British destroyer returns to sea for first time since 2019

The question now is, how much of a particular type of weapon to put on each ship? The risk of taking a hit needs to be weighed with defending against every eventuality.

Explosives are safe until you forget that their dangerous, something the Russian navy doesn’t adhere too when they Design those all singing and dancing weapon heavy ships cram as much as possible at the expense of survivability if hit

It is a waste to fit CAMM to a hot launch system like mk41 or Sylver. You would do better to use the 3 cell ExLS or MBDA’s new system. Cheaper & lighter. Use the mk41 for what it was designed for – hot launch ESSM & bigger. The only missile that comes close is CAMM-ER, which is slightly outranged by ESSM (but generally regarded as in the same class).

Surely there’s a difference between selling new, and selling secondhand.

And France needed to buy the Greek business.

Do you know whether the Royale were happy about it?

France (and Italy) sold their brand-new frigates to enforce their ship-building industry and international politics. They have their aim. We all know Italian and French ship-building industries (both design and building) are performing far better in export world than UKs. UK is now good at DESIGN export business, but build export is limited to a single missile boat planned for Ukraina. Build and design supports different workforces).

I’m just proposing to sell some T31, to realize my proposal; to improve weapon fitout of RN’s top-tier assets (T45 and T26), by getting resource by reducing T31 hull number.

Just one proposal.

Reducing the Hull number of Type 31 makes maintaining,sourcing spares and even training crew more costly.. small bespoke numbers multiplies problems.
By the time your upgrade proposals were purchased, the engineering and refit cycles sorted out the Type 45 would be close to its retirement date which will be mid to late 2030s anyway.
Meanwhile the 6 plus 8 top tier would be worked even harder to cover missions that the deleted Type 31 should be doing.

“Meanwhile the 6 plus 8 top tier would be worked even harder to cover missions that the deleted Type 31 should be doing.”

I am talking about up-arming T45 and T26, ADDING their capability, in place of losing 2 T31. It means, RN will lose the capability which were to be provided by the 2 T31s.

Reducing hull numbers puts up costs, we saw that with the T45 and the USN suffered it disastrously when they cut the number of Zumwalts which then made the price of each shell for their guns too expensive to buy.

Reducing hull number puts up “average” costs, on both build and maintenance, but reduced “total” cost of the program. This is what happened to T45.

By selling 2 T31, build cost does not change. By co-operating 3 plus 2 T31 with the navy they are exported, maintenance cost can be setteled. However, surely maintenance cost in RN will rise a little, I agree.

But, it will reduce the total cost and required man-power, which is very much needed to make T45 and T26 capable of confronting tier-1 threats.

This is the heart of my proposal.

And average cost is what killed the munitions for the Zumwalts guns after they reduced the number of hulls.

There would also be no buyers.
Any nation that could afford them would want them built in their country to develop their ship building skills.
That’s why we’ve seen sales of the T31 design to foreign nations, but not hulls.

I do understand your point.

But, this proposal is NOT to make RN weak, but to gain money and man-power to up-arm T45/T26. And anyway this is just an proposal.

• As I stated, there are still 5 T31. Just only 3 of them is in RN, in this proposal.
• Note that there are ONLY 3 Iver Huiltfeldt class, 3 SACHSEN class, only 2 plus 2 Horizon DDG each in Frecn/Italy.
• French and Italy found export sales of their FREMM, why not UK? But I do agree it will not be easy.

If it doesn’t work, we need to find more money AND man-power to up-arm T45 and T26, because they lack some critical capability (like BMD defense) or significantly short of its radar capability (T26 only has Artisan 3D radar).

What’s makes you think these vessels are under-manned? The RN approach is to automate where possible to reducing manning requirements. Not only does it means less lives put in harms way but lower OPEX cost year on year.

Again don’t see you point. We should do something because other navies have done something? Maybe they thought that was all they needed to build. But the 5 T31s are meant to replace the 5 T23 GP frigates.

There’ll be dozens of T26s too if you count the Aussie and Canadian vessels, your point? If it’s to keep shipyards busy there’s plenty already for that, in fact they’re the bottleneck at the moment.

Probably because we’re not so inclined as the French and Italians to give bribes to foreign officials and politicians.

Given the upgrades we’ve signed up to for the Asters on the T45, it would be highly surprising if they don’t come with BMD be default.

Again, I am proposing this only to up-arm T45 and T26.

Why I think RN lack crew is,

• RN is forced to place HMS Echo in reserve-sate
• not to forget HMS Bulwark in extended readiness
• even RFA needs to put both Waves in extended readiness.

Even so, now only 12 escorts are manned. Clearly RN lacks man-power.

And, even with such a shortfall of man-power = reduced man-power cost,

• RN is even not wanting to pay for £200M small money for I-SSGW even though the first few missile of FC/ASW may come in on 2027 (and 99% possibly a few years later)
• no hull sonar on T31, not yet Aster 30 blk1 NT on T45, no CAMM on CV

So RN lacks money, as well. That’s it. How to enable BMD, improve T26 radar, add punch on RN escorts? One solution is to accept reduced hull number. This is my sole point.

Ok so you mean the RN needs more manpower, not that the T45 and T26 need to carry more sailors.

• The RN isn’t funding an interim surface-to-surface as Radakin said it’s not a worthwhile spending of money given how long it would take to get them operational.
• There’s not going to be Sea Ceptor on the carriers due to the FOD risk, that’s why it was never planned.
• The decision has been made on Aster 30 upgrade on T45, but even with the money allocated, you can’t just make it happen by snapping your figures. As it is, it sounds like they are going for something better than B1NT

If you have the hulls, then can be up-armed over time, such as Sea Ceptor on the T45 or the FFBNW Type 41 VLS on the Type 31. We’ve also seen the RN do fast uparming when the urgent operational need has arisen. You don’t have these options without the hulls in the first place.

The RN needs more money, but cutting hull numbers isn’t the answer. Making more intelligent use of the hulls is better. So perhaps instead of dedicated mine-hunting, ocean-survey, etc, etc vessels we have T31/T32 frigates which then have the required capability added and removed as needed. Hence the investment in autonomous systems and the PODS concept.

Adding capability to T45 and T26, and (remaining) T31 do need man-power for sure. And, what is needed there is “skilled” man-power, not new comer. That is what RN is in short of now.

Up-arming escorts without additional crew is impossible. Adding BMD and CAMM and re-introducing ASM on T45, filling T26 Mk41 VLS, all needs good amount of skilled man-power, in addition to the money. At least 40-50, or even ~100, in total. Meanwhile, RN is already short of 72 crew to man HMS Echo.

“The RN isn’t funding an interim surface-to-surface as Radakin said it’s not a worthwhile spending of money given how long it would take to get them operational.”

