The Ministry of Defence has inked a new contract deal with Ultra Electronics Limited.

The notice, published on 14 Aug 2023, discloses the provision of three Sonar 2170 Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) Fit-to-Receive (FTR) kits.

These advanced defence systems are set to be integrated onto the Type 31 Frigates.

“Ship Acquisition, which is part of the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) have awarded a contract to Ultra Electronics Limited for the provision of three Sonar 2170 SSTD Fit-to-Receive (FTR) kits.”

The contract, valued at £886K, is set to last a year, with the delivery timeline from 26 Jun 2023 to 25 Jun 2024.

This isn’t the MoD’s first deal for these kits. We previously reported a deal for the first three of the kits in 2022.

These kits, known as Sonar 270 in Royal Navy parlance, entered into service with the Royal Navy back in 2004.

Produced by Ultra Electronics, they are christened Sea Sentor for the export market. The robust SSTD system is equipped with:

  • An acoustic passive towed array
  • A towed acoustic countermeasure (flexible)
  • A single-drum winch
  • A processing cabinet
  • Two display consoles
  • Two expendable acoustic device launchers (1 port, 1 starboard)
  • Sixteen expendable acoustic devices (8 in each launcher)
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

101 COMMENTS

    • Yes cheap, not necessarily very effective and a “minimum fit” or token gesture at best. When we have expensive surface warships that take years to build why are we not fitting them with hard kill effective anti torpedo and anti mine weapons that do exist and are fitted to our NATO allies warships?

    • It’s cheap because it isn’t the decoy system. It’s 3x fitting kits to be installed in the Type so they can integrate the decoy system when they buy them.

      I guess if you fit the fitting kits in all the T31 , you don’t necessarily need to buy a decoy system for each one, you can swap them in and out as needed ?

      This is just a load of cables and fixing points and wiring looms for the decoy kits. Not the decoy kits.

      • In the 1980s, before car radios were fitted as standard, the base Metro came without a radio, not even a hole in the dash for a radio, no wiring loom for the radio. It had nothing. It had space for a radio – like the T45 has a Gym and space for strike length missiles.

        Just like the T31 had space for a decoy system.

        The next model Metro up had a hole in the dash with a blanking plate and wiring for a radio. It was Fitted For But Not With a radio.

        This is the difference between “space for” and “FFBNW”.

        These kits will transform the T31 from “space for” to “fitted for but not with” these decoy kits.

        When they order the kits and install them, they will be “fitted with” – this order does not add the decoys, it adds the hardware and cabling necessary to fit them.

    • When i saw the price on another site i had to do a double take. I assume its not the full delivery price, as anything vaguely miltiary based normally costs 10-20 times that price.

  3. Please educate me, is this just a torpedo defence kit or can it be used for general underwater detection? Great to see the T31s protected in this way.

  5. Pardon my ignorance but, this very much reads as a towed array sonar, so not just a ‘torpedo’ defence kit? How does this differ from the 2087 towed array that will go into the T26? Anyone?

  6. But aren’t torpedoes launched from submarines? And don’t folks defending the lack of ASW detection capabilities of the T31 and its helicopter assure us that it doesn’t need them because we won’t be deploying them where there’s a submarine threat (such as in the PersianGulf)?
    So either T31 won’t ever be deployed independently anywhere near potentially hostile submarines in which case this torpedo detection equipment is a waste of money or, it may find itself deployed where there is an submarine threat in which case it needs ASW detection equipment to try to find the submarine before it’s listening to an incoming torpedo.

        • If the array can’t detect anything, the decoys have nothing to aim at, so yes it’s all linked in that sense.
          You can probably just discharge the decoys from a panel, but why would you, if you can’t see where the torpedo is?

          • Why would the array do not detect anything? I mean that can also happen to a anti submarine sonar.

          • Hi Alex,

            A bit of poor English on my part, sorry for that.

            I will try to give you a better answer, without straying into areas that I would rather not. So, yes its based on a TA system, and yes it will still detect noise, in that you are correct. However, don’t expect/compare the capabilities of this system with a fully fledged SM LFTA system, the two are effectively miles apart in terms of what they provide.

