HMS Kent, a Type 23 Frigate, has undertaken gunnery exercises whilst in the North Sea as part of HMS Queen Elizabeth’s Carrier Strike Group.

Some great images of this were posted by the ship on Twitter, I’ve placed those images below.

Exercise Neptune Strike is a multi-domain exercise, organised and conducted by Naval Striking and Support Forces NATO (STRIKFORNATO). The overall point is to test and highlight the natural evolution of NATO’s ability to integrate maritime warfare capabilities of a carrier strike group to support Allied defence.

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

55 COMMENTS

  1. Good to see Kent back at sea! She must be the last ship in the RN to be carrying Harpoon? No sign of Somerset yet with her NSMs. I understood more than one RN vessel would have NSM before the end of this year?

    • HMS Lancaster in the Gulf and HMS Duncan in the Med have them fitted also,Westminster briefly had them fitted for a SINKEX but now she is pending withdrawal.

    • There is an article over on NL, that has Somerset over in Norway at the present, with the belief that she is getting NSM fitted direct from the factory prior to trials being conducted!

      • Wonder whether the £4+B air defence subcontract announced today by HMG between MBDA (UK) and PGZ (PL) to support acquisition of 1000+ CAMM-ER muscles and 100+ associated launchers, will ultimately facilitate acquisition of the same for RN surface fleet? Poland’s specific acquisition will become a component of Polish nationwide GBAD system. 🤔😳

        • That’s a lot of money. I assume that’s on top of the £2bn deal last year for CAMM, and Lord knows how much they’ll be putting into CAMM-MR as well.

          I wonder what the price difference will be between each of the three variants. Maybe some of the new T45 CAMM silos will have some CAMM-ER if this kind of quantity pushes the cost down.

          • It’s just a longer rocket motor so I suspect the prices will be almost identical. MR may be cheaper based on volume but if it’s heavier there maybe issues on cold gas ejection for warships.

          • The important thing with CAMM is its minimum engagement range. It’s short so can go at missiles as they get closer to the ship… basically CWIS range. Increasing the engagement range will also increase the min engagement range. It’s not an either-or sum… CAMM, ER and MR versions complement each other across a variety of engagement envelopes.

          • Future potential mixed model CAMM loadouts? Interesting, would induce ambiguity re capabilities by potential opponents. 🤔

        • Its a very good point that you make, although even whispers of UK PLC acquiring either ER or MR versions are non existent at the moment!

          Personally would like to see us go with all 3 versions in the not to distant future, both shore and at sea where re!event. Though we need to increase the number of CAMM batteries we currently have first.

          Then, would also like to see us invest in something like Arrow for our GBAD too. Unfortunately don’t think we are going to go anywhere near that yet, if ever. Our present masters seem to be hiding behind the ‘NATO’ / distance arguement that has been ongoing for several decades now.

          The Kings speech yesterday mentioned the security of the realm as a priority for this government among others, but suspect that it will be ignored/left to wither against a back drop of higher priority spending.

          One day though…….

          • HMG, apparently regardless of ruling party, have seemingly adopted an intriguing, post Cold War I, operational philosophy re defence matters. Rank order the priority of rectification of acknowledged capability gaps and (presumably) pray that each decision (particularly re GBAD) does not become fateful nor fatal. Very interesting method of running a proverbial railroad. Assume it would be cold comfort to Lizz Truss to be vindicated, after unpleasant reality intrudes, re her plan to increase defence expenditures to 3% of GDP.? Believe you Brits coined the term, “Penny wise, Pound foolish?” 🤔😳🤞🙏😱
            And remember, this critique comes courtesy of a self-acknowledged Anglophile.

            (Would be an intriguing thought exercise to speculate what MoD could accomplish w/ simply the rounding error w/in DoD’s budget.) 🤔

          • No offence taken, particularly as I agree with you.

            Just had a thought, we are signed up to the European Sky Shield Initiative which is headed by Germany. Just wondering whether or not the UK if actually going to actively participate, might decide to swop out 2 of the 3 missile systems being proposed (IRIS-T SBM + Patriot) for CAMM ER/MR and then go with Arrow 3 as the ICBM missile?

            Of course that might collide with the RN attempts to install Astor NT on the T45’s?

            All very intriguing imo, but you would like to believe that someone somewhere in the MOD has actually got his/her finger on the pulse and knows what we need?🤔

  2. OT to an extent, but has/will HMS Kent receive(d) PGMU mod? Any update re which vessels in class that will actually receive mod (not simply those originally programmed to undergo mod)? Would presume those ships will remain in service for the longest period. Always deemed that reliable propulsion was rather important for both aircraft and ships. 🤔

    • Not heard anything, but Kent is expected to go on until 2033, so as you say, it would make a lot of sense. She’s expected to go into extended maintenance next year, so it could be done then. My guess is they’ll assess first and decide afterwards.