I do not believe it. There are plenty of examples with shorter introduction time scale. Also there are plenty of historical example the brand-new FC/ASW will be delayed for a few years. Also, FC/ASW is clearly a high-end missile, and surely be deadly expensive. Like NSM vs LRASM in USN, there are almost no overlap between NSM and FC/ASW. In short, I-SSGW has a good place to live, but they just lack that money.

“No CAMM on CV for FOD”

Ask French navy. Also, SeaRAM does have FOD (clearly visible in its movie), but commonly used on USN CV and LHDs, Japanese DDH, and other carriers. It’s just a matter of how to locate the launcher, on which CAMM has a flexibility. Of course, CAMM on CV is the last layer of defense, among the “layered AAW defense”. Why bother FOD when hyper-sonic missile is reaching?

“…we have T31/T32 frigates which then have the required capability added and removed as needed. Hence the investment in autonomous systems and the PODS concept.”

No objection it is a promising way to go. But, the idea requires good amount of very-very skilled man-power, to cover many tasks. Doing all (uparming T45/T26 and T31/T32) is very difficult, I think.

What I am afraid is, after 5 T31 and 5 T32 come in, RN will be putting some of them into extended readiness, just because of lack of skilled man-power. This is actually what happened to, and still happening to RN, now.

Not necessarily, it’s all depends what’s added, the degree of automation, and if onboard skills are required can they be handled by existing crewmen with overloading their workload.

Echo currently doesn’t need a crew, but the RN needs people with their experience to work in planning her replacement, which is where they’ve been assigned to.

Great, let’s have even more crew on the carriers to do more FOD inspections because we have installed stuff that causes it. The best air defence of the carrier is its fighters, but you’d be reducing availability because we’d do more inspections.
There’s a reason why we have AAW destroyers with the carriers. I’m surprised you don’t want the carriers to have towed arrays and anti-submarine missiles, or anti-ship missiles either. Maybe it should do NGS support to, so add some 16” gun turrets too.
(And let’s not mention the concerns from the air-wing over the carrier’s air-defence missiles locking onto them by mistake.)

Uparming is only difficult in;
• knowing the optimal up-arming required because you can’t stick everything onboard and you don’t want to waste money with unnecessary duplication
• choosing the solution that can be delivered fully functioning and integrated with existing systems and ideally not add too much to the logistics chain
• money to fund
• crew if needed.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the whole of Britain is undermanned – well maybe not local government and civil service. Everywhere has problems recruiting the staff they need at the moment, it’s not just the RN or the Army that are under strength.

Thanks.

“Not necessarily, it’s all depends what’s added, the degree of automation, and if onboard skills are required can they be handled by existing crewmen with overloading their workload.”

How can a T45 be added with BMD without increased crew? BMD needs very wide-range situational awareness with good amount of network. It also needs dedicated consoles added in CIC, maintenance and logistic chains.

For example, we all know T23 crew has been increasing. It was said because of added capability (new sonar, new CMS, higher situational awareness, better communication network, etc). The same happens to many escorts world wide.

Are there any example added capability (not replacing it) without adding crew? I see none, sorry…

Just to interject a couple of observations here.

“And, what is needed there is “skilled” man-power, not new comer. That is what RN is in short of now.”

True. But that doesn’t mean those same skilled shortages will exist in 5, 10 or 15 years time. There is a time of implementation element here. The RN has seen major increase in recruitment in the last two years and that will lead to increased skilled crew in future, providing the RN works on retention as well.

“Also, FC/ASW is clearly a high-end missile, and surely be deadly expensive. Like NSM vs LRASM in USN, there are almost no overlap between NSM and FC/ASW.”

The FC/ASW program is currently two missiles. A sub-sonic, low observable, long range solution and a supersonic version. The sub-sonic version might be a spiral development out of Storm Shadow/Scalp and the recnt SPEAR Capability 4 introduction in January, which would explain the relatively aggressive 2028 IOC for ship launch and 2030 for Typhoon air launch.

It doesn’t make financial sense to have multiple different ASM missiles that drive increased costs to support both in service. Also to note that LRASM is not qualified for surface (canister or VLS) launch by the USN, or anyone else that I’ve seen.

Numbers matter. A ship can only be in one place at a time. It’s like the argument as to if it is to better to have 40 soldiers with 100 rounds each, or 20 soldiers with 200 rounds or 10 soldiers with 400 rounds. To add to the straight maths, the soldiers with only 100 rounds each are much less likely to blaze away on full auto, than the 10 with 400 rounds each. There is still a total of 4,000 rounds, but the potential outcomes are not the same.

Exactly, that’s why I don’t think hulls should be cut.
I think you should be directing your comment to Donald.

Uhmm, not sure what you mean. At least, your comment has not much to do with my proposal.

• 17 ships fully equipped vs 19 ships with many capability gaps.
• 17 ships among which 12 is fully manned, vs 19 ship with only 13 fully manned (assuming 5-10% less crew thanks to many FFBNW)

As a result, 17-ship fleet will provide 12 active well-equipped ships, while 19-ship fleet with 13 active many-FFBNW ships.

I’m just proposing the former is better.

Reading between the lines, I don’t think the RN wants to commit to either more Sylver cells or Mk41 for T45. In part that’s because of the relatively short life before the T45s start going out of service in the late 2030’s. Also the possibility that integration costs including software development will have to be repeated for T26 and T43, unless it can be heavily leveraged from T45.

It also seems like the RN wants to commit to Mk41 rather than Sylver for the future for a couple of reasons. The US is likely to develop and fund more advanced missiles earlier than MBDA will, SM-6 and SM-3 being two current examples. Thus more options for the UK. Also there is a much larger world market for advanced Mk41 missiles, including many European nations, so potentially increased WW sales may help manage, or even reduce costs, for the UK.

Regarding ASROC and other usage options for the lightweight torpedo. The OSD for Sting Ray kills any program to do anything more with them, it would be a waste of resources. Whether we go for a VLA option for the new lightweight torpedo probably depends on what it looks like in terms of size and mass.

What I mean by that is that improvements in explosives and changing doctrine may enable a smaller, lower mass, shorter range torpedo, say something the size of SeaSpider. The goal might be to deliver similar or greater explosive effect, but to do so from a launch point closer to the submarine using P8 with glide kits, Merlin, Wildcat or future unmanned fixed- and rotary wing assets or even with VLA, achieving greater range due to its lower mass. Any waist launched use would be more likely to be as an anti-torpedo torpedo, because lightweight torpedoes just don’t have the range from a ship to effectively threaten a submarine at its likely launch range for a heavyweight torpedo.

The Royal Navy recently said it intended to fit mark 41 to more future vessels as well as current ones, which I took to mean T31 and T45 given no other current ship can take mark 41 and I was proposing that strike length sylver is fitted instead. My issue with going American is the UK retains the ability to nationally build warships, missiles and aircraft, (Tempest is a UK run programme) and when you lose these capabilities, for example vehicles, you end up with programmes like Ajax as no government will want to fully commit to US equipment made in the US as it will look bad on them but once this capability is lost it is extremely hard to build back up. (F35 is different as we have special status).

