The First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference witnessed a keynote speech by Admiral Sir Ben Key that unveiled a substantial upgrade to the UK’s naval firepower.

In his address, Sir Ben emphasised the necessity for the Navy to improve its ability to “deliver lethal long-range offensive fires against our adversaries.”

In light of this goal, he announced a critical decision that will significantly enhance the Royal Navy’s capabilities.

“It is not just about the sensors,” the Admiral said, underlining the importance of the British Navy advancing beyond mere detection and surveillance.

The crux of the speech was the announcement that the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo will be fitted to the Type 31 frigates.

“We also need to advance our ability to deliver lethal long-range offensive fires against our adversaries. Hence the decision to ensure the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo is fitted to the Type 26 and, I am delighted to say, we intend to fit it also to our Type 31 frigates,” Sir Ben declared, underlining the strategic shift in naval capabilities.

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

184 COMMENTS

    • Seems like a strong intention.
      His words: Hence the decision to ensure the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo is fitted to the Type 26 and, I am delighted to say, we intend to fit it also to our Type 31.
      It would make sense to fit them as the other frigates will have them and lots of nato partners.
      Time will tell I guess.

    • No, ml41 vls is for cruise and anti ship missiles. Although with CEC it can provide additional magazine capacity for a T45

        • Strangely enough one of the Type 45’s has some of the gubbins fitted to its main mast for CEC, obviously the work was never completed.

          • It was tested but was found to be ludicrously expensive for what it did IRL.

            Most of which could be done over LINK16.

            Bear in mind that T45 is one of the first properly Ethernet networked ships. Although it started life as a 10T system.

        • Depends what you mean by CEC?

          If you mean to ability to create a multi source synthetic radar picture: then sort of yes. Depends on the resolution and wether it is the radar raw data (no), picture (maybe) or plots (yes).

          If you mean the ability to fire and send an autonomous missile off in the vector of a threat: yes. It only requires LINK16 levels of digital comms.

          If you mean the ability to launch a missile and mid course redirect it: maybe depending on lots and lots of things.

          • Well exactly, the intention was to integrate a version of the USN CEC presumably with certain caveats around national sovereign capabilities etc. The other is develop a wholly UK equivalent system. Personally I think we should have gone with the USN setup to allow interoperability.

          • USN CEC was before ships had a fully IP digital networked architecture.

            So most of CEC can be achieved over LINK16 (and newer flavours) as sending coordinates and vectors does not require loads of bandwidth.

            To some extent, using a load of guesswork and a bit of informed speculation, what RN has done is *probably* better.

            If you go down the CEC route you are going down a technology dead end. As well as running in the lovely ITAR & FMS problems that would limit export opportunities.

      • UK doesnt really need CEC. All RN AAW missiles are active homers. No need to illuminate a target, just get the missile into the basket and let it do its thing.
        Link 16 and Link 22 give you wide area situational awareness from other sources be that AEW, Surface Units Radars and EW.

    • It depends on the context of what you mean by ballistic and its target. If the target is the ship itself, then the missile depending on its dive angle could enter a dead zone directly above the ship, where Artisan wont see it. However, if the target is something else away from the ship, Artisan will see it. The next question, you’ll ask is can CAMM intercept ballistic targets, as its not mentioned by MBDA in the specs? Let’s just say Poland wouldn’t have bought the missile if it couldn’t.

        • No, both Artisan and NS100 use mechanical rotating flat panel arrays. Both use electronic beam forming to amplify and steer the beam. However, because it uses the beam to sweep up and down. Then it is restricted to an elevation of +/- 45 degrees. This is a general rule for most electronically steered arrays. So depending on the the tilt on the antenna determines how high the actual field of view is.

          If you look at the NS100 radar that’s going on the T31, it tilts back something like 20 to 30 degrees. Which would give for example a total elevation angle of 75 degrees. Which means that it won’t be able to see the final 15 degrees to the vertical, which is in essence a blind spot.

          Pretty much all military ships have the same issue, irrespective if they use fixed panal arrays or mechanically rotating ones. Even the T45, as both Sampson and the S1850M use mechanically rotating panel arrays, that don’t have mechanical elevation. There has been a lot of talk of mounting a single Sampson array pointing directly upwards. Which would then fill in the dead zone.

          • Why would you use Sampson for an upward facing panel? It’s not like you need the range and there’d be minimal clutter. Wouldn’t a low-SWaP cheap and cheerful panel be good enough?

          • There’s a lot of reasons why you would want to use an additional Sampson array installed, so that it pointed directly up. Rather than a different make of radar.

            The first is simplicity of integration with the combat management system (CMS). As Sampson is a legacy radar already integrated with the CMS, adding a third array will not be a major headache (in theory). You will need to sought out the timings and frequencies used to prevent interference. But also how the field of view overlap is mitigated.

