Potential Royal Navy procurement over the next 18 months

My thoughts are that they will go for small autonomous ASW vessels. Carried aboard and lowered into water as and when. Elbit already have a fully functioning system called Seagull with dipping sonar.

Yes, totally. Why isn’t there a follow up order for Merlin’s if we’re a bit short on numbers? I think the Polish army is getting the AW149 and their navy the Merlin. Now with some T23 dropping out now a few more T31s to bolster numbers sharing manufacturing with Poland if necessary. At least the Anglo-Polish CAMM-EX might make an appearance sometime.

Well over the last few days the Polish buy has changed.
They signed up in 2019 for 4 AW101 for their Navy and now instead of the AW149 they ordered 22 AW101 for their Army.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/04/29/poland-acquires-aw101-helos-for-navy-under-430m-deal/

These will be built in Leonardos PZL factory. Now IMHO would be a great opportunity to talk to Leonardo about a new AW101 buy for the Navy and possibly AW149 for the Army to replace the Pumas.
IF it was me I’d just buy more AW101 and KISS the logistics chain.

I wonder if this may then mean Hellfire integrated onto the AW101? Or mixed fleet with AW149. Something the UK could also do. I see Poland in also getting 90+ Apache’s. Blimey, that’s a force and a half!

That ship has sailed, the space for MK41’s has been allocated for 24 VLS CAMM. Besides which MK41 s are horrendously expensive. I just wonder where the crew will work out now the “Mk 41 Gym” is closing.
As for ASROC it really is a weapon from a different era replaced by Helicopters and UAV’s, which is why very few Navies use it these days.
Besides which I can’t see a T45 being much use as an ASROC carrier as it hasn’t got a decent ASW sonar. I seem to remember someone saying the Sonar on T45 weren’t even manned these days as the operators were in such short supply.

Have to disagree with you a bit. There’s room for more CAMM whether MK41 or six pack silo. 24 is okay, but so is 32 or 48. There’s room atop of the hangar. With the gym, just move it somewhere else. Having the gym next to the armoury is completely nuts! None of the these missiles can be reloaded at sea so capacity for long deployments and any potential high intensity scenarios need to be considered. Considering the T83 is nowhere to be seen yet and post PIP maximising the upgrades to the still youngish T45s is surely sensible at the moment. Like to a see a few T31 AAW types purchased too, to bulk up the fleet and good for LRG protection. That’s my wish list for today.

I’m not sure you understand the bit about the “MK41 Gym”, it is a joke. The space was allocated at build so that they could have 2 MK41 VLS, as it was a big empty void, so why not put a Gym in it ? It was doing nothing else.
The T45 is going to lose its Aster 15’s which provide the short range AAW cover, they are being replaced with 100% Aster 30 (possibly ABM versions). That leaves a need for short range cover so 24 CAMM fits the bill nicely and if we are clever we can even fit CAMM-ER just like Italy.

As for “Room atop the Hanger” that is a non starter for multiple reasons.

1. The T45 is primarily a AAW and was designed as such, her Sampson radar is a big heavy rotating 2 arrayed radar and is mounted very high up. Which is why she has excellent sensor range compared to other systems. But it is weight high up in the ship and has to be compensated for elsewhere in the calculations. Which is why all the heavy kit is below decks and as low as possible.
2. When designed; space and weight was calculated, designed and allocated for some known extra weapons, which we couldn’t afford. Hence the space / weight for VLS, SSM, CIWS (not fitted at 1st build) and ASW torpedoes. That all was built into the design margin.
3. T45 are going through PIP which adds an extra DG set and switch room which wasn’t in the original calculations so that affects the available Margin. If you add a Merlin instead of Wildcat that eats a wee bit more and so on.
4. You do not fit things that go bang if hit on top of a hanger. And I don’t think a Helicopter pilot would be to keen on having a missile vertically launched right next to where you are flying (actually CAMM is lightly off vertical). Have you ever wondered why all RN ships have all their missiles towards the bow ?
5. The thing most folks don’t understand is a design isn’t infinitely flexible, there are certain design parameters you just don’t try to mess with. The biggest most important calculation is “Metacentric Height” if you ignore that and add weight post design then things can go seriously wrong.