The possible fitting of Mk41 was in the context of T31 –
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/royal-navy-looking-to-increase-lethality-of-type-31-frigates/

I am all for the UK investing in its own military equipment development, but it has to be done wisely, financially prudently and where we can add value and/or maintain a strategically and economically important capability such as Tempest.

For example, re-inventing SM-3 for our relatively small demand would be insane. Worth bearing in mind the UK has no content in Aster (Eurosams French/Italian project) or Sylver (French) either, although we are part of PAAMS with the Sampson radar and the command and control system.

Aster 30 block 2 BMD is being developed by the French anyway, and will share parts with aster 30 already in service.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-45-destroyers-may-be-fitted-with-mk4-vls/

The most important parts of this are:
“We are seeking to increase the number of ships fitted with Mk 41 launchers beyond the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive capabilities.”
And,
“Work is ongoing to explore a range of options to meet the RN’s Future Offensive Surface
Weapon (FOSuW) requirement to replace Harpoon which goes out of service in 2023.
This includes the potential fitting of Mk 41 launchers beyond those already planned
for the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide
commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory
of maritime offensive capabilities.”

The RN considering Mk41 for T45 is prudent insurance in case FC/ASW doesn’t deliver and if they need something like SM-6 Blk 1B and Aster 30 block 2 BMD is not available or viable. Or because the US produces a new compelling weapon that the RN considers necessary.

Installing Mk41 means the RN either need to pull out the newly installed Sea Ceptor cells, or implement only on the T45’s that are later in the Sea Ceptor upgrade path.

But FC/ASW is being fitted for mark 41 anyway. Sea ceptor can be installed in other places.

FC/ASW is being designed for both Mk41 and Sylver. The question is whether it needs strike length 7m cells like Scalp or can it fit in the shorter 5m Sylver 50 cells on T45. There’s a good argument for FC/ASW to be a shorter weapon, so it can also fit more easily into weapons bays on Tempest/FCAS and thus be short enough with its booster to fit in Sylver 50.

“Worth bearing in mind the UK has no content in Aster (Eurosams French/Italian project) “

That is a very bold statement!!

If you look carefully you might find that a few UK projects were folded into this!

“Bold” – Perhaps but Aster was test flying before the UK joined Eurosams in 1996, so is there any UK hardware or IP in Aster? I haven’t found anything suggesting it.

We get some involvement with the Blk 1 update but I’m not seeing any mention of anything significant. Happy to change my opinion if you have any sources that suggest otherwise?

Just to be clear, I’d like to see Europe with a strong missile/weapons capability, independent of the US. Not least because Europe is often demonstrating more innovation and game changing capability. I think MBDA should have put effort into qualifying Aster for Mk41.

“ I think MBDA should have put effort into qualifying Aster for Mk41.”

French + Collaboration = ……

“French + Collaboration = ……” I was thinking less about doing it because the UK might want it and more because it would open up wider exports for Aster … but that would mean less reason for Sylver so …

Agree that it’s important to retain sovereign industrial base, qualifying things like FC/ASW for Mk41 (and especially if also with TACTICOS as mooted on T31) opens up a much larger international market for the missile which supports UK industry and potentially reduces unit costs for RN due to larger production volume. Then there is also the possibility to do the same with a VL SPEAR3, CAMM and maybe others.

The late 30s OSD for the T45s is still a good 10-15 years away which is pretty substantial. The slots for the MK41s are already there. TLAMs v5, LSRAM, upgraded UK Asroc with the newer light weight torpedos would be very useful. The could also put a ExLS with 24 Camm in one of the slots as shown on one of the BMT Venator vessel concepts. Or as said before try for side silos for CAMM. Time, money is short and resources should be sensibly maximised. As everyone here is suggesting, there’s a great opportunity to give these T45s more than just 24 CAMM which can all be recycled onto future T31/32/83 ships. Let’s hope for the best for T45 v2.0.

You’re correct of course that OSD for T45 is 10-15 years away from today, but how far away will it be from when Mk41 is installed and we have the first missile integrated and qualified? That’s why I referenced the timelines for PiP and Sea Ceptor integration in my original response to Donald, because Mk41 integration on T45 wouldn’t be any faster and might well be slower, resulting in poor ROI for its short life.

Your selection of Tomahawk, LRASM and upgraded ASROC are popular so let’s consider them.

Tomahawk has been upgraded but is not a low observable platform so effective use against modern warships/sensor systems may be more challenging. The US will continue to use it with the latest Block V 15-year life extension because they have thousands in inventory so the upgrades make sense for them. Probably not much beyond that, at least for ASuW, because they plan late decade introduction of the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 missile. Tomahawk doesn’t make sense for the UK as a new ASuW missile adoption for the surface fleet. Especially because we will probably be able to qualify FC/ASW in a very similar time-frame. Whether Tomahawk makes sense for long range land attack may be more debatable, but it is not an urgent critical capability requirement.

LRASM hasn’t been qualified by any navy for surface ship launch from canister or VLS. Makes no sense for the UK to pay for integration into MK41. And again it wouldn’t be available in Mk41 much earlier than FC/ASW.

Why would using ASROC with the current ranges be useful when heavyweight torpedoes from the world’s navies vastly out-range it? If we cannot get VLA ranges out closer to those of a heavyweight torpedo then its value as a weapons system is questionable. BTW, a common assumption is that ASROC can launch when a helicopter may not due to weather, but ASROC is limited to Sea State 6 or lower.

Using Mk41 for CAMM is possible but not financially sensible option given the much lower cost of cold launch cells.

My main observation is that T45 doesn’t have to be all things to everyone. Its likely to spend much of the rest of its life as a focused AAW platform escorting the UK carriers, escorting UK amphibious groups or escorting allied HVTs. Don’t underestimate the value of adding the 24 CAMM to enable 48 Aster 30 cells, which is a massive increase in capability. Especially if some of those cells are Aster 30 B1 NT.

On T45 OSD. I agree the first T45 OSD will be around 2038 or so, BECAUSE the British high-end warship building line needs a ship to build after the last T26.

But, as the OSD of the first T26 will be somewhere around 2050-55, the LAST T45 OSD must be around 2050. If not, British high-end warship building line has no ship to build then.

Building 6 T83 commissioning in 12 years, will be a reasonable solution. This means, at least 3 or 4 T45 needs good modernization.

If all T45 to be disbanded by 2040-45, UK will lose its high-end warship building line. Note we are talking about a future with tight resource (as now RN is facing). Optimistic thinking is good, but relying on such idea is very dangerous. This is what happened to SSN.

Yes, indeed.

First OSD is is 2038 OR SO and that could easily be extended with the relatively light hull duties that T45 have experienced.

