The Royal Navy’s future is looking bright, but let’s not count the chickens just yet…
It’s fair to say that of all the branches of HM Armed Forces, the Royal Navy has the most reason to be hopeful at the start of 2021.
With Wildcat and the various new anti-ship missiles now well into operational service, the UK Carrier Strike Group 21 having departed on the first combat deployment yesterday and the revelations of the overdue Integrated Defence Review indicating that the Navy will grow in the coming years (unlike the RAF and Army), it’s hard not to be overjoyed for the UK’s oldest Armed Forces branch.
This article was submitted to the UK Defence Journal By Jon who many of you know as Defence Geek on Twitter and Discord.
The DefenceGeek is a self-proclaimed #avgeek with an involvement in the RAF and MoD since 2013. Although his day job is not defence-related, his knowledge and passion for the topic and Open Sources Intelligence (OSINT) has led to almost 4,000 followers on Twitter and he assists the UK Defence Journal team as the server Administrator and developer for the UK Defence Community Discord server.
But as with all promises of hope and good news, it’s probably worth not getting too excited just yet. Yes, the Integrated Review has promised that the UK surface combatant numbers will increase again (eventually becoming 6x Type 45 Destroyers, 8x Type 26 Frigates, 5x Type 31 Frigates and an unknown number of Type 32 Frigates), but promises can be broken, and at the moment the Type 32 Frigate is not technically confirmed in budget plans – it was merely announced by PM Boris Johnson.
Those paying attention to the announcements will have noticed that mention of the plans for a new class of ‘Littoral Strike Ship’ disappeared and instead funding to modify an existing Bay-class vessel seemingly replaced the concept.
This may have been due to recognition that the budget for a new class of amphibious vessel doesn’t presently exist, bear in mind that funding for new classes is currently heavily directed towards the Type 31 Frigates, SSN(R) replacement for the Astute-class and the Dreadnought-class SSBN projects (not to mention the upcoming unmanned mine-warfare vessels).
The issue with this is that the lack of funding isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and with HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark due to leave service in 2033-34, the Royal Navy is going to need a replacement for these two ships. We could potentially see an announcement of a 4-ship class to replace the Albion, Bulwark and incorporate the Littoral Strike Ship plan, but for the time being this is just speculation.
We also have to bear in mind the announcement of the Type 83 Destroyer. The last 80-series ship class was the Type 82 Destroyer, of which only one ended up being built (HMS Bristol). The 80-series designation indicates a destroyer class larger than the standard, which when we bear in mind the Type 45s displace over 8,000 tons, suggests that the Type 83s could potentially be cruiser-sized vessels.
One would hope that we’ll see one Type 83 replacement for each Type 45 built, for a total of 6 ships; however, there was meant to have been 12 Type 45s to replace the Type 42s on a one-for-one basis, and given the £1bn unit cost of a Type 45 and the promises of all the technological and weaponry advances of the Type 83, these ships could prove to be so expensive that we see the Destroyer fleet cut further, maybe even cancelling out most of the surface combatant number increase brought about by the Type 31 and 32 Frigates.
The other major issue facing the Royal Navy at the moment is the status of the UK’s F-35B purchases. Originally the UK committed to the idea of buying 138 aircraft, and placed an initial order for 48 jets a few years ago. At the time of writing, half of this initial order has been fulfilled, with 3 aircraft based in the US for testing, 8 onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth (R08) as she deploys for CSG21 (also known as Op FORTIS) and the remainder being based at RAF Marham for pilot training.
The 1st Sea Lord has indicated that the purchase will be expanded to “60-80 jets” which will be a necessary increase, but again this is technically unconfirmed and either way suggests a huge drop in the originally planned order (worth remembering this wouldn’t be the first time. The UK was due to have 232 Eurofighter Typhoons but later cut this order back to 160).
The Integrated Review says that the cut in F-35 orders will help fund Project Tempest, which aims to replace the Typhoon in the 2030s-2040s timeframe, but so far as we know at the moment, the Tempest will not be a STOVL (short-take-off and vertical landing) airframe unlike the F-35B, meaning the Navy will have to keep the F-35B and find it’s own replacement for that airframe in the 2050s-2060s.
In short, although the Royal Navy may have seemed to come off better from the Integrated Review, we will have to wait and see how much of the promises made in the Integrated Review come true.
One would hope most of it will, but if the 2010 and 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Reviews were anything to go by, come 2025/2026 we’ll be seeing cuts again as funding priorities change yet again…
So let’s not count our chickens before they hatch.
Great article all so very true ,over the years had my hopes up for our Armed forces to get this and that then to get less or not at all .
If QE/PoW get AAG during a refit, then a STOBAR version of Tempest becomes possible around 2040.
When money is tight, the priority will be hull numbers for propaganda, rather than fully kitted out warships. Too many “fitted for, but not with”.
What is the point of T31, if it is under armed & just an over large OPV? Either it is a fully armed warship, or it needs to be kept away from conflict, which surely defeats the object of a frigate.
Cutting T45 from 12 to 8, then 6, has left the RN with too few AAW Destroyers. The new 80 series should be at least 8.
It is very easy to sail into trouble, but not so easy to sail out of it. That is why we need all those missing bits of kit.