See Wasa, Mary Rose, Hunt class and a whole shed
load of pre WW2 IJN ships for details.

Bottom line is don’t add weight high up post build, unless it was designed into the equations.

Hi Rodney, liked your reply and all the detail. Yes I do understand the “gym” but I find the non take up of MK41s a huge legacy of wasted opportunity as is the 24 CAMM farm. Understand about constraints of weight, close proximity to the radars and comms, CoG, FOD. I’m sure the experts will know what they’re doing so we’ll leave it to them. 🍄 CAMM itself is pretty light so I still feel they can add an additional 1-2*6 alongside the Aster silo and all above deck. The BAE adaptive frigate concept show this exactly in combo with a MK41. Anyway, “I know nothing” really. Just enthusiastic for a wee bit more. It’s contagious you know. Lol. 😆

I wasn’t comparing RDN ASW with RN ASW, of course T23 and T26 are leaps and bounds better than Iver Huitfeldt class which I meant to say.
My point was, these ships still carry out ASW work. Arleigh Burkes aren’t the quietest of ships but have been the mainstay of the largest Navy in the worlds ASW fleet for 10+years.
If the submarine will hear and destroy the frigate before it’s even located then the frigate has an even smaller chance of survival without a sonar.

AB’s have been in service now for 32 years and their
LM2500 power plant is way past its sell by tech wise. The Zumwalts and LCS sucked up the funds for a new design and look where that went.
Their new frigates are an enlarged iteration of the Italian FREMM and so will have a CODLAG system which is a 1st for the USN.
And because it is unknown Congress insists on a full land based test before hand.

If you are using an LF VDS sonar ( 2087) you are actively transmitting to get the long ranges.
The days of Passive=Massive 2031 listening only are well gone.
Even hull mounted Active sonars give you a good chance of getting detection way past a subs torpedo weapon range.

All DGs are in boxes for sound suppression and fire fighting . Its a lesson learnt from having GTs in modules. DGs are on Vibration mounts anyway . The Gear box isnt. Yes electric drive is quiet but if you dont have it it does not mean you cannot do ASW.

I heard a presentation from Ultra, who make the navy’s hull-mounted sonars, where it was suggested you could even get good use putting them on civilan vessels of opportunity.

Ultra Just been bought by a USA company. And so the beating goes on. Vital national interest doesn’t count any more does it? In the past 18 months our defence industry has continued to be hoovered up.

I cannot see why not.
I have done dockings and refit work on the USNS Invincible that was originally a SURTASS ship based on a civilian Tuna Boat design. The linked description gives you an unclass idea of how an active towed array works and why it doesnt really matter what tows it.

Anyway when I worked on her refit she had left SURTASS behind and had a massive Cobra Gemini Tracking radar fitted in a Dome midships and all the associated electronic below that. I had a great intro into it from the Raytheon Techs who built and maintained it for the US Air Force who where onboard to operate it. It was basically a massive, on steroids 2 band tracker
She still had quietening stuff onboard…a few things but nothing exotic. Vibration mounted kit ( Not rafted) was the norm and she had diesel electric drive which is not unusual on civilian shipping anyway.

Slightly off subject but do you know if they added extra sound suppression to the 3 new DG sets on the PIP T45 ?

Not seen the fit. However I would surmise that they are on there own shock/vibration mounts and enclosed.
Shock/Vibration mounts will be a must because of big heavy kit moving in a ship when running. They also need to meet Shock protection DEFSTANS.
Enclosures cut down noise in the space. They also have a dedicated gas drench system so if it goes bang and catches fire the fire is retained in the enclosure and you dont lose the whole space.
HMS Broadsword had a DG fire during the early 90s off of Yugoslavia. I was on HMS Brazen at the time out there with them and Argus. I knew a lot of the WE/ME lads onboard as The T22 B1 community was a close knit thing.
Their DG sets where not in enclosures. When that fire happened they blew a single skin injector fuel line. The fire erupted and people got out of the space but didn’t close the hatch in the panic. As a result they had a fire ball leave the space on 2 deck , the fireball went aft towards the quarterdeck and up onto 1 deck. They lost the whole machinery space , 2 young Stokers died and it took a herculean effort to recover the space.
Since then DGs get their very own wendy house to run inside.

