In welcome news, First Sea Lord Tony Radakin has stated that the Type 31 Frigates will be ‘fitted for but not with’ the MK41 VLS missile launcher should the warships be required to operate the new surface-to-surface missile system.
During a session of the Defence Committee today, the First Sea Lord said:
“Part of the debate that we’re having is that it’s going to be ‘fitted for’ MK41 launchers but not ‘with’ at the moment. That starts to become part of our lethality debate, particularly around a surface-to-surface weapon and do we extend that programme to include the Type 31.”
https://twitter.com/geoallison/status/1455569884197367817
The surface to surface weapon project, known as the Future Cruise/Anti–Ship Weapon, aims to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP air launched cruise missile in operational service in the UK and France as well as Exocet anti-ship missile in France and Harpoon anti-ship missile in the UK. It is expected to be able to fit in the Mk41 VLS.
The Mk 41 Vertical Launching System is a modular, below deck sited, missile launcher system that makes use of silos to launch and store missiles. The UK intends to use it on the Type 26 Frigate.
We already knew that the Type 31 frigate would be equipped with the Sea Ceptor missile system and will be equipped with one Bofors 57mm Mk3 and two Bofors 40mm naval guns.
Jeremy Quin, Minister for Defence Procurement, stated recently in response to a written Parliamentary question:
“It is intended that the Type 31 frigate will be equipped with the Sea Ceptor missile system and will be equipped with one Bofors 57mm Mk3 and two Bofors 40mm naval guns, in addition to a range of highly advanced weapon and sensor systems.
These include a sophisticated combat system with 4D air and surface surveillance, target indication radar and the capability to operate a Merlin or Wildcat helicopter.”
Recently, Secretary of State for Defence Ben Wallace cut the first steel for the first of the Royal Navy’s five new Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer.
Hosted at Babcock’s facility in Rosyth, Scotland, where the Type 31 ‘Inspiration class’ ships are being built, representatives from across UK and international industry and public service, witnessed the historic ceremony signalling the official start of the build programme alongside employees and representatives from the local community.
The event also saw Babcock’s new assembly hall named ‘The Venturer Building’ – paying homage to the first new class of frigates to be built in the facility.
OK I know it is ‘fit for, not with’ at this stage, but this is definately good news as it sounds like the RN / MoD recognise that these frigates could be significantly up armed. As it is the Mk41 VLS the RN will not have anything to put in them until the Anglo-French FC/ASW weapon comes along, so FFNW is a sensible approach for the moment.
Another question springs to mind. Is the I-SSGW going a head or are they leaning towards a VLS weapon? My understanding is that the leading contendors were cannister launched.
Also, I wonder if they are going to fit more than the previously suggested 12 Sea Ceptors.
Cheers CR
I suspect the reason for the delay with I-SSGW is because the RN wants the FCASW in surface sooner than planned (by 2028 I think), so is it better to invest in acelerating FCASW and give all the future escorts (T26/T31/T32/T83) Mk 41 VLS. Longer term it makes sense, but leaves a gap, in which case Harpoon can soldier on for a few more years.
Hmm, that sounds like a bit of a risk if FCASW runs into techie problems James,
Having said that I would support the risk taking if, and it is a big IF, a proper risk assessment has been done. That is, what are the chances of the project being delayed and what are the chances that we need a SSM capability in the meantime… In my experience there is a serious optimism bias right across the procurement process.
Mind you it is nice to hear that the MoD is looking to speed something up rather than slow it down, and if any company is capable of delivering a complex weapon system quickly it is MBDA.
Do we know if the differences in requirements between the French and UK have been sorted out or has MBDA come up with some clever solution that meets both requirements..?
Cheers CR
CR agreed, an alternative to FCASW could be mulled if it goes pearshaped – I suspect. France/RN wanted a supersonic (mach 5) 300km primarily antiship missile, the RAF a subsonic 500km primarily for land attack. I think they want both now, and MBDA shows both concepts. However the supersonic missile is based on the French MBDA ASMP nuclear strike missile airframe, so its in effect an evolution of a prior weapon – with dual mode medium altitude for land attack and sea skimming anti-ship. I imagine a lot of the avionics can also be evolved from Storm Shadow and Exocet. As ever it is money that will make it happen faster.
I think you mean hypersonic for what France and the RN wanted; however, I have a question here. I have also read that the idea is a hypersonic anti-ship weapon and a stealth subsonic land attack weapon. But has it not been said that the key problem with hypersonic missiles is their lack of manoeuvrability, and hence losing a radar contact of something that moves could cause it to miss entirely? This, obviously, can’t happen with land attack missiles since buildings and bases can’t really move. Would not a subsonic anti-ship missile with some loiter capability, in case the radar contact is lost, be better? Why is the anti-ship weapon hypersonic and the land attack missile subsonic as opposed to the other way around?
Hi eclipse,
I think the reaosning is to do with the level of air defence available for the two target sets. Land based targets even static ones are often very poorly defended except by fighters.
High value maritime targets e.g. carriers are usually defended by destroyers, often with very capable AAW systems e.g. US AB’s and UK T45’s. These system have a week spot, namely hypersonic missiles. The reaction time is very very small when faced with a hypersonic missile so it has a high chance of getting through the defences.
Another point to note is that the sea doesn’t have hills and mountains and as you point out hypersonic missiles are not very manoeyvrability so over land is a difficult environment for them to opperate. If you want a hypersonic land attack missile go ballistic – which raises a whole new level of issues…
Cheers CR
Thanks James,
I am not really up to spped of FCASW so that was helpful – I really should do some research 🙂
Cheers CR
I’m a fan of preloaded silo systems which can be preloaded prior to an operation leaving more room inside the ship rather than have another magazine. To worry about
The impression that the people have around the T31 are that it won’t be built as a full front line ship but more a light frigate I believe that if you’re going to build a warship then it should be able to make war I’d like all the royal navy to be uparmed major ships in the R.Nare woefully short of necessary means to protect themselves the carriers and the Albion’s have nothing and neither can afford to be lost. Which poor laacky would be trucked out to explain the loss of a major unarmed ship being lost?
No offical conformation on Sea Ceptor missile numbers, most likely 12 or 24. For your other question, I think I-SSGW will be canister launched to allow easier integration and that it being an interim, expensive refits to put VLS tubes could be avoided, as its for the 5 GP Type 23 which are due to leave service.
Thanks that guy,
Pretty much as I understood it. I guess we’ll only find out when the final procurement decision is announced.
Cheers CR
And it will be fitted for but not with everywhere as usual
I’d rather they spent the I-SSGW money on five sets of eight Mk 41 VLS. Those missiles will be redundant soon after they are installed, and the temptation will be to cross deck them to Type 31 rather than fit the VLS. Something like NSM is a good stop gap, but not a patch on FCASW (Mach 5, 300km range), LRASM or Tomahawk Block V – all of which could go in a Mk 41 VLS, which can also house more Sea Ceptor, CAMM-ER or future longer ranged SAMs which are sensor agnostic, and even ASROC.
I would hazard a guess and say that we will be putting more than just FCASM into those Mk 41 tubes.
We could all speculate as to what that might be, but, just can’t see it being upto 24 FCASW missiles.
Speaking of cross-decking, why not cross-deck the 32 Sea-Ceptor missiles from the retiring Type 23s to the 31s? The missiles are already available and paid for. No additional missiles need be to procured so should be cost neutral (barring ancillary/installation costs etc.,).
Most of the Sea Ceptor from the retiring T23’sj are moving across to the T26’s which have 48 cells each, of there will be a shortfall unless more are brought, the first two T26’s are to have new sets of SC.
Type 45 fitted for but not with Mk 41 silos, and look what’s happened to that idea.
Well at least that makes it cost neutral. We just transfer the ‘fitted for but not with’ Mk41 silos from the T45’s to the T31’s and the bonus is that there is an extra ‘not fitted’ one left over to ‘not store in the warehouse’.
