Technical support, simulators and ammunition for the 57mm Mk3 and 40mm Mk4 naval gun systems have been ordered for the five Type 31 General Purpose Frigates.

According to a contract notice, the £65m contract was awarded to BAE Systems Bofors for “Provision of qualified ammunition, gun simulators and associated support for T31 Naval Guns”.

The award notice reads:

“Ship Acquisition, part of the UK Ministry of Defence (“the Authority”), proposes to place a contract for a duration of seven years with BAE Systems Bofors AB (“the Company”), for the supply of technical support, gun simulators to be commissioned into a Land Based Integration Facility (LBIF) for T31 Frigate and qualified 3P (programmable) ammunition for the 57mm Mk3 and 40mm Mk4 naval gun systems that will be supplied with the five Type 31 General Purpose Frigates.

In accordance with regulation 4 of The Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/697) this procurement falls to be regulated under the provisions of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 as amended (in particular by SI 2019/697 and SI 2020/1450). Prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union is no longer appropriate.

It is considered that the award of the contract without prior publication of a contract notice in the UK e-notification service is lawful in accordance with Regulation 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 for Technical Reasons.

The Company is the supplier of the 3P ammunition that is currently being qualified by the ship builder and is the only economic operator with the necessary know-how, proprietary processes, and equipment-specific tooling and test equipment to ensure that the qualified T31 3P ammunition is safe to be utilised in the Type 31 naval gun systems at ship acceptance.

The Company also owns the Intellectual Property Rights for the both the 57mm and 40mm 3P ammunition. The testing and integration facility must be constructed and configured for the gun systems which are to be fitted to the T31.

The Company is the supplier of these gun systems and is the only economic operator with the necessary know-how, proprietary processes, and equipment-specific tooling and test equipment to supply and ensure the T31 gun system simulators can be integrated onto the Type 31 frigate LBIF.”

What weapons will be fitted to the Type 31 Frigate?

Last year Jeremy Quin, then-Minister for Defence Procurement, stated 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.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

74 COMMENTS

  1. So is that confirmation that both the 40mm and 57mm guns will have 3P programmable ammo? Does that preclude MAD-FIRES or Vulcano as well?

    • I don’t know about Vulcano, but MAD-FIRES is still in development as a joint DARPA/Raytheon project and isn’t in production yet. We’ll hear more about the progress of the round in the spring when the DARPA budget justification book comes out.

        • Very true. I’m really looking forward to MAD-FIRES becoming a production program, hopefully in time for the debut of the Constellation class and Type 31 frigates. There is a lot of development still ahead and I hope the program stays on track. Here is completely open source info from the last DARPA budget request:

          “Title: Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES)

          Description: The Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES) program will develop a point defense system against today’s most stressing threats by developing a highly maneuverable, medium caliber, guided projectile, fire sequencing and control system capable of neutralizing large threat raids of high speed, highly maneuverable targets. Leveraging recent advancements in gun hardening, miniaturization of guided munition components, and long-range sensors, MAD-FIRES advances fire control technologies, medium caliber gun technologies, and guided projectile technologies enabling the multiple, simultaneous target, kinetic engagement mission at greatly reduced costs. MAD-FIRES will achieve lethality overmatch through accuracy rather than size, thus expanding the role of smaller combat platforms into missions where they have been traditionally outgunned. MAD-FIRES, sized as a medium caliber system, enhances flexibility for installment as a new ship self-defense system. This phase of the project will mature and demonstrate key projectile technologies and subsystem elements. The final phase of system integration and supersonic testing is funded in PE 0603766E, Project NET-02.

          FY 2022 Plans: – Verify function and survival of the updated projectile after gun firing. – Measure projectile maximum maneuver performance. – Demonstrate closed-loop guidance of the projectile in flight.