So I do agree that it is worth upgrading T45 but mainly because the threat environment dial has shifted rather a lot since the start of this year. And we have a crazy guy who started a rather large and messy war for no very obvious or predictable reason. And the crazy guy, and his ilk, only understand force and threat to contain them.

Ref “But, as the OSD of the first T26 will be somewhere around 2050-55, the LAST T45 OSD must be around 2050.”

There’s a lot of assumptions there.

First: 6x T45 + 8x T26 decisions were taken due to cost of the respective platforms; also in very different political climates, especially for T45. So T83 might reasonably be a run of 8x given the increased roles for the RN.

The argument can also be made that the RN needs more high end ASW assets that might be started after T83 production finishes, either with more T26 or an updated replacement.

All meaning that we don’t have to run HMS Duncan, the youngest T45, for 40 years since launch, or 37 years from commission date for an OSD of 2050. Arguably the latest OSD should be at most 2045 and probably earlier.

Second: The cost and BAES as the sole high end warship option. I know you favour a single national champion for naval shipbuilding, i.e. BAES, but that is what contributed to the high cost of the platforms due to lack of competition.

BAES have made it clear in the T31 competition that they have no interest in lower end/lower cost warships for the UK, or for anyone else either it seems. They also have no interest in commercial shipbuilding. Those are both problems because it requires MoD to entirely fund BAES shipbuilding.

The alternative is that BAES just focus on the naval architecture role, as they are doing in Australia and Canada, while someone else like Babcock can do the build. The Govt. are very clear that they aren’t going to guarantee shipbuilding work to anyone.

Thanks.

On the first point:
“On 1st-tier AAW plus ASW escorts number”: Firstly, I think you are optimistic. Secondly if we are lucky to get “8 T83 and 8 or more T26”, THAT EXACTLY means T45 service life must be extended. The same to my proposed “realistic” (pessimistic?) case.

It means, 1st and 2nt T83 must come as addition, not replacement for T45, and 1st T45 must go along with 3rd T83 coming in. This is what the “increasing AAW escort” must mean. As such, in both optimistic and pessimistic case, RN need life extension of T45. The same applies when RN orders additional T26. This is what I mean, and I hope we can agree here…

An increase from 6 T45 to 8 T83 could happen like you describe, which as a benefit would increase active numbers earlier, but it doesn’t have to, and it wasn’t how I envisaged it.

I was considering that production would start with a 1-for-1 replacement in 2038, and that the extra two T83 would be added at the end of the production run.

Which plan is executed would then depend on whether we want the uplift in numbers in the late 2030’s (your schedule) or a bit later in the mid 2040’s (my schedule).

Thanks.

Actually, T45 to T83 transition must come along with. Any sudden uplift on hull number will simply result in “escorts in extended readiness” = total waste of money.

So, the logical way to go is neither “uplift in numbers in the late 2030’s (your schedule)” nor “a bit later in the mid 2040’s (my schedule)”, but “gradually”. Say, replacing 3 T45 with 4 T83-batch-1 and another 3 T45 with 4 T83-batch-2.

(Although I strongly think, at best, it will be 6 for 6, seeing the history, and many “gaps” existing in RN and other sevices)

Anyway, I think the last T45 will highly possible to be there for until 2050s.

By the way, why do you want to early disband T45s? For what purpose? They spend relatively short sea-going days, and build to modern naval standard, so they can go as long as 35-plus years, for sure.

“So, the logical way to go …” Agreed, the increase would be more like you describe, I was just book ending the two options. I’d also agree that 6-for-6 is probably more likely.

The reason why we may increase T83 numbers is likely to be driven by how we perceive the high end threat in the 2040’s and beyond from hypersonics, compared to the number of simultaneous escort roles we believe we need to serve.

For example if we were to surge both carriers and also have an independent amphibious/sea lift operation, then we could only hope to escort two of those with 6 T83. But we do have allies, so that extreme example may not be considered an issue.

Ref T45 lifetimes. Daring was commissioned in 2009, it will be 29 years old by 2038. Duncan, the last of the T45s was commissioned in 2013, it will be 30 years old by 2043. Longer operating lives undermines the intent of the National Shipbuilding Strategy and becomes a false economy. Its not that they would necessarily be worn out, although it seems likely they will be used much harder from today on, than they were in their first decade of life. They may in any event be sold on to less advanced navies if they do still have life.

I’d suggest four reasons why we may not want to push the T45s to a longer life beyond the NSS justification.

The PiP turns the T45 into diesel powered ships using the gas turbine for high speed only. Its a fix but I doubt its optimal or efficient. There’s also a lingering question over why the electrical power management in the T45 failed in the way it did. Perhaps that’s also now fixed.

The second issue is noise. The T45s have been reliably stated to be noisy ships, that is clearly not desirable in a world of proliferating AIP subs, not to mention additional future XLUUV, especially when escorting HVTs.

The T83 designation suggests a ship with a greater ASW capability, i.e. more of a high end multirole ship than an AAW focused one. So a more quiet hull and a greater organic ASW capability, so that it can provide a layered ASW defence to counter a sub getting past T26 screening in a CSG or other escort role.

The T83 would also be likely to have a significant increase in electrical power generation, including for radar and energy weapon defence in addition to a modern IEP implementation.

On the second point, just for discussion :
“The cost and BAES as the sole high end warship option.” No objection BAES tends to be in high cost. But, there is no evidence Babcock will continue to be cheap. BAE is expensive for a reason; they pay more to their labors/engineers, and they do complicated works.

See Cammel Laird. With RV S.D.A. built, they are the most experienced shipbuilder (only second to BAES) in UK now. It was cheap, but actually they almost failed, and made a large deficit, almost causing bankrupt. See what happened to T45 PIP. There is a lack of skilled engineers, and BAES are finally forced to move some of the T45 PIP work to Portsmouth. In short, Cammel Laird is cheap and as such they lack skilled engineers.

Fingers crossed for Babcock.

And, if RN are to buy mostly Babcock escorts, not BAES, I think BAES will be just sold and cease. Keeping two escort builders is never an easy task for a navy with RN size. This is the heart of “competition”. In fare competition, losers do not just keep losing, they just disappear in due course.

BAES focusing on naval architecture role looks fine, but it is the detailed design which is important, on which most of the IP-work resides. Concept design can be done by BMT, for example, but this is cheap. Losing experience on actually ship building will directly mean losing detailed-design capability within a decade. It will just result on “single escort builder in UK”, and as “competition lovers” states, the builder tend to be high-cost. In short, in this case Babcock will simply replace BAES.

Just one idea, but I think this is logical thinking…

“BAE is expensive for a reason; they pay more to their labors/engineers, and they do complicated works.” I doubt that. For any given skill level they probably pay about the same, as they are only about 60 km apart and linked by motorways. Also remember it was BAES who were caught gluing on bolt heads.