            The second is cost, even though you may be looking at a cheaper radar. Will it be any cheaper in the long run? As you will need to sought spares, maintenance and support contracts. These are already in place with Sampson.

            Thirdly and perhaps more importantly. You require a radar that can detect the threat as far/high as possible. Therefore a low size, range and power (SWAP) radar would not be suitable. For counter ballistic missile interception and pretty much all anti-missile defence, time is key. You want as much time as possible from when the threat is detected, to the decision to launch a missile at the threat. As this give you a time margin for a follow up shot, if your first fails to destroy the threat.

            When looking directly up, radar will detect the majority of satellites plus all the other debris. It is not a clean or clear environment. Thankfully all the satellites are recorded within an almanac, so their tracks and times of overflight are predictable. Which can be programmed into a ship’s CMS. The debris on the other hand is much more difficult to track. A lot has been mapped by NASA and ESA, but there is still a lot that hasn’t. These will cause false returns that need to be filtered out.

            How successful you can filter out this clutter is determined by the radar’s signal processing capability. This is something that Sampson has in spades. Although the front end hasn’t been upgraded. Its signal processing and software has been constantly upgraded. Therefore, it will have the better chance of detecting and tracking a ballistic missile or multiple re-entry vehicles from all the other satellites and debris in low earth orbit. Allowing the ship to determine what is the true target from countermeasures, decoys and clutter.

            By equipping the T45 with a dedicated look-up radar. It will give the ship the possibility of not only intercepting short range ballistic missiles, But medium range and intercontinental range missiles as well. Plus it will be better placed to handle hypersonic glide vehicles that fly above 150,000ft.

        • T42 had the same issue with1022 and 992/996 as did T22 with 968/967. It could see a high diver launched at range and come in at altitude. The terminal dive of say a AS6 Kingfish or AS 4 Kitchen( Still in use today and its a 1960s era missile) wasn’t exactly vertical so the medium search radar such as 996/967 in missile mode could see it but very late which minimised the engagement envelope for locking it up with 909 or 910/911 trackers and shooting sea dart or sea wolf at it.

          Same still applies to T23, 31, 26 but now you don’t need to lock up the target and illuminate it with a tracker. Active homing improves the hit chances and you can launch multiple missiles at the same target because you are not limited by having just 2 fire control channel with a tracker.

    • No but these are for land and sea attack, not air defence. T45 is getting an ABM upgrade to it’s radars and double the number of Aster 30 Block 1NT ABM capable missiles, in addition to 24 Sea Ceptor, 8 NSM and some sort of ASW capability improvement to Wildcat, making them very capable AD platforms that can also defend themselves from sub and surface threats.

      • Hi James, not double the Asters. The 16 Asters 15s being converted to 30s for the same 48. 24 CAMM is okay, but I reckon this could he expanded to 32 or 48 if they’re willing. I hadn’t heard about the Wildcat improvements, dipping sonar would be sensible plus Marlett and Venom.

  4. So the type 31 could be full to the brim with Camm if going with the QE? That would be great for air defence, happy days.

    • CAMM quad packed or LRASM or Hypersonics or NASM all of which is great news. Hopefully a 16 cell VLS rather than a miserly single 8 cell.

      • Hi Mr bell, I thought it was 4×8 cells or have I misunderstood? As you say whatever is put in them is good news, I still think Camm quad packed sounds really good, if it can take out ballistic missiles aswell and have limited anti ship it’s great stuff.

        • You haven’t, it is 4 x 8. So if loaded solely with CAMM that’s 128 missiles. Unlikely but just shows what an upgrade it is.

          • Yeah definitely, can you quad pack Cammer that would be great if possible, also what other missiles would be in the running to go in if not Camm or so much Camm and other missiles?.

          • I’d imagine it is being installed for FC/ASW mainly. Apparently in service at the end of the decade. We haven’t bought Tomahawk or anything else to go in it. Not yet anyway.

          • Tomahawk would be a really good stop gap until then, I’m more hopeful hearing more arms on ships also just read RAF buying 14 new Chinooks which is more good news.

          • Saving money from one years budget to spend more on the same product in a future year budget. Government procurement at its best.

          • The MoD love reannouncements, especially when they are re-announced alongside cuts.
            Some of the older Chinooks are being retired at the same time, but overall that fleet seems in good shape.

          • Some of the older Chinooks have already been retired, with the first veteran being given to the museum at RAF Cosford. This was the legendary ZA718 better known as Bravo November. The only surviving Chinook from the sinking of the Atlantic Conveyor in 1982. The cab was then in constant operational use from the Troubles, to both Gulf Wars, Former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leon and Afghan.

            Although some of these cabs are over 40 years old. They have been kept up to date through modernisation programs. Plus they have been thoroughly looked after. So I would not be shocked to see them being sold on to another Country.