Thanks for that GB informative as always. I can’t think of a worse way to go than fire or scalding, my late uncle helped clean up after a fatal Steam Leak many years ago. Stayed with him for life,

I was at Portland FMG when HMS Plymouth had an engine room fire. The lad who died I knew from Tiff training.
Its not a great experience assisting with the the subsequent aftermath.

I’m confused, the Ivor Huitfeldts are classified as anti air warfare frigates whereas the Absalons were (predominantly) anti submarine designs weren’t they? Why would the former have to be quieter than the latter, or have I mis-interpreted your words?

Well it is quite a Confusing story.
The Absalons were not designed as frigates but as Multi purpose support vessels with patrol and self defence capacity built in. The stern and profile aft is wider and less hydrodynamic than a frigate or destroyer. They have a vehicle stern ramp, multi purpose logistics bay to carry ISO containers, mine laying for 300 mines, military vehicles including 7 MBT, multiple positions for Stanflex containerised modules. She can be armed with various weapons such as 5” guns, 76mm guns, Harpoon missiles and containerise ESSM missiles.
Denmark has upgraded them to serve as ASW frigates with new weapons and sensors, but they are still limited compared to a purpose built ship.
They are powered by 2 MTU diesels giving her only 24 knots.

They really are a remarkable design and for a small Navy with only 5 frigate sized ships gives huge flexibility. But just like a Swiss Army knife she is nowhere as useful in any one role as a purpose designed vessel.

But Denmark then built on the design and remodelled them into the Iver Huitfeldt class. The stern was redesigned, re profiled and power was doubled so speed increased to 30 knots. That is what the T31 is based on.

I think that If war breaks out between the UK and Russia, China there will be no lower intensity theatres freeing up the first line surface escorts to focus on the high intensity fighting

Sure there will. The Russian Navy is dwarfed by European NATO and will mostly be bottled up in the Black Sea and “Lake NATO.”

The Med won’t be a huge high intensity zone, but will still need presence, as will the Caribbean and South Atlantic. Even the Gulf and Red Sea will probably be secondary fronts.

High End warships will be fighting in the North Sea, GIUK, and Pacific. The rest of the world won’t be high intensity.

Exactly it’s not like piracy or other actors will just pause ops just because a high end war breaks out. In fact likely hood is they would up the tempo.

This. Plus everyone seems to be forgetting we are in NATO, and are unlikely to have to fight a high intensity war without NATO. We won’t be in a Falklands situation where NATO/Commonwealth forces will backfill our other commitments so we can “send everything.” Because they’ll be sending their high end units as well.

E.g. the Germans are not going to be sending a Baden-Württemberg to backfill our Caribbean Missions because those will be patrolling off the Horn of Africa so that the F-126’s and 127’s can be provided to escort QE, PWLS, CdG and Cavour.

I disagree that we’ll be able to hold them back for secondary tasks. No enemy will ever say, “Oh they’re not proper frigates, we’ll let them off!” It’s just empty words, lies, delusion or sinister naivity. We have so few escorts we’ll have to use whatever is available & if they’re 2nd rate, then the crew & country will suffer. Thankfully with a decent hull size & design, bringing them up to a decent standard looks acheivable if the will is there. The MK 41 VLS is a great start to ensuring they’re effective escorts rather than 2nd rate flag wavers.

But we don’t have few escorts.
NATO, according to Statistica because I don’t have the time right now to double check their maths with my own count, has 135 Frigates, and 112 Destroyers, This is against Russia’s 11 Frigates and 10 Destroyers, and the PLANs 49 FFs and 51 DD’s. So even if we fought the Russians and the Chinese at the same time we’d still have a massive overmatch.

At the end of the day just because a high intensity war breaks out against a peer adversary, doesn’t mean we’ll be able to neglect the other parts of the world. It’s either we make 2nd rate ships to free up first rate ships or we’ll spend billions on a ship that will just cruise around the Caribbean for a few years during the war.

At the time of the Falklands we had c60 escorts in the RN & NATO had larger fleets. Today we’re stretched way too thin with 16 or 17 escorts & allies generally also have fewer escorts than back then too. Russia has a lot of corvettes that are more frigate in size & capability. PLAN is close to outbuilding the USN except in supercarriers, though other East Asian neighbours/rivals combined match them.