For example, give the batch 2 Rivers the same 40 mm Bofors that the T31 is getting. The removed 30mm mounts can then be fitted to QE/PoW.
I would revamp QE/PoW with AAG for STOBAR, give the S1850 radar that 2000km ABM upgrade & fit the Leonardo Thesan WASS SNA-2000 mine avoidance sonar, that the Italian carrier Cavour has.
F-35B needs a heavy stand off weapon (Spice 1000?). It also needs extra range through AAR or drop/conformal tanks.
We need 5 or 6 CMV-22 to keep a ship to shore link to our carriers.
We need a cheap helicopter carrier for the Royal Marines. Maybe get them some of the 30mm version of the Super AV as well.
Escort & submarine numbers are too low.
Doing anything about it will cost billion. Yet HMG was happy to waste billions on a useless test & trace app & on giveaway £50K loans, 100% taxpayer guaranteed, with no checks on fraud.
The whole public sector, needs to get a whole lot better at spending public money wisely. More “bangs for the buck”.
Well I’ll go to the bottom of our stairs, ive never heard that argument before…
I agree its not new. Its been going on since the 1998 SDR, that Gordon Brown failed to fund.
I expect the PRC will try to bankrupt our defence response by outbuilding us on cutting edge units, like US did to USSR. Over here our only long term answer could be continuing to increase our pool of allied nations in order to present a harmonised political and technical front. That seems sound, and is apparently what we’re aiming for with (a) a few high capabilities and (b) more numeous ‘PPP’ – i.e. presence platforms with potential!
Yes, I’d prefer the bells and whistles right now, particularly if I was crew tbh, but all Navies spend the vast majority of their time trying tp win friends and influence people (i.e. rather than bully &/or aid in leveraging dept diplomacy). So having the platforms is a good, if perhaps not perfect, start.
Regards
Tempest will most likely exceed the weight limit of the proposed AAG on QE carriers.
JH, I don’t really see the point of STOBAR since it seriously limits how much ordnance and fuel an aircraft can take off with (e.g. see the Russian Su-33s and Chinese J-15s).
The stupid thing though is that the cats & traps that are being considered to launch drones from the QE and PoW would be powerful enough to launch and recover a fully loaded Gripen.
Why don’t we approach SAAB and contract them to build the Sea Gripen variant that has been proposed before but never built? Maybe other countries that use F-35Bs would be interested in a collaboration? Both in terms of the cats & traps and the Sea Gripens?
Sea Gripens would give the QE and PoW great capability: good combat range, Meteor & IRIS-T missiles and BriteCloud among several other pluses. Oh and far improved sortie rates because Gripens are simple and quick to maintain and they don’t require the ludicrous, clunky and buggy ALIS system that the F-35 does (will ODIN be any better?). They also don’t have a RAM coating that needs maintaining. Or over 800 unresolved problems. Or spare parts shortages.
Plus the F-35B may start going out of service in 2026 anyway, so we need to do something about that sooner rather than later:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5736009-FY2018-DOT-E-F35-Report.html#document/p3/a482305
[CY26 = Calendar Year (20)26]
This is why the government is looking to fit cats & traps for drones.
Drones are fine for certain jobs, but for fighting other aircraft manned fighters are still required for now. Given the choice between an F-35 that’s only properly stealthy from the front equipped with AIM-120 and a Gripen with its Arexis EW suite, Meteor and IRIS-T, I’d choose the Gripen any day of the week.
Plus the Gripen has BriteCloud to thwart radar-guided missiles and IRIS-T can actually shoot down SAMs and other AAMs. The F-35 doesn’t have BriteCloud or IRIS-T and it also doesn’t carry AIM-9X internally so WVR it’s dead meat. AM-120 is also far less likely to hit a target BVR than Meteor is because it can’t change its speed in its terminal phase.
Gripens also don’t need a runway. They can land on and take off from roads, e.g. somewhere like Okinawa. They can be refuelled and rearmed in 10-20 minutes at a makeshift base near a road, which would be vital capability to have in a war when airbases like Kadena are being attacked. Sea Gripens could also land on the French CdG carrier as well as US carriers since Rafale Ms have already proved this can be done.
Also, if we asked SAAB to build an EW variant of the Gripen that would give a RN carrier group very useful Growler-like capability as well, which would be very welcome. (Plus standard Gripens and an EW variant would be a welcome addition to the RAF as well where they could accompany Typhoons, not just boosting aircraft numbers but also making the Typhoons more survivable.)
We could use drones for AEW (which would be longer ranged, higher flying and have greater endurance than Merlin Crowsnest) and this would free up Merlins for ASW duties. Plus the Valkyrie drone is pretty damn cheap, it has great range, it’s stealthy from the front like the F-35 and we could get dozens of them for the cost of one F-35B.
“If QE/PoW get AAG during a refit, then a STOBAR version of Tempest becomes possible around 2040.”
Well even if a navalised variant of Tempest is built (which is a BIG if), I doubt it could take off without cats because of its weight.
“What is the point of T31, if it is under armed & just an over large OPV?”
I totally agree with you on this point. T31s will probably just escort commercial vessels in the Persian Gulf (and even then they’re sitting ducks for diesel-electric AIP subs and midget subs). They’re far too under-armed and under-defended to form part of a carrier group and would just be a totally unnecessary drain on the Tide-class support ships in terms of food and fuel without offering any useful capability in return. They’d also be more ships the T45s need to protect and they lack missiles as it is.
