermal that can be used in conjunction with radar for the detection of missiles.
Rotating radar has its uses. The problem up to now with panel radar types is that their weight has required them to be much lower on the mast, an Arleigh Burke radar is around half the height of Sampson for example. This can produce an 8 second delay in detecting a Mach 3 sea skimming missile due to the reduced radar horizon, that’s a difference between around 32 seconds to 24 seconds from initial detection to impacting the ship IIRC from the last time I looked at this. That time to impact gets shorter at Mach 5+. Probably why the RN has favoured placing the radar as high as possible on all its warships for the current ship generations.
The good news for panel radar is that GaN instead of GaAs radar modules will enable lighter panels to be placed higher. But multi-panel GaN-based S- and X-band radars are going to be very pricey and well outside T31 budget.
Yes and no. The Aussie T26 is getting the AEGIs system as its command and control system, but the radar is local and will be the CEAFAR. They have got round the top weight issue by spliting the panels up into smaller panel sections thus allowing these to be placed higher. If taken individually the smaller panels with have a limited range due to the reduced overall power output. However, if the panels are placed a certain distance apart they can still interact with each other thus enhancing the power output.
The Thales NS100 is a better radar than Artisan. It is a generation newer and rather being a PESA its AESA. It is based on the AESA research done with the SMART-L (S1850) radar. Unlike Sampson however, it only has one antenna face. So will have a larger rotating dead zone than Sampson just like Artisan.
You’re quite correct in assuming other sensors will detect a Brahmos type missile. The ship’s ESM will detect the missile’s active radar. But also, if the ship is fitted with an infra-red search and track system. The heat being generated by the nose and wing leading edges as it flies through the thicker low level air, will make it light up like a Christmas tree.
The capability to defeat very high speed targets travelling Mach 3 plus, has a lot to do with the missile as well as the tracking radar. With SeaCeptor it is slightly different, as it has its own built-in tracking radar. The Artisan should be able to detect a high speed target such as Brahmos and allocate a Seaceptor against it. I’m not sure if it will be transmitting actively straight from launch or at a predetermined point. However, it is datalinked to the ship, so could be operating passively up to a point. Anyway, the missile’s seeker will detect and track the missile and steer it to intercept. Now comes the difficult part. The missile using either the range closure data or proximity fuze, must decide when to detonate the warhead. If it detonates too near the missile the target will fly through and escape the shrapnel and blast effect. Too late and it will completely miss. The idea is if the Seaceptor slightly misses, then it will detonate its warhead so that the approaching missile flies into the shrapnel and the blast can damage/destroy the missile’s airframe and seeker.
I’m pretty certain MBDA will have done countless simulations against specific threats, available today and in the future. In the majority of trials, the missile has hit the target rather than relied on its proximity fuze. So there’s a very good chance that it will strike a Mach 5 incoming missile.
The US suffered these problems for at least 2 years trying to get THAAD to work properly. It was a question of timing, making sure the warhead was detonated to have the best effect.
The type 23’s have been in the process of upgrading to Artisan 997. It’s a certainty that this will transfer to RN T31 along with their Sea Ceptors and main gun (T31e being built with a menu of other choices)
The build is 250 million guys. I know you love to fit out these ships in your own style but that’s the bottom line – the best we can get for the cheapest possible price. No hope of Mk41 – forget it.
As my grandad told me when I was about 12 years old (yes he really did!) “Well lad, you can wish in one hand and shit in the other – let me know what you end up with!”
Derek, I remember my granda saying something similar, and its a good one. ” Life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you have the less shit you eat” Seems to fit the situation well.
I totally agree that it would be nice to have the Mk41 but it just will not happen. Just wish the Government would give more bread for the RN.
Does it even need Mk41 though? We could fit ASM such as NSM into canister packs that are much cheaper and can be bolted onto the T31es. We have the quad canister packs already on our T23s so might as well use them.
Only gives each ship 8 NSM/LRASM but how many anti-ship missiles would one ship need? Especially as part of a fleet.
Great news, I like this over other boat..
I just wonder what if … Mission bay (is they door can be open as some in the pictures?)
And put hides anti-ship missiles or brimstone 2 / spear 3 or other weapon in there?
For that reason: They can fire in there to suspire multiple cruise or anti-surface missiles to mask heat exhust from VLS? To don’t reveal fire locations to protecting stealth and suspire element to respond defence against and not counter attack return?
Hopefully we get frigate 16 type 31e and frigate asw 12 type 26, new 6 types 4x destoryer 6x type 45 destoryer it is will benefit for UK as our royal navy is too small number.