            2170 is designed as a torpedo detection system, so, looks at specific frequencies/characteristics that torpedoes produce.
            All torpedoes use one of 3 propulsion methods, battery, turbine, or combustion engine to power them.
            On the back-end they either have a pump jet or 2 contra rotating propellers that drive them at speed, generally at least 30 kts or more.
            The engine and propellers are small so spin at very high revolutions, the faster they go, the higher the frequency spectrum they appear in. It sounds much like a whining noise if you will (similar to running a wet finger around the top of a wine glass). Irrespective of the type of torpedo, this noise always falls within a certain set of frequency parameters(determined by the torpedo speed), which is what this system looks for.
            You are effectively filtering what noise you allow the system to use and display to gain the coverage you want. Yes other noise will also be displayed, but the system isn’t optimised for Narrowband surveillance and tracking like say ST 2076 or ST2087 is. These systems are just as happy/efficient at detecting Submarines as they are at detecting torpedoes, shipping and rotary powered aircraft, as well as a multitude of non man made noises, so much more capable, but then again they are far larger and have vastly more processing power then 2170 because they do a totally different job.
            Sorry if its a bit long winded, not trying to teach you to ‘suck eggs’ or anything, but trying to keep things at a reasonable level without getting all technical and the like. Hope that is a better explanation.

          • Oh…it will detect a torpedo…and then do a lot of other stuff to help you get away from it…

          • Hi mate, I’m absolutely sure the kit will detect an incoming torpedo, possibly even the discharge depending on weapon system. Then I’m sure, the fun really starts, especially if its a wire guided HWT!!

          • That’s why it gives you course and speed to steer info, does decoy launches and the bit at the end the tail does its various things

        • Might work… About 50% if the time. If the towed array sensors are deployed at the time a torpedo is fired at the ship.
          It’s a soft kill decoy. Not a hard kill anti torpedo defence system. Therein lies the problem. Whole host of issues with a towed array decoy system. In short very limited capability that might be useful or might just actually be….and call me cynical here an attempt by HMG to fit a minimum standard of equipment that isn’t actually very effective and nowhere near as good as hard kill systems fitted to our NATO allies warships.

    • So you’d rather they had all or nothing? Even if we could ensure our T31s were never deployed near an enemy sub, we’d have a problem ensuring enemy subs never deployed near our Type 31s. In a war they will be put in danger.

      Did you think we could go to war and nobody need die, because we could buy a countermeasure to everything on our infinite budget? People don’t build hunter go-home-for-tea submarines, they build hunter-killers, because kill they will. Ideally, we’d never go to war, but that idea is BS too. Risks need to be balanced. So the destroyers, the GP frigates, the Bays, the amphibs, the carriers, the OPVs, the oilers, the Archers, in fact most of the surface fleet don’t get full ASW gear. Why shouldn’t HMS Protector have ASW? Why don’t the sailors in RFA Argus deserve better? Why do you draw the line where you do?

      • The notion that not equipping large modern frigates with an appropriate ASW sonar system is some kind of reasonable money saving compromise is dubious notion in the extreme I think. One might ask if such a idea were indeed justifiable then why don’t other nations pursue such a policy? Or is this yet another case of the MoD being right and everyone else wrong?

        Ultimately, history shows us that failing to properly equipe warships with the all the systems required to both operate effectively and survive in action doesn’t ‘save’ money it actually costs warring nations dearly – in terms of ships sunk, battles lost and (above all) Human lives wasted.

        • France doesn’t have a hull sonar on its Horizons…Italy does but not France. USN Constellation’s won’t have a hull mounted sonar but will get a tail eventually. LCS doesnt have anything ASW and it was built to do ASW.

          You cannot equip a warship with everything unless its HMS Massive, but that ship and its weapons and sensor fit is classified so it cannot be discussed.

          You tailor a ship and its Operational Capability to the threat at hand.
          So T45 doesn’t do ASW the same as a T23/T26 doesn’t do Fleet Area Air Defence.

          Its still years until T31 is going to be on Operational deployments. By then I would expect 11m workboat drones with something like Krait arrays to be a thing or Captas 4 in its various guises to be fitted in a POD under the flightdeck.

          • I thought I saw HMS Massive of the coast of Cornwall the other week. I looked out to sea, which the previous day have been clear, bright and blue, and all I saw was a mass of “grey”. It even looked like it was just a storm coming in, its onboard camouflage was that effective. Time we concentrated on building more of these “Dreadnought” replacements rather than tiny T26’s, 31’s and 45’s etc. 😀😁

          • Hi GB,

            You’ve highlighted the key difference of the T31 programme compared to past classes, including the T26. The T26, for example, is a high end ASW platform which can defend itself and has flexibility build in. The T31 is a flexible ship that can look after itself in most situations.