            The replacements are based on the Block 2 Model Fs. These although looking the same externally, use completely different internal framing. Where the built up frames are replaced with one piece milled frames. Which makes the fuselage a lot stiffer. So technically they could lift more weight, though Boeing haven’t authorised this. They are also ready for future gearbox and engine upgrades. Plus the new more efficient main rotor blade. Sadly no folding rotor heads!

          • Indeed, we covered BNs retirement a while back on here. My all time fav helicopter, there is no equal.

            Will the new ones have a refuelling probe and other enhancements for 7 Sqn?

          • When you purchase a Chinook, it is a bit like ordering a car from a catalogue. You have a number of options that can be configured to the base option. The UK is not going for the base option. That’s as much as I can tell you on this forum.

          • Lynx/Wildcat is the same. Its the equivelant of buying a BMW. Its all optional extras and the options packs are the things that make it good and the options packs come at a higher cost.

          • Yes I think the recapitalisation covers some other work on the present fleet as well, 14 new CH-47s would not cost 1.5 billion more like .6 billion.

          • The RN might follow Japan, Australia, Netherlands in a Tomahawk purchase. Long range land and ship and likely from existing US stocks. Nice and convenient.

          • A bilateral UK/Japan defence agreement to be signed next week I’d heard. Though I thought we’d already signed one recently.

          • Maybe he might be offering QE design to Japan? Just kidding! Japanese are up arming strongly too and there’s already the Tempest/Meteor jv. Submarines, other missiles, who knows?!

          • It was reported in the speech as 4×8. He was very specific and said this is what the type 31s are being fitted for and supplied with.

            What was not clear was if the 31 will still be fitted with CAMM cold launchers as well….it did seem like this was purposefully not mentioned, so I get the impression this may be instead of the cold launch silos…which is not bad but it would be nice to see a T31 with

            32 mk41..16-32 CAMM cold launchers and 8 NSM. That would make for a very nasty ASuW surface combatant…making the T31 not an escort or a patrol frigate…but an offensive strike platform..

    • A mix of CAMM-ER, whatever longer range heavier weight Ashm/ land strike missile is available and a moderate number of booster enabled SPEAR 3 would provide a very flexible and pottent load out.

    • The MK41 needs inside it another launcher called ExLS for CAMM. There are no ExLS operational or really tested with MK41.
      ExLS has until now only one supposed order for the Canadian Type 26 that will be first in service only God nows.

      So don’t expect to see CAMM into Mk41, which this leads me to believe that CAMM will be in the normal CAMM launchers.

        • It still needed to be quad packed to make advantageous. I am not sure it can be adapted to the ESSM quad module. I think the launch system is different.

          • Hi Meirion, i read (somewhere) that the Saudis will have 32*CAMM in their MK41s on their new light frigates. If the CAMM-ER/EX/MR is similar dimensions to ESSM it should be possible to put into the MK41. Maybe this has been part of the UK working with the Poles having MK41s on their A140/T31s, making the CAMM-ER fit these? Maybe the 2*4*6 CAMMs on the RNs T26s could even get reconfigured later on for a greater load.

      • Exactly this.

        It is the cheapest and lowest risk way of doing it as the launchers exist and have been fully test.

  5. So seems like 32 Mark 41s which would be pretty flexible and powerful for a ‘light’ frigate. Plus the NSM could be moved over to once T-23s are out of service. Seems that the FCASW/FOSW is that still expected by end of decade. Well at least the talk is promising let’s hope the results can match it.

    • Is that 32 mk41 or 32 VLS in total with 24 being CAMM and 8 being MK41, I think I have seen this set up before on models of the adaptive strike frigate?

      • All reports say 24 CAMM cells and a further 32 Mk.41 cells. So theoretically, if quad packed into all the Mk.41 cells with disregard for ASM or SSM, the maximum capacity of CAMM on a Type 31 would be 152.

        • That would be a very strong and much needed capability for the RN, hopefully we can increase ship numbers to 8-10 with the same setup. It does seem that we are heading in the right direction which is good to hear.

        • Why on earth would you want to put that many CAMM on one ship?

          It would be much better off with a mix of other missiles and 24 CAMM in soft launch.

          That way it can do a wide variety of things.

          It is also very likely to have 8 NSM on board too as there is a budget line to buy 11 sets of these already.

          • At least whatever is comjng its all looking way better than the original no AShMs and the 12 CAMM which is an absolute 🗑 of space.

          • Just be positive.

            RN now has five more heavily armed frigates to add to the 8 very well armed T26.

            These ships are actually being built, if you ignore the SNP.

            So the frigate fleet is starting to look very, very good. If we see a T31B2 order of 3 – 5 ships I think things are in the right place.

            Along with the T45 upgrade program that is a navy with serious teeth.

            ATM the fleet could urgently do without another ‘type’ as manning is an issue. It is one thing, in time of crisis, working up crews of reservists, veterans and desk sailors who are familiar with a type but a totally different thing if they are asked to crew a type they are not familiar with.