Would like see “sloop of war” – hybird of CB90 fast assault and frigate around 60m-100m with 40mm cannon and vls of brimstone 2 / spear 3 and sea CAMM for cost effective to defend small ships
44 escorts? That is fantasy fleet on steroids!
26 is a more realistic target but even then we need to recruit sailors in significant numbers before it is worth it.
Agree.
If anything I can see a cut in T26 numbers and 8 T31 built. Giving 6, 6, 8, plus the River B2s.
Never say never but hopefully the T26 order is ringfenced now. It would be great if we could get up to 10 T31 built, as this would mean we would have the original numbers planned for in the old future surface combatant programme, albeit with the C1/ASW and C2/GP numbers reversed, and would therefore mean our surface fleet was only short the last 6 T45s that were never ordered.
8 of each of the T26 and T31 though is probably the most one could hope for, but still a lot better than 8 and 5, if all ships can be properly crewed…
There is now a push in parliament to get more funding for defence so I can only hope this happens realistically 26-34 frigates/destroyers could be achieved as all new vessels have lower manpower requirements and should be cheaper to maintain and run. I would look at 16 type 31, 10 type 26 and potentially 2 extra AAW T45/Arrowhead/T26.
This was the number we had for awhile after the so called peace dividend mid 90s and I believe it was the absolute minimum required for the RN to effectively carry out its tasks!
Rob, not sure how you get to 44 escorts, but it isn’t necessarily fantasy fleet land. the fact is what is our surface fleet requirement?
We currently have 9 OPV, 15 MCM, 19 Escorts, 2 Echo class.
Replacing all of these with a C1 (T26) , C2 (T31) and C3 (T82) class is doable, especially given that it is now recognised we need more hulls.
Let assume we have a class of 14 vessels of each
C1 (T26) high end Global combat ship (ASW/AAW)
C2 (T31) Global Mission ship
C3 (T82) Multi Mission ship
C1 is and upgrade and merger of the T23 ASW and T45 into a high end full spectrum capability.
C2 is a replacement of our woeful OPV fleet and the T23 GPF
(could also argue also as a reinstatement of the T22’s, T23’s, T42’s previously cut, as a reinstatement of a capability gap given recent experience in the gulf).
C3 would be the replacement for the current MCM fleet and if we could replace this with a visby class or C-Sword 90 type ship we would be in a much better position. This particular class does not require 9000nm legs – half of this would be acceptable. Essentially this is a 90m corvette.
I am with Daniel on this, a class of 14 of each type (42 total) with each having a mission bay would be of far greater utility than the bespoke solutions we have now.
This is well within our reach, and as these new ships require far less crew than current vessels we can Man these accordingly.
42 x 120 x 2 crews each = 10,800 sailors, which allows for a 1 on 1 off rota.
Perhaps not as fantasy as you may think..
To be honest recruitment could happen at the same time as building the ships; itll take at least one year per ship and probably 3 years minimum before the first one is in the water; plenty of time to recruit a crew for it.
Shipbuilding and recruitment need to happen simultaneously; having sailors without ships is as bad as ships without sailors.
100 crew on a 5,700 ton warship seems far too few to deal with battle damage. But for goodness sake let’s get on with renewing & expanding our fleet to a level where we can cover every need for our warships rather than leaving ourselves shorthanded & toothless.
It has modern fire suppressant systems that allow for this, I suspect some form of inert gas (argonite perhaps), which is very efficient in dealing with fires. and loads of cameras monitoring key areas. Its very well designed and they can even swap out an engine without cutting a hole in the hull (unlike the T45’s)
I think for most tastings this will be fine, but it will be augmented by flight crew, marines etc…
I think it is reasonable to have an economical crew in normal peacetime conditions. Wartime is another matter of course. RN in fact barely made hostilities increases, whereas the German Navy increased its crews size hugely probably for prize crews.
I’ve noticed that a lot of commentators are talking about 5″ guns, what happened to both the Navy and Army using 155mm ammo as per the AS90, the idea was to save money , this way we could have 155mm main gun, 120 mm gun for smaller vessels as per MBT’s and 105mm secondary gun, Light artillery gun system that the army already uses, three main guns, three bi-service ammo, then tri-service ammo of 30mm,12.7mm and 7.62mm, just imagine the L85 range of personal weapons upgraded to 7.62mm just leaving 9mm for pistols – 7 sizes of ammo covering the three services instead of the current no of approx. 10-12, would it not be more financially better for the UK
The problem with the 155mm gun was down to the ammo. The AS90 uses two part ammo i.e. shell followed by a bag charge or charges. The bag charges have different strengths, so can be used in different ways depending on the range to the target. The system to do this mechanically is pretty complex. The German army tried with the Pz2000 system strapped to the rear of a ship. In anything but dead calm seas the system would jam.