            That might just look like a play on words to most, but to the designers and engineers building the T31 and the RN who are going to operate them it is a whole different ball game with a lot still to think through. The flexibility mean these ships will be able to take on many different roles and, given the RN’s people, do it well. The fact that these ships will be available to accept new technology and ar flexible enough to accept that technology quickly and, hopefully, cost effectively is a remarkable improvement over past procurement processes where new capabilities end up in service years after they first became available.

            It is more than just the design process at is different. The RN is buying key capabilities enablers, such as Mk41 VLS, seperately. This is an important point as I believe that the RN is able to adapt the capabilities enablers on the ships even as they are being built because the ships are big and the programme has been set up contracturally from the beginning to allow for changes in the threat / mission. Try doing that with the T26 programme which is set up very differently I believe.

            I just hope that the RN sticks with the new procurement model.

            Of course, I could just be having one o fmy optimistic moments 🙂

            Cheers CR

          • Agree. T26 excepted there has been a change in design philosophy – more, cheaper, ffbnw platforms designed so as to accept rapidly evolving weapons without needing a refit. I think that’s a concept that came out the Black Swan Sloop work a few years ago. River 2 is not a million miles away from the Black Swan concept – its more survivable but it does go towards the idea of leveraging containerised weapons. T31 is similar – cheap patrol frigate plus Mk41 = a lot of potential capability but you don’t know what you will need so you don’t have commit to particular fitted weapons – put the effect into the missiles tba and the helo.

          • I thought the TUS 4110 CL hull sonar sets on the French horizons were just a variation of the Bluemaster UMS 4110 CL sonar on the Italian Horizons, they both have light weight torpedoes so they both need a sensor for that ?

          • All French first rank frigates carry at least hull sonar … This suggest hull mounted sonar is fit on the French Horizons … Horizon Class – Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

            “Thales Underwater Systems and WASS was awarded the contract to supply the hull-mounted TMS 4110CL sonar which operates at medium frequency in active search and attack mode. TMS 4110CL uses a cylindrical array and advanced processing”.

            Plus the ships carry ASW torpedoes.

        • The budget is what it is. I doubt anyone on the forum thinks it should have ever sunk to the current level. Lobby your MP again, because until the government increases the money, decisions have to be made in the real world where the choice is fewer exquisite vessels or more vessels that are less well equiped from the off. There was an option suggested in 2015 that we should get ten Type 26s and the Navy rejected it in favour of eight T26s and five T31s. A hard choice was made.

          Perhaps it’s the idea that a “frigate” doesn’t have ASW that’s worrying, because for the last half century frigates (in the RN) became almost synonymous with an ASW capability. So it feels wrong. That doesn’t mean it was the wrong choice.

          I am worried about the lack of ASW hulls now and especially in 2026-27 after CSG25 and before the Type 26s come on stream, but the argument that all frigates must have rafted engines and a tail or they’ll be in danger because they are called frigates doesn’t strike me as logical. Maybe fitting the Type 31s with the sonars we have already overbought will be a no brainer in 2030 and we’ll see them upgraded. Maybe we’ll equip them with sonar-capable UUVs and USVs instead.

          Right now I’d rather hear a plan about what we intend to do about HMS Westminster and the next 5 years than whether Type 31s get TAS from the get go.

          • Probl is that T26 is too expensive for what it offers, and i am not even sure the real price is known looking that it took more than 2 decades to see the first hull.

          • Nail, head. If I recall T26 was originally conceived as the Global Combat Ship – sort of the UK Arleigh Burke? By adding more AA capability the Australian Hunter class seems to be trying to fulfil that aspiration. As things are turning out the RN tradition of horses for courses might have been better. T45 is top drawer AAW and T31 is turning into a capable GP frigate. What with the ice melting and threat from China and Russia maybe what we need in T32 is a dedicated T23 ASW replacement for the North Atlantic. Leave T26 as the CSG work.

      • Hi Gavin,

        That is very interesting.

        I have often wondered how escorts manage to keep up with the carrier and detect submarines. Clearly, they can’t. It comes down to two things as far as I can work out. One the speed at which modern subs can move whilst remaining suffiently quiet to avoid detection, even SSK’s can move pretty quick submerged these days, possibly fast enough to engage the escorts in heavy weather. This gives them a far wider range of axis of attack. WW2 uboats had to get in front of all but the slowest convoys in order to attack (or risk an attack on the surface). This capability to attack from a wide range of approach angles and then dive deep even for SSK’s really increases the volume the escorts have to search. The escorts can no longer anticipate where their enamies will be hiding.