You should be a finance manager in the MOD, that’s providing you’re not already.
Fitted for but not with is a disgraceful term if the design and costing process doesn’t allow for the projeced fit then it is a flawed design this is not acceptable millios went into the office design and fit if the class and even before the first is built the design is getting messed with not good enough. This desease is all over the fleet we’ve got capital ships (Albios and çarriers without the means to defend themselves and equipment that is just plain missing heads should roll
This is where the navy played a blinder getting cheap big hulls with minimal weapons fit. They got their hulls agreed and now they have time to negotiate increases lethality.
Im betting the T31 will have a good weapons fit by the time the last hull leaves the slips.
32 sea ceptors and some form of AsuW, land attack missile would be my bet.
Hi Jonathan,
I’ve been saying this for years, build the platform as big as you can with maximum flexibility and adaptability that you can design in. NEVER ever wait for some fancy widget that company XYZ has been promising for the last 20 years, just get the platform built. Then keep the systems updated as part of the normal support cycle.
The reason for this is easy to see. Platforms last longer than the tech they carry so it is pointless to build the platform around a particular piece of tech, especially as the platform can take quite sometime to build and integrate the tech into it.
That’s a long way of saying – I couldn’t agree more.
Cheers CR
Completely agree CR. Remember those ships built around Sea Slug! And the Type 42’s (especially the Batch 1’s) which had no development potential. Options are good and sheer size creates options. All looking very encouraging 👍
“And the Type 42’s (especially the Batch 1’s) which had no development potential”
That was because at the time, the Labour Chan. did Not like RN warships over a certain size!
Quite correct on that one Meirion from the mid 60ts too the 70ts the Soviet appeasing Labour Government withdrew the CVA 1 programme leaving 1 type 82 good old Bristol ,the under armed 21s Superstructures which melt( Aluminium) and batch 1, T42s inadequate fire pumps Nylon actionworking dress N8s
leave politics off here please.
i served in 1982 on h.m.s antrim the seaslug was so poor that ont the way south to the falklands a test firing of the system resulted in it just about getting off the launcher it only just cleared the stern! the magazine ran almost the full lrngth of the ship turning a county class destroyer into a floating bomb.adding seacat made the ship more lethal than the gosport ferry.
The navy really did a fantastic job in 1982 having to head south with some very inappropriate ships but going nonetheless. I salute you for going into harms way in the floating bomb. The Seaslug ships are surely the best example of ship built around and eventually compromised by a single weapon system. The new approach seems much more sensible, recognising that the platform has a longer life expectancy than it’s initial weapons fit and must be upgradeable and relevant for is whole life. The Type 23’s seem to be doing well in this regard.
The u.s navy generally operate their shhips longer than the RN whose policy of when it’s knackered we’ll get something to replace it but we’ll have to wait five years before you get it
Then you are not a hostage to the fortunes of the tech.
Decouple the tech development and the ship building.
Fit the ship with mature tech with space for the developed tech.
I think this is just by virtue the original Danish design had VLS, so pretty much they’ve left that part of the design unchanged so VLS can be fitted later.
FFBNW. As you say, it merely means leaving the space free…….costs nothing, sounds good, but effectively means nothing…….
Regrettably you are right Paul. FFBNW is an easy way of letting the penny pinchers off the hook. When has FFBNW actually been fulfilled?
The Type 45s were FFBNW Mk 41 VLS. Granted, years later (now) they will get a Sea Ceptor missile fit – which mind, will take an incredulous 5 yrs just to start installing on the first ship! – but in my opinion, the Mk41 offered much more versatility than the addition of Sea Ceptor.
That said, I do agree with the sentiment of some here that the RN played a smart hand – get the hulls now at a bargain price and work to up-gun later. I hope this is the plan because as they sit right now, their weapons fit is pathetic; would have been better sticking with the Type 23s – as knackered as they are.
The sad thing is, the much olderType 23 will be able to sink the sparkling new Type 31 with ease, even with its older weapons fit……one step forward and 3 steps back…..
Harpoon would struggle to get past Sea Ceptor and the 40mm’s. No guarantee it would get through. 40’s are superior to 20’s in CIWS role.
No need for Harpoon to take out a T31. Sit back & hammer it with the 4.5”. Even if you managed to close the range, the 57mm will struggle to do any real damage. Every hit from one of those 4.5’s though, is going to hurt.
57mm wil get off minimum of 10 shells for every 1 4.5. I know where i’d rather be.
57mm I expect the Gunners sponge out the Barrel with a Qtip nuff said
Excellent jest that man
👍👍
Spot on ,fair enough The Bristol had the first mk 8 turret 1973 and it still going the mk 8 not the Bristol, its a good AA and SU Armament
Isnt the new PODS concept a way of getting around this problem. ? If we have multiple PODS for sensors, weaponry, UAVs, USSVs, Mine clearance etc and you just plug in what you need for a set mission. That way every ship is fitted for almost everything.
The USN is experimenting in this concept for their MUSV and LUSV programmes and recently fitted 2 MUSVs with Standard SM6 missiles in podded silos. Total loadout was just 16 missiles but each ship of 1500 tons could hold upto 36. Thats a heavy load for a vessel just 1500 tons. Warships IFR latest edition is my source.
The QE carriers when ordered by the last labour guvt were announced a s FFBNW cats and traps, but when the Tories wanted to call on this capability and have the cats and traps fitted whilst they were still in early build stages to give them options on other aircraft in case the (at the time) still to fly F35B failed or they wanted to cross deck with allies they found it couldn’t be done without massive delays and overrun costs courtesy of the stitch up of the contracts.
Other than the claimed increases in sortie rates, o di not see the advantage in having full size aircraft carriers and flying STOVL aircraft from them when a larger number of smaller carriers would have provided more reach.
After all, in wartime it’s much quicker to replace crew than it is to build a warship!
I cannot see the QEs getting the cats fitted short of some disaster with the F35B design. Which would mean a very expensive lesson both in lives and money.
Next we want a bow sonar.
I had thought they were planning to put in a Thales UMS 4110, really stupid if they don’t.
Agree steel is cheap but the fitted for but not with has left type 45 a very specislised air defence only asset when if mk41 strike length cells had been fitted all 6 could have had a very potent surface strike ability via tomahawk or anti ship/ Anti subdelivery via LRASM/ASROC respectively.
Im happy if the RN actually goes ahead and orders some weapons because god forbid we have to face a peer or near peer opponent with a large number of warships and subs….like PLAN.
A T45 Needs all the vls cells available for air defense only, with only 48 cells now, and 72 cells in the future. As a specislised AAW vessel.
As a major naval asset if should also have some decent secondary ASuW and AShW ability. It can’t just go to sea for shooting things out of sky. There’s no 100% tailored warfare” scenarios out there. There’ll be a need for engagement with key role and secondary role capabilities.
Dear George can we cut down on the acronyms on here s that I can understand the posts?
Unfortunately the PLAN has more ships than we have missiles and torpedoes combined! Ok, a little bit of drama there but you get my point.
The PLAN build rate is frightening. Even if build quality is not up to par with Western ships, nor would I say is their crew training, they can afford loose many more ships that we can. If it ever came to a punch up, I think our (Western/Asian allies) attack boats will play a major role in mitigating the PLAN’s numerical advantage!
I agree. No matter how many ships the ocean is much, much bigger and if they can’t find an Astute or a Virginia that will decide the day. Today surface warships can only project power if you have control underwater as well.
To be honest, the PLAN might see their massive surface fleet as a way to dominate the South and East China Seas and push the US and allies (including us) out into the Pacific, but without credible submarines to back them up, Astutes and Virginias will simply see a rich hunting ground.
We have forgotten the lesson that the allies taught the Germans in ww2.
It’s all well and good knowing your weapon will kill 5 of the enemy for every one you lose, but when the enemy can build 6 in the same time as you build 1…you lose!