          FY 2023 Plans: – Commence subsystems development, integration and testing. – Mature critical technologies to enable future surrogate threat engagement demonstrations. – Update Modeling, Simulation and Analysis (MS&A) toolset and perform gun-fired testing to validate MS&A tools“

      • Both the US Navy and Coastguard have a vested interest in MADFIRES. For the Coastguard it will be their main anti-air weapon. Especially needed now that they are being used more in hotspots, such as in the South China Sea near the Philippines.

    • No Vulcano for 57mm. Only for 76mm.

      Btw Vulcano was recently accepted for operational use by German Navy for their frigates that have the Leonardo 127mm gun.

      • This is one of the big failures of the 57mm as a frigate gun. Volcano is a sub-calibre munition. 57mm Volcano would be a waste of time, even if you could make it work. It would be the equivalent of being able to throw a hand grenade 40km, as against a 76mm volcano at 5kg which is somewhere between 81mm & 120mm mortar round. Not the greatest, but who wants to volunteer to be bombarded by a meter accurate 100mm mortar equivalent from 40km out?

        • Spot on DJ If the RN has too ever conduct an NGS anything below a size of 4.5 /120 isn’t going too put the fear of God into the enemy

  2. Are we likely to manufacture any of the ammo in the UK? I see BAE maintain IP for these but as many things recently have proved it is good to manufacture in the UK.

    • It is also good to have them in the magazine and stores!

      I think that MOD contracts will in future not allow the Swiss excuse. I.E the export agreement will have to specifically exclude those kind of stops.

      We have learned just in time!

      • Noticed it announced last week as Rishi was in Ukraine that Isreal has allowed export of weaponry with Israeli IP to be exported to Ukraine with UK specifically being mentioned as the main beneficiary and likely requester of this relaxation. So hopefully indeed there is a consciousness of the necessities of actually making your weapons usable and not only by yourselves.

        • So what do we think it relates to that has Israeli content that the uk would want to gift to Ukraine?
          The spike missiles the army’s had for Afghan? Are they still in use or in a warehouse?

      • The BAE 155mm artillery shells are manufactured at their plant in Washington T&W and then filled at their plant in Glascoed Wales so there is the potential for a UK supply chain.

      • The original Bofors were built here under licence, indeed in various countries and the ammunition of course, so wouldn’t be the first time.

          • Ahh gotcha. I thought maybe they were looking to use the 30mm bought but not used on the QEs. But using 3 different gun system on one unit wouldn’t be smart.

          • Believe there was reference in a recent article that the three 30mm would be installed on QE class, in the event of war. In the interim, O&M costs and staffing issues minimized. Not certain whether arguments presented are entirely rational, but someone wrote the article.

        • Fictional set up with 3 x 30mm mounts. Nothing wrong with having the 30’s as well as there will be lots going free after being taken off the T23’s so next to no cost. Ships in the past had many different weapons even as recently as T42’s and T22’s which had 4.5, Goalkeeper, Phalanx, 20mm gambo and 20 mm WW2 mounts. not including the many gpmg’s all over the place. What she needs is a surface to surface missile set to give some punch.

          • Good spot it does actually look like current Dragonfire so perhaps this model is purely aspirational.

        • Three 30mm? I think someone is having a bit of a laugh here. Lol 😁 Nice to see the S1850 search radar, something the RN could also do if they want a couple of T31AAW capable variants to complement the T45s prior to the T83.

    • Navy Lookout and UKDJ have both published articles on 31’s armament. UK 31 will have 2x40mm and 1x57mm. You might have been looking at one of the export variants.

      • Also often at trade shows the models come with interchangeable pieces so the booth staff can demonstrate switching modules or weapon load outs.

        • Yeah if you want to attract export orders always best to give a good first impression to suggest flexibility and potential or ‘over gunning’ as we would call it in uk service.

    • 2 x bofors 40mm and 1x BAE 57mm gun. The rear 40mm gun is often hidden or not included in the models but the online designs of the type 31 clearly show the rear gun position.