            I do see T31B2 being mainly RNR crewed. And that would be a great thing for getting bods interested in RNR. They can do the near UK taskings and patrol the Med, pop into Gib. Reason I say Med is that training in nice places helps retention. And let’s be real – that is the main issue.

        • Is there any proof anywhere, that T-31 is getting 32 Mk.41 vls, or even 16 vls? You can’t just assume it’s going to be 32 vls, it can be another number. It could be only 8 vls, the minimum for Mk. 41!

      • Good question. Looking at the Danish IH’s you’d think they could easily take 4 x MK41s and 2 x 12 = 24CAMM 🍄!😆

    • I agree, it’s certainly not a ‘light frigate’ – mainly intended for maritime security duties – any longer.

    • I don’t think of type 31s as ‘light’ at 5700 tons, in comparison the type 23s are about 4900.

      Up until this announcement though they mostly have been designed with defensive armament, the Mk41 totally changes that and gives them the ability to launch long-ranged offensive weapons.

  7. Stretch the T45s by a few meters and stuff a 32 cell block at the rear. Fill it full of ABMs. Now that’s an AD ship.

  8. The Daily Express (It came up on my feed) reports the above a little more damning of past naval policy:
    Royal Navy ‘porcupines’ with ‘limited offensive capabilities’ armed with missile launchers

    The Royal Navy is upgrading its much-maligned “porcupine” Type-26 ships with Mk41 missile launchers. It acknowledged that criticism of the surface fleet as lacking offensive capability was “justified”. The frigates were branded “porcupines – well-defended herbivores”. The Royal Navy also announced that the Type-23 will be phased out and the Type-31 frigates are being built and will also carry Mk41 vertical launching system. The new frigates, say the Royal Navy, will become “the backbone of the Fleet’s global operations by the decade’s end”.
     
    They said: “The 31s will be longer and larger than their predecessors, equipped with a 57mm and two 40mm Bofors guns, the Sea Ceptor air defence system, a 4D radar, a large flight deck and hangar, and mission bays to fit equipment.” They added the boats will “perform a variety of missions: maritime security operations, humanitarian aid, air defence, gunfire support, board and search”. The frigates have reportedly been named Inspiration because “either their deeds or the ingenuity of the designers are milestones in Royal Navy history”.
    The Royal Navy plans to build five of the new boats which will be called HMS Venturer, Active, Formidable, Bulldog, and Campbeltown. Work began on the second frigate, Active, earlier this year. Vice Admiral Martin Connell said: “It is truly a pleasure to be invited today, not only to speak and engage with those involved with HMS Active’s past and future but to witness the outcomes of this world-class frigate programme that will be at the heart of the Royal Navy for generations to come.”
    Recently it was announced that the new Type-31s will be fitted with a weapons launch system known as the Mk41 VLS and will be fitted with 32 cells. The development of the new frigates comes as the Royal Navy looks to strengthen its arsenal of up-to-date armour after a damning report.

    Published in 2021 by the Defence Committee, the report said the budget priorities of successive governments had delivered a fleet of “well-defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”.

    The report said: “What offensive capabilities these ships do have will be reduced even further in three years’ time when the Government retires the Harpoon anti-ship missile without a planned replacement. “More money must be found to upgrade the Navy’s lethality and allow our ships to take the fight to the enemy. We welcome the promises from the Department that future vessels will carry the offensive missiles they need and in particular that this will restore a land attack capability to the fleet. “The Department must deliver the funding to swiftly end the spectacle of space on highly capable vessels being used to carry nothing but air.”
     
    The Type-31 frigate’s progress comes as the UK’s armed forces walk a tightrope between balancing the books whilst trying to maintain Britain’s standing as a creditable air and naval power. Amid growing global tensions ratcheted up by the war in Ukraine and tensions over Taiwan, there is growing concern Britain may not be strong enough militarily to have a meaningful impact.
     
    The government has given much of its heavy armour to Ukraine in its bid to evict Russia from its territory whilst the experts have criticised the government for not spending enough on defence. Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King’s College London, Sir Lawrence Freedman, told the Financial Times the Army was the department suffering the most. He said: “There is an urgent need to replenish the [munitions] cupboard, which will take time and be expensive. The main issue is what to do with the Army. Unlike the navy and air force, it is conceptually unclear what its job is.”

  9. Its taken over 50s year to get from the T21 to T31, but the later is now starting to look like a genuine GP frigate! I’m now in the camp of put the T32 project on hold, and instead order another batch of T31’s. Greece was a disappointment, but Babcock remains optimistic that its the right design at the right time for finally winning some UK build exports orders. If the customer is demanding quick delivery, sell an RN ship and order a replacement.

