UK considers Kongsberg Vanguard for mine hunting motherships

Sorry should’ve specified working with Italy on ships.
And reason it’s unlikely is because of our differences in tech we use, operating requirements and where we operate as well.
Also don’t forget the Horizon program debacle
T26 worked for other countries after being modified, but it was very nuch built for us.
I find it unlikely we’d buy into a foreign design and adapt it for our needs when it comes to such a key program such as our Future air defender.

Vls is only one of the many differences between our tech and theirs. But a big factor to consider is that we won’t be building ours for another 10 years at least. Will be alot of new tech between now and then.

I suggest you look at the differences between Italian and French FREMM’s, Different Engines, different radars… and still they made a very successful Frigate.

I’d argue the issue isn’t Italy…it’s us.

How is it an us issue for having different requirements, your Fremm example is odd seeing as it highlights that even a program that aimed to be highly cooperative ended up with 2 nearly completely different ships. We shouldnt bend our requirements to buy into an existing design and were not going to due to the timelines anyway.

^This attitude? This is why the UK drops out of things like Horizon, while other countries make succesful products. The point of FREMM is to show both Italy and France are more than capable of doing a joint project, that despite differing requirements creates a great Frigate that has even seen export success.

Sometimes if not most times joint programs just don’t work out, and if we want to talk successfull, look at the T26, built for us and modified for others.
At least with the Netherlands MRSS cooperation we pulled out well before any concrete items were being discussed.

T-26 wasn’t a joint program, it’s program that we made and then sold, and the buyer made some changes. That’s a very different thing. So no, not a successful joint program, that takes into account the needs of all three users.
If T26 was a joint program Canada and Australia wouldn’t have had such a long lead time redesigning them for their needs.

I literally said “built for us modified for others”

I know what you said, I’m pointing out that in the discussion about the UK being able to work well with others in joint programs, T26 is irrelevant.

I wouldn’t say its irrelevant, I think it shows a better way of doing it than trying to do a joint program.

It’s not a better way of doing it, it’s a different way. In this case one that requires the UK to take on all the cost of developing and all of the risk, which is what a joint program is specifically meant to avoid.

If T26 had been a joint program we’d be seeing the first Canadian and Australian hulls in the water right about now, so “better” really is subjective here, and why I’m pointing out that it’s kind of irrelevant to the central point I was making: The UK is the issue with joint programs, no the Italians (That was the conversation we where initially having remember?)

T26 was never going to be a joint programme so you wouldn’t be seeing Canadian and Australian versions in the water right now.
There are 2 main reasons for that, firstly neither had a Frigate requirement when the T26 was being developed, their timescales didn’t fit in with ours.
Secondly Canadas SB capacity is full with other projects right now and everything they touch seems to take ages and cost a fortune. If you take a look at the MV Asterix and the new Protecteur JSS the costs are mind blowing.
Australia was slightly better off but again most of their yards were busy till very recently.
The great thing about the T26 was it was designed from scratch to have space for growth and the flexibility to accept other non U.K. weapon systems and sensors such as AEGIS.

It was a hypothetical? Pointing out that there are advantages and disadvantages to joint programs vs single nation lead programs with exports, and that one isn’t inherently better than the other.

So what if the UK doesnt fit with joint programs, we split from the horizon program and got more ships and a great radar system. Not going to deny the other flaws in the T45 design but i think the point is we shouldnt bend over backwards just to fit into a joint program if it doesnt suit us.

Let me remind you this is what sparked this converation:

“Dont see us cooperating with Italy anytime soon, seeing as theyre sticking with systems like Slyver VLS and were moving onto Mk41”

-Hugo

The argument was that you didn’t think the Italians could stick with a joint program and we should avoid working with them, and I pointed out that if anything, they should avoid working with us.

And no, it wouldn’t mean bending over backwards, in fact, if we’d have stuck with Horizon and saved development costs we might have ended up with the full 12 ships, or at least 8, if we hadn’t had to swallow the entire development cost ourselves.

I think that potentially answers your “So what”?

That statement wasn’t slandering Italy it was just highlighting one of our differences. I don’t think we should avoid working with Italy on naval programs, but I do believe it’s unlikely for any of our upcoming programs.
Which Key T45 tech would you have dropped just to stay in the Horizon program.

I’m loving this…

If it meant getting 8 or 12, I’d happily have let the project be HQ’ed in France, which was the real show stopper.

The issue with Horizon was the French.

There were 2 main reasons we pulled out.
Firstly we wanted a far more capable AAW system than France or Italy, hence we went for an AESA radar (SAMPSON) and they went for PESA(EMPAR). Funnily enough they are going to be upgraded and fitted with a Kronos AESA radar.
Secondly there was the 3rd Partner, France insisted on the Project headquarters being in France and the workload being an equal 3 way split. So we buy 6, they buy 2 each and want 1/3rd of the overall build.
The latter reason was real killer and we walked.
FREMM on the other hand has been a real success but more so for Italy than France as they built a far more capable version.