Both the Oto and BAE 5″ gun systems use two part ammo. So why this couldn’t be upscalled to 155mm, I’m not sure? The mechanism in the Pz2000 will automatically select the number of charge bags depending on range. I believe it was this that kept failing. Surely a more robust mechanism can be built?
The Army is moving to the cased telescopic 40mm round for its Warrior and Ajax vehicles. There is hope that either of these turrets could be fitted to the Boxer as well. The 40mm round easily outperforms the 30mm with greater range, penetration and explosive content. The round was chosen due to the uparmouring of infantry fighting vehicles. It was also found that 30mm rounds did not have the oomph of putting holes in walls to create doors for troops. The 30mm Rardens on the Warrior and Scimitar were awesome at creating perfectly drilled peep holes.
The 7.62mm round is better at killing people than the 5.56mm fact. However, a belt of 200 rounds weighs a ton compared to 200 5.56 rounds. The ballistic performance of the 5.56 is actually better than the 7.62, it just doesn’t have the mass to do significant damage. The Accuracy International L115A3 Long Range Rifle is chambered for the 0.338 Lapua Magnum (8.59mm) round. This has slightly better performance ballistically than the heavier 0.5″ round. The 0.5″ round does have better penetration due to its mass.
The US Army will be converting from 5.56 to 6.8mm rounds. They feel this is the best compromise between the 7.62 and 5.56 for weight and performance. This round is going to be used in both personal weapons as well as the squad support weapons, thus saving on mixing ammo types. What is also key is that they can still use a 30 round magazine rather than a 20 round 7.62 magazine. This is important as the key feature of any engagement is suppressing your enemy. So the less magazine changes you do is really beneficial.
Both Germany and France are looking at the 130mm tank gun. Germany found that the 140mm took up too much turret space and significantly reduced the number of rounds that could be carried in the bustle for the autoloader. So perhaps the naval 5″(127mm) should be changed to the 130mm?
Or the Tank 130mm to the Naval 127mm?
I have looked at all of the comments and some things caught my attention.
1) We need more T31s due to Brexit, not really for the protection of British Home waters more OPVs or better yet the corvette version of the OPV would be useful for UK waters. I never did understand why we bought five OPVs with the 30mm gun and no helicopter hanger when we could have had 5 corvettes such as the Khareef class for almost the same price(£400 million for three).
If I remember correctly the T31 is meant to be forward deployed, UK EEZ home waters is (in old money) 298,718 sq miles, however what many people forget is that the UK has crown dependencies and overseas territories that depend on UK defence amounting to 2,627,651 sq miles, that is the fifth largest sea territory in the world, this figure does not include the British Antarctic Territory or areas of interest. Some of it is also the most unhospitible waters that planet earth can throw at you. I know like many what the S.Atlantic is like.
2) Weapons and sensor fit, if I understand correctly the £250 million per ship does not include government issue material, although I would like to see an all singing and dancing advanced frigate it is not going to happen. Much of the sensor and weapons fit will come from the T23s, possibly one complete set of new equipment for the first ship and then as the first T23 is replaced it is stripped down and used for the T31 outfits from the second ship on. The 4.5 inch gun although being old is still a very useable main gun with large ammunition stocks. I am not sure if the T23 Sea Ceptor fit is suitable for the T26 as the T26 will have its Sea Ceptors split fore and midships. So it should be possible to use it. It as been anounced that there is to be a compition for five sets of a new anti ship missile that will be shared out between the T23s and T45s. This is to be a light weight missile such as the NSM or RBS15 mkIII or IV. It seems that this missile is for the future T31 as there is no reason to have a containerised missile for the T26. I’m not even sure if there is space for a containerised missile on the T26. I also think that there will be a bow mounted sonar possibly again stripped from the T23 as at the T26 is getting the new 2150 whilst the T23 has the 2050, which is still an effective unit. As for a towed array, that would depend if there is a stern missions bay under the flight deck which I hope there will be. When money becomes available a containerised towed array can always be bought.
So it looks like the T31 will have the 4.5 inch possibly upgraded to the 5 inch when the ship undergoes a major refit, 32xSea Ceptor, 8xRBS 15 or the NSM two 30mm possibly with the LMM attached and a hanger for two Wildcats or a Merlin with some UAVs and four mission bays with hopefully a fifth under the flight deck. (if there is space in the Iver Huitfeldt for 32 Mk41s and 2 Mk56s then there is space in Arrowhead 140 for 32 Sea Ceptors and 24 Mk 41s,(in theory)I’m not saying that the T31 should have 24 Mk41s but it would be nice for the future possibilities.