    • One of the things that baffles and annoys me about U.K. and European military purchasing is the never ending brand new project after brand new project and nothing gets built in sufficient numbers.
      We spend the money but end up with insufficient Mass.
      I have never seen the sense in switching to T32 from T31. Providing they can be built at roughly the agreed price and on time then use the opportunity to use economies of scale to build more.
      The other thing I would ask is the T45 / Horizon design worth considering for a Batch 2 rather than a brand new T83 ?

      • Whilst I get that the development of the Type 83 is essential to preserve and enhance our home grown Warship Design and Manufacturing skills, the idea of a Batch 2 Type 45 has some merit,albeit with a few tweaks – Mk41 fitted at build,upgrades to Samson and MT30 GT’s instead of WR21.The Type 83 to me will have a similar role to the Ticonderoga Cruisers – taking the AAW Lead of a Carrier Strike Group while being more able to contribute to ASW than the T45 currently can.

        • Maybe replace the 4.5″ main gun with the 5″ as per T26? Though Bofors 57mm (as per T32) maybe a better fit for a air defence vessel? Perhaps both if possible?

        • Ticos are on the way out. Most are knackered. I was shocked at the state of some of the ones I have worked on.
          Flight III ABs will take the strain…a 30 + year old design that’s had some upgrades above 1 deck but it is still a 30yr old design below 1 deck. GT propulsion and GT alternators= A massive thermal signature.

          • The USA is at the opposite end of most countries government views on the military. The USA forces get forced to keep knackered, expensive kit they don’t want while most other countries get forced to dump kit want to keep and still has use left in it.
            A happy medium never happens. 🙈

          • The USN does not have a great recent record in ship design. LCS, zumwalt, even the Connie’s are someone else’s (Fremm) baseline design. They have completely atrophied in the design of FF/DD

          • ok, I’ll suggest it, Type 31 with 32 Mk41 and 24 Sea Ceptor looks better value than Constellation with 32Mk41 and 24 Rolling Airframe, 🙂

          • I believe the Constellation are going to be the USN’s primary surface based ASW asset, so more like a T26 in that respect. It will be interesting to see if the FREMMs noise signature can be lowered to match a T26’s?

            A question for GB. If the T31s have their machinery bolted to the frames. Could they be rafted at a later date, to reduce noise?

          • Is the received wisdom that LCS is a failed replacement for the Oliver Perry class? If so then it looks like the USN needs something like T31, as well as replacements for Tico and AB.

          • The Giant Slow speen marine Diesels get bolted onto frames.

            No Military diesels that I have seen in any navy get bolted onto a ships frame. The same is true for GTs and gensets. All engines I have worked on are mounted on Vibration mounts and the mounts are bolted to the frames. However for extra quietening you can put the engine on a vibration mount and then on a raft and then mount the raft on its own mounts onto the frame ( Double isolation) . Rafting is V expensive to do and can be a bit of an engineering nightmare . Other things you do are flexible hoses/couplings between the engine and the ships systems (no direct solid pipes = no noise shorts) and put the engine in an enclosure. Enclosures make damage control easier as well as any fire is retained in the module/enclosure.

            Gearboxes are another story they need to be rigidly mounted and so go onto the frames. they connect to diesel drive engines via a flex coupling or a fluid coupling.

            The engines shouldnt be a big issue to be acceptable noise wise and good gearbox design also is a massive plus. Fixed pitch props ( Not CPP) help to reduce cavitation at sonar operating speeds.

            It depends what you want to do Passive or Active. Using a tail you have VIM ( Vibration Isolation Modules ) built into the array at the end of the cable to help reduce vibration from the tow cable allowing the array to better do its stuff. With a tail you are also seperated from the vessel by many 100s of meters in length and depth. With an active LF VDS ( 2087) you transmit at depth to acheive detection and that may well be below any thermocline layers anyway.

            RN hull mounted Active sonar is realy really good and the electronics in them help immensly with removing self generated noise. We used to get very good detection ranges with 2050 on T22 and they where not as quiet a ship as a T23. Active hull mounted sonar on T23 gets very very good ranges if the enviromentals are with you in the deep ocean.

            An other important thingon board, but often overlooked, is a bit of Marine Engineers kit HVME. It monitors Hull Vibration using a number of hull mounted sensors to identify any issues with running machinery. It helps to identify pumps, engines, motors etc that may be pushing unacceptable vibration frequencies and harmonics ( Noise) into the hull and hence into the sea.

          • No expert, but I thought ASW hull noise dampening had to be built in from the start.

          • Every bit if kit including little local pumps needs to be rafter. Pipework needs flexible couplers.

            Sure you can reduce the biggest noise signatures by a few bold moves but then it is marginal gains.

            You can’t do anything about gearbox noise

      • There is some sense in thinking about a blank slate “Type 32” rather than going blindly down the route of more of the same. Taking on another concept phase was almost certainly a good thing as it forced us to think where we are going with lower tier warships, which we didn’t really do with the T31 first time around, beyond more hulls on the cheap.