That said, even the T23s and T45s lack vital defensive and offensive capabilities (and so will the T26s). It’s just that the T31s are EVEN worse.
“Either it is a fully armed warship, or it needs to be kept away from conflict, which surely defeats the object of a frigate.”
Yep totally. The same goes for our destroyers and carriers as well though.
Even our Astutes, which are arguably our best assets, don’t carry anti-ship missiles, Torbuster to protect them from torpedoes or IDAS missiles to take out ASW helicopters.
I can’t see any current RN surface ships surviving two minutes in a war with Russia or China: https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/
“Cutting T45 from 12 to 8, then 6, has left the RN with too few AAW Destroyers.”
Yep. That said, I wouldn’t mind so much if the cuts had actually produced very well defended and armed ships, but they didn’t.
The Type 45s can’t shoot down ballistic anti-ship missiles, they lack missiles (just 48 is pathetic assuming they even carry a full complement) and Aster 30 lacks range (we need a long-range missile to keep enemy aircraft at arm’s length so they can’t fire anti-ship missiles in the first place).
Phalanx is absolute garbage and so is Harpoon. Plus the T45s have no land attack or anti-sub capability whatsoever, although both TLAM and VL-ASROC lack range and far better versions need to be developed. TLAM needs to be much longer ranged, stealthy and ideally able to accelerate in its terminal phase to Mach 4+ to make a hit much more likely. VL-ASROC needs to be faster and longer ranged than any existing torpedo, so high supersonic and with a range of 100+ km. And ideally with a far better torpedo than the Mark 46 in terms of speed, range and endurance.
T45s also lack anti-torpedo torpedoes, like all Western ships do. Russian ships on the other hand have the Paket system.
T45s could also do with electric & chemical laser weapons, microwave weapons, 5-inch guns firing HVPs, BAE 57mm guns firing 3P, ORKA & MAD-FIRES, Chemring Centurion decoys and the best EW suite currently available (and keep it regularly updated so it never becomes outdated).
“For example, give the batch 2 Rivers the same 40 mm Bofors that the T31 is getting. The removed 30mm mounts can then be fitted to QE/PoW.”
40mm guns would be a good addition to Batch 2 Rivers, but they’d need much more than just that to make them effective and survivable.
Some upgrade options are suggested here: https://www.navylookout.com/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/
The corvette option looks the best one to me, but even that could be improved. Batch 2 Rivers are pretty large vessels and they’re currently woefully under-armed and under-defended for their size.
As for fitting the 30mm guns from the Rivers to the carriers, that makes no sense to me at all. The carriers need a lot of things to make them survivable and 30mm guns aren’t anywhere near the top of my list.
“I would revamp QE/PoW with […] the S1850 radar that 2000km ABM upgrade”
Which upgrade are you referring to?
By the time the T45 replacements are built, TWISTER should be available: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/30/germany-joins-nascent-european-push-to-shoot-down-hypersonic-missiles/
This would make RN destroyers much more survivable.
“& fit the Leonardo Thesan WASS SNA-2000 mine avoidance sonar”
Yep. Either that or MOAS, whichever is better. ALL our ships could do with something like this. And Arcims anti-mine drones would be a useful addition as well.
“F-35B needs a heavy stand off weapon (Spice 1000?).”
No what the F-35 NEEDS is to die a horrible painful death. And all the people responsible for this monstrosity to be imprisoned for malpractice, bribery and fraud. The F-35 is absolute garbage.
It lacks range and ordnance for countries like Russia and China, it’s not a proper stealth aircraft and it can be destroyed on the deck of carriers or on runways such as Kadena Air Base. Oh and as I said, it’s riddled with over 800 unresolved problems even after all these years, including cyber vulnerabilities. It’s totally unfit for purpose:
https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2021/04/12/a-us-air-force-war-game-shows-what-the-service-needs-to-hold-off-or-win-against-china-in-2030/
“We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35,” Hinote said. “It wouldn’t be worth it. … Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios.”
“It also needs extra range through AAR or drop/conformal tanks.”
Refuelling tankers would be shot down in two seconds flat by ship-based SAMs, carrier aircraft, ground-based aircraft and ground-based SAMs. And worse, they’d give away the location of the F-35s.
As for drop tanks and conformal tanks, both would increase the F-35’s RCS, making it easier to detect and at greater ranges than without the tanks. The F-35 isn’t a proper stealth aircraft to begin with. Adding fuel tanks would just make things even worse.
“We need 5 or 6 CMV-22 to keep a ship to shore link to our carriers.”
Um, not sure what “a ship to shore link” means, can you explain?
“We need a cheap helicopter carrier for the Royal Marines.”
Why? To do what?
“Maybe get them some of the 30mm version of the Super AV as well.”
What’s the Super AV?
“Escort & submarine numbers are too low.”
We don’t have enough vessels period, but even if we built new ships and subs (assuming we could crew them) there would be no point if they’re not well armed and well defended. Building vessels just so we can boast about how many vessels we have is pointless if they’re sub-standard and easily destroyed.