Stripping the T23s in this way could be the reason that I have seen sometimes six T31s to be ordered.
Will there be space for a CIWS yes, but there is no spare Phalanx and at a cost of about £3.5 million each possibly no money. As an intrim does any one know if we still have some Goalkeepers in the warehouse, if so then use them, one in ‘B’ postion due to deck penetration is better than nothing, I’m sure there is lots of 30mm ammunition in NATO stocks.
3) My major concern is the command and control centre and the ships radar, Artisan would be the logical one to use as again it can be stripped from the T23, but will BAE allow the CCC to be used? I hope so that way all ships of the RN would have the same platfrom. So if logic wins then the T31 would have Artisan and the 2050 sonar.
4) The T31 will be not be a quiet ship due to the deisel propulsion, Why? Depending on how the design goes there is no reason to believe that the T31 will create a lot of noise. She could have deisel generators connected to electric motors for example. However could anyone say that the old Upholder class sub was noisey. It just means that British designers need to relearn lessons from the past and improve on them.
It would appear to me that the RN with this design has hit a sweet spot, a ship that can replace the T23 GPFF whilst having the capability to upgrade the ship if money becomes available. Yes she will not be a all singing and dancing platform but if the govenrment is wise then she will be a useful forward deployed ship of war that will be able to look after herself in low to medium threat enviorments.
I would like to see the order being 10-12 rather than the 5-6 and I would like to see containerised towed arrays such as CAPTAS 4 Compact being purchased especially if more T31s could be ordered. Possibly a NATO/European CAPTAS 4 pool to be created. This is an important consideration. If the T31 is equipped with Wildcat then the vessel will not have a dipping sonar to work with the bow sonar. So for any real anti sub capability either a Merlin Anti Sub helicopter is needed or a towed array. It might be worth thinking about the dipped sonar for Wildcat as that would give more flexibility to the RN. That however is an extra £2 million for each dipping sonar.
It would appear to me that the idea of using equipment and weapons from the T23 for the T26 might not happen, apart from the towed array sonar as the long build times for the T26 would lead itself to having all new equipment. If that is the case then I do not see any reason why not to build the first 5 T31s and then one every two years after to use all the equipment possible from the T23s. It is a cost effective method to bring the surface combatant force up to 25 ships whilst slowly building up manpower.
An interesting summary. Since you said you’ve read all the comments and you clearly have given detailed consideration to a lot of areas I wonder what your thoughts are on a comment that Donald_of_Tokyo made further up the thread. I don’t know enough to have an opinion myself but it did sound like an interesting discussion point to me. Donald said…
“Related, what I worry is the fact that Arrowhead 140 boat-bay are actually very small. It has 4 boat-bays for 9+m long boats, much shorter than T26’s mission bay (11-12m boat capable).
Leander design has two 11-12m boat-bays, in addition to two 9+m boat bays. Surely better.
Any USV/UUV as large as 11-12m, which can fit in T26, will not fit to Arrowhead 140. One of the defects, which shall batter be solved.”
… Incidentally, as I understand it, it is the addition of those extra boat bays (4 on T31e vs 2 on IH) that takes away from T31e the ability that the IH midships silo area has to host an Mk56 silo either side of the Mk41 which is something that you do mention towards the end of your point 2.
On numbers, I suspect we will get at least 6 rather than 5 so that the government can claim that it has fulfilled its ambition of using T31e to increase escort (frigate) numbers albeit only by one. I also fear that we might end up with 8 T31e. Maybe if we ended up with 10-12 it wouldn’t be quite so bad.
Why do I fear getting 8 T31e instead of 6? Because of something in your post Ron…
“It would appear to me that the idea of using equipment and weapons from the T23 for the T26 might not happen, apart from the towed array sonar as the long build times for the T26 would lead itself to having all new equipment.”
… That would add extra cost to the T26 program, perhaps sufficient that HMG does end up cutting the T26 build to 6 and in return adds just a couple of T31e to the build as one-for-one replacements so that it can still claim an increase in total escort numbers so we end up with 6 x T26 plus 8 x T31e rather than 8 x T26 + 6 x T31e (both being compared by HMG to the current 13 x T23). I’m reluctantly resigned to the fact that we won’t get more than 8 T26 but with the length of time it took to get to starting first build, all the design effort, and the export success of T26 I think it would be a travesty if the UK built fewer than 8 for her own navy.