        If the Arrowhead is then capable of a few tweaks to help it get closer to what we need/want, why wouldn’t we do that? If we identify that we need ASW, can we afford rafted engines and do we need them? Do we need to enlarge the mission space? Have a flagship option? A VIP conference and sales room? Move to three identical guns? Do we want to have more POD slots? More hotel power? Be greener, more bandwidth, better damage control systems, more automation, smaller crew, bigger crew, standardised integration for drones, a holodeck.

        That kind of thinking if unfettered leads to a massive cost hike, but provided a realistic cost ceiling is rigidly imposed and concept priorities adhered to, we could find that a T31 B2 is significantly improved through the exercise. Maybe the holodeck requirement becomes the integration of VR systems for multi-user synthetic environment training. Maybe we find there are better engine options available for the same price than need some minor rearrangment. Maybe some improvements to automated fire supression or valve closures. Little things that can add up. (You can tell I’ve never been on an active warship, but substitute your good ideas for my dumb ones.)

        And because we’ve been looking at it from a new ship POV we may have started early enough to undertake the extra design work to achieve the goals, as opposed to the “we don’t have to think about that just yet” mentality, followed by rushed changes and delays.

    • Or just ramp up production. That’ll be my preference “we want 8 and we won’t wait”
      Hopefully an awareness of the ever growing Chinese and Rusfascist axis of evil means the RN will get 10x type 31, up the type 26 order back to 13 and get 10 more type 32s. Then the SSNr with at least 12 subs and the RN will be respectable again.

      • This is my impression too. Probably a different load of cells and missiles and probably with a greater focus on autonomous equipment (perhaps containerised drone launch and recovery systems or something of the sort) but a similar or slightly modified hull.

      • According to the former 1SL- that was a strong possibility.

        He said it at the same time as he said that he would like Mk41 on T31….

    • Back in the day though it was recognised that type 21 design was under-armed, Exocet launchers were quickly added.

        • Welcome.

          It is odd that number of dedicated Sea Ceptor cells on T31 is still a mystery. 12 or 24 seem to be in the mix

          • I would like to see 24, but I would even say that’s still too low without CWIS. At this point, I’m not a fan of the type 31. It seems lacklustre. It feels like this (Link). Oh, well.

          • Tell how those Bofors and 57 fire in the rain and fog against a missile? Where is the radar director?

          • That radar rotates. So it cannot be always be following the enemy missile like a tracking radar. In 20 secs a subsonic missile moves 100m that is enough for the gun to be off.

          • True, but the NS100 rotates once every 2 seconds at 30 rpm. Which doesn’t sound that great. But you have to remember it’s an AESA radar, so can sweep left and right, up and down as it rotates. Therefore, unlike legacy mechanically scanned radars. The transmitted and received beam is not constrained by the direction the radar is pointing in.

            Being AESA helps keep the target in view longer, even though the radar is rotating. Admittedly it’s not perfect, but it has demonstrated that it can easily keep up with high speed subsonic targets. Supersonic and faster is a bit taxing, though still doable.

            Another trick radars like NS100 have is they can vary their rotation speed. So if a threat has been detected on the port side for example it can slow the rotation down to dwell longer on that side. Thereby keeping the target illuminated for longer.

            I am still a bit perplexed by the RN’s decision to only have a single primary search/tracking radar on the T26 and T31. As this means that the radar must share its duty time between searching and tracking. Much better to separate these roles.

            Have to laugh at Thales sales speak about NS100 being a 4D radar. The first mechanically scanned pulse-Doppler radars were 4D and that was over 40 years ago.

          • Its a multi channel EO so has visible and thermal sensors.
            That said CAMM has a really close in min engagement range so it will help

          • For a patrol frigate 24 camm probably ok given 2 x 40mm and 1 x 57mm assuming smart ammunition.

  12. Meanwhile, down the road at H.M. Treasury …

    I hope the current state of world affairs has penetrated the minds of the holders of the purse strings.

  13. Having Mk41 on T26 and T31 makes purchase of US missiles through FMS an option if the UK/FR missile project is delayed or cancelled.

    Alternatively if the UK/FR missile does materialise, maybe NSM can be kept in service in parallel and fitted to the Batch 2 River Class OPVs which are “forward deployed” overseas. Would make them a better match for peer vessels.

    • However, B2 River OPVs would probably also need better defensive armament – 40 mm or 57 mm Bofors in place on the 30 mm. Maybe even role-fit of containerised Sea Ceptor in the fight deck.

    • I’d like to see us investigate whether the B2 River’s could be reconfigured as MCM mother’s hips. They would then be of some actual use. If they can’t, then sell them and use the operating cost savings to preserve more of our existing world class MCM capability and use the money raised from the sale to put a sonar on the T31

    • It is very dangerous up arming the B2’s.

      They then look and smell like a warship. But they are not a full fat warship.