      I can’t even figure what went on with HMS Somerset (expected to be in service until 2031). Janes said it got the new MTU engines under PGMU, Navy Lookout said it got replacement engines but not PGMU. So did it get the new engines but keep the old generators, or did it get refurbished Paxmans?

      • Thanks, interesting to learn that there is some ambiguity re actual implementation. Potential op security measure? 🤔😎

  3. I do wonder what will happen with the 4.5 inch guns on the T45 after the T23s are retired…I honestly think we are going to be seeing the last of the T45 trotting around until the mid 2040s…but from 2035 they will be carrying the last few 4.5inch guns left..will the RN really want to keep a training and logistics pipeline open for a decade for what would be essentially a handful of guns….It would be interesting to see if at some point the 4.5inch on the T45 gets replaced with one of the other medium guns that would more in line with the new escorts being built ( 57mm or 5inch).

    • That said RN would have all the parts from the T23 guns to keep them running.

      Only question is what the costs is for the support contract.

      Obsolescence shouldn’t be that bad as they were all upgraded from hydraulic to servo a few years ago.

      The issue with a 5” might well be space…..that said T45 was supposed to get the cancelled 155mm….

      • Also the 57mm would be a reasonably cheap alternative that is fine for a medium gun as long as your not doing NGFS, it would also up the T45s self protection from an AAW point of view and that’s the main threat the T45 is meant to be facing, after all your going to place it along the axis of any air threat to do it’s job…NGFS I question if we would be sending one of our few AAW destroyers off into the littoral to go and do that….although the counter is the RN will be running low on NGFS platforms in the late 20s and 30s.that are not exquisite escorts it’s either send in a high end ASW asset or a high end AAW asset..I do wonder if any batch 2 T31/32 will have the 5inch gun option for that very reason….a batch 2 T31 with a 5inch gun and 2 40mm bofors guns is sort of designed for the confined waters you placing the ship in for NGS….acting as the catch all surface strike and gunfire support platform for any task group,

        • hmmmmn. as a gun collector of smaller stuff now, I often try to compare them in use and effectiveness….. The whole thing that gets in the way is Storage and effective usage…… 57mm stuff can be stored in way more numbers than 4.5 0r 5….. but is way less devastating in actual effect….. I have very much the same Dilemmas when it comes to .177 and .22 ……..

          • It’s also about what you want to do with it, the 4.5inch is good at NGFS, the 57mm would not, but the 4.5inch is far less effective as an anti air weapon as well as for engaging drone ( air and seaborne)…with the 57mm very much an anti air weapon…as well as engaging swarm targets…in regards to engaging other navel vessels with a gun,,it would be a bit either or….

            if your being crude in 10 seconds the 57mm would put 16.5 Kgs of high explosive on target..( 40 shells) with the 4.5inch around 12kgs. ( 3-4 shells).

            finally what the 57mm will have that the 4.5inch never will is smart guided munitions..MAD FIRES which if it works as advertised could see the mk3 57mm put 30 odd guided munitions in front of even a hypersonic missiles 8 second engagement window..it can traverse at 57degrees a second and 44 degrees. The 4.5inch traverse is 42 degrees a second and elevation 38 degrees..with the 4.5inch firing one unguided round every 2-3 seconds..and the 57mm 4 guided rounds per second…that’s a huge difference in for an AAW destroyer…

        • 5″ gun is very pricey. The initial contract for 4 ran over £60m per gun. Once all the integration work had been done, the second batch came in at £36m per gun. With a different CMS and all the integration work to do again, I’m thinking T31 B2 guns would come in at the higher end.

          I’d be surprised at NGFS having that level of priority.

          We often follow the US on certain matters. At one point it was felt in the US that a 5″ gun wasn’t much use for NGFS, hence the 6″ Advanced Gun System on the Zumwalts. These proved to be a flop and are being replaced by missiles.

          • You are possibly correct..and if you are not looking at NGFS the 57mm is the far better weapon by a long way and far cheaper…although the 5inch does look like it’s going to get some very interesting ASW options in the future.

          • It will be interesting to see the take of Aus and Canada with their T26 & AAW Fleet, all 5″ at the moment, as is also Korea and Japan. Europe seems to be going down the 76mm route, though Holland has a mix. You don’t want to under gun yourself in a hurry especially if you have limited missiles. Need to add in more subs.

          • And if you put new 5″ on the T45s you could always transfer them over to the T83s when they arrive.

          • I think a 57mm mk3 ( replacing the 4.5inch) and 2 40mm mk4s ( replacing the 30mms) would be idea….( I would also add the 40mm mk4 to T26 and the carriers) but especially for an AAW escort that is going to be siting down the threat axis..they tested a lot of gun and missile load outs for the T31 and picked 57/40/40 specifically because of how well it performed….not sure if you would find the margins and space on a T45 for a 5inch and 2 57mm especially after they have added 24 CAMM silos and 8 NSMs.

          • You probably never want to be in a position where your irreplaceable £1 billion + air warfare cruiser is close enough to a threat environment to make a 4.5 inch gun effective in Naval Gun Support. We only did missions like that in 82 because we had nothing else. The 57mm would be much more useful for T45.