But despite everything I wrote above, especially relating to the Gripen, a simple, relatively cheap solution would be to buy Airbus A350s with a range of 15,000km, convert them into military aircraft, fit them with the Arexis EW pod, BriteCloud, a DIRCM system, IRIS-T and chemical lasers to shoot down missiles and then fill them with Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles. They could carry over 20 of them which should be enough to overwhelm any ship. These aircraft could also be filled with JASSM-ER or JASSM-XR missiles to take out ports, sub bases and air bases, again by overwhelming their defences.
A potentially very bright future. And i think the funding model used for the T31 could make future classes of warships more affordable and less likely to face cuts if the MOD sets funding per unit ceilings. We can’t go on spending over 1bn for one Frigate, with constant changes to the requirements. If we want 6 T83’s or more, then tell industry we aren’t going to pay a penny more than say 750M per vessel, and it’s up to them to come up with the goods. As long as the vessel design is highly flexible, we can upgrade and add new toys as we go along through it’s life.
Common sense that. The dithering and interference have always meant a reduction in numbers. The contracts, at times, are laughable. BaE has got away with murder for decades.
I seem to remember Ocean costing £150 million because she was built on commercial lines ( correct me if I am mistaken please ) Now it seems costs spiral out of control. Procurement is a mess.
I was involved way back in SA80 trials. We said it was cr-p then but nobody listened. So they ended up with a “rifle” that did not work and required millions to rectify problems that should not have existed.
On ships again, the Meko idea was sound to me. Each customer added bits and systems that they wanted.
Future? Nothing is written in tablets of stone. We used to “rob out” Chieftain parts in BAOR, on paper we had hundreds, truth was about 50% were actually war-ready.
The South Atlantic showed how unprepared we were, ships were just not built right and it led to deaths and losses. No AEW, limited fighter cover, and out of date AA systems.
Rant over, guess I am not an optimist like some.
😄I like your honesty. You are right though, some truly shocking decisions have been made at times over the last 40 years. But I truly believe we are turning a corner, and the technology advancements that have been made are making our goals more realistic. The defence review wasn’t all bad news, with some pretty ambitious requirements and changes we need to make our Armed Force’s fit for purpose for the next couple of decades.
The SA80 was not designed by gunsmiths, but by engineers good in themselves but no experience of guns. Its now a very good rifle.
Good old Van Lyden made a pig’s ear of the German rifle a few years back.
The problems were many and varied Trevor, every part of the project was miss handled … The early stages made progress, but from the late 1970’s on, it took a turn for the worst.
It’s now a ‘good’ rifle, the current A3 rifle is the firearm it should have been when first issued in 1985.
Reliable and accurate, yes, but it’s still a dog’s breakfast ergonomically, poorly designed from the offset and no number of rebuilds can fix that.
It should have been scrapped in 1984 when the serious nature of its design and material defects were well known and understood.
The obvious choice being the M16A2, this reliable and accurate rifle is simpler, better made and the ergonomics are far superior.
It had been thoroughly debugged and tested by this point and it could have been license manufactured in the UK.
I would probably have switched out the three round burst for a true select fire A1 group, but that’s about it….
With a bit of luck the 5.56 will be replaced with the new 6.8mm the Americans are testing now.
A 50% war ready fleet of Chieftain and Chally1 in the late 1980’s would be extremely optimistic Karl!
Take Gulf War 1, our MBT fleet of 900 was at its peak, yet they had one hell of a job scraping up 150 combat ready Chally1’s.
A good friend was in BOAR during the mid 1980’s, he used to tell me how laughable the readiness actually was.
It would have taken months of intensive build up to make the ‘on paper’ strength of BOAR reality!
I would far prefer to have smaller, well equipped and supported forces, then larger numbers of poorly supported troops.
Part of the problem with the changing specs is the slow build. The length of time from issuing the contract to the ship or later ships hitting the oggin means new and shinier stuff has come along or there have been ‘lessons learned’ from the earlier ones. Its a bit of a catch 22. I’m not arguing for the slow build but its what we do generally. At least the simpler T31’s will be getting fired out quite quickly soon. As you say, the T31 looks like its going to be the model for the T32 and hopefully there will be a similar approach to the cost of them, maybe an old dog can learn new tricks.
Speaking of old dogs, that’s how i feel this morning after my first COVID jab yesterday 😄🥵🥶
I hear ya bro, I wasn’t too bad but felt like a hangover without the baggy swede the next day. Better than getting the Corona AIDS though. 😱
I got by 2nd weeks ago… Rule Britannia.
Don’t count the chickens even after they hatch. The government giveth, and the government taketh away.
To my simple mind (!) it makes more sense to build Hulls and have them in the water regardless of capability ….. well If you think about the cost difference between the T26 and T31, It’s obvious really…. Just a shame we can’t afford to equip them properly but hey ho, I’d rather see 5 T31’s with the ability to bolt on some scary bits than a Cad Cam Concept that takes 20 years to build.
Agree Cap’n. If you have the hulls you can upgrade them quickly but they cannot be built as during WW2, in a few weeks. The days of churning out military hardware at a rate a-la-Spitfires for example are long gone.
With you Cap’n. Hulls themselves do fulfil a hatched chicken role. Then the bird has to mature from a little fluffy thing into something with a beak and long claws.
We had a cockerel called Henry who was still dialled into his velociraptor heritage. Magnificent beast, big and burnished bronze. Killed himself by coming at you straight through glasshouse panes once too often.