At the tank museum in Bovington is a plaque next to the first Sherman tank we received from the USA. On it is quote from a US PoW camp guard who recalled a conversation with a captured 88 AT gun commander. The yank asked the German how with their superior equipment like the 88 gun that could slice a Sherman open with ease they could lose the war.
The German replied, “because we ran out of ammunition before you ran out of tanks”
We won the war because Russia in particular could build rough and ready equipment that didn’t look great (close up inspection of a t34 will reveal there was no craftsmanship involved) but could match the Germans and also be built quicker, likewise the USA. Earlier still the battle of Britain was won because we could replace the aircraft lost faster than the Germans could shoot them down.
In essence wars are won and lost on attrition, not technology and China have a phenomenal build rate.
The t31 may have 12 seaceptor, which may have a guaranteed 100% kill rate. But what if the enemy sends 13 missiles?
If the RN was smart it would plan for at least 24 strike length Mk-41 VLS cells in the Type 31, however 32 would be better. That gives it the versatility to utilise any weapon that is integrated into the Mk-41. The next point is that Sea Ceptor is integrated into the Mk-41 VLS in quad packed cannisters. For example a load out could be 32 Sea Ceptor in 8 Mk-41 cells, 8 Tomahawk LACM missiles in another 8 cells, and 8 or 16 medium to long range SAM in the remaining cells. AShM can be in deck mounted cannisters and both the NSM and Mk-158C LRASM are available in deck cannister launchers. However they aren’t the only AShM available and the RN may prefer a European one.
Can’t disagree, I’m sure the RN would go for MK41s at the build stage, but they can only work within their budget, so it’s more about what they can cleverly wheedle out of the treasury.
The admiralty/MOD, SHOULDN’T just shop from the MBDA bae catalogues there is plenty of kit around the world which is good and cheaper, the fancier the system, the more it costs which adds to inflated unit costs and cancellations. This is where the fitted for but not with desease comes from
Hi Mate, A while back Lockheed Marin and MBDA did some trials on the 3 cell extensible launching system (ExLS). The ExLS basically based on the Mk41 and it successfully launch 2 Sea Ceptors – see attached link:
VLS_3_Cell_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf (lockheedmartin.com)
As stated on the MBDA website:
“The compact vertical launch 3-cell ExLS system is specifically designed for smaller naval platforms that are unable to accommodate the larger 8-cell MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS). ExLS has also been designed to fit inside the MK 41 launcher (ie ExLS Host), offering flexible, adaptable installation solutions for larger ships to achieve high combat mass within a small on-board footprint.
When operated from ExLS or MK 41 VLSD, CAMM comes in a quad-pack arrangement which allows to store and fire 4 missiles from a single cell. These latest trials from 3-cell ExLS were successfully completed in the United Kingdom at the end of 2017.
The success of these trials is testament to the hard work and close co-operation of the MBDA and Lockheed Martin,” said Joe DePietro, Lockheed Martin vice president of small combatants and ship systems. “A launcher within a launcher, ExLS uses CAMM canistered munitions with its qualified launch electronics to cut integration costs by more than 50 percent. It is a mature design that when paired with CAMM offers a low-cost alternative for integrating new missiles and munitions into current and future surface combatants.
These trials have further demonstrated the maturity, reliability and safety of the CAMM vertical launch system from both 3-cell ExLS and ExLS Host/MK 41 and follows the highly successful operational trials of CAMM by the Royal Navy in 2017. The pairing of CAMM with the 3-cell ExLS launcher is a natural choice, providing a flexible launcher solution available now for naval platforms to take advantage of the high performance air defence capabilities and compact size of CAMM with ExLS. Other MBDA weapon systems, compatible with ExLS, are planned for the future.”
So in essence the Sea Ceptor is already qualified to be used from the Mk 41 VLS – so long as you use the ExLS with it!
Bung it on the R Thai ship KRABI fit with the to melara 76mm rapid fire gun and two extra 30mm aft of the bridge wings we could most of that but better using equipment crossdecked from a already retiring t23.
The Krabi like our Rivers would need a substantial upgrade with a 3D radar replacing the current 2D one, along with a combat management system that can integrate the radar and the Sea Ceptor. But it is doable if there is the will and funding.
I’m still struggling to understand quite where T32 fits into all of this. Some have speculated, including me, that the T32 might essentially subsume the Hunt/Sandown replacement program by serving the role of MCM motherships while at the same time being classed as frigates so that the government can boast about increased escort numbers even if, once 13 Hunt/Sandown vessels being decommissioned is factored in, it’s actually an overall reduction in ship numbers.
My confusion is, since T32 are to be frigates, what special characteristics will they have that mandates a new class rather than simply increasing the number of T31 to be built? I understand that no one ship class can do everything but my computer science and physics background always draws me towards elegant simplicity so I would hope there are some quite compelling reasons why yet another new class (T32) is considered necessary before T31 only cut first steel about 6 weeks ago. Also, if the cost targets are met T31 seems to be coming in at a very affordable price and increasing the production run would presumably be an additional positive factor (economies of scale) as far as cost-per-vessel is concerned.
Might it be that T32 is actually going to be smaller and more lightly armed than T31, perhaps the glorified OPV that some of us feared that T31 would be when originally envisaged? With the sheer size of T31 and the capabilities already designed into the parent design allowing fairly easy FFBNW options such as the Mk41 silo I would say that the T31 has the potential to avoid that “glorified OPV” fate as long as it gets at least a somewhat decent weapons fit but T32? Where is that heading I wonder.
Ther is a small graphic here : https://www.navylookout.com/a-big-future-for-uk-shipbuilding/ under the heading ‘UK Shipbuilding Plan’ which classifies Type 31 and type 32 as ‘Semi commercial warships’
Given that, I assume they will be very similar in build and weapons fit-out.
Given how long it took to design the type 31, it might not happen at all.
I would fund a robust local area air defence capability first by ensuring the T31 carries the same number of Sea Ceptor as the outgoing T23, before I moved ahead with Surface to Surface strike capability.
These ships will probably end up escorting task groups on lower end tasks, counter terrorism, piracy etc, so throwing a 15 mile robust air defence umbrella, with enough missiles, around the group seems a sensible first step to me.
Yes upping the number of Seaceptors would seem to be the most important, especially as it has an AsuW capability as well.
If designate a ship to be an ASSET then the weapon fit should be done with this in mind
Well you could do a bit of both, quad-pack a few and the rest for land-attack or surface-to-surface missiles; likely FC/ASW
Quad-packing CAMM is a Waste of very expensive VLS cells at £millions for a set of 8. CAMM cells are cheap at, in the order of £10k’s each! The CAMM is contained in it’s own canister.
An escort must be capable of AA/SAM, anti-Surface & ASW. Faffing around with the idea of negligable SAM/AShM/ASW is idiotic negligence by HMG & the MOD.
Totally agree with you Frank. How difficult is this decision process? The obvious should be bleedingly obvious! As my old Maths teacher use to say… “playing silly buggers” with all this.
Soon to be head of the armed forces… the Army might find the T31s get fitted for and with in short order.
Are the Army getting T31s now? How will they sail them over Salisbury Plain? Talk about flexibility!
Just joking…
They will come with a set of wheels (optional)the boat bays will have small armour recon vehicles to replace the Ribs.
That’s an interesting idea, the Army could float in some braid every few years to manage the project, who would need junior braid to support it and after spaffing another 5Bn come to the conclusion we need a civvie in charge to spaff more money
Clearly Barry you have an inside track into Army procurement and the requirement for huge amounts of money to be pissed up the wall to show how clever And important the very senior people are. We all know money spaffing = importance.
Also at 250 million a pop they will end up cheaper than the present army procurements.
FFBNW with wheels – get it right…..
On Tracks Like a DD tank obviously Crabfat
Fit f 35 engines and maybe get some to fly?