  4. We are becoming very dependent on overseas sourced weaponry. US built 5inch guns for type 26, 57 and 40mm for type 31 from Sweden and US supplied 30mm bushmaster for a range of ships. On land, new tank guns from Germany and French made CTA 40 for Ajax.
    For a country with a chronic trade deficit, this is nonsense.If the private sector cannot supply these basic weapons, we need to re-establish a state owned company that can. At the very least, we should insist on UK manufacture as USA has done with Bofors 57.

    • For five guns? How does that makes sense to set up a whole factory and line for that sort of production run?

      Then what does the factory do when it has made the 5 No guns?

      OK you will say they make 40mm guns for something else.

      What about all the specific tooling for the 57mm?

      For the amount of money you would spend on that gig you could buy another batch of T31.

      We just need to accept that there are certain things that are COTS/MOTS.

      As with ship building you need a constant batch ordering for that kind of manufacture to make sense.

      The reason it doesn’t make sense is that you then end up skewing assembly curves for new vehicles to suit the drumbeat of all the supplies and so the manufacturing costs is not optimal manufacturing cost at all. Unit prices for whatever you are making would sky rocket TOBAR style.

      • i take your point on the likely costs of building 5 systems here. The US navy and coastguard obviously order far more. But we are supposed to have a Defence Industrial Strategy of which I see precious little evidence to date.We could soon be in a position where no naval or armoured vehicle guns are made here.
        If we want to continue to be a defence exporter, we have to sustain the operations that produce the equipment. France does, so does Italy which has a defence budget about 50% of the UK.
        I think the Type 31 illustrates everything that is wrong with UK defence procurement. A cheap ship ordered just to make up a totemic
        number of escorts but with minimal war fighting capability. German built engines, Swedish built guns, Dutch built command and control systems.And a plan to forward deploy them in distant parts of the world we have no business being.
        We need to do better and the long term arrangement between MOD and MBDA for missile development shows we can.

      • Yeah if only we had the defence requirements of a military giant like Sweden. You are right mind now that we don’t have a company like say Vickers who unlike Bofors and indeed it’s German rivals never really saw the point of generating ongoing export sales. To think post war we designed and produced some of the best guns on the planet. Indeed one of them is still excelling in Ukraine for what little benefit it does us. A cautionary tale of British Industry generally sadly.

    • Sole source supplier dependency, who could possibly foresee that an issue could arise in the future…of course it is a UK based multinational…🤔

      • would this programmable ammo have a long shelf life and can be stock piled? hopefully these guns fire other rounds if supply is limited

    • US supplied 30mm bushmaster for a range of ships

      The gun is American, but if I understand things correctly the rest of the mount is British. Interestingly the US is contracting with your MSI for the systems to upgrade our MK38 Gun Weapon System to the new “MOD 4” standard, which will be a switch from 25mm to 30mm with the MSI mount and sensors. The units for the USN will be built in the US of course. There is info on the program at about 4:30 into this video:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90BV0Wzsndk

    • I don’t think there is much wrong with BAE – I worked with a number of their staff a few years ago on a tank support project at Abbey Wood. I wish they had made Ajax for the army… and supplied 155mm towed guns – they also of course make great submarines etc.

      • If BAE had been left alone to make Ajax it would have happened by now. That also might be true of GD!

        But as we discussed, back in the summer, these things grow legs all of their own. And extra humps….

      • BAE do have there moments, but in general they are a very professional outfit (glued bolts excepted). They have some excellent engineers & scientists. Give them an inch & they will take a mile, but if you know what you are doing, they will go the extra mile themselves. For some reason, US, Australia, Canada, Sweden don’t have a problem with BAE. Is that because the local branch have adapted to local expectations or because UK MoD & BAE have squared up & no one wants to blink first?

    • Bae is your standard multi-national conglomerate that buys a lot of things and puts their name on them unfortunately most of the patents and factories to build the stuff are in other countries. This website needs to stop with the breathless BAE Fanboy thing. The factories are all someplace else and any time of emergency the UK has no say at all in what goes on.