6 destroyers seem a little too small don’t u think?
It’s not massive but for the relatively specialised role of fleet air defence it’s enough to provide 2 for a carrier with at least one spare which isn’t bad – much better than any other European nation, even some with comparable fleet sizes like Italy and France with 4 each (at the moment both operating only 2 modern vessel on par with the T45, the others older/smaller models).
Maybe a compromise with a vessel that could perform other roles but with enhanced air defence capabilities beyond the basic defensive nature of CAMM.
actually the French have 11 destroyers. 2 of which are to be de commissioned and 2 of which are really not considered destroyers (horizon class) but still that leaves a gap of 1 destroyer between us and the French. i mean we could get lucky and maybe sink it in a small naval skirmish but r u willing to take the risk?
Where did you get 11? They have two Horizon class and two others that are over 30 years old due to be replaced in 2022 plus.
aquatine class. they are de facto destroyers.
The Aquataine-class are anti-submarine frigates – comparable to the 8 ASW Type 23s. Ironically the four you ruled out are the only four actually AAW destroyers.
By UK definitions, a destroyer is an air defence warship so France has four – the two Horizon class and the two ageing Cassard class. The Cassard class will be replaced by two FREMM/Aquitaine-class with slightly improved AAW capabilities, however these will still be inferior in weaponry and radar quality to the Type 45s.
If you are going by displacement, then the UK will have 19 destroyers when the Type 26s (8,000t) and the Type 31s (5,700t – just a few hundred short of FREMM) are in service. Problem solved?
That is my understanding of it as well. Do not forget also that the final two Aquitaines with enhanced AAW are not additional units. Alsace and Lorraine are the 7th and 8th ships that were already in the programme out of at least 17 originally planned. The only class directly comparable to the T45 is the Horizon, 2 of which were built for the MN and 2 cancelled.
In that case you need to count in the 13 T23’s. 19 RN vs 11 MN.
fair point. the remaining French frigates are surveillance so that leave us with 16vs 19. so we hold a numerical advantage. shame just every time i put in strongest countries it just comes up with france stronger then us!
Hi Nate I don’t think you need worry about France being stronger. It is not currently and is not likely to be in the future, although apart from pride it wouldn’t matter if it was.
The only comparable group is in amphibious operations. The MN have the three Mistrals, we have the two Albion class and the Bay conversion soon. The MN have the helicopter capability but no docking, we are the opposite.
Elsewhere we have the advantage above and below the surface.
You shouldn’t see it as much of a rivalry, but for the sake fo comparison:
Submarines – We have larger and more advanced submarines with land attack capabilities while they don’t, however they will soon catch up on that capability.
ASW Frigates – They have larger and more advanced ASW frigates (FREMM) with land attack capabilities but we will soon take over with Type 26 – just leap frogging as each passes in cycles.
GP Frigates – Capabilities of Type 23 unmodified and La fayette are comparable. Replacement for La Fayette will have better equipment than T31 but inferior range and patrol options.
AAW Destroyers – We have significantly more, which are arguably slightly more advanced and larger but only marginally.
Patrol – They have a wider and more diverse fleet but both are somewhat comparable.
Carriers – We have 2, meaning one is always available, with improved ASW capabilities. Our air defence will be better with F-35Bs when they are more widely available while they have better strike due to range and weapon variety.
Amphibious Warfare – We have 2 LPDs, 3 LSDs and several transport ships. They have 3 LHDs with likely comparable overall capability – obviously we have a strength in sea-delivered forces and they have better air-delivered capability.
Auxiliaries – We have a vastly superior support fleet, meaning larger long range operations.
This is very brief and just off the top of my head, probably missing a couple things but as a whole the Royal Navy is doing quite well by comparison.
RN has far better air defence overall (more/better carriers, far more destroyers, far better auxiliaries (9 ships, all over 30kt vs 3 ships, all under 20kt) and we have a superior submarine fleet in terms of size and technology, though the gap will be smaller when their new class is in service.
Although the Merlins operating from carriers are very capable, the FREMM class are 20 years ahead of the T23 so they probably have a better anti-submarine fleet, French patrol capabilities are probably a bit better.
Amphibious warfare have different strengths and weaknesses though we have the benefit of support, but I wouldn’t say there’s a clear winner there.
We will take over with ASW when the Type 26 comes into service but they will probably take over more with patrol around the same time with their new ships. if the Type 32 come into service we might have an advantage there too. It’s a lot of leapfrogging but the UK is generally doing very well.
Yes mate, I’d prefer the original 12 but 6 Is better than none I guess….. Let’s just hope our “Leaders” have made the right decisions over the last few decades …. Stranger things have happened.
ya I think we need educate the country on defence matters. and tell them that immigration and that kinda bs is a lot less important. plus at the moment conservatives are no better then they were during the inter war period! And the public is fine with that! the public really need a wake up call on defence matters other wise we would be “late for school” and the consequence will be much worse then detention.
In idle moments I used to wonder what the names of the axed 6 would have been-Drake,Defiant, Dreadnought…?
Danae
Decoy
Demon
Delight
Dervish
Duchess
Good old names from the previous Daring class. Drake is already in use, and Dreadnought does suit the submarines, though I am aware they were named years after the 6 were cut. Defiant is pretty nice though!