BAES, CL and Babcock may all be challenged in recruiting experienced personnel, but somehow the UK managed to build two carriers, with modules from builders around the UK, so it is a solvable problem. The goal of the National Shipbuilding Strategy is to build a much more robust engineering capability in ship building, so its a recognised need. In any event I agree that Babcock must prove their capability with T31.

If BAES stopped building new ships then Clyde would probably close for that role, but that wouldn’t stop BAES from doing design there. Clearly BAES will be likely to make significant earnings from the Australian and Canadian projects, otherwise they wouldn’t have pursued and won the the projects. Worth noting that BAES won all three T26 contracts, with the only recent experience being the OPVs and modules for the carriers. And of course BAES has all the submarine business, so they wouldn’t go away as a boat building company either.

So the TL;DR is our usual stand-off on whether the UK can support two escort builders or not. I guess we’ll have to see. I enjoy the discussion though.

“For any given skill level they probably pay about the same, as they are only about 60 km apart and linked by motorways.”

No objection. I’m just saying Babcock work force must have lower “ratio” of highly skilled engineer. This is because, T31 is significantly simpler than T26, which requires less number of complex works.

Yes BAES stated in the T31 competition that they have no interest in lower end/lower cost warships for the UK. (This is why CL stood up with Leander design, with BAES as a design provider). At the same time, Babcock CEO said, he would be surprised if this ship cannot be built within £250M average cost.

And, he simply completely failed.

T31 program cost is £2Bn, not £1.25B. Yes, there is a contract with Babcock costing £1.25B and they continue to tout “£250M apop”. But, when Babcock CEO stated as such, the “£1.25B for T31” included everything, from design, build, training, 1st-year support, and GFX. We know actual “£1.25B for T31” does not include many of them, and HMG is paying another £750M for the program.

In some sense, the BAES guy’s comment was correct.

Please do not get me wrong. I am not a BAES supporter. I am just ALSO NOT a Babcock supporter. I’m just saying, there is a reason the 5 T31 is £2B and the first 3 T26 is £3.6B. That’s it.

It probably depends on how one reads the Babcock CEO statement that “£1.25B for T31 included everything, from design, build, training, 1st-year support, and GFX.”

I haven’t looked at this in detail, but isn’t the £750M for the GFX? Babcock wouldn’t include that in the £1.25B because those costs don’t pass through Babcock. He’s simply stating that the base ship spec and build for 5 T31 costs £1.25B, plus whatever the GFX cost is.

Thanks. Not specific.

Just I remember, the both comments were almost simultaneous, and in the early stage of T31e (not T31) program, that:

• BAES said they do not want to go for cheap vessel primarily aiming at export, because it will cause “going down the bottom” (or alike)
• Babcock CEO said “£250M apop for everything is easy”.

Yes, it was in the days the name of the project was “T31e”, and main aim was for building export.

Many have changed since then.

• Almost no export build is foreseen. Even Babcock themselves started to state design export as their main aim, AFTER T31 contract was signed.
• Total cost is now £2Bn, “60% increase from original £1.25B” (official NAO report).

Later in the competition, both Cammel Laird (then the Leander-program lead) and Babcock (and maybe also Atlas-UK) insisted that the program cost will never be as low as £1.25B, and they negotiated with MOD to “exclude” GFX from their cost.

Yes, we can tune how to “read” Babcock CEO’s comment. But, in that case, we can also tune BAES’s claim, which could have meant that “GFX cannot be included in the £1.25B”, which actually happened later on the program.

I’m not saying BAE is right. Just saying Babcock was wrong at the time. Let’s be fair.

I recall the BAES comment. I can’t recall Babcock’s so I won’t argue the point any further.

It certainly seems that most customers want to build their own warships, although it would be interesting to know what persuaded Greece to give up their intent to do that, since it seemed to be a key requirement.

In any event, the NSS may need to focus on the design export business for new ships and the sale of RN vessels relatively early in their life, as the way to help generate a regular level of demand and continue to drive innovation in new UK ship design. It does underline the necessity for UK shipyards to diversify into commercial business though, which is why the BAES position is a problem, because I can’t see them ever doing that.

Ironically, of the two companies, BAES may have the better opportunity for an export sale, with T26 to Norway in the late 2030’s/early 2040’s. Although NZ might be a market for T31 sometime in the 2030’s, I can’t see them going for either T26 or Hunter-class.

Good afternoon GHF, firstly, thanks for your excellent reply. It was a good read. I’m just a bystander down here in 🇦🇺 and have no real experience in any of these matters but I do get a bit passionate (for some reason…lol) about what I see as under arming and under utilisation of sea platforms. I’ll try and answer in an as orderly manner as you too.

The 10-15 years may even end up being longer if T83 gets delayed. Five years implementatiom, 10 years service, give or take, that’s still a very long period of time remaining in service. The Italians and US already seem to have equivalent DDX/DGX designs already finalised – why aren’t we partnering with them on the T83 if we are sharing some/ same weapons/concepts/capabilities/platforms?

For a £/$1Billion warship, any real additional secondary sea/land/sub strike ability would make these six only ships even more potent. Look at the Aegis type vessels of the USN, Japan and South Korea and the latest Chinese ships – they’re loaded to the max and only seem to get bigger.

With the TLAM, the USN, and I think the RAN here soon (and maybe the Canadian navy too) seem to still have good confidence in its ability and latest iterations. It has good range, hitting power, not overly expensive and could be able to be made more stealthier electronically(?).

Mk41s are coming in with the T26s (and how long are they truly going to take to get in the water, armed up and operational?) so whatever goes in the T26s can potentially go into the T45s and v/v plus with the T31/32s for good utilisation.

Not saying we need to turn the T45s into a dedicated ASW platform but an updated Asroc type missile with the newer FLWT might be good if the ship comes under a multi sub attack and or the helo is engaged else where. Even just with x4 in the x8 silos. The balance can be for other missiles.

Mk41 will allow for US designed weapons which if the FC/ ASW falls behind (do we have any real idea of when it’s due into service and how much?) we may well have to fall back on. And in the present climate I think the TLAM on ships would be very complementary to the Astutes and be a force multiplier and should be able to be implemented in a short time frame. If we don’t want to fire a TLAM at everything then LRASM/NSM/others may need to be considered, some being cannister only.

I’m not sure if MK41 SM 3/6 will ever be purchased for the RN T26/83s but I think the RAN T26s will have some shared SAM ability and NSM/TLAM with the Hobart AAW Destroyers, that’s a combined fleet of 12 ships, which is pretty potent. And the Canadians getting 15 T26s, all with the same multi purpose capability. You’d think with the two carriers we’d need at least 8 AAW right now and what with PIP going on that will make us dependent on allied support for any further CSGs. If we can’t magically make another 2 T45s v 2.0 and we don’t know what the T32 will look like so I’d like to see maybe 4 Polish Arrowhead type 140s in the RN, as a second tier T45 role and complementary to the T23s. We have the shipyards to build this, I’d think in a pretty short time frame, some shared supply lines, inventory and can utilise CAMM/maybe CAMM-ER (if that ever enters with RA/ GBAD) and any other cannister/VLS missiles.