It would be interesting to know if the T31 is to follow the Parker report recommendation. Which was not let hulls go through an expensive midlife refit and instead order new hulls and sell off the old. So I do wonder of the benefit of FFNW for batch 1 T31s.
But I guess the original design had them so just leave the space prepped to receive the MK41 VLS tubes, so this is more to do with selecting the Danish design than a RN decision to add the feature.
Hi expat,
I’m not sure that recommendation will ever see the light of day because it assumes there will be someone will to buy pretty much all of the RN’s hulls for the finances to work. Given that some many second tier navies want a home grown build and repair capability the number of countries who would buy second hand RN ships appears to be dwindling.
Secondly, it may not preclude the FFNW approach as most second users will want to up date the ships to their own requirements. Build the ships too specific to the RN’s requirements and there will be even fewer customers for second ships.
Also, we would really have to accelerate our procurement cycle… fat chance.
Cheers CR
This feels like a case of “softly softly catchee monkey”. Odds on now that there will be full MK41 fit-Out at OIC.
Let’s hope so.
However, there is no sign on the US FDS website of any more Mk41 VLS being ordered than are needed for T26 build rates.
Granted the agreement to sell the UK Mk41 VLS is pretty vague at to total numbers and has no, visible, upper cap on it.
Ive got a feeling by 2030s when follow up batches are being ordered we will be needing to keep the type 31s. Has anyone seen the projections of just how big the PLAN surface and sub surface fleet will be by 2030s?
Answer is huge.
With qualitative catch up on Western navies especially USN around the same time.
China is building a fleet not to just provide localised superiority to USN but to project power whenever and wherever president Xi chooses. The Western world collectively needs to wake up. Any and all capable warships are needed. The RN surface fleet warship fleet needs to get back to 26+ escorts. Which is the minimum number needed for current taskings let alone facing a resurgent Russia and China.
Now here’s a novel idea, all be it an old one! And with air to air refuelling?
“It may have been with that in mind that plans for the 747 CMCA began to form.
But for a short window of time, the United States seemed to be in need of a heavy-payload aircraft that had enough endurance to cross entire oceans to engage enemy targets.
Some believed converting an existing commercial platform to carry the recently-developed AGM-86 air-launched cruise missiles made the most sense from an economic standpoint, and Boeing’s 747 seemed like just the right aircraft for the job.
Boeing knew the Air Force might be interested in an aircraft with a range of nearly 6,000 miles and the ability to carry nearly 77,000 pounds of ordnance, so they set to work on just such a proposal in 1980.
If they were successful, it would mean selling their expensive new design in both commercial and military markets for cargo, personnel, and as an arsenal ship.”
https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/americas-plan-to-build-747-arsenal-ships-packed-with-cruise-missiles/
Another point worth considering.
“China’s rocket force has an extraordinary reach with its DF-26 and DF-21 missiles, with ranges of 2,490 and 1,335 miles respectively, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.”
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/12/14/the-us-navy-has-an-upgraded-tomahawk-heres-5-things-you-should-know/
The Chinese population will be shrinking fast in 2030s! The baby broomers born between 1962 and 1978 when a large proportion of the population was born will be well past it, and into retirement! China has presently a low base of fertile women, due to the one child policy in the last 40 years. And certainly the Chicom’s will search for more COVID like solutions in order to shrink the pensioner base.
Are you suggesting that Covid was not an act of God………
I Suggest that you pass that information on to The World Health Organisation remember the Chinese Communiist Party are Atheists Davey
Lol
I Prayed 🙏 your’ed say that hallelujah
Yes! The CCP have No morals!
Absolutely Mr Bell. The PLAN’s build rate is astounding and shows no sign of slowing. I will say for today at least, the Western navies are ahead qualitatively. I’m sure you saw it recently reported that the RN Type 23s found two Chinese boats snooping around the QEC strike group and the accompanying Astute boat found another one – 3 boats found within just 6hrs. Apparently the current crop of Chinese boats are very noisy indeed!
In my opinion, Xi is keeping his powder dry until he is confident he has the numerical superiority needed to defeat the USN such that the US won’t intervene or get in his way. Now, what that ‘way’ is can be left open to conjecture but it wouldn’t be too hard to think of a few things!
All that to say China’s military buildup should keep all of us awake at night!
I don’t disagree. And that doesn’t include include the PAFMM
If we can build carriers with the projected lifespan of 50 years surely the policy should apply to all ships in the design stages
A small step in the right direction, maybe all our concerns have been heard?
Better still: just fit them.
Interesting news, but I’m wondering how the T31 can be fitted “for but not with” missile silos. What does this mean? Will there be space reserved for where the silos would be installed? Will there be other infrastructure (like cabling) fitted ready for them during construction?
Pretty much, yes! The ship was designed to have them, but our penny pinching lot will just have the empty space instead……not a really a move forward at all……
Perhaps the Crew will get benefit from another MK41 Gym.
Or Drying rooms as we’ve lost our Chinese laundry men after the 97 handover
Good news! Hopefully they can make use of the the ‘quad-packing’ feature for a few of the cells to increase Sea Ceptor missile loud out, and the others for FC/ASW or whatever the T26 uses for its Mk41.
Sea Ceptor will have their own individual cells for a total of 48 a ship.
Quad-packing CAMM is a Waste of very expensive VLS cells at £millions for a set of
8. CAMM cells are cheap, in the order of £10k’s each! The CAMM is contained in it’s own canister which are put into a cell and connected up to the electronics.
I understand that the ExLS stand alone units (3 quad packable cells) is a lot cheaper (than mk41). They are built light & don’t have the overhead required for hot launch.
Out of interest does anyone know where they would likely fit the Mk 41s, as far as I can tell, they would need to be where the Seaceptor farm is in the present design and intrude into the area designated as one of the mission bays ?
I am not sure, but I think I saw an illustration of a small VLS where the forward 40 mm gun is. So you could swap the forward 40mm for a small VLS.
The design can take 4 sets of 8 cell mk41 where the current CAMM system is going without effecting mission bay or boat bays. There is plenty of room for both, depending on how many mk41 you intend to fit & how many CAMM. I don’t see them fitting more than 1 or 2 sets of mk41. If they wanted to, they could switch CAMM into ExLS stand alone 3 cell quad packable, in which case 2 sets (24 CAMM) would fit in less space than a single 8 cell mk41.
As John says below, Babcock have shown a VLS farm fitted in two positions. The first is where the forward 40mm is located. The second is behind the mast structure in front of the Sea Ceptor where the canister SSM are located on the DSEI 2021 model. They have also show that the Sea Ceptor “farm” can be located where the forward 40mm gun is located. To free up more space amidships
Do we need a 40mm forward when there is a 57mm on the bow? Maybe put Seaceptor VLS instead of the forward 40mm, then fit a decent size Mk41 midships?
Perhaps. Depending on the available funds, I think it would be better to replace the forward 40 with the 57, then put a 5” in the 57’s original position. I would go one stage further and replace the other 40 mounted on the hangar with another 57, but have it mounted on a pedestal magazine. Thereby making sure the ship has 360 degree coverage by the two 57s. If they need a smaller calibre gun, then depending on the strength of the steps either side of the hangar, put the two 40s on each step. Perhaps on a plinth that juts out a bit, thereby making sure the guns have a good arc of fire.
I would still keep the area amidships for the missile farms.
Then the T31 would be a proper gunboat….
The 40mm does not penetrate the deck, but the 57mm does, so not sure how you could put a 57 on the Hangar roof without the magazine underneath taking up much of the hanger.
BAe/Bofors have a non deck penetrating pedestal mount that the 57 sits on. This contains a dual feed magazine. From what I remember, the gun holds 120 ready rounds split between dual deeds and the pedestal magazine holds another 200. There haven’t been any navies that use the pedestal, as they all use the below deck magazine. But then they only have the one gun. The Zumwalt was I believe one of the few ships to have two 57s, but these were replaced by 30mm bushmasters for some reason?