I agree with your concerns on the 4 boat bays, it is the reason why I hope that they will have the larger missions bay under the flight deck.
As for reducing the amount of T26s I really hope not, first will be the political outfall with Scotland, the SNP will thow a fit, but what I would hope is that with the success of the T26 design that overall costs could be brought down especially if we use the hull design for the follow on T4X DDG.
So there is a possiblity with good sound thinking and wise investment that the British government could rebuild the RN possibly not to the numbers that we had in 1982 but to numbers that means the ships and their crews are not overstretched. A modern flexible Navy that can hit first, hit hard and keep on hitting. God do I wish that we had someone like Fisher alive and in uniform.
Donald_of_Tokyo’s concerns re 4 boat bays. I’m not qualified to have an opinion or even realise it was an issue until Donald raised it.
A very good point on the T26 politics. With Brexit potentially putting the union under strain and the departure of Ruth Davidson potentially losing the Conservatives seats in Scotland and making it harder to resist a second independence referendum I can certainly see, at least as long as the Conservatives stay in power, that not tampering with the T26 numbers hence avoiding pouring even more fuel on that Scottish independence fire could significantly outweigh any cost saving considerations in the governments mind.
Thanks for pointing-out again about the boat bays. I hope it could be fixed, but, not sure it will (already the fixed-price bid was posted).
On the towed-array sonar, both Leander and Arrowhead 140 teams have mentioned their designs are capable of it. I believe it is just a matter of cost and man-power. Anyway, even the Leander’s stern is LARGER than that of T23. Also, there is a compact version of CAPTAS-4, “CAPTAS-4CI” which has shorter TASS, but still a powerful kit.
But, T31e is still a 250M GBP average vessels = typical of a corvette. Transferring equipment from T23GP (if not exported) will save some money, but an order of 30-50M GBP. (For example, Artisan 3D radar itself is only ~10M GBP). It is the systems integration cost which matters. Asking for more money for T31 is good, but I would rather use the money to improve T26 and T45, P8, P7 and F35B, which are all full of “FFBNW” and “in future, if money comes”.
I think the 5 T31 will be vessels with
– a frigate-sized hull
– with corvette-level armaments/equipment (such as Khareef/Damen 10514/Gowind-2500) or even less (because the hull is larger).
As modern corvette is so-so capable, different from corvettes in 1980-1990s, I think it is “not bad” for T31’s task. But, it will be much-much less capable than T26 = the frigate of RN (even though the out-look will be not much different).
ENOUGH WITH THE ACRONYMS PLEASE. I CAN’T UNDERSTAND THE POSTS ON HERE SOMETIMES INTERESTING TO LOOK AT SHIPS SUCH AS THE SIGMA 10514 TO SEE HOW A ‘WEE NASTY’ WARSHIP CAN CARRY SO MUCH PUNCH. OTHER NAVY WOULD CLASS SUCH SHIPS AS FRIGATES IN THEIR OWN RIGHTS. DOESN’T MATTER WHATS ON IT, ITS WHAT IT CAN DO .RATHER THAN ITS TITLE. AFTER ALL PAKISTAN CALLED THE 6 TYPE 21’S DESTROYERS
Sorry, CAPTAS means Combined Active Passive Towed Array Sonar the 4 means that it is the top end unit, Thales produces CAPTAS1, 2 and 4. CAPTAS 1 is good for fast missile boats-corvettes, 2 is good for corvettes to small frigates and the 4 is the all singing dacing system in three variations one is with a split passive and active head, another has a shorter tail but still split active/passive and the third variant is a shorter tail with a combined active passive head.
Possibly someone could produce a Acronym sheet for terms in RN ships/ shipbuilding.
Thanks, Ron-san.
andyreeves9-san, sorry,
– FFBNW (fitted for but not with) = equipments for which a space and weight margin is included in the hull design, but not yet bought/mounted. (and in many cases, never, in RN)
– TASS = towed array sonar system
– and GBP = Great Britain Pounds
# to which level we shall spell-out these acronyms? May be you do not like FFBNW, but OK with TASS and GBP? Or TASS is not good? Threshold level is not easy here.
On the other hand, CAPTAS etc are product name = Thales sell them with this brand. Like “CCD”, which is actually an acronym “charge coupled device”, or CMOS (Complementary Metal On Insulater), etc.
I think using CAPTAS or CCD is better, because it is the product name.