      When something goes terribly wrong they get sent to war with terrible results.

      Nope, they are useful for constabulary duties and for UK costal defence.

      • RN has already forward deployed B2 Rivers in potential conflict zones. And they’ll be there at least until all the T31s are in service. Thus at least defensive upgrades are in order (e.g. CIWS, Bofors 40 mm or 57 mm).

        I doubt our potential adversaries would hold fire just because these vessels are currently lightly armed!

        I suspect NSM will stay on frigates/ destroyers so Brimstone (aka Sea Spear) is a more likely ASM option for the OPVs (maybe with Camcopter UAV for over-the-horizon targeting)

        • “I doubt our potential adversaries would hold fire just because these vessels are currently lightly armed!”

          About time the UK should forward deploy an Astute sub E. of Suez!

  14. I can’t believe my breakfast at the moment!
    He’ll be putting MK41s in the T45s next…. Lol 😁
    Good news. Sensible.

  15. Wonder now with this that they’ll have to pay even more for these T31s and it might justify paying Babcock some extra monies. Like to see an extra 1-3 of these to boost the fleet numbers quickly. Anyway, good news. Now they have to fill all these MK41s!

    • The Mk41s will be paid for from a different budget. The fixtures and fittings for Mk41, were I believe part of the fixed contract price. So yes the total outfitting cost will be high? But the base price of the ship will remain the same.

  16. If some of these MK41s are for quad pack CAMM/CAMM-ER then this can be done on the T45s and even T26s.

    • Wonder if this has been spurred on a bit by seeing what weapons fit is getting put into the Polish A140s? Sounds as capable.

        • Have to find a related article. Bit hard at the moment and someone else might beat me too it. From what I could see from the illustration, 4*mk41, 16* AShMs, 1*76mm, medium helo (Polish Merlin) , 2*CIWS RWS. Maybe other things too and of course decent radar, EW/ECM and CMS.
          I like the fact they’re manufacturing parts of the RNs T31s, good cross-sharing of resources, skills, ideas and hopefully speed up delivery and maybe some further export orders.

  17. Presumably we are talking about Mk41 being installed in addition to the already planned (24?) Sea Ceptor silos? Will NSM also be installed? What started out as a lightly armed, rather over-sized gunboat is about to become a formidable vessel!!

    • This was always the intent, to increase its armament according to necessity. I don’t think the NSM will move to the Type 31, although it seemed like this initially, considering that 32 Mk.41 will permit for a substantial number of the more capable FC/ASW.

      • NSM will transfer over from T23 to T31 regardless of the MK41 fit – details have yet to be announced of when MK41 will be fitted into the T31 Ships but i can’t see a reason why they won’t be fitted at build.

    • Sadly the NSM can’t be fired from the Mk41, due to its engine intake location. However, the JSM version can. So there is always that option.

      Though there still be space for cannister launcher AShM even with a CAMM and Mk41 farm.

      Hurry up and wait comes to mind!

  18. What’s not clear is timing and phasing.

    Let existing hulls run as is and add initially to hulls yet to commence construction or is this modify all prior to delivery or commission all as ordered and modify all on first major yard work.

    I would like to think that those already in construction will be delivered as ordered without variation.

    Mk41 is vg good news but I do wonder if this is part of ‘facilitating’ the cost overrun disagreement issues flagged a couple of months ago. 🤔

    • I imagine the first three will be built as is, with mk 41 going into T31 hull 4 from build. Hulls 1-3 should then receive them during their first major DRP or refit. Generally speaking, the Navy doesn’t like to change/add improvements to a design until the first 3 of a class have been built.

      HMS Glasgow is built and fitting out, she wont get Mk 41 until a few years time I imagine. Still, could be totally wrong of course, but, with nothing currently to occupy the tubes, time will tell.

      • I believe the Mk41 vls tubes for Glasgow arrived in the UK a little while ago, and the UK has already entered into assessment phase with the US for fitting to Type 31

          • As the UK has already entered into the assessment phase with the US on fitting Mk41 vls to Type 31 I suspect the decision was made a while ago and kept quiet with things more advanced than you might think. Bearing in mind the slow build rate of Type 26, silos already ordered could be diverted to Type 31 with plenty of time to replace. It makes more financial sense to add at build, specially if Mk41 is replacing the Sea Ceptor silos.

          • Hi Paul, that’s not a bad shout either really.
            I get the bit about the assessment phase and that plans are shall we say in place for Mk41?
            However, I just can’t see us going at that pace as it incurs lots of extra costs.
            T31 is being built to a budget £250-£270 mill a pop). Detailed design plans already produced with the first ship already unde construction. I personally think that Venturer will come out without Mk41 fitted purely as a baseline to work to. Whether the navy follows suit and builds hull 2 & 3 without them remains to be seen, after all 1SL words were ‘intend to fit’ which to me implies not yet!
            All speculation of course, along with what’s going to go in them, but will keep us all busy posting for some time to come.