        The other problem is that sonars work best below about 12knots (although that may have improved in the last 10 or 20 years, but not by much if current evidence is anything to go on). So if the escorts are running at 30knots to keep up with a carrier their onboard sensors are virtually useless, even the towed array. This is because the water running past the surface of the sonar is turbulant and masks the sound of the subs. The only way for the escorts to deal with this is to detach from the group and slowdown. Which opens them up to attack from far more lines of approach. A single ship would probably be at a severe disadvantage.

        There was a video online about an Aussie Collins class boat getting the better of an AB on a one on one esercise around the Hawaiian Islands and they are known to be a noisy sub…

        Thank goodness for the Astute’s. SSN’s are the Dreadnaughts of the modern navy and judging by the effectiveness of the Italian SSK in the video, SSK’s are pocket battleships… I wouldn’t mind having a few of them in our fleet as well, could be a nice high low mix.

        Cheers CR
        PS The above is probably an over simplitifaction.

      • Yep and the Gulf for the most part is shallow at around 60m at its deepest. Deeper water is only available around the SOH or past it into the Indian Ocean.
        Its not an exaggeration to say that you can look down from helos/aircraft and see the bottom and anything under the surface with some polarised lenses and a bit of EO trickery.

    • Welcome to Catch-22 (a decent novel and subsequent movie), an operational philosophy first ascribed to the US military. 🤔😉😁

    • LPD, Carriers, Bay Class, Tide, Fort boats are all HVUs and dont have active/passive sonars. They do however have torpedo decoy systems. You don’t need to be an ASW frigate to have it fitted.

  7. Please help, £886k? For 3? My reading is that this is just the installation kit, not all of the expensive gubbins. Isn’t that the meaning of ‘fit to receive?
    Very happy to be corrected/informed.
    Cheers

    • FTR Kit.

      1. Foundation for the winch welded onto the quarterdeck. Cables run from the quarter deck to the aft sonar instrument space (SIS). Cables will have a dedicated stowage and protection from damage when the winch isnt fitted. The foundation will have a cover plate.
      2. Cables run from the SIS to the Bridge and Ops room.
      3. Foundation on the SIS deck and all the cables and power supplies in place to connect the cabinet. When not fitted the cables attach to a special stowage box to protect the plugs at the end of them The cabinet isn’t that big really …its domestic fridge sized.
      4. Ops room and bridge consoles wired up to take the displays. When not fitted they have blanks covering the holes but the wiring remains.
      5. Cables run to the launcher plinths on the upper deck where the decoy launchers will go. Cover plates fitted.

      All FTR for any system kit has a maintenance regime against it even if its not fitted. Plinths, foundations, cables, plugs, handbooks are all checked on a timed basis and signed as correct. If not correct then defect correction work is undertaken. Fuses and power supplies are tagged out and marked up as such. They can be reinstalled quickly and easily.

      When its done correctly FTR allows you to receive kit easily and quickly to give you a new tailored capability. It allows kit to be upgraded easily by the OEM (It’s not onboard).
      It has its detractors, but you honestly don’t need everything fitted all the time when the area you are deployed in doesnt have a threat or the need for that capability does not exist.

      A good example is sneaky stuff for Comms, Data Links, EW and SIGINT. Nobody really sees it because the capability is mostly sitting in server or comms racks below decks and uses existing regular systems above decks. You are not going to need most of that stuff sailing around the UK or off the States doing drug interdiction. If your tasking changes its delivered to the ship, plugged in, and set to work giving you a new capability.

  9. Not sure if the Merlin helicopter pictured on the flight deck of a T31 frigate would be a good ASW asset, it’s a Mk4 junglie!

  10. This is the same kit that all our surface combatants have is it not? It’s the underwater version of chaff/flare and CWIS (though no hard-kill etc.). This is news yes, but unremarkable. The RN would be grossly negligent to not.

      • Thanks Paul, I was just wondering if I missed something, and I did! Still one spare, guess for land based training or just spares inventory. Or, an extra T31?

        • Given the expense you would assume for a potential 6th hull…….but others on here more familiar with RN land based training (including engineering) may know more

  12. Other than just regurgitating some press release from some other article, how about an actual 5 minute use of time to write something useful before you puke it up on the website?… Good lord….

  13. Right then… bit of tech background and a dit…

    The tail consists of a long black armoured cable deployed from a winch on the quarterdeck or winch deck. Attached to the end of it is a passive array section, similar to a towed array and full of hydrophones. After that there is a section that provides decoy outputs of various types and a long thick rope to assist in deployment and towing profile.