What’s wrong with acronyms? Or is just too FUBAR(Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition) for some and SNAFU (Situation Normal; All Fouled Up) for others? BTW (By The Way) the two previous acronyms are from back in WW2(World War 2). “Foul” was the polite substitution for the other more well known “F” word.
I used to work for a vendor for Boeing, and McDonnell Douglas in the 1980s. One of them had put out a reference book about 5″ by 7″ and over an inch thick just for acronyms and abbreviations. Of course these were all dealing with the aviation industry and the associated military services. They had FUBAR and SNAFU listed in it.
Rokuth, there is nothing wrong with acronyms, well once they are explained there’s nothing wrong. We are all guilty of forgeting that not everyone knows them. I got into problems on several occasions using them in works for publication without spelling it out first. So possibly an idea could be to write out in full the first time, put the acronymin brackets after and then use the abreviated form from then on. That way everyone could understand what it is that we are on about.
One of the things that forums like this is good for is not only for those that know the subject but to expand it to people that have an interest and wish to build their knowledge.
We can be guilty of putting people of if everything is in the short form.
I understand what you are saying about ‘in house refrence books’ on my book shelves I have several just dealing with naval abbreviations and inhouse speak. Then I have some more as each country has a variation, I could set up a bloomin book shop with the stuff or invent a new language. Not sure which would be quicker.
So all I am suggesting is to spell out the thing first and put the acronym in brackets I promise I will try to do it but I’ll probably forget sometimes.
Absolutely agree with you. It can be utterly confusing if there is no reference to the actual acronym. Especially when the same acronym can have different meanings for different groups or societies.
Not True: “Anyway, even the Leander’s stern is LARGER than that of T23”
The Type 23 frigate has a beam of 16.1m, compared to a Leander beam of ONLY 14.6m which means the T23 has a wider stern, of which to allow it to take more Top Weight.
The Arrowhead has a beam of 19.5m.
Meiron X-san
Even though T23 is wider in beam, it has very narrow stern. Leander design is 14.6m wide in beam and keep the width trough its stern.
Please look at photos, and you may find it easily.
#I am not comparing Arrowhead vs Leander.
@donald_of_tokyo
I think you mean the length of the Flight Deck of the T23 frigate, which is a deck for a helicopter to land on.
So you think the flight deck of the T23 is shorter then the Leander?
The T23 is about 16m longer then Leander overall.
I have attempted to find the dimensions of the flight deck of the T23, but still No luck Donald!
I would very much like to find those dimensions
@Meirion X-san
Thanks. My argument is simply on the width of STERN, not beam, nor length.
1: Leander web site has the top view CG, and can scale the size. It “looks like” a rectangle with 23m x 14.6m (Length x Width).
2: T23, many photos are available. (even google map on Portmouth). It “looks like” a trapezoid of Length=23m, Width of 16m (at hangar) to 12m wide (at stern). Even though the beam is wider, stern is narrower.
Of course, there will be estimation errors, but it is clear Leander’s stern is wider than that of T23’s.
No Donald, the beam of a ship is it’s widest point, so that is from the edge of one side of the ship to the edge on other side. Not from one side of the hangar to the other side. there is a walkway between the hangar and the edge of the ship.
Leander beam: 14.6m
T23 beam: 16.2m
So, if the T23 is 133m in length, the flight deck looks as if it is 23% of the length of whole ship, that is 30.5m. so 30.5×16.2= 494m²
If Leander’s flight deck is, I say 25% of 117m of the length of ship, that is: 29.25m length.
So 29.25×14.6=427m².
So it seems that T23 still has the largest flight deck!
From one image of Leander i seen the flight deck seems only 20% of length of the ship?
> the beam of a ship is it’s widest point, so that is from the edge of one side of the ship to the edge on other side.
No objection. I never talked about the beam. I am talking about the width at stern = hull width of the flight deck at the stern of the hull.
1: T23 hull width gets narrower towards her stern. Fact.
2: Leander hull width is strait towards her stern. Fact.
3: Former width at stern is 12-13 m wide. Estimation from photos.
4: Latter width at stern is logically 14.6 m wide. Fact.
Independent topic, on the length of the flight deck.
I hope you do the scaling using a top-view T23 image of goggle-map.
Type-23’s flight deck is SHORTER than that of ANZAC frigate (=MEKO 200). I am surprised when I found it, but it is fact.
T23’s (you can find it in Portsmouth google map) flight deck it is only 23-24 m long (= the same to that of Leander). ANZAC frigate (Sydney harbor) has a flight deck of ~25 m long.