To be fair Dern, Horizon and T45 differ in that the RN is a true blue water Navy.

France and Italy (at the time) were very much focused on the Mediterranean.

T45, despite the Government mandated engine balls up issues, is the more capable ship in heavy seas, Atlantic etc…

I like are new ship building strategy, we design then, other folks buy and adapt it…

Working with the French and Italians ends up designing by committee…..

The French Navy has a bigger presence in the Pacific than we do, they’ve had a continous carrier capability, while for half the service of the T-45’s the RN was on a Carrier holiday, the French have 3 LHD’s the RN has none.

I don’t think that saying we’re a “true blue water navy” and that the French aren’t comes close to holding water.

The FREMMs are a great example of how Italy will work with another nation to develop a common hull that’s in effect a completely different ship…the FREMMs are all unique beasts…

Never said any ill of the Fremms, successful program but still demonstrates the limits of international cooperation on a ship design.

I think that’s the point and why British navel shipbuilding has seen a renaissance with the T26 and T31..every nation needs and wants its ships to be outfitted with completely different sensors, effectors, counter measures and sometimes even propulsion…but single nation building of unique ships is not affordable or efficient..unless your the US or china…so a standardised hull that can be customised easily is the only way.. if we can work with Italy or anyone else to design a large destroyer hull that can be custom fitted for propulsion, sensors and effectors..why not…trying to build a single ship with shared sensors and effectors ( like the horizon ) will fail…but just a shared hull form…

Well that’s what I sort of suggested, after all we do integrate systems from so many different companies to all platforms. Not sure what the problem actually is with working with the Italians really 🤔.

indeed, I think the Italians are pretty good partners…it’s worked with rotor. The French are harder as they are profoundly protective of their defence industry..

We might just be able to run a distributed build using Ferguson and Appledore at a push.
Fergusons build blocks and ferry them down the west coast to Appledore for assembly.
I’m still not sure about the timeline for T83. Publicly so little work has been done on it that it is imagine what the build will look like. 2035 is a long way away, but the design needs to be done by 2028 at the latest.

1 – Usage case
2 – Sensors required to meet usage case
3 – Effectors
4 – Budget meets concept – iterate

My betting is on a bigger version of T45.

A high radar mast will be required to allow a layered approach to area defence. So I see a son of SAMPSON in that role.

The volume search capability will likely be flat panel but these will be low mounted as they will be fused into one radar system of systems with low level to Horizon with son of SAMPSON and look up volume on the panels.

This way you can have massive panels and really high power as it isn’t a top weight problem.

That’s what I think will be the radar setup.
X- or S-band son of SAMPSON rotating large or fixed small panels at the top of a tall mast.
L-band volume search panels doing S1850s job fixed on the superstructure.
The thinking is now moving towards the large destroyer/cruiser as the solution for the ship.
It will be interesting to hear about the other components of FADS and how much will be offloaded from the platforms themselves.
Hopefully we hear more about that from the upcoming defence review.

This is where CAMM & CAMM-MR comes in….

Can the density of packing allow the number of silos on a T45+ platform?

Do you need the complexity of Mk41 or SYLVER for that? Not really.

I don’t think we will get a genuine T45+
We have moved on so far in ship design since those were done and the doctrine is different.
I really hope we get CAMM-MR in its own silos in a split arrangement or twin-packed in ExLS.
Then mk41 holds the first class missiles; BMD, long range AAW, FC/ASW, perhaps the new ASW missile.
We will end up with something very like an anglicised version of the Italian DD(X) but with more than 72 VLS, maybe 64 mk41 plus 64 CAMM family. That along with the radar layout above would fit easily inside 10,000 tonnes.
57mm with guided rounds and Dragonfire for self defence and sorted.

Hmmme

The doctrine has moved on a bit but the fundamentals of a very tall mast, stability and speed are still there. That kind of defines the hull form.

Hopefully fully IEP is still there this time with a better recuperator design!

It will be a mixed Hi-Lo missile load out for sure.

You need Mk41 for high end missiles for BMD or strike weapons. Camm is an ok weapon but its no aster let alone capable of dealing with hypersonics or ballistics

I think you underestimate CAMM.

Sure CAMM isn’t doing BMD it was never designed for that role.

ASTER is better for some things.

All are part of a valid weapons mix.

Certainly CAMM has the potential to increase missile capacity at a lower cost, still interested to find out what will cover BMD etc. SM6 perhaps. Still unsure whether we would be able to get Aster or it’s successor into Mk41

MBDA got burnt, through Sylver. It missed out on a load of Aster sales, because although Aster can technically be used from Mk41, only simulated trials were done. Not a full integration and firing.

Sylver is owned by the French Government, as it was designed by DGA. Who are the French equivalent of DE&S. So there may of been some political push back on allowing Aster to be used with Mk41, to force Sylver as part of the weapons a package with Aster.