    When deployed the array, like every passive array, is constantly picking up ALL sounds. The electronics in the cabinet filter out the unwanted frequencies and looks for the specific signatures of torpedo’s which have a high noise frequency due to smaller propulsion blades moving at a far higher speed. Once detected the system alarms and then offers up torpedo bearing info, course and speed to steer for torpedo decoying and launches decoys from the upper deck launchers whilst also starting transmitting from the towed decoy elements. The displays are one in the ops room and one on the bridge.

    The Ops room display is a waterfall display offering a bearing against time display. It won’t purposely detect subs as S2031 or S2087 would but, and this bit is a bonus, it records data allowing you to look back over time so that you can see what was around.

    Now for the dit…

    We had ours out in the Med and overnight it stopped working in the early hours and alarmed indicating an array issue. As were an LPD, we didn’t have any sonar except for the S2170 and echo sounders. The Sonar maintainer, myself and the usual suspects from the wardroom fire party turned up to see what the issue was. As it was out just for training, we decide that it would be OK to be left until daylight before recovering it. So, at 0630 we started to haul it back in. When we did it was badly chopped up. Protective sheathing was missing, holes leaking veggie oil from the hydrophone array (Veggie oil keeps it neutrally buoyant) and black paint and rust streaks where all over it. The Sonar maintainer and I both had extensive ASW experience in active and passive sonars from serving together on the same T23 frigates. We looked at the overnight recordings and lo! and behold! there were some interesting frequencies that we immediately recognised from a submarine. The recording was downloaded and locked up before it was returned to the UK for analysis.

    The tail was swapped out at our next port of call after being flown out to us on a C17 (It is big and heavy) The old array was flown back for repair. At the same time, a certain T boat that has long since paid off, declared the loss of tiles amongst other defects and went into a different port for defect rectification.

    Best guess by us at the time but never confirmed is that they came in for a prop photo not knowing we had the tail out. They got caught up in it, (probably putting it through the propulsor) and had to retreat sheepishly and get some corrective works done.

    So no it cannot do ASW detection and yet, it sort of inadvertently can…

    • Great story Gunbuster. Cheers. I’d therefore hazard as a summary that by the time the array gets chopped up by, or does detect a submarine it’s pretty much too late and the ship is toast in a war situation.
      I’m not a fan of these towed array decoy sets. Would much rather all our expensive, precious few, surface warships and capital ships had an active hard kill system fitted as standard.

      • We where part of a task group with a couple of T23 and the T boat. There wasn’t a threat and the tail was out for training. When we went into ASW mode for real or for exercisethe T23s, Merlin and T boat cracked on and did their stuff.

    • I never knew these prop pictures actually happened until I read it on the warzone about a swift sure sneaking through a Soviet task force and taking pictures of Kiev carrier.
      Balls of steel those sub guys.
      Thanks for the story. Most enjoyable

      • I believe the RN and USN would routinely access Soviet waters, either cutting Soviet arrays, carrying out SIGINT, or loitering to then follow an outgoing Bomber.

        • Dont know where you got such far fetched tails from mate, you’ve been watching to many films!! 😱😂😂

          • 😉 Perish(er) the thought. Of course, our SSN all sit in NATO waters chugging up and down the North Sea.

    • Hi GB, Am assuming that the display(s) can show either TABB or TANB info, or is it just the one type as in TABB? Was also wondering if you have a Ops Rm speaker attached to the system for the good old MK1 ear to listen in on as its essentially an unmanned auto detection system?

      With it being a TA based system, does it offer up two bearings on initial detection, or do you need to resolve for Brg ambiguity first? Never seen such a system myself being a SM Dabber, so just curious as to how you need to interact with it.

      • Don’t remember a speaker. The electronics do the bearing ambiguity as you are steaming along with it out so it’s constantly calculating. It’s not like doing a TA calculation and then moving to get a cross bearing

  14. This system is a soft kill device. Best estimate is that it will decoy 50% of incoming torpedo attacks, although some torpedo experts think the very latest high performance wire guided heavy weight torpedoes won’t be decoyed by this system at all.
    This is what troubles me when our NATO allies have effective hard kill systems. Like the anti torpedo rocket system fitted to the Italian navy’s FREMM class frigates.
    Seems like a token gesture (cheapest minimal equipment fit possible) rather than correctly fitting a weapon system that has a higher percentage chance of hard killing an incoming torpedo.
    Some equipment simply should be fitted to all major surface vessels. CIWS and a point defence anti mine/ anti torpedo system are 2 such standard fit pieces of kit, you’d think.