So doable though their maybe stability issues having weight that high?
Let’s be honest, “For but not with” almost always means “For but never with”. The options are rarely exercised.
The even bigger gap at this point appears to be the apparent absence of any sonar capabilities. Wildcat itself provides no capability in that regard either since its torpedo drops would rely on ship sensor capabilities.
Amen
Is Artisan up to the job?
Not being used.
Thanks for the correction.
Increasing ‘lethality’ … right. So, how long will this and other ships, like big sparkly aircraft carriers last against a hypersonic missile?
I should imagine hypersonic missiles will make surface fleets obsolete surely?
To be honest the hypersonic missile is still only one part of the kill chain, they have weaknesses related to the kill chain like any other weapon and some weaknesses specific to themselves, they really light up where they are and where they have come from, terminal guidance is a massive challenge ( the missile can’t see anything itself ) as is any final course adjustments.
Hypersonic weapons are probably going to better on fixed targets, not sneaky boats and ships where finding,identification and tracking before the enemy can see you is more important ( what’s better the unseen missile travelling a sneaky 500mph course just above the ocean or the blindingly obvious 3000mph missile blazing across the sky at altitude.
What hypersonic missiles will do is make CIWs less relevant against them ( the kinetic energy becomes the killer and even bits of a missile hitting would be castrophic). But the best way of counting hypersonic weapons is not being found, soft kill or engaging the threat from distance.
Maybe in the not too distant future, Hypersonic missiles won’t even need to hit the ship. Just detonate it’s onboard nuke roughly in the vicinity, fleet gone, job done.
Or can hypersonic missiles not be fitted with nuclear warheads?
M@
Hi Matt, ICBM are Essentially hypersonic, at burn out an ICBM will be doing around Mach 23, your average MIRV is coming in to the atmosphere at 15,000mph, it then slows a bit due to air resistance. It’s why almost all Anti ballistic missile system is a bit of a joke when it comes to ICBMs ( whatever anyone may say, all the tests are against single re-entry vehicles, via a pre planned intercept).
If anyone fires a nuke at our sovereign territory which a warship is. They’ll do so in the knowledge that we can return the favour. Unless they have a death wish they won’t.
Hi Jonathan
I was thinking out loud to a degree, and looking forward a little. I was ‘impressed’ if that is the right way of putting it, with the images of the Martlet lightweight missile. It looks so … small!
With technology moving at such a pace, something that small or along those lines will be able to ‘take out’ ships in due course.
Not something lots of people would like to hear, especially the US with all the carriers that they have.
to be honest I takes surprisingly little to mission kill modern warships, even small warheads are capable of doing so, look at the case of USS Worden, this AAW cruiser was effectively mission killed by a pair of shrikes ( with 65kg fragmentation warheads), the ship lost power, had to return to port and took 10 days to repair.
The moment a hypersonic missile hits a carrier (or any ship), all hell breaks loose. No nation attacked in such a way would let it lie and would retaliate.
I assume you mean China or Russia here. If so, if they did attack in such a way then they had better be prepared for the horrible consequences.
Far from it, its just another threat to deal with. It will also depend if the ship is sailing on its own or is part of a task group that includes a carrier. The carrier is the ace in the pack. Not because of the fighters it carries but because of the organic AEW. Even if this is a Crowsnest equipped Merlin. It has the ability with its Searchwater 2000 radar to push out the horizon to 130nm (240km) when operating at its 15,000ft max operating altitude. For a hypersonic missile flying at 5m above sea level, this will be spotted at 155nm (287km) from the Merlin. Mach 5 = 1656.5m/s, therefore this missile will take around 173 seconds or 2 minutes and 53 seconds to reach the spot below the helicopter.
The Merlin is equipped with the Link 16 datalink which is quad stacked to improve its bandwidth. The radar data is fed to a T45. The T45 can launch a Aster 30 towards the targets predicted path, where through command guidance and positional updates via the Merlin, steers the Aster in front of the incoming threat. When it gets within a few miles of the target the Aster’s radar will search for and then track the threat and then steer towards it on its own. Where it will most likely directly strike the threat frontally and endex! Even if all the T45’s Asters have been expended and it has to rely on SeaCeptor. SeaCeptor has continually proven that its a “hittle” during testing. The closure speeds between the two missile will make sure they are both vaporised in the impact. Even with a passing target, both Aster and SeaCeptor can be guided to a predicted intercept path in front of the hypersonic missile, to make sure there is a very good chance of an engagement.
If the defensive missiles fail to intercept the incoming threat, the ship will fall back on its active and passive electronic countermeasure, in the form of active RF jammers, IR flares, chaff and deployable inflatable radar reflectors. The majority of anti-ship missiles carry an active radar. These are quite basic and have a relatively small field of view. They are easily deceived by chaff and decoys, especially if the ship turns to present a smaller radar profile. If a hypersonic missile is decoyed by a chaff cloud and passes through it. At the speeds it is travelling, it is highly unlikely that the radar will reacquire the ship! Besides which, the turning circle at those speeds are huge, making it easier for the ship to reengage it with its own missiles if required.
However, for a ship operating on its own, it will be at a severe disadvantage, as it has to rely on its own primary radar to not only search for the threat, but also to track it. This means the radar horizon is dictated by the height of the radar above sea level (ASL). Which therefore dictates when the threat is dictated and the ship’s response time. For a T45 with its Sampson mounted 40m above sea level. Its radar horizon is 14.08nm (26km) away. So the hypersonic missile example travelling at 5m ASL will be detected around 19nm (35.3km) away. Which means at Mach 5, it will hit the ship in just 21 seconds! The Air Warfare Officer will be going frantic launching missiles at the threat, whilst trying to coordinate countermeasure and possibly ordering the ship to turn away from the threat.
In this scenario a ship armed with SeaCeptor has an advantage. Due to its cold launch, then tip over towards the target. At close distances the missile does not use a ballistic path to the target, but a direct one. This means it can engage the threat almost to the point where the threat is touching the ship. Compare this to a ship armed with hot launch missile such as ESSM. As the missile follows a high ballistic path before descending on to the target. Therefore they have a pretty long minimum effective engagement range, hence why they are backed up with SeaRam/RIM-116, as it uses a point and shoot missile launcher.
Clearly, as the threat missile’s speed increases above Mach 5, the ship’s reaction/response time decreases and it will need to rely on more automation to not only complete the defensive engagement but also coordinate the active and passive countermeasures. There may be a solution to increasing the ship’s reaction and response times though, via a VTOL UAV. The most dangerous threat to a ship is still a sea skimming missile, due to the nature of it hiding behind the horizon and thereby reducing the ship’s reaction/response times. With a ballistic or even a high diving missile, the ship’s radar will detect them a very long way off, allowing more time to coordinate a response. The best method to counter the sea skimming missile is by placing a radar in an aircraft, that can fly several thousand feet above the ship. In so doing you will be able to engage the threat well beyond the ship’s natural horizon.
The only space I see shown on T31 renderings for a ‘vertical launch system’ are where the Sea Ceptor missiles appear to be being planned, midships. Does a VLS system replace the Sea Ceptor silo location and, in doing so, allow for both the operation of Sea Ceptor and whatever else the RN would choose to go in a Mk 41 or is it a separate set of adjacent silos or indeed silos in a completely different location? Next to the existing, planned location for SeaCeptor kind of implies Mission Bay space might be reduced? Canisters adjacent to the Sea Ceptor silos is a possibility, I guess, but then do Mk41s come in this configuration? Any thoughts?
Mk57 variant does if you are asking what I think you are.
Given the various configuration possibilities, I believe it’s possible to fit at least a Mk57 where the forward 40mm is on the current imagery of Type 31.
on the Iver H all the mk41 & mk56 vls cells go in the missile deck amidships. so in GP role with 12😠 sea ceptor they would have mission spaces, but when/if required remove deck plates etc drop in mk41 VLS into the STANFLEX area on Iver H to make escort frigate…….. i’m sure we have all discussed this once or twice!