Demon and Defiant I’d have gone for, the others are a bit dull.
I’d prefer to have seen some F names used for a Batch 2, fitted with more VLS and/or 5” gun.
Although I dont know if T45 could have the extra 16 VLS between the existing and gun, if 5” was fitted vice 4.5”.
At the moment the gun has 360deg train judging by the deck circle (although oresume much if the aft sector is unusable for firing!?) – more VLS would notably impinge on that, but then T23 has a restricted arc due to the proximity of VLS and gun anyway so is it an issue?
(Note it is confirmed beyond all doubt the extra T45 VLS are forward of the existing, not the SSM space between bridge and existing – although I wonder if 2x BAEs 4 Mk41 cell ADL could fit in that gap?)
I heard that the 7th and 8th had the names Duchess and Delight pencilled in for them before cancellation. Not sure if this is correct but there were complaints in the media that the names were too soft and should be more warlike.
Devonshire
The day those clowns in Westminster keep a promise will never happen
The defence command paper did mention MRSS ( up to six) for the early 2030s which will presumably replace Albions. The £40m upgrade of a Bay class to better support littoral operations will I guess be an interim fix.
There are real areas of concern even for the RN: the minehunters will be replaced by unmanned systems but there is no mention of new motherships for these. Belgium and Netherlands have ordered 6 each (2000 tons+). Using scarce frigates routinely on minehunting duties looks like a cut in overall capability.
The Type31s are going to be very lightly armed yet the MOD ten year equipment plan includes costs of over £1.9b, or nearly double the announced £200m price per ship. The weapons fit for the Danish Iver Huitfeldt is much better, with both AAW and ASW capabilities and Harpoon. Denmark kept the costs down by recycling weapons from other ships, just as was expected here with spare sets from type 23.
A huge gamble has been taken with Tempest and funding for any additional Typhoons between now and 2035 seems to be non existent. UK combat air power has been greatly reduced over recent years. Yet recent conflicts have confirmed that without control of the air, land forces are in trouble.
Overall, the global ambitions expressed in the Integrated Review can’t be achieved with the budget allocated, even with the £16b uplift over the next 4 years. Either increase the budget or rein in the ambitions.
Personly I think they shoud not go for type 32 and just add extra hulls for t26 and t31
If the Type 32 is ment to deploy LXUUV’s, it will need a deeper floodable stern with doors at rear, then the Type 26 stern.
To lower a very heavy LXUUV from the side of a ship, into the water, will capsized a ship. Ok with lowering light boats etc!
The T26 stern does not look deeper enough for this role.
Peter S, you make assertions without evidence as if every employee of the MOD is an amateur and you are not.
What assertions? Everything I referred to is set out in one or other of the recent Defence papers or the MOD 10 year equipment plan and the NAO report on it.
The Integrated Review covered a vast area of potential risks with the Defence Command paper providing more detail of the UKs more global future presence.
My only comment was that the funding will not be sufficient to deliver that ambition. Clear evidence of that is that despite a 4 year injection of £16b, all three services are still facing actual cuts.
The MOD, hampered by the short term approach of the Treasury, has not managed some major projects very effectively. So there must be real doubt that all of the announced future procurements can be delivered.
I hope I am wrong.
You are right to be sanguine. There are to my mind two key issues arising from the defence review:
1) There is NO NEW MONEY on the table. BJ’s cash injection will only cover the MOD’s current and projected blach hole debt. So we will not even be able to retain the current depressed number of fast jet aircraft, armoured fighting vehicles, artillery and warships for long. Essentially, the equipment budget is miles short, which is why the army is fielding a raft of elderly 30 and 40 year-old equipment and – on a real-world count – the RAF is down to just 5 fighter squadrons.
2) The review has just cut back the two service elements most needed in combat operations and wartime, the RAF’s fast jet combat aircraft and the army’s combat brigades/boots on the ground. We have reduced our NATO-capable forces to the level of insignificance, while boasting that under half a dozen warships and OPVs out-of-area constitute ‘Global Britain’ – what a joke! We should not fall for this kind of empty and vacuous political spin.
Future promises are worthless and much of the optimism is misplaced.
The budget has been hopelessly distorted by the sky-high costs of RN equipment, the QEs, £1bn+ warships and subs (T45, T26, Astute) and now the Dreadnougt programme. I read that the RN is responsible for more than 70% of the current MOD black hole deficit, quel surprise.
Reality is now going to impinge on future RN equipment.
Despite the dressed-up class name, the ‘Type 32″ ‘frigate’ is a replacement for the Sandown and Hunt MCMVs and the Echos. Like them, it will no doubt have a secondary role as an OPV with a small-calibre gun (FFNW) and a couple of pintles gor MGs. I would forget any idea of a new frigate emerging, calling it a Type 32 is just Boris playing with words.
The mooted T8X AD destroyer fills me with dread, sounds like the RN is off to imitate a USN cruiser, with an inevitably unaffordable price tag which causes yet more warships to be axed.