          • It’s amazing what can be achieved when the will is there! Type 31 is being built with the seat upon which Mk41 will be mounted along with all the empty space need to accommodate it. At the end of the day, fitting the Mk41 vls is not such a big deal. Plus if Babcock want the Type 32 order and indeed future warship orders, they’ll make it happen.

          • I don’t quite see it that way Paul. Agree that the T31 has been designed with the Mk41 in mind, but, it’s being built with the CAMM farm in place. This some redesign work will be needd. It’s still very unclear when Mk 41 will be fitted, and what is happening with the as fitted CAMM farm? Will it stay, or go, or indeed will it be integrated into Mk41?
            Like you I have little doubt it will happen, it is the timeframe and fit that remains less clear.

          • Yes, read the same article. The point is, until more detailed information comes to light, we don’t really know what the extent of any redesign work will involve. It might be little, or more. The good news is the Navy intends to fit them, which gives the T31 a far greater capability then it had. All of which is a positive step IMO.
            .

          • The simplest option is simply to replace the Camm cells completely and fit Mk41 in its place. There won’t be a mushroom farm as that was a stop gap on the 23’s that allowed the longer square Camm cells to be fitted into existing shorter, round Seawolf cells.
            On the IH class MK57 cells are fitted either side of Mk41. Haven’t seen any Type 31 drawings or artists impressions that show a similar Camm/Mk41 arrangement, but Type 31 is based on that design…….so potentially drawings already exist for such an arrangement and given the current build state of Venturer it wouldn’t be rocket science to amend layout prior to fitting out.

  20. This is brilliant news if it all transpires, the big problem is what to put in the MK41’s and will the treasury pay for them.
    So far everyone seems to be thinking TLAM or quad packed CAMM, but if I remember correctly the Aster 30 missile can be fitted in a MK41.
    And that to me makes a lot more sense than CAMM.
    8 NSM, 16 TLAM, 24 CAMM and 16 Aster 30 whats not to like ?

    I just wish some good news would be anounced about some extra P8’s, 2 more Wedgetails and extra ASW Helicopters (new batch of AW101 ??)

  21. Aye Same old BS I’ll believe this when I see it .

    Even if this actually materialises then I guarantee those shitebag politicians will allocate only enough funding for our magnificent navy to have 18 missiles allocated for the Mk41 on the T31. However there will be the added bonus that the 250 other missiles will be gifted to our favourite foreign military all at the British tax payers expense of course😉

    One can only hope sanity returns but alas the next crowd of treasonous shitehooses who will inevitably be inhabiting the corridors of power won’t improve things. WTS they will be subcontracting all decision making to the UN 😂

    🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

  22. The Arrowhead 140 for T31 is proving to be a great decision. Add noise reduction and/ or expand the mission bay you get a very credible ASW / UUV platform. Add Mk41 you get a strike and / or AAW asset. Quantity has a quality all of its own.

    • You don’t get much noise reduction features with a frigate design costing £250 million a pop. You can’t really add it later either, it has to be incorporated during build to be of any use. Its also v expensive, which is partly why the T26’s cost so much.

      • Yes, understood. My wording was a bit loose. ‘Add’ should have been ‘incorporate’….and yes, the cost would increase.

    • That’s illogical and a more complicated and expensive way of doing it. Each vessel will be out of service for weeks whilst the launch silos and all associated cabling and connections/ are physically fitted and integrated into the ship’s combat management system is completed. Fitting at build is far more straightforward.

      • I suspect the contract with Babcock had a “no changes during build phase” clause to keep to the £250m cost and time schedule. May end up costing more to fit later, but RN desperately needs these ships on-time and on budget.

        They’ll almost certainly get NSMs from retiring T23s sooner than Mk41 as that’s a less invasive fit.

  24. This is the best news I’ve heard for a long time! Proper respectable potent warships. Please sir, can I have more?

  25. Quad packing CAMM…

    You pay north of 15Mill USD via FMS, for a strike length (8M Long) MK 41, 8 cell unit. Its built to fire missiles with rocket motor efflux so it comes with efflux management built in. It also comes with extensive fire fighting built in incase you get a hangfire or a warhead issue.

    CAMM is soft launched from its own shipping, stowage, launcher all in one cannister …no rocket motor efflux so you dont need efflux management
    No hangfire issues because the motor fires externally outside of the vessel. If it doesnt soft launch it will just stay exactly where it is and do nothing. No flame, no fire, no issue.
    CAMM is around 3.5 Metres long in its cannister. Do you want to waste a 6M Tactical or 8M Strike length module fitting a 3.5 metre cannister into it?
    CAMM is quick reaction and it launches through the top of its cannister. If in a MK41 its going to need the door to be opened first before it can punch through its cannister. Thats adding delays to its quick reaction launch time.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here