With all due respect, does remind me of last week’s T31 article and the “gist” of my post thereon – which I thought innocuous enough, but ended up a wee bit of hard work.
Why are they called the inspiration class? I thought the lead ship ‘named’ the class, am I just a dumb ex
squaddie?
Its not one of the best warship class names. Maybe its because shooting a 57mm across the bows of a drug dealer/pirate boaty will inspire them to join a seminary and find god or something such like.
I think the idea is that it’s called the Inspiration class, as the individual ships are named after previous RN ships which could all be said to have been inspirational in their service 🤷♂️
Be grateful they’re not called the fluffy bunny I feel your pain class.
I would guess this comes from the desire to export them. Very few countries would want so lightly armed frigates, so having the design for more missiles and just leaving that part empty for the RN ones, means they can be sailed around the world as flashy sales brochures, at same time the MOD can say vague statements about future upgrades.
At least it leaves hope for the future.
I think you may have hit that nail directly on the head
The T45s have been fitted for but not with Mk41 for over a decade.
What a load of guff this from 1LS…
Radakin is not renowned for talking guff, though. Of course Ceptor is going in the T45 FFBNW void leaving the Silver silos exclusive for Viper 30, a significant overall anti-air upgrade.
Crikey.
Melt down on the site given the T31 comment history.
We all love a good T31 kit bashing session.
Or Rivers. I’m happy with both as is myself but there you go!
ha ha – good point D. I think the Rivers are fit for purpose as are. Folk forget what theses vessels were designed for and that they are not built to military specs , being closer to commercial specs.
Actually….a large part of the justification for the military price tag was the upgrading of design standards to meet Royal Navy damage control and bulkhead standards compared to earlier versions sold to overseas navies. It certainly isn’t a commercial price tag at ukp130m !
In the context of a discussion re T31 and B2 Rivers, I thought this was interesting. Rivers cheaper than the proposed EU OPV, T31 a bigger frigate for not much more.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/feindef/2021/11/03/amid-high-hopes-can-the-european-patrol-corvette-deliver/
yes. I agree. there is a couple of interesting issues in this.
I like the European approach that even the basic patrol version needs reasonable ability to defend itself against a variety of threats. Medium caliber gun and basic SAM load out. The baddies, if something bad were to happen wouldnt go…hey its only a patrol vessel with a 30mm…leave it alone. Would never advocate the RN OPV going out and pro-actively prosecuting violence against other military units but in far flung regions of the world strange things happen, Military units go rogue, Military coups take place and even drug smugglers are increasingly using higher tech solutions to conduct and defend their interests. I wouldn’t be surprised if certain criminal elements aren’t planning the increased use of drones in various forms.
In terms of size v cost. The European planning is coming several years behind the Batch II program…probably worth about 10-12% in comparative costs. Carbon Steel is currently about 40 % up on where it was 10 years ago but the cost and basic fabrication of Steel is relatively low in overall vessel cost terms. Currently carbon Steel is about $2k a MT and you would normally allow about same again for fabrication so a 3000 MT vessel would have about $12m of basic Fabricated Steel. Most of the cost is in the other fit-out elements and systems on top of design and engineering etc.
The batch II vessels have got great capacity and endurance, Wish they had a basic hanger but ho hum. I know I will be shot down by those who will scoff and say were trying to create battleships out of OPV’s but, nonetheless, I think the OPV’s would be better placed to deal with a wider spectrum of threats (including UAV;s) if they simply had a 40mm with smart munitions and had either a 30mm or 20mm offering redundancy / back-up.
Even having the OPV with a 40MM and say 20mm would probably allow their use, in an emergency, for tanker escort duties in the Gulf at times when T23 aren’t available.
Indeed Pete. The 40mm wasn’t in the fleet when the B2s were built, but that and a hangar would add greatly to the utility. Not sure what the costs would be though? Might get Martlet and a container with a drone instead?
Thanks for the correction Pete.
Apologies…Didn’t meant to come across as I did. get frustrated when some people defend their higher cost by quoting RN Standards and then those same people say they are simply a basic OPV to lesser standards and arent fit for potentially hostile tasking….unlike HMS Ocean
The River BII were of course originally meant to be fishery protection vessels…..but have significant endurance, capacity and capability. I do believe they are not far off being a highly highly versatile vessel for the navy at a time when hull numbers are an issue…but ho hum.
Come on Daniele, we all know the only way to manage the increased threat from pirates with AKs, drug dealers, families in dodgy dinghies and french fishing boats is with the Rivers getting increased lethality across all domains, AAW kit, heavyweight anti ship missiles, 5 inch gun for NGS and a tail if the families dive of the dingy and hide under water.
😆
Lol…. I’m loving reading all this on the train going to work… At least the T31s are happening and there’s space for an upgrade and up-roling the ship and to be followed by the T32. I hope the later also has same VLSs. As a side note, I’d like to hear on any upgrade to the carriers defensive armament. Anyone heard anything new .. since last week’s posts? Lol 😁 I’m not expecting any VLS there but it’s already FFBNW…..
Listen to the session in full – lots of juicy stuff – see my summary further down the thread. Radakin wants Mk 41 VLS and a hypersonic FCASW with 1,000km range on everything and will dump I-SSGM to get it.
Good man I say.
It’s almost as though he knows what he’s doing ! Army I can feel your pain.
Well about time. All our escorts need an interim AShM ASAP.
ARSE (Acronym response and alert service engagement) team message: you have been found guilty of using two Acronyms in a row. This is your final warning before SHITs (some heavily irritated typing sessions) will be engaged.
Lets play – Bullshit Bingo! Who comes up with the longest ACRONYM wins (but no prize)
FFBNWBSBPCNBATSMOTTDNWVAHWNSAC= Fitted for but not with because some bullshit politician could not be arsed to spend money on things that do not win votes as he will not suffer any consequences.
GST = Great start Jonathan!
Thought that was a station in Anglesey.
No if you pronounce that acronym you produce far less spit than if you say that station name.
Ha! Yes! It’s the Gwwwch sounds. Any Welsh on the site?
So what’s the Displacement of Type 31 guys ?
Wiki quotes 5700 t vs 6645 t of the Iver Huitfeld class Frigates from which the design is derived.
Cheers Paul 👍
Thats standard vs full load displacement though. Iver’s standard displacement is a bit higher at about 6000t but both designs have similar full load figures of 6600-6700 metric tonnes.
Wiki don’t quote Full Load Displacement,only short and long tons,neither do Babcocks so the specifics are not easy to find.
Wiki is never a reliable source. Babcock and UK in general tend to only quote standard displacement, not FL which is the norm in the rest of the world. All figures are in metric tonnes though, not short/long/imperial etc. Only the yanks still use short tonnes.
While a specific FL displacement figure for T31 isnt easy to come by, at least in open sources, it IS pretty easy to make an educated and fairly accurate “guess”.
T31 has exactly the same dimensions as IH and only minor changes to its superstructure, just as the propulsion package is the same. Ipso facto it must have more or less the same FL displacement as its danish parent design.
whilst this is a promising development, I think a bow sonar is a must have for a GP frigate.
Listening to Radakin and the new procurement philosophy, I suspect they may get something eventually.
fingers crossed James
I wonder if he reads this ukdj website for any ideas and all our wonderful feedback?
I listened to the Defence Committee session in full. What Radakin said was very interesting. He said a ‘debate’ was underway, which is why I-SSGW has been paused, that says, do we buy a relatively short-ranged I-SSGW with limited land attack capability for £250M for 5 sets with an earliest delivery date of 2027, or do we go all in for FCASW, which (he said) is hypersonic with 1,000km range and dual anti-ship and land attack capability.