Hope I haven’t carried on too much here as I’m absolutely no expert and there’s always more to say. I’m enjoying reading everyone’s posts here. All good stuff.

We’ll have leave all the final choices to the powers that be. Hope the choice, cost, quantity and their timing is spot on!

Afternoon Quentin, an interesting post, just some observations in response really.
T45 are Air dominance ships designed to protect the fleet from air/missile attacks, hence the weapon fit. Comparing them with a US AB is a bit like comparing apples/oranges, as AB are designed as multi mission vessels, hence their weapon fit.
Another big difference between the two is crew size, ABs whilst broadly similar in size, have a 30% larger crew, for that difference in roles. Hence much more expensive to run.

IMO T45 doesn’t need Mk41 silos. We have nothing currently to go it. It will most likely get Aster30 Blk1 NT in due course, not as good as SM6 granted, but that’s a v expensive bit of kit. Going to something like SM6 would mean T45 having CEC fitted adding even more expense.
Fitting Asroc is a non starter on T45, as any ASW system needs queuing info from somewhere to launch an attack. T45 sonar is not a dedicated ASW system, but derived from a mine detection system rehashed to give it a ASW capability!!!! So basically pants.
I believe that the system is currently dormant as we are short of dedicated operators, having put them on our ASW T23’s.
Whilst they can carry a Merlin, they normally go with a Wildcat Lynx as it’s helo, they don’t have a ASW capability.

Turning a T45 into a multi mission unit like a AB, would be too expensive and counter productive given its OSD, we would probably be better off building a 3rd batch of T26 frigates optimised for multi mission roles with a vastly different CSM and radar fit. It would need more crew, a bit like the RAN/RCN versions and cost more then our current T26 frigates cost. Whilst it is doable, not sure where either the money or the extra crew would come from?
I think the ItalianUS next gen DDX type ships are something we should be seriously considering for our T83 requirement. If we got involved now, it should be a seemless transition to start building them once we have completed building our T26 frigates.

Rgds.

Good evening Deep, thank you for your reply. It’s always good to hear experience and balance come through yours and other posts here. I appreciate what you are all saying about not turning the T45s into an AB type vessel and upgrades with CAMM/ Aster, radar etc is all great but I and others here are saying that this can be made even better and be a force multiplier with the T23s/Astutes while we wait for the T26/31/32/83s to arrive. Mk41s across all these ships, except the 23s, would be an awesome spread of capability upgrade for the RN and something I think the RN needs sooner than later. The RAN here is accelerating its adoption of NSM (and I think TLAM) onto its Hobart/Anzac ships to be done within 2 years from now.

The 24 CAMM over already existing two MK41 slots I think is an insane waste of opportunity. To think how relatively quickly all this can be brought into service, probably same time frame with the first T26s and with potentially the same fit out of Mk41/missiles. I think you could easily put the CAMMs down the side, maybe even 3×6/8 each side giving you a 36-48 fit out. Plus 48 Aster. That’s really potent.

Sounds like your saying that the sonar on the T45 also needs to be upgraded or at least additional personnel hired. These ships need to watch the surface and especially sub surface and to engage with other vessels and or subs. What do they do it with? If there’s no sub around then it’s just Martlet and torpedos at the moment. I think a couple of 4 or 6 packed NSMs might be useful in the interim. These can be transferred to other vessels if need be. The Canadian/ Australian T26s will have both a NSM/TLAM mix. And to complement the T45 sonar, there’s no dipping sonar in the Wildcats which surely would be a great help with ASW? I wonder why this capability hasn’t been upgraded? Or even a ASW/UAV added to the T45s like the T23s are getting?

It’s a wish list and it all needs lots of money, resources, and more people.

Back to my couch.

Evening Quentin, always glad to add to any discussions, especially if they prove useful.
Mk41 discussion is always interesting, as it provides just as many alternatives as it potentially solves. I just don’t think it will be fitted on T45 rightly or wrongly. 1SL recently quashed the I-SSGW requirement (possibly NSM) on effectively cost grounds. Personally I think manning requirements might have also played a big part. Despite increased recruitment, we are still short of numbers, particularly in experienced crew. Only time can fix that issue.
I agree we need a effective heavyweight ASM, but firmly believe it should go to our fast air (F35) first, along with our P-8 fleet. Which, due to the issues with the F35 program won’t happen until 2027/28 at the earliest. Although as I understand things, we should have access to a shared pool of weapons for the P-8s??
I think that whatever comes out of the T83 program will be much more of a multi mission unit with a heavy slant to AAW, a bigger version of what both the RAN/RCN are developing. Not sure how many we will get. 6’8 probably on the cards though.

Rgds.

Hi Quentin. Deep32 has provided a good response to many of your thoughts, so I think it would be redundant for me to repeat his points. I will just opine on some of the longer term stuff.

As I responded to Donald, the decisions for 6x T45 + 8x T26 were taken under very different world political considerations, along with high platform costs. I could see 8x T83 as not unreasonable given the RN’s increasing commitments and the need for high end AAW escorts to counter the hypersonic threats. I could also see that production followed by an increase in high end ASW assets. So a follow on run of updated T26 or a new ASW platform would probably drive >8x numbers. This might all drive the last T45 OSD to the early 2040’s

An alternative to more T26 class might be T32 as a light frigate but with greater ASW capability. Something like the Italian PPA class or the French FDI class.

As to partnering with the US or Italy. AFAIK neither actually has a finalised design for a T83 class vessel. The US would have the numbers, but I’m not convinced they have the design expertise (including for efficient manufacture) for a new clean sheet design, given the issues in their naval shipbuilding programs. So it would depend on how much they want to dominate the design and equipment fit and whether that compromises UK preferences. The Italian’s have the design and manufacturing expertise but won’t have the numbers and again there may be issues on equipment choices.

Hi GHF, thanks also for your reply. I can see your getting similar threads from others too so I’ll keep it brief. I think it’s very pressing that RN capability could and should be increased now, or sooner than later and as fully as possible as well as what’s coming down the pipeline with the T26/31/32/83s. Not even sure if anything is on paper yet for the last two? Maximise the fleets potential across all its fighting ships, especially with upgrades with CAMM, Mk41s, UAVs and 57/40mm is just prudent common sense. I’m sure this is being or planned to be done so I’ll let the experts get on with it.

I should say… I’m hope some of this is being planned to be done…

Hi Quentin, no problem.

Ref “it’s very pressing that RN capability could and should be increased now”. The gating issue is having skilled and experienced manpower. The RN has been successful in recruiting the last couple of years but those personnel need training and experience.