I would personally lock the Admirals in a broom cupboard and get on with what we might actually be able to afford in addition to T31 and T26 –
– a well-atmed, capable corvette, on the lines of the BAe Al Shamikh class to do the overseas guardship role – Rivers back to the UK
– upgunned T31 with an ASW capability
– a conversion of two merchant ships as small helicoper carriers for the RM – small, because there are only 2 Cdos now with a small number of helis and they only plan to be doing light raids
– keep the Bays!their successors for use by the army, the need to land troops and equipment on beaches is not going to go away
.- replace the T45 in the mid-30s with a T31 AD frigate version, not some new behemoth that breaks the budgey
– one extra Astute would be a good investment, a far bigger threat to Russian and Chinese naval aspirations.
– a new class of smaller, less expensive SSKs to look after the north-east Atlantic, where we have pretty much abandoned ASW ops in order to fund a carrier showboat
– for heavens sake, procure a training tender or patrol boat for the RNR, how else are civvy volunteers meant to become proficient in seamanship, gunnery, engineering sat in a stone frigate drill hall.
Basically, scale down the RN’s over-vaunting ambitions to what it can actually just about afford.
😄
Arent the MCM motherships going to be MRSS and T32? I think the NL/BE are a mistake – still one trick ponies but now even bigger ones.
Tempest isnt a gamble – its developing a new combat air platform. A gamble would be the US “digital century series” concept that has no idea how it will slash time (ie cost) when every aspect of the digital era increases time and certification (safety) isnt being compromised nor is combat ability. The UK seems sane for once in this area (vs missiles replacing them and then prioritising strike aircraft). More Tr3 Typhoons would be nice, but growing the F35 force will use up the pilot supply line, and BAe dont seem fussed in terms of production workload whilst at least now thr existing Typhoon force will actually have the parts and supporting kit to enable it to be fully used efficiently.
I agree that funding will be insufficient. I wonder what will go next time?
RN has plenty of MCM mothership candidates.
Looking forward to see one of the River B2 actually operating MCM USVs. In principle, it can happen relatively in short time frame.
Every new combat aircraft is something of a gamble. The USA bet the house on a single aircraft to replace 5 existing types and in terms of the programme aims, it has been a failure- years late, massively over budget and still needing huge sums to achieve block 4 integration.( Block4 is now estimated to cost >$14b). Britain with Italy does not have the
USAs resources to persist with a struggling programme. So BAE must get this right first time. They need to be held to account for key milestones and should carry the entire cost burden of failure.
This would limit the risk to UK taxpayers.
I still don’t fully understand what capability it is intended to have that is not deliverable by Typhoon or F35. The greatest need is to develop something more affordable.
The only recent project that seems to have managed this is the Saab/Boeing T7A. But that is a much less technically advanced aircraft.
F35 hasnt been a failure, that isnt sensible to say given what it can do and what has been delivered, although the idea one thing could replace so much was always daft. The costs simply reflect nobody wanted to be honest about what it actually takes to do this, similarly time.
But one aircraft in 3 such different variants all of which do their advertised role is unprecedented.
There is literally no point in being so bullish with BAES, their answer is simple “ok, no particular skin off our nose we wont do it then and we’ll just make a load of money in the US”. Pushing into the future requires risk sharing which is where we are at. This isnt the normal commercial world where a company can afford to develop something and see if it flies – its more akin to contracting out our own product we want developed to our bespoke requirements, and is cheaper than doing it all in house. It will undoubtably be a challenging task.
Tempest isnt about affordability – people have recognised fast air costs what it does. F35 has reinforced that no amount of speeches or powerpoint about saving money actually reduces the amount of work to get such a capable system working, integrated and certified.
What FCAS offers is a modern platform (LO, integration of systems) to replace what will be worn out Typhoons, themselves based on 1980s/90s design ideas. Which makes sense rather than try to stretch the Typhoon platform to do the sensors and systems stuff, plus working with UAVs, which frankly it cant.
Not all the equipment for RN warships is procured thorgh the contractor/builder, by the contract for vessel. Equipment is often procured direct from the manufacturer by the MoD, provided as GFE.
An example is the new hull sonar Type 2150 recently fitted to HMS Portland.
The RAF does Not have enough pilots, to fly all the Typhoons in the present fleet.
Encouraging article Jon.
“With Wildcat and the various new anti-ship missiles now well into operational service”.
So is it your understanding that Wildcat now carries both Sea Venom and Martlet ?
The last news I heard was 2022 due to a fifteen-month delay. Sea Venom’s first flight trial was back in Feb 2020
It will be interesting to know if this has changed.
Thx
Thx. Must admit I was hoping it would be sooner.
HI Paul,
I have seen a head on picture of a Wildcat with a full load of 20 Martlet missiles strapped down on the flight deck of a T45 (on Navy Lookout I think). Looks pretty mean to be honest 🙂 but that would suggest that Initial Operating Capability has been achieved.
I think Nigel is right about the Sea Venom, IOC in 2022. Full Operating Capability in 2024 for both missiles I believe.
Cheers CR
Thx, 20 Martlets look like a challenge to target. Each one needs to be individually guided onto its target right? Bit like Starstreak.
It’s worth noting that they’re taking Sea Venom along with them on the deployment.
Wildcat with 20 Martlets sure looks mean!
I saw a couple people mentioning the 2022 date for Sea Venom.
That’s the full operating date, but 815 NAS has confirmed it is already operational and will be deployed on Wildcats for CSG21 so we now have both available.
Gents All, thx for your info.