Part of the ‘debate’ is should we get.Mk 41 VLS on both Type 31 and Type 32 – this would be the alternative to I-SSGM. For my money a better use of £250 million.
He clarified that there are two options for FCASW, one is simpler but not hypersonic and can be available in the late 2020s, and another is hypersonic and can be available in early 2030s. He also said part of the ‘debate’ is whether to go with France on FCASW or (as a back up), go with the USA.
Also on Type 32 he was very candid. The first idea was a Type 31 Batch 2, but then they decided to widen the scope, to enable a ship which could be upgraded as its designed and built – i.e with a lot of modular plug and play capabiity. Radakin said it could still be ‘Type 31 Batch 2’ but it may not be.
Other great snippets included the rapid procurement of some commercial vessels as interim motherships for the autonomus mine countermeasures systems, but the longer term plan is to use purpose built vessels, and they are looking at whether MRSS can do this. MRSS was also mentioned as a key vessel for the PODS system.
On Argus he said they were looking at how to replace the PCRC capability. Three possibilites, interim and long term.
Jeremy Quinn said Type 83 would be somewhat more ‘exquisite’ than Type 32. Radakin said by 2024 RN will be able to deploy 24 UK F-35 on a carrier. There will be more than 48 F-35. Looking at how to generate 2 carrier air wings, using a mix of F-35 and drones.
Lots of other stuff. Welll worth listening to.https://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e1739ceb-7964-48e0-b7db-ef7846748bc6
Thank you for that heart warming summary of someone able to express what we all want and hope for as well as having a coherent strategic vision.
You’re welcome!:
If they put the mk 41Vls on the T45s, could they then move the Ceptors to between the Asters and the bridge?
And just buy more interims to cover a larger pool of T45s and T23s when required.
I don’t think there is any space under there, the void is where the Sea Ceptors are going (currently used as a gym).
There is still space for 2 x quad canister missiles where the Harpoon are/were.
So +8 heavy something would bring T45 into the very heavy hitting league.
That can be done fast as it doesn’t involve much structural work.
Sorry to whinge on this, but it seems like too much faffing around on ASM/LAMs. Surely some greater capability than what we have at present is needed nowish? Get some of the best we can afford for now and update with later later. But always good to hear everyone’s views here and the RN is on the way up. Hope the RAF and Army get some of the same uplift.
RAF maybe. Army I don’t think the people in charge even think they have a problem !
No! A lot of box like structure under there.
Looking forward to absorbing this tomorrow. Thanks.
Surprised nobody’s yet bemoaned the fact they still lack 16” triple gun turrets for NGS and Jutland style battles…
Give it a chance!
Hey, Daniele, I think these should have 20″ guns in quad turrets…
😆 . It would sink!
But people have been asking for an increase in the submarine fleet! 😏
😂
Oh, the power and the glory…. Lol…imagine being on the receiving end of that lot!
Umm I’m going to be a pedant and point out that the most powerful ships at jutland were the Elizabeth’s which had duel Mk1 15 inch turrets. We ( the U.K. only ever had 2 ships with 16inch Triple turrets ( Nelson and Rodney).
anyhows I’m sure we could find a few old gun turrets from a bygone age and stick em on a new ship. We did it before with the 10th HMS vanguard which carted around guns that fired in anger during WW1 until 1960.
There are a couple of 15 inch guns outside the Imperial War Museum !
Our capital ships now have 21 inch torpedo tubes as guns, to fire 7m in length at 2 tons each torpedoes(Shells)!
i like the names HMS Rodney and Nelson, maybe for the T83 class?
From what I have read the King George V class were designed so that they could be later upgraded with either triple 15″ or 16″ turrets. The 14s were only there to abide with the London Naval Treaty. The 16″ were to be an evolutionary design of the Nelson’s 16″ BL Mk1, being able to fire a heavier shell and were also going to be used on the Lion class. Events however over ran the requirement. The Lion class were stopped as was the new 16″ gun and turret. Instead the production and focus was changed to corvettes, destroyers, cruisers and carriers.
As it turned out after the teething issues were sorted, the 14s actually proved to be very accurate and had very good armour piercing capabilities. The smaller HE shell was not as good as the WW1 era 15″, but had a similar range and a much smaller spread.
The Vanguard was also designed to be capable of taking a triple 16″ turret. But again events had overtaken the requirement. As aircraft had been proven to be more flexible, longer ranged and accurate. So she ended up with WW1 15″ leftovers.
The RN are running rings around the other services when it comes to procurement, especially the Army. So they say we need more cheap hulls then, once built, they say but we can’t use them unless you ‘up gun’ them. Then they get the frigates they wanted all along.
I bet the T31s end up with 32 Sea Ceptors and 8 anti-ship missiles.
Clever boys (oh and girls). Probably why the Navy got the CGS job.
RN got to actually order the 5 new frigates at a sensible price.
Army would have spent more than T31 cost on a prototype that would have been defective. Oh, wait sorry army actually did that didn’t they. Doh SB keep up with the times.
So whilst some may bemoan T31 specs they will
a) soon actually exist; and
b) be big hulls; and
c) be very upgradable
Radakin said something good about procurement too. Type 31 has been procured in a different way – they have not made all the decisions about equipment or even design before build started, instead they allow those decisions to be made as late as possible to take advantage of new technologies and strategic needs as they emerge.
He said 40 years ago they would have got 5 companies in a room (the only ones who could deliver), had a chat about the requirement and then ordered. The procurement process was much less bureacratic.
These days the whole process takes forever as the systems are more complex and there is much more competition and/or need for multiple companies to engage in bids (he cited how long it took to get Type 26)..
The new method is to agree a basic design with lots of development potential and modularity, then order it, but then make as many other decisions about weapons fit and sensors and so on as close as possible to delivery dates to ensure they are up to date and aligned with strategic needs. I assume this is why we don’t know everything about Type 31, as some it yet to be decided.
Type 31 is as designed ‘fitted for but not with’ Type 41 VLS, which is why they can have this debate even as the ships are building. Quinn also said Babcock had met every milestone and were cracking ahead.
For my two pence, the T31 “no tamper” contract has to be the way to go forward.
It is what will deliver 5 ships on time and budget.
AS to the “extra” armaments, I assume these will have then to be fitted after completion of the vessels…assuming the spec we all think we know actually IS the agreed spec?
Spot on
Hmm, sounds like the 1SL isn’t keen on pumping £250 million or more into an interim I-SSGW. Accepting a gap and betting big on FC/ASW to provide a modern and comprehensive capability is an attractive proposition. A modest spend on adding MK41 to T31 and sharing stocks with T26 could be great but the health of the working relationship with France should be a concern and what is the alternative aside from buying American yet again?
As you said Mk41 on T31 makes sense given the T26 will also have it ( and I presume the Aussie Hunter class too). It will also give an alternative to procure US weapons if the Euro ones ( and yes France is a pain) don’t come to fruitition ( and could be a signal to MBDA that get it right or UK will by US systems).
UK could partner will the US under the agreement that all UK purchased missiles are built by MBDA in the UK. I have doubts about the ability to deliver a hypersonic cruise missile on budget and schedule. Having US development money helps alot.
Radakin mentioned potential collaboration with the US on a hypersonic missile as back up. Jeremy Quin make a quick caveat that working with France was still the core intention – but seems like we are looking at an American joint programme as fall-back.
The RN are really proving the point that the enemy of improvement is perfection. With the T31 being the shining example of this. Instead of holding out for 13 type 26s and ending up with two few hulls, they dropped their issue with a two tear fleet, got on and a accepted compromise in immediate weapons fit, while still getting big modern hulls which they are now chipping away to improve. It will not surprise me if by not holding out for perfection ( 5 GP T26s) they don’t just end up with more hulls that are actually just as good as general purpose escorts.
The compromise in having a two tier Escort Fleet was borne out of fiscal restraints imposed by HM Treasury – given the choice im sure the RN would still prefer the 5 GP Type 26’s.