# Sorry, not much related to Lander/Arrowhead140 dicussion.
@ Donald
The ANZAC frigate’s flight deck takes up a larger proportion of its overall length, about 30%.
But the ANZAC frigate is only 117m long, so 30% of 117m, so the flight deck is 35m long, and it has a beam of 15m, do the maths and flight deck of ANZAC is bigger then T23’s flight deck.
Well done! But be careful of goggle-map images, can result in extreme optical illusions at times.
@ donald_of_tokyo
The hull of the Type 23 frigate does appear to narrow a bit in some photos looking down, in some photos not at all!
.It just could be a optical illusion.
It does No way narrow by a quarter of its width!
The type 23 frigate flight deck would still be bigger if it did narrow by 1m.
@Donald
I will continue to look into any image of T23 I can find.
Thanks. My assessment is based on several images available. If you come to similar conclusion, it will be very helpful.
Many believes Leander stern is very narrow. But, this is simply not true. Note I am just saying “hull width at stern of T23 is narrower than 14.6m = Leander’s”, so that Leander’s stern is wide enough to carry CAPTAS2 or 4CI (and maybe even CAPTAS-4). Combined with Leander team’s comment that it can carry Towed Array Sonar, I think Leander can do it. (although T31e cost will not allow it).
VERY GOOD point re. Politics and Ruth Davidson. I don.t see any chance of an increase in any orders but, the actions of Ruth may forestall cuts.
@Ron
I agree with most of your post.
I think some of the old T23 GP’s should be taken out service earlier then planned, and Not upgraded, and striped for parts, e.g. it does not make sense to upgrade ‘Iron Duke’ or even Monmouth, with so few years left of end of life of service.
But we need these ships for RN duties, we have so few as it is.
One T23 GP, is out of action anyway, so cannot be use now. Another is waiting for sea trials having had LIFEX, will be back in service next year.
I am not sure of state of Hms Monmouth, is she easy repairable? My proposal is old T23s taken out of service when new T31s are in build to minimise the time when reduced to 4 T23 frigates.
Out of 5 General Propose T23 frigates, only 2 are in service now!
From the following reason, I have no objection if the T31e be Leander. Slightly smaller but meets requirement, with better boat-bay design and RN-common CMS.
Of course, Arrowhead 140 with its larger hull is also no problem. Just pro-and-con.
#Actually I prefer Leander, because it is more “UK-origin”, but not critical.
—- self reference —
> T31e is still a 250M GBP average vessels = typical of a corvette … …Asking for more money is good, but I would rather use the money to improve T26 and T45, P8, P7 and F35B, which are all full of “FFBNW”…
> … I think the 5 T31 will be vessels with
> – a frigate-sized hull
> – with corvette-level armaments/equipment (such as Khareef/Damen 10514/Gowind-2500) or even less (because the hull is larger).
> As these corvettes are so-so capable, I think it is “not bad” for T31’s task. But, it will be much-much less capable than T26.
I think, we have to revisit our ideas of capability and exportability.
The Sa’ar 6 of the Israeli Navy will be vastly more capable than T31e at a lower or equal price. In fact, if it had a tail, it would outfeature T26 by a fair margin.
It is a variant of the MEKO A100, which together with their larger sister A200 sell like sliced bread. The Absalon/Huitfeldt type has not sold a single vessel. Even Avenger in its pure River Batch 4 style, having a configurable weapons deck would be better exportable than Arrowhead 140.
The truth is, for a given price, you have to choose between size and equipment. The RN once again picked size. A brilliant choice for a service having manning problems and a battlefield deficit (namely the absence of a modern AShM).
@McZ.
A corvette like the Israeli Sa’ar 6, would not have the endurance for long range operations, such as the Royal Navy conducts. It is still too small to accommodate all the equipment that a blue water navy like the Royal Navy requires for its long range operations.
Corvettes are mainly use by coastal defance navys to defend or attack a limited coastal area. E.g Gulf States use Corvettes to patrol their sectors of th Gulf.
So the propose of the T31 General Propose frigates, is to conduct global maritime security patrols across the oceans of the world.
It needs to be a capable vessel, able to defend its self from air attack, and defend its self from shore based missiles, and occasionly conduct shore bombardmen with a main gun, against hostile forces ashore.
And able to sink other hostile warships and surface vessels with anti ship missiles and torpedos.
I would like to add an idea or two.
Long runs produce cost savings and savings on spares and teaining.
I.ve just returned from a month in Sri Lanka and seen how a more democratic country is trying to wean itself off corrupt Chinese milk: a modern Chinese platform gifted to SL was at anchor, they love it.