      • No different to other large defence multi nationals. Eg GD, LM, Leonardo, Thales, Boeing, etc,etc. If a company develops something in another country, under most international arrangements, the IP belongs to the nation(s) in which it was developed. So the new RF seeker being fitted to Konsberg’s (Norway) JSM & slated to be back ported to NSM, is Australian controlled IP, developed by BAE Australia. They even got an Australian government grant to help out with the original idea. BAE UK cannot do what they like with the technology, even though they own BAE Australia. If BAE Australia wants to sell it to Argentina, BAE UK will likely say no, even if Australian government says yes. If BAE UK wants to sell it to Argentina, they will have to get past UK & Australian governments. If Norway wants to sell either missile to someone Australia doesn’t agree with, there is a problem unless that part of the seeker is removed. International defence IP is a minefield. Get it wrong & it will cost you serious money.

  7. Rejoice!

    Royal Navy believes in guns again after 60 years of missile obsession…

    Now… where are the radar directors in Type 31?

        • Hi Alex, good question, so here goes:

          Similar to the BAe Sampson, it is an S-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The antenna rotates at 30 rpm or once every 2 seconds. Though it can also slow down the rotation rate to 15 rpm (rotates once every 4 seconds).

          Thales have also incorporated a electro-optical thermal imaging camera in the array, along with an identification friend or foe (IFF) transceiver. But it can also have a frequency modulated interruptive carrier wave (FMICW) radar added to the base of the array. FMICW/FMCW radar are traditionally used for semi-active radar homing missiles target illumination and tracking. They are also used for gun direction. The MoD have not stated if the RN are getting the all singing and dancing NS100 or the basic version.

          However, the NS-100’s basic S-band radar being AESA, can transmit multiple beams simultaneously. One of these beams can use a FMICW/FMCW waveform. Which can then be used for gun/missile direction. A FMCW waveform is a continuous wave transmission. This is used to provide a Doppler return. That the “radar” uses to work out the target’s velocity. Which is then used by the weapon system (gun in this case) to fire at a calculated intercept point along the target’s track. So the fired shell either impacts the target or gets close enough to set off its proximity fuse. This system has been used since radars were first combined with anti-aircraft guns in WW2.

          Now to the question of illuminating a target whilst using a rotating antenna. AESA has the advantage of forwards and backwards scanning. So if the antenna stopped rotating. The beam can scan left and right of the antenna’s bore sight by +/- 60 degrees. Giving a field of view of 120 degrees.

          By rotating the antenna the on-target view window is extended by using AESA, compared to an older pulse-Doppler mechanical scanned radar. Which means the dead zone ie when the radar cannot see the target, is reduced, although not eliminated.

          I haven’t had a coffee yet so haven’t done the maths. But you will have something like having the target illuminated for 1.25 seconds of first part of the 2 second rotation. However as the radar rotates to its original position, the target (if stationary) will come back into view again around 1.6 seconds of the 2 second rotation. Meaning the target is in the dead zone only for about 0.35 seconds.

          On some weapon systems, this interruption is enough to break the track. However with modern computational software, you can incorporate a predictive track algorithm. Where the computer builds up a pattern of life of the target. Which it then uses to predict where the target will be. This is fed to the weapon to maintain track. As soon as the radar re-illuminates the target again, the delta is fed to the weapon system to update the true track.

          BAe’s Sampson uses a similar method, however it has two radar arrays fitted back to back. Reducing the dead zone window even more.

          • That depends on the missile making precise predicated path.

            Remember that a subsonic missile moves 300 m per second.
            .If 0.5 sec is outside radar view it means it moved 150m.

            What i suspect: the guns in T31 are not for anti missile work unless in a last ditch hail mary effort and are for gunboat diplomacy against surface targets and drones.