Some of the manpower issues will be addressed by reducing River OPV numbers as T31s become available. It will also be addressed by the reduced manning requirements of T26 and especially T31, versus T23. But the RN has been operating at a manpower deficit with T45 and T23 tied up alongside in extended readiness, along with an Albion class vessel, even as additional T23 have been in lifex.

Ref T32/83 status, from a recent MoD statement, the “…concept and assessment phases for the Type 32 frigate and Future Air Defence System (T83) have commenced, or are about to commence, and this too will examine the benefits of a common launcher (Mk41)”

“Reading between the lines, I don’t think the RN wants to commit to either more Sylver cells or Mk41 for T45. In part that’s because of the relatively short life before the T45s start going out of service in the late 2030’s”

That is nearly 20 years!

That is like Cameron saying that it was impossible to forsee a use for an aircraft carrier for the next 10 years!!

What is the fence sitting really about?

I think it is really about how the T45 is modified for anti ballistic and that those 16 slots may well be needed for the longer full length Aster. Or is some or al of the exiting 48 cell silo lengthened?

“That is nearly 20 years!” Well 2038 for first OSD is ~15 years from today. It might be only 5-8 years from when we implement Mk41 in T45 and then integrate and qualify the new weapons for IOC.

The argument is then about when is the last OSD for T45. Donald estimates 2050, I think it could be early 2040’s. Not least perhaps because I suspect the RN would like a much more quiet AAW platform to escort the carriers, given the proliferation of modern nuclear and AIP subs around the world.

I think the RN is only entertaining Mk41 for T45 as insurance if FC/ASW dies, or suffers major delays. And/or because they need more than Aster 30 Blk 1NT, Aster 30 Blk 2 isn’t an option (either delayed or needing Syler 70 cells) and they need SM-6 Blk 1B.

“It would probably make the most sense to get 16 syler 70 cells instead of mark 41 to ensure commonality across the fleet.”

It is very unlikely that Sylver cells will be fitted to anything else.

Mk41 can take most weapons but Sylver cannot without loads of expensive R&D and testing work.

Almost all new weapons are developed to work with Mk41 by default. Typically the french decided that a different standard was needed when the Aster family missiles could perfectly well have been fitted into strike length Mk41.

“Why?” Perhaps I should not have said “T45 to take control” because actually that is unnecessary. CEC should be capable of providing the complete raw or processed radar picture to T26, meaning T45 wouldn’t even need to take control of SM6 blk1B for any updates to the missile in flight.

“… you mean Aster 30 blk2? Will it really be fielded soon?” No, I was simply referring to carrying over Aster 30 Blk 1 and Blk 1NT, assuming we commit to the latter upgrade. If Aster 30 Blk 2 becomes viable then its a case of how it compares to US options as to whether it makes sense for the UK.

Hmmm. Will T26 have the analysis power needed to analyze ballistic missiles/hyper-sonic missiles coming in in short time? T45 does, that’s why I think adding the capability to T45 is reasonable.

“T45 plus T26 with CEC” option is doable, but not sure if it is the right answer.

On Aster 30 Blk 2, it is the Aster family comparable to SM6 Blk1B. SM6 Blk1B is there, Aster 30 Blk 2 is years away. If now, I think SM6 Blk1B will be a good option. If on 2030s, then it may differ.

I agree on the SM-6 vs. Aster Blk 2 analysis, which is one reason why I have argued that T26 and subsequent designs switching to Mk41 is the right decision versus sticking with Sylver.

Having much more capable escorts like T26 and perhaps even T31 and T32 if both are fitted with Mk41, is why I believe it now makes sense to have CEC for the RN. I suspect the reason the French are pursuing CEC is because they don’t have enough high end escorts with high missile loadouts, so they will be dependent on networking numbers of smaller assets to efficiently manage their fleet missile defence.

Don’t forget to put the hand brake on😂😂😂

All good mate 😊

@DB

That is a very fair and well reasoned summation of the situation.

I would guess that ditching the wildcat is probably the way forward or just buddying up with a cheapo merchant conversion or RFA with a bigger hangar?

We should probably be assuming we will want T45 and then T83 to escort amphibious groups that do not include a carrier, so that drives an organic AEW capability. That task includes groups based around European vessels like Mistral and Juan Carlos classes, which may not include adequate organic surveillance capabilities.

We’d also potentially need to escort sea lift during a hot war, whether our own or US, since the latter currently don’t think they have enough escorts for the role, last I read.

Leonardo Yeovil are developing their own clean sheet 3 tonne class UAV based on earlier work with SW-4 Solo, so a UK Osprey 50 equipped option is doable. First flight estimated circa 2024-5. 10-12 hour endurance.

Cheers GHF, that’s one of the scenarios I had in mind. Where a T45/83 would be tasked with guarding a small task group that doesn’t have a carrier or support from a land based AEW platform. Giving the T45/83 its own organic AEW will significantly enhance its air defence umbrella.

I hope Leonardo won’t be using a helicopter based UAV, as this is a backwards step, especially for an AEW type of mission.

Leonardo’s project seems to be more targeted at the Proteus rotary wing solution mooted as part of the Future Maritime Aviation Force – 2030 concept. Proteus isn’t shown as an AEW asset, but with Osprey it seems like it could address that requirement for non-carrier ops. Would we really need more for earlier detection of sea skimmers?

For carrier it seems a fixed wing Vixen platform is the goal for AEW from the same 2030 concept. Whether that uses a VTOL “Son of V247” which seems to be a project again with slightly more modest goals, or a STOL platform, is open to discussion. On the latter I see the following popped up today
https://twitter.com/GenAtomics_ASI/status/1524011470152941568

Being able to see further is always better! Especially when the threat is a sea skimming missile, that can have a fluctuating radar return due to their low level approach and the state of the sea.

With a missile such as the Aster 30, it gives you option of engaging the threat at the Aster’s maximum effective range. But also if the AEW platform has a decent data-link. The missile can then be used to counter sea skimming missiles that are beyond the line of sight, using command updates given over the UAV’s data-link .

The other major benefit is dealing with large swarming attacks. Being able to engage a swarm at a significant stand-off distance, means you have more time and therefore a better chance of knocking out the whole swarm.

Radars like the X-band AESA Seaspray and Osprey are at the peak of what you can buy off the shelf for multi-role capability. That are both lightweight and have a very high mean time between failure. Both have a detection range of around 200 miles (though neither company has divulged what the target’s RCS is!). This is far enough to not only give the ship plenty of warning time. But being X-band, they have very could clutter rejection therefore have a greater chance at detecting very small targets hiding in the waves, such as a periscope. It is this combination of light weight and very good target discrimination that would make either of the radars as a good basis for an AEW radar used by a UAV, that could be carried by a destroyer or frigate.