Foreign aid is at 14Bn ish.
So produce 4 31s for SL and gift them. Within the deal, cross decking of officers and rates on common platforms with Navy wearing the same uniform and rank insignia of the RN and allowing another stream of commonwealth English speaking crew to help man our platforms?
It would build influence, give SL foreign exchange and help share the defence burden.
Extrpolate the idea to the Baltic States and an AAW/ASW hybrid and Baltic States would share and therefore reduce a huge burden as well as improve their own protection.
2Bn out of 14+ achieving lower overall costs for the RN, creating a manpower line and reducing stretch.
Thoughts?
Instead of looking at semantics like corvette, frigate or destroyer, I think it’s better to look at capabilities. Looking at Royal Navy arguments during the Washington Naval Treaty, we can see why the Arrowhead 140 is the current preferred bid. How much weight is put in each specification compared to price certainly looks like they haven’t budged from the past.
The price range is also quite nice I suppose. The Philippines are going to buy corvettes in that price range. They are more expensive but more capable than their recently acquired frigates. For a little more the Thais managed to get cut down destroyers from Korea. With the much lower price range going to China and/or used ships.
A question if I may:
Why is the general consensus that there will be 24 CAMM?
if we’re just moving then from the T23, which has 32 cells, and the only costs will be the cost of moving them, why would we not move all 32? Why only include 3/4 of them?
Well not long to go – DSEI is less than a week away and soon we shall know, RN Arrowhead 140 – reality or not. Here’s hoping and the signs look good but the cynic in me is still thinking that BAE might have had this one in the bag right from the start, however fingers still crossed. What ever the outcome it would be nice to see a decent model in an RN configuration, and a Leander too. A bit more detail as to armament, sensors etc would also be nice. Whilst 24 CAMM seems pretty much a cert, and personally I could live with that given that for a long time several on here were predicting no more than 12 on the T31 , it would still be somewhat disappointing given that even with the ‘mushrooms’ both designs seem capable of carrying quite a few more, or at least of matching the 32 carried by the Type 23’s if in a one for one swop they were ported across. The gun also will be interesting. From the CGI we have seen so far it looks as if Babcock are backing the OTO 76mm as equips the Danish ships, and not unsurprisingly BAE the 57mm. For my money Im still hoping that the 4.5 Mk8 is still in with a chance. It featured clearly on a lot of the CGI on the Leander site and in a photo on the Arrowhead site too. Babcock own the program and both logistically and from a cost perspective to me it seems a given. The 4.5 Mk8 will be around on the T45’s and T23’s for many a year to come and to introduce a third type of medium calibre gun into the fleet makes no sense at all – which probably means we will ! DSEI opens on Tuesday 10th and I plan a visit on Thursday, so hopefully by then we will know much more.
Just based on my realistic (or pessimistic) point of view…
— T31 cost is the same to large corvettes, as Damen 10514, Godind-2500, and Brazilian Tamandare Corvette (MEKO-A100 mod).
— but it has larger hull, higher standard (RN frigate level), and longer endurance/range.
— So, T31’s fighting capability will be “less” than these corvettes.
So, a 57/76 mm gun, 12 CAMM, 2x 30mm gun, with Wildcat helo will be the base line. To handle larger hull and higher standard, ASW-kits shall be cut, because sensor and ESM/decoy kits cannot be cut. Even with this equipment level, I think it can do their job so-so well.
Yes, with added money, “more” will come. But, as those “added” means these money “cannot be used elsewhere” (T45, F35B, P8, P7 etc), I prefer to make it limited. May be some NSM anti-ship missiles?
One modification I will propose is, to make 3 of the 5 hulls armed with 24 CAMM, and leave the other 2 with “guns and a CIWS”. Even the total CAMM number increases, total program cost will be even cheaper (can omit “SeaCeptor system” as a whole in 2 hulls), and practical (some tasks are good enough with a CIWS).
On 114mm gun, I hope to avoid it. Other than NGFS, it is less capable than 57/76mm gun in all respects, while eating more man-power = the most precious resource. Less anti-fast-boat, much much less AAW capability, and almost zero future growth vision. If added with MAD-FIRES guided AAW rounds, 57mm gun will work as a good CIWS. With ALaMo guided anti-surface rounds, it will “overcome” any fast-boat swarm. Both are tasks more important for T31e which are to be deployed in many “gray-zones”.
Yes many battleships in WW1 had below waterline torps, even HMS Rodney and Nelson had this ability. The major issue is that they were fixed in postion so they could only fire if the ship was in the corret postion. Modern wire guided torps would over come this issue.