            Sampson is for different proposes. To give data to missiles which being active guided have so to speak their own radar director do they only need to be sent to the general target position and acquire the target with their own radar.

  8. The gun choice on the type 31 I approve of. These are very modern and deadly weapons capable of laying down a heavier weight of fire than the 76mm oto gun (in terms of the BAE 56mm) and the 40mm bofors are also excellent in surface engagement mode and CIWS function. In surface engagement mode the 40mm bofors is terminally effective against all known fast attack and patrol craft as well as low flying helicopters and UAVs. A type 31 equipped with sea ceptor and 56mm and 40mm guns would be a good close defence partner for a QE carrier ensuring very little could penetrate its defensive screen.

    • Yes, for those nay-saying the capability of the T31, a close in escort par excellence. The 40mm in particular a great choice just as we see the use of java in Ukraine and the difficulty in countering them.
      I could see these bulking up a carrier group if the poo ever came onto contact with the rotary air distributor.
      Check out the MARSS Drone interceptor….straight out of Flash Gordon!
      AA

    • I think we have discussed the pros and cons of the 57mm vs the 76mm before. But it is a misconception to say the 57mm will provide a greater weight of fire. Yes, it will definitely put more rounds down range, but it’s affects will be less round for round. As the standard 57mm HE shell, contains less than 1/2 of the explosive content of a 76mm shell.

      For beating an area the 57 should have the advantage against targets in the open, due its better rate of fire. However, the 76 will be more beneficial against hardened targets. But even it has significantly less explosive content compared to a 5” (127mm) HE shell.

      The one area that the 76 does have a true advantage is in sustained fire, as the barrel is water cooled. Whereas the Mk110 57mm’s barrel is not.

      As an anti-air weapon. Both has/will have a precision guided round. The 76 with Leonardo’s DART and the 57 with Raytheon’s MAD-FIRES. Of the two, MADFIRES should have the higher pk value. It has a slightly longer range, but a reduced time to target due to its rocket assistance. Which imparts more kinetic energy, thereby allowing it to carry out more manoeuvres, before it bleeds off too much energy. It also has better guidance, as it uses a proper semi-active radar homing sensor. Therefore it can engage multiple targets nearly simultaneously or as fast as the gun fires.

      Raytheon have said in trials so far, MAD-FIRES has proven to be both reliable and very accurate (but they would, as they were at DSEI!). They also said that the round was scalable to larger barrels. So both the 76 and 5” could use it.

      We will just have to wait and see if it can engage supersonic targets in next year’s trials and is actually as good as their blurb suggests?

        • Would agree to a point. Vulcano like MAD-FIRES is a saboted round. It uses its forebody canards to make the round glide generating a quasi-ballistic path, thereby extending the range to over 80km, when fired from the Pz2000 during trials. It has been scaled down, so that the 76mm gun can use it. But scaling it down further to 57mm, would mean the shell contains even less explosive. So, it is basically doable, but the effects on the target would not be great, probably similar to a 40mm HE shell.

          Using saboted rounds against fast and manoeuvring targets makes sense. As the imparted kinetic energy last longer, due to the dart’s lower drag. MAD-FIRES secret sauce is that the dart is also rocket assisted, thereby accelerating it further. Which means the dart will accelerate for longer before reaching its terminal speed. The explosive content is just enough to cause damage to an object, when set off by a proximity fuse.

  12. This is just disappointing and disjointed thinking. The UK has already invested heavily in CTA40 which has a range of munitions made in UK.

    the RN should be forced to standardise to a common standard and for T31 CTA would be a great fit, as it would for the rivers.

    Bofors is a good product, but in an age where we are told supply chains count and cost of munitions is key, we need to standardise as much as possible. Given we have 200+ CTA40 sitting in a warehouse and a uk munition supply chain this is a poor decision imo.

    perhaps the bofors can go on the polish vessels and there is still time to recover, but I doubt it and now we will have to run 2 new supply chains for 10 and 5 guns…. Poor decision making

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here