Before we reduced escort numbers that far, it was considered widely that 25-30 were the bare minimum for the RN, but idiotic chancellors insisted on reducing to 19, currently 16 or 17 until numbers start to climb again(only to c24?)by c2030.

RN Admirals say we need a bigger escort fleet.

I’ve not counted the Corvettes because the absolute longest range Russian Corvettes can’t get past Iceland before they’re out of fuel, and vary considerably in size (some are only about 500t displacement). But even then, if you want to count the Russian Corvette fleet:

My count now, so numbers might be slightly different:
NATO (not counting Sweden) has
26 Aircraft Carriers
17 Cruisers
85 Destroyers
161 Frigates
99 Corvettes

Russia has:
1 Aircraft Carrier
4 Cruisers
11 Destroyers
11 Frigates
82 Corvettes

Nato could only deploy it’s Frigate fleet and still have more combatants deployed than the entire Russian Navy (and that’s before remembering that a large portion of that fleet will never get out of “Lake NATO” or the Black Sea, or before you remember that the Black Sea Flagship was sunk, and the rest of the Black Sea fleet chased to port by a nation that doesn’t have a Navy).

I’m not going to do the same thing for the PLAN because then you’d have to start counting in India, Japan, Korea, and Australia, and I can’t be bothered to do that, but while the PLAN is growing it will never reach a point where the West (especially the West + India) will have a material disadvantage that will require EVERYTHING to be sent.

RN Admirals are in the business of growing the RN, of course they’ll say we need a bigger fleet. 24 doesn’t sound like much but 161 does.

As for Historical comparisons, they never do anything for me. The RN might have had 60 surface escorts in 82, but the capability of those compared to even the Inspiration class that’s being poo-pooed was minimal, but more importantly: The Soviet Union was a thing back then (Just to highlight the difference: The Soviet Union had 110 Frigates, and 5 Aircraft Carriers compared to their current 11 and 1).

The T21 was exactly the same philosophy. But as we saw in the Falklands, when a crisis erupts everything grey gets sent.

I take your point but I disagree with it: The Falklands was a 1 on 1 War between the UK and a not quite peer power, with no NATO involvement.
Taskings for the T-21 were backfilled by NATO and commonwealth neighbours, rather than a multinational battlegroup being created, which is what is envisioned right now.
If the argument is about a UK vs Russia/China on it’s own war, rather than a coalition, I’d say we’re pretty buggered anyway.

CAMM is better but I’m presuming it would be much more expensive to fit as it would require VLS to be installed. We already have a couple of dozen Phalanx mounts which the ships mentioned are configured to carry. Sea RAM can be fitted to those therefore leveraging the existing mount and its radar.

Yes it would require VLS and could be more expensive or maybe it wouldn’t.
Odd answer but I’ll explain.
Firstly I’d keep the Phalanx and add the CAMM in 2 stand alone VLS boxes Port and Starboard just like the French CDG and Italian Cavour do with Aster.
The reason I say maybe not; is the difference beteen purchase, installation and through life costs.
We already have CAMM in service with both the Navy (Sea Ceptor) and Army (Sky Sabre) and I understand we are adding CAMM ER to the mix as well. It also has a lot of commonality with the RAF ASRAMM missile, which replaced the US obsolete Sidewinder (which is also the baseline RAM missile).
We have CAMM on the T23 and going into the T26, T45, T31 and have exported it to Chile, New Zealand and Poland. Is also on order by Canada, Brazil, Italy, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.

SEA RAMM is way more limited than CAMM as it is IR guided and is usually used as a replacement for Phalanx rather than an addition. CAMM is pretty well stand alone and active radar guided with a range of 16 to 28 miles (version dependant) at Mach 3. Sea RAM has a range of only 6 miles and is limited to Mach 2.

One is a purpose built modern system that we have already got in service. Sea RAM is a bit of a cheap, quick fix using an existing mount and an updated but basically obsolete short range IR missile.

Bottom line is why would we add an entire new missile system for only 2 ships when we already have a better one in service ?

Wasn’t space for CAMM built into the design for our QEs?