Furthermore, it would not be competing with whatever comes out of the Vixen project. As this is more of a larger fleet asset. Depending on this aircraft’s size, could carry a larger S or C band radars. These radars have traditionally had problems finding and tracking very low flying targets against choppy seas. They are however, very good at detecting aircraft over 300 miles away. So the UAV’s X-band radar would be complimentary, thereby increasing the sensor picture.

Personally, I still believe a Bell V247 type of UAV, would be the optimal choice for use as an organic AEW UAV for a destroyer/frigate. But a large catapult and arrested recovery fixed wing UAV carrying an S-band radar is best as a carrier based AEW platform. Which therefore precludes a MQ-9 type of UAV.

I agree with most of your comments. However, it does seem that the range limits for x-band might be mitigated by pushing platforms further out from the CSG and the ability to support more of those platforms in the air simultaneously for similar cost. Something like MQ-9B does enable very long duration, long range, persistent surveillance to support that.

Perhaps key will be what price tag gets attached to a V247 solution as to whether that is viable, especially for escort use.

😀😀

The Flight IIA Burkes will begin backfitting a mid-sized SPY-6 array, the SPY-6(V)4, starting in 2027. It’s not as big as the Flight III’s SPY-6(V)1 array, but it will be a very significant upgrade. The Constellation Class frigates and the Ford class carriers (starting with CVN-79) will have the smaller SPY-6(V)3 array.

Reasonable summary. I’d say there have been two main weaknesses on ABs, now mostly being addressed as you say.

No high mount AESA for sea skimming threats. Even with SPY-6 the USN will still be fitting AN/SPQ-9B until the X-band AESA upgrade arrives, perhaps sometime later this decade?

Both ESSM and SM-2 semi-active missiles require fire control radar, which suggests the ships would be vulnerable to saturation attack. I don’t know if SM-6 with its active homing could tip over in time to hit a sea skimming missile when detected, or whether a ship would have enough SM-6 for this unintended role. Leaving defence to Phalanx or in some cases Sea RAM.

Sea skimmers on the Burkes are addressed by X-band radars higher in the mast. The older SPS-67 and SPS-73 performed well in combination with the SPY-1 during the 3 separate attacks on the USS Mason in 2016, so the system is actually combat tested. As you say the SPQ-9B will perform that function in backfits and newer ships moving forward. New Burkes have SPQ-9B from DDG-119 moving forward and there are already several older Burkes that have it.

The new X-band (FXR) is still developmental, it will likely debut on the DDG(X).We’ll see as time goes by.

SM-6 has an active seeker and the latest versions can actually selectively skip firing the second stage if the target is close, so nearby targets can be engaged if need be. The new SM-2 Block IIIC debuts next year and has the same active seeker as the SM-6 so does not require an illuminator. ESSM Block 2 is just entering service now and has an active mode, so saturation attacks will be accounted for.

Moving forward there will be less and less need for illuminators on US ships, in fact the Constellation class has no illuminators planned as they will only ever receive SM-2 Block IIIC, ESSM Block 2, and RAM block 2 and won’t need illumination.

Interestingly even though Phalanx is a stand alone system the very latest versions of AEGIS actually integrate the sensors from Phalanx to improve the overall picture even more.

SeaRAM is installed on the Burkes assigned to BMD in Rota, Spain, so they are rare on Burkes overall.

I did say you were I asked a question

Ok. I’m not happy with it but could understand if we had ASM for the RAF on the P8s and F35s, ideally on Typhoon too.

We should have upgraded Harpoon but the powers that be thought it was obsolete. I wonder if they regret that decision after seeing what the Neptune missiles did to the Moskva.

Depressing and thought provoking. Interesting view.

Napoleonic Wars were the first WW – agreed. Have often thought the same.

“world war is.. ..a spasm of global violence” – Very interesting. If this is the case, would it not be possible, even quite easy, to argue that all human history is one long ongoing conflict?

Hear me out – There’s always a fight going on somewhere. & if not fully global or between two major powers or we can’t link it to major powers, we’ll call it a ‘pause in direct conflict’ for a period, with underlying tensions until something sparks a war again. They’re all interlinked in some way or another if we look hard enough: Russia v Ukraine today, caused by split of USSR, caused by Afghanistan & CIA involvement therein, caused by Cold War, caused by how WW2 ended and/or the Russian revolution during WW1. WW2 caused by WW1, caused by Serbians shooting an Archduke and Germanys jealousy of the British Empire, Empire was caused by UK war/competition with France for 1,000 years spilling out across the globe… so it’s all William the Conquerors fault! But then we go back to that Serbian assasin killing the archduke & branch out there – caused by the tensions in the Balkans, east meets west, Islam v Christianity & so on and so on… go forward in time from this point back through WW2 & the creation of Israel & we can continue to Yom Kippur. Somewhere in there are the Crusades which involves what used to be Persia which had past conflicts in India… Yes I am being deliberately simple/silly, but it’s not difficult to find connections to such dots when you start looking for them.

Why does WW1 end in Korean War? We can say it was a proxy war between Communism & Capitalism (in simple terms). Didn’t that carry on into Vietnam – after a brief pause? New venue, same argument. 7 year pause before Afghanistan?

Maybe it’s a human flaw that we compartmentalise such events to make them easier to comprehend but – to make it easier for my simple mind – lets take each conflict in isolation & we ask “what does WW3 look like if it did not go nuclear?” I would suggest, you are correct – “First stage would be extremely destructive and you would see destruction on a large scale” – but then I also think that the speed and scale are precisely what causes it to end quickly.

In WW2 we’d send 1,000 bombers in multiple waves to take out 1 ball-bearing factory. Today 1 typhoon with a targetting pod & a couple of Paveways. Or we throw a few Tomahawks at it. How many strike aircraft does NATO have? What can one B2 with JDAMS do? Look how quickly we dismantled the C&C in Iraq. Air force, radar & SAM sites gone in days. Key infrastructure, bridges, fuel reserves gone to inhibit their ability to move etc. etc. That was not even total war. In WW3, a similar capability would be coming back at us. Do we think we’d allow (or be allowed) to build any new jets or tanks if we can stop it? Or would the factories/complex supply chains be targeted fairly early on to prevent replacements/spare parts/repairs.

The “conventional only” thing is all hypothetical. For good or bad, nuclear weapons exist. Should the nuclear powers actually start a shooting war, the only actual solution is economic collapse of one or the other, revolution at home (collapse of public will) or resolving differences diplomatically. If one side starts taking serious amounts of land & the others military becomes incapable of stopping them, that’s where someone will see the nukes as ‘necessary’ & we have escalation to MAD.

“historians may even go back further” – if this is WW3, hopefully there are still some historians around when this one is over bud. Thank you for the reply. 😊

The Mk41 VLS could go in different places depending on it being strike length or not

If strike length it would go under where the Harpoon go ATM.

Ceptor is going around the SYLVER silo.

Ceptor is allegedly going where the Mk41 would have gone – right between the gun and the current silo. (late reply I know)