I’m sure they would but instead of simply bemoaning the reduction in ships they improvised, getting an agreement from HMG to keep the same number of ships but produce 5 far cheaper ones, which are then later being up-gunned and made into what is almost as good as, if not as good, as the GP Type 26s anyway.
Agree,the RN were put in a position where they had to make the best of the Funding that was available to them,and hopefully when they enter service they will prove to be very useful,but if they ever find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time their vulnerablity to Sub-Surface threats could be their achilles heel.In that regard they will not be almost as good or as good as a GP Type 26.
I imagine though that they will either be operating in environments where the risk of that is almost negligible, as part of GP anti piracy or anti drugs etc patrols, or as part of a carrier strike group which has Type 26s and Type 45s, that do have sonar, plus Astutes.
No! They would still cost near as much but with much less capability.
Just more babble from a MOD statement
Nonsense. You should listen to what Radakin said; man talks a lot of sense and actually seems like he knows what he’s doing.
Parlimentary enquiry – they can go to jail for not telling the truth, in theory.
Shame the true is always so gray they can pretty much say what they like and get away with it. obi wan said it best :
“you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” / “The truth is often what we make of it; you heard what you wanted to hear, believed what you wanted to believe.” …
pretty profound stuff from a film with spaceships going pew pew…
The RN certainly seem to know their way around Whitehall!!
Or Whitehall are learning their way around MoD. Sound of pennies dropping maybe.
Smart thinking: hope it happens. Might suggest that the spec for the interim AShM is eased a bit. If we drop the ‘terrain following’ land attack requirement we could make do with a cheap and fast upgrade to Harpoon II.
Why hasn’t there been a Harpoon III developed with a land attack ability if it’s a requirement?
There is but Harpoon is subsonic and quite short ranged – should we invest in yesteday’s tech or tomorrow’s? China is not investing in yesterday.
We are currently on Harpoon I of course, which will shortly be beyond its ‘use by’ date. The motor needs refurbishing I think. My understanding is that it would in any case be easily spoofed or intercepted. I think the Australians bought a ‘cheap’ upgrade kit to convert their Harpoon Is into IIs. The upgrade gives it a service and a seeker with a smarter radar for AShM work and a GPS capability for land strike of at least littoral targets. The next most expensive option would be a missile with more seeker options: infra red and AI target recognition for example. But as James points out these are all evolutions of existing ‘Exocet’ generation technology. Wouldn’t we be better leap frogging to tomorrows technology?
So I think the Admiral’s statements are a bit unclear, but he’s surely saying that T31 may, in the future, get FC/ASW. He’s not saying that they’ll be fitted with the interrim AShM, because that’s a cannister launched system rather than VLS.
What he must be suggesting is that some T31s may get Mk41 VLS sometime in the very late 2020s or 2030s, when FC/ASW comes into service. It’s unlikely to be many, either, seeing as most NATO warships only carry 8-16 surface warfare missiles.
I think that’s the final signal that we’re switching from the Sylver system to Mk41 too, to my disappointment (waiting for a comment from you, @GHF! 😋). If we’re fitting it to T26, and FFBNW to T31 specifically for FC/ASW, then T83 is pretty unlikely to get fitted out with Sylver. Unless they mix and match Sylver and Mk41 as was mooted for T45. I can’t imagine we’d step away from Sea Viper and whatever comes next though, so I guess Aster will get integrated into Mk41 at some point.
Hi Joe, I wasn’t going to comment on these threads but since you called 😉
Sylver does pretty much tie the UK to European missiles and their rate of development. While theoretically it would seem possible to qualify US missiles in Sylver, it would probably be at extortionate cost, since the RN would probably be the only customer for the capability and so have to bear all the costs.
One advantage of Mk41 is that the RN could have a fast track to a hypersonic missile in the form of SM-6 Block 1B. The current SM-6 is not what Radikin described as it lacks the range he detailed, but the Block 1B would seem likely to provide that range. SM-6 would also provide an ABM and general AAW capability and in a CSG context it would be additive to current Aster 30, launching from T26 and using the T45 to provide targeting. SM-6 is also being adopted by the US Army for use against ground targets, so there might be synergy with enhancing British Army long range fires, which the UK has already signed agreements on with the US, expressing our interest. While I think it unlikely, the UK could also acquire SM-3.
Aster 30 integration into Mk41 would seem to make sense for both MBDA and the RN, and I’ve suggested it in the past, but I’m not so sure anymore when looking at the timelines. The development of SM-2MR Block IIIC with active seeker might make more sense as a choice for the RN; especially by the late-2030’s, early 2040’s when IIRC the current UK stocks of Aster 30 may be at end of life (Euro inv UK stocks of Aster 30 will be going through a mid-life refurb from 2023 to 2036). Switching to SM-2 IIIC would provide inventory commonality with US, Oz, Canada, and probably all the European Mk41 users such as Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and Spain; also other important countries such as Japan and RoK.
Just my 2c.
In the context of a discussion re T31, I thought this was interesting. Rivers cheaper than the proposed EU Corvette (‘patrol version’), T31 a bigger frigate for not much more (than the ‘combat’ version).
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/feindef/2021/11/03/amid-high-hopes-can-the-european-patrol-corvette-deliver/
To summarize: the RN has ordered 5 of the weakest class of frigate since frigates were re-introduced at the end of WW2, the type 31s. Armed with 3 small guns and a dozen small missiles, it’s described as being for flag waving and constabulary duties and to enable exports.
The RN plan is to order another class of the same with a different name: the type 32s. Their primary purpose is to increase the number of frigates as promised by recent prime ministers.
The FSL says he’s looking forward to the debate of whether to increase the type 31/32’s capability. Or not. No time frame mentioned.
UKDJ goes crazy with excitement.
Meanwhile Australia proceeds with building 9 improved type 26’s, Canada up to 15 and the US intends to build 20+ Constellation’s.
Negativity for the sake of it in the comments section – what a surprise!
I have just watched the Defence Select Committee meeting with Radakin and Jeremy Quinn. It is the first time I have listen to one of these in its entirety. I have to say I am very hopeful for the future of the RN and the armed forces as a whole with Radakin at the helm.
Yes we would all like things to move faster but we have a limited budget and are making it work for the RN at last. Just need a coherent plan for the army now!
The advantage of fitted for but not with is if you never go to war in the lifetime of the ship you’ve saved a lot of cash.
If things start getting dicey you can fit them then.
The 45s, 26s and carriers are there ready to fight, 31s can either stay out of it or be crash fitted if needed.
But let’s face it, the 31s are for chasing pirate dows, which is a waste of time and money sending 45s or 26s.
We build these to leave the fancy, tooth’d ships for watching the Pacific.
I’m not sure why the RN just doesn’t do a Tomahawk Block V/Va purchase and shift I-SSGW funds into those?
Then you’ll actually have something to put into the Mk.41’s on T26 (and T31 if they ever gain Mk.41 that is) and you’ll have interim anti-ship and land attack covered off with one missile type, plus additional top-up rounds for the Astutes, should you need them…
Win-win, no?
fitted for but not with should have part of the tendering of the contract proposals.the Admiraly/m.o.d messed arround with the specs of these ships for so long it was embarrassing. fitted for but not with? why bother anyay.?
What are you talking about? Nobody “messed around with the specs”. The Type 31 competition and subsequent contract was performed in record time.
Ahhh, fitted for but not with. The standard configuration of seemingly every military platform these days…
So how many Mark 41 VLS will be added?
This is excellent and I think every ship in the u.k carrier group should have it fitted th group has the lethal f35 and tomahawks plus the seaviper fitting it to all the vessels would largely enhance the potential of the group.
Will it fitfit Onto the batch2 river corvette?
i’d hope that given the price and technological adancesin the t 31 design that. ultimately the RN will get more than five of the class.
fitted for but not with is a disgraceful policy.