          • Indeed agree, even more so because that at anyone time we are probably only going to have a pair operational and if they are sitting in the littoral undertaking NGFS they are not doing their primary job of co-ordinating the Air Defence…it is after all an air defence destroyer. But i suspect there is still a place for NGFS…it’s just in the future what platform will do it…the T26 is now just ASW and we will just have enough to do that, type 45 just enough to do the AAW role, type 31 is very focused on close in work as well as long range strike…but has no real NGFS….it’s a lower end gap that as planned will only be filled by the very high end escorts….I think if the batch 2 T31/T32 are going to be focused on the littoral they should come with a 5inch gun or some other option for NGFS.

          • The reason for the Mk110 over the Mk4 40, is that the manufacturers cannot make guided rounds for it, yet! Plus if MAD-FIRES does work as Raytheon have suggested. It’ll push the max effective range out past 8km, due to the rocket assisted sabot dart, This puts it in the same league as the Leonardo 76 firing the guided Dart ammunition. But, the Mk110 has a higher rate of fire. Meaning it can pump out more guided rounds. So theoretically be capable of engaging more targets. The Mk4 40 by contrast only doubles the Phalanx’s effect range, so around 4km. Plus it can only fire timed/impact fuzed fragmentary rounds.

            Sadly neither of the systems have organic sensors, as per Phalanx! Thus they have to rely on the ship’s primary radar and the distributed EO sensors. As I’ve mentioned in the past adding these sensors to the turrets is not a massive problem or expensive to do. Meaning the weapon system once allocated a threat via the CMS from the primary radar. Then takes over the engagement til intercept. Thereby leaving the primary radar to continue searching for targets at distance. Rather than doubling up on resource time doing both.

            A while back, the Mk110 was shown with a non-deck penetrating mount. That sat on a box magazine. If I remember correctly it held an additional 120 rounds.

            For the Type 45. Replacing the 4.5” with the a Mk110 would seem a likely possibility. But additionally if the hanger roof could take the weight or with structural modification. The non-deck penetrating mount would be a good choice. Thereby giving an all round targeting ability.

            Where Phalanx is currently located I guess would be the optimal place for a future laser based CIWS.

            On the T31, with a pair of Mk110s there wouldn’t be a need for the two Mk4 40s. But you could still keep the DS30 mounts. This would give you the option of fitting a larger caliber gun to the A position. Or fitting a VLS farm in the B position and keep the Mk110 in the A position.

  4. Bang bang goes krytrons head. I love big naval guns.
    I always wondered how come the type 23 aren’t fitted with a CIWS?
    All other ships have them. The batch 3 type 22 had goalkeeper so can’t just be a frigate thing.

    • Yes it did seem an odd one after the learning from the Falklands..although you have to remember where the T23 started it was mean to be an ultra cheap 3000ton second rate ASW towed array tug…with a gun, sensors and small ship flight as the older ASW frigate fleet was…..Maybe they just upgraded it as much as the treasury would take.

          • A lot got added to T23 over the years and sea wolf was very good point defence weapon. CAMM even better.

          • Some Navies do place Phalanx on their Hangar Roofs, but as Gunbuster has stated before it seriously impedes Helicopter Ops, the debris from the Shell’s and an expensive Merlin don’t mix too well.

          • T23 had a Tracker up there. A phalanx would have restricted Seawolf engagement arcs massively. As there was no weight margin left on a T23 it couldn’t be fitted anyway with Sea Wolf. I dont even want to think about the mutual interference issues from the radars …

    • The UK got Goalkeeper as a sweetener to the Dutch buying Spey engines for their FF/DD. A give and take deal.
      T23 with VLS SW and now CAMM has its own highly effective CIWS missile system…it doesn’t really need a gun-based CIWS.

      That said Goalkeeper was good. We always got simulated kills in tracking serials with it against targets on Bulwark and it always killed the target in shoots. However, in later years it suffered from obsolescence issues and its footprint onboard was huge. It had a massive electronic equipment room with a dedicated Chilled water plant. A large mount and a very big below decks magazine/feed system.

      It did sound good though when it went BRRRRRRR!

  6. With all this talk of guns personally I’d be looking to put the 57mm on T26/T45 as a better anti-surface and anti-air system and the 127mm on the T31/T32 which will be far more suited to NGFS.

    The former are far too precious to be risked close to shore and will work in close formation with the carriers in any shooting war.

    Standardise on them and the 40mm as a CIWS ASAP!

    • 4.5 had an anti air capability. It was removed from the system with the ER rounds coming into service. It could be reinstalled but it wouldn’t be cost effective. The gun bit is easy, its the tracker and predictor that is difficult. It would be nice to see some TTBs (Target Triggered Bursts) blackening up the sky again…

      As for anti surface the 4.5 is very good. Radar fused rounds air bursting above or in front of a target will shred it.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here