Great article which concentrated on platforms, although there is other kit to think about. So 2020 looks like another ‘Year of the Navy’ in some senses. I find it amazing that the debate on the funding for the replacement for the Astute class of SSNs is up and running as well as work being ongoing on the Type 32 project when we haven’t even built the first Type 31s yet, whilst the army struggles to get a first timely & significant upgrade for 20-year old major platforms (CR2, WR, AS90) – and fails as in the cae of Warrior CSP.
Despite being an ex-army man, I do agree that we should have a maritime-centric approach, and that even more needs to be done to position the RN (and RM) as second only to the US.
2021, I meant!
I can’t post a link for some reason but if you go to Sky News they have a great video of the RM using jet packs to practice storming another ship. Just shows that relatively basic platforms like the Rivers can be up-armed significantly by deploying more advanced tech.
They have some videos on Youtube as well. The flying marine lands back on the RIB!
I take it this is a trial / demonstration? But your point is is a good one. However, the kit would need to be improved to allow the flying marine to ditch it prity quickly or he / she would be a sitting duck to anyone ‘defending’ the target ship. Nevertheless, I think it is a huge improvement in the mind set of many in the RN / MoD with regards to new ideas and new tech.
Cheers CR
Not sure if that is more or less dangerous than when I was jumping off the RIB aiming to hook an arm over the ladder and then get up it enough to stop the next rising wave taking me off!
Would save on the lick out that was climbing the side of a tanker in full kit
(Not ex booty btw, but spent fair bit of time attached with them however)
Thanks for good summary.
On T32, I am always wondering how the total cost would be? Is it better than “more T26?”.
T26 has a big mission bay. In its late phase of production, unit cost is at minimum. Lack of building capacity can be solved by block building approach (with Babcock and/or CL?).
My understanding was that Type 26 unit cost is projected to be ~£1.25B, meaning that for £3B you would get less than 2.5 additional Type 26.
Considering detail design and initial inefficiency, if the unit cost is 1.2B and with an order of 3 unit, T26 batch 1 contract must be nearly 4B GBP. But, it is not.
So T26 unit cost is surely much cheaper than 1.2B GBP.
Sorry, … must be nearly 5B GBP.
typo
Interesting article Jon but given the present circumstances I think you could afford to be a bit more upbeat. I don’t think this government is a follow on from the others
There have been concerns on UKDJ about whether we would have both carriers operating together They are but won’t be fully capable until somebody sorts out the F35 position.
Similarly, only s few weeks ago, for the third time , it was the Albion and Bulwark that were going to be scrapped. They are staying with their original OSD.
The Royal Navy itself seems confident that the LSS concept will go ahead. Concerns over escort numbers The T26 and the T31 build is going ahead and we now have the T32 to come as well.
So whilst I will probably always have a niggle at the back of mind I do think we are in a better position after the review.
One thing I would like the RN to adopt on all its vessels is the Stanflex system
This could be a very efficient way for ships to be FFBNW, whilst having the actual products available in the background.
we could implement this across the whole fleet and use the same rotational and maintenance processes we currently use for Phalanx.
For T31 and the Rivers in particular this should be a no brainer, and we should also implement on all future ships.
Understand your point, but not convinced.
Stanflex exists there for 30 years, and have never been popular, although its modularity and flexibility has clear merit. So, surely there is a sever drawback in the system.
As you know, modular-system increases weight and size (by definition). And its interface system must be high-tech to accommodate high-end equipments, and as such always confronting the problem of being obsolete.
Modular/canistered something will be good, but it will NOT needed to be Stanflex. For example, Stanflex covers only, 3 inch gun (5 inch gun does NOT use Stanflex), Mk.48 VLS for 12 ESSM, 8 Harpoons, and an accommodation module (What’s else?). Different from its original plan, it was not frequently replaced, but almost fixed to each vessel. Yes Danish navy reused it from SF300 class to IH-class frigate, but that’s all I see with its flexibility.
For River B2 OPV, adding 40mm or 57 mm gun will be good, when it will go to high threat region. But, what if we permanently mount them on 2 of the 5 hulls, and use these 2 for such tasks? (many of the OPV tasks is OK with a 30 mm gun).
Also, I see no merit of using Stanflex on T31. Its armament now is limited because of cost. Introducing Stanflex means even less armaments because modularity costs. One possibility is ripping of 12 CAMM from 2 hulls and up-arming 2 of the remaining 3 hulls to carry 24 CAMM? But, is this needed? Will it pay for the additional cost and weight? Even the 2 hulls with NO CAMM needs good CMS to be able to handle 24 CAMM (this is what Stanflex requires you). I’m not surprised to see all 5 hulls getting 24 CAMM each, by the money needed to just introducing Stanflex system on the ship.
I might be wrong, but I could not see merit here…
I agree that not everything needs to be Stanflex, but the benefits of having a mechanism to remove and maintain some of the smaller systems like we do with Phalanx must be a good thing, and given the fact we are building ships (t31 in particular) that is designed for StanFlex and initially seems light on VLS, this could be something we look at.
plumbing in the interfaces is one of the biggest things and StanFlex gives you this option up front, what and whether you fill it is another thing entirely.
We salute this British move, but Britain must learn from the mistakes and failures of the past. The policy of miserliness, indecision and excessive bureaucracy cost Britain a lot in the past and it must get rid of these archaic policies.