  15. OK, I am ready for some stick.

    It is great that the MoD is preping the T31s for the sonar 270, however, even if the ship can hear the torp coming what can it do about it? As far as I am aware this is the passive system (with decoys) and not the hard kill version such as the TRAPR DCL of the US Navy.

    Also it is all well and good knowing if a torp is coming but would it not be better to know if a sub is in the area to start with. Again I could be wrong but it appears that the T26 is to get new hull mounted sonar type 2150. Eight have been ordered from Ultra. If that is the case then would it not be an idea to transfer the 2150s from the T23s to the T31s. It is not a tail but a 2150 working together with a Merlin will still give a sub something to think about. A possible method of doing this is as a T23 is taken out of service the 2150 is removed, checked and tested and then installed on a T31 when it goes into refit.

    • It could happen. I think you are right about the number. There were three 2150 sonars already purchased, I thought to facilitate the T23 to T26 swapover, with five of the eight T23 HMSs expected to go to the T26s. However last month the MOD ordered five more! So there are plenty if it’s decided to put them on the Type 31s and still have a few in stock.

      I believe there are some spare tails too. The navy has options. I wonder if there are crew in training to match.

  17. I would imagine that the medium/ long term plan for ASW on the T31s is for them to deploy a UUV that acts as a sort of autonomous towed array system. Then if a signal needs localising or attacking, heavy lift drones can fly sonobuoys and Stingrays out to the location to do the business?

    • Hi Simon it is a last ditch defence. It’s not questionable it’s sensible to have but it’s most definitely a last ditch defence. The first line of defence, will be the long range detection and intelligence that lets you know a the area the submarine is operating in and long range air ASW, second line would be your organic ASW small ship fight and ship/task group sensors..The whole idea is to not let a submarine get into a position it could launch a torpedo at a ship by making it very hard for the sub to close ( you don’t need to destroy the sub to win the ASW game, just stop it doing what it wants to do, especially with electric boats ).

      The big argument is not is it worth having this system ( it is) it’s really if the type 31s should get a reasonable hull mounted Sonar such as the legacy sonar 2050 sets on the type 23s or the newer sonar 2150…to allow it to take part in the That second line of ASW work. From the point of view of having it there are no down sides other than cost..but that cost is not insignificant with capital outlay and the ongoing cost of maintaining and manning. So the question is one of cost vs benefit and risk reduction ( the ultimate risk being that of the ship and crew being lost or a sub attacking something the 31 was protecting….but although a very high impact risk you balance that against the likelihood, which is very low as the UK has not had any loss related to submarines attacking since 1945). It’s really a difficult question and there is really no true right answer ( just educated guesses) until the risk has been realised or not and we will not know that until the class has either been decommissioned without or without losing one to a submarine or a submarine successfully attacking something else because the T31 could not prevent it from happening.

    • Maybe at one of the “Stone Frigates” for training, such as Collingwood? Assuming they use actual kit for instruction and not a simulator or mock up?

    • These are just 6 fitting kits ( in total ) , not the actual decoy system, just the wiring and fixing points to be fitted into the Type 31 , to receive the decoy system , if/when purchased in the future.

      6 fitting kits for FFBNW decoy kits, at this stage, doesn’t make sense unless it’s for a 6th ship. Surely they wouldn’t buy just the fitting kit for a training facility. It doesn’t make sense having a training facility “Fitted For But Not With” a decoy system that they might eventually get – does it ?

  20. This is why the RN needs to really be invested in and rearm and rebuild a capable and powerful fleet.
    So hull numbers increased, lethality massively increased and the ability to project power via a suitably sized and equipped RFA.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0aFqM4ES40

    I love listening to Jim- he really has his finger on the pulse and knows exactly the direction of travel with China and President Xi/ CCP. Anything we as an allied nation can do to make China think and to deter and to add to their calculations for a future expansionistic war we should be doing with urgency and now. Pity we have Sunak and Hunt two technocrat money men in power. No vision. No sense of urgency and completely defence blind.

  22. USS Mesa Grande (US Navy Landing Ship Dock) ariving at HMNB Plymouth last week, plus RFA Tidespring with a new coat of paint

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDJ2sd8KKmk

    Note the nuclear strike imminent warning siren at 17.45….. At least someone is taking the Russian nuclear threats seriously. The management don’t do that often, it bothers the locals

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here