That’s never going to hold up in the long run. Either the UK will stop buying Asters or France will have to remove whatever political brakes they have put on MBDA. Asters are great missiles, but now we’ve broken ranks on the silos, Italy is going to get mighty pissed off at France if Asters aren’t even allowed to be integrated into Mk 41.

Putting Asters in Mk41s will be a litmus test for the Royal Navy as to whether the next generation of ships even have Aster, which is currently the Navy’s preference. We know FC/ASW will be integrated into both VLS systems. France isn’t going to the matresses over this.

I have a feeling the T83 will prohibitively use the Mk41 VLS, As it doesn’t make economic or logistical sense to use two systems of VLS that are essentially the same (The Sylver V70 is 70cm shorter in length than the Strike Length Mk41, which may be important!). The issue is that Sylver has not been integrated with non MBDA products. Therefore it is severely constrained on wants to buy the system.

Aster’s Block 0/1NT US equivalent is the SM2 Block3C. Performance wise I would say Aster is ahead due it’s better radar and the mid-body piff-paff reaction jets, that can be used during the terminal phase. Therefore it is more likely to be used on the forthcoming T83.

However, it does not have the reach or flexible target set that SM6 has. This could be partly remedied by fitting GPS to Aster, along with a software upgrade. To allow it to attack land and ship targets. Reach is a problem, as the second stage dart is quite small. It is a similar size to Meteor. Which means that to get more fuel in to it, it will have to grow and get fatter.

The SM6 would give the RN a better chance of intercepting MIRVs as they re-enter the atmosphere. But the ship will require the longer strike length Mk41 to launch it.

MBDA have been contracted to design a SM6 equivalent with the Aquila program. Specifically to counter hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles. However MBDA are starting from scratch, whereas Raytheon has had 20 years to get SM6 to where it is today. After the conception phase then the design/development phase. The first prototype missile probably won’t be ready for at least 10 years (2034). Then there’s the trial and evolution phase which could be another 5 years. So realistically we would be looking at the early 2040’s before it could be properly fielded. Whereas SM6 is ready now.

Therefore for the T83’s multilayered air defence, I can foresee the Navy getting SM6 for the very long range and high altitude threats. As it’s available now and more importantly works. Backed up with Aster then CAMM. I could even see the Navy but I g a few SM3s, as MBDA have yet to say if they will pursue an exoatmospheric interceptor. However, MBDA will have to pull their finger out to get Aster properly integrated with Mk41, otherwise the Navy will look elsewhere.

If the ship is facing an attack from a hypersonic cruise missile, glide vehicle or even a ballistic missile, the ship will use everything at its disposal against the threat.

Therefore the question is can CAMM defend the ship from these types of threats. The original requirements for CAMM did not include these threats in its scope. But I bet it does now. As ballistic missiles fired by the Houthis although inaccurate are still a threat. A similar question was asked about whether Sea Viper Block 0 could defend a ship against ballistic missiles. HMS Diamond has laid that question to rest.

The primary issue is that we do not have a drone target that can travel at those speeds to physically test. So we have to use computer based simulated modeling instead.

The ship’s radar, be that Artisan, Sampson or the new NS-100 will be able to detect and track these threats. The ship’s CMS will be given a software update to work out interception points based on CAMM’s specifications and the threat’s speed. CAMM will need a software update to its proximity fuze. CAMM is classed as a hittle, the proximity fuze is a back up. If it slightly misses, the timing of the fuze is critical. As the fragmentary cloud must be in place for the hypersonic vehicle to pass through. Otherwise there won’t be enough fragments to cause enough damage.

The issue for a standard CAMM would be its ability to intercept a crossing target. The window of intercepting a hypersonic target will be very narrow in this circumstance. CAMM-ER and MR especially will have more time to intercept a crossing target, due to the larger rocket motors.

Has HMS Diamond ebmngaged a ballistic missile? Haven’t heard that…

Yes, check out the following link:

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2024/april/25/240425-hms-diamond-shoots-down-a-houthi-missile

Also check out the links of the ship returning home. Where they show the row of ship’s kills. One of which is a ballistic missile.

Yes, answer is going through authorization, as I added a link.

My money is on a decade of bouncing around…trying a small hull with dispersed effectors..before starting to design a 10,000 hull..by which point the T26 work will be drying up and there would be no likely T83 until the early 50s…the government in power have a “shite the yards will close and we will start to run out of dedicate AAW ships in the late 40s” moment at which point they order an emergency T26 follow-up batch focused on AAW…to keep the yard in work and ensure we have some working AAW ships in the 2050s to tide over until the 4 ordered T83s are launched…that’s my bet…😂🤣 and on previous form you know it’s happing.

The must be some T83 work having been done in the background as didn’t BAE propose sone AAW destroyers to the RAN before the enhanced T26 Hunters? They wouldn’t have put forward a non working proposal. The Italian DDX looks like it could be very useful base design. It’s going to be interesting with the FC/ASW which being Anglo-French must be designed (for both versions?) to be launched both from Sylver and MK41 and why can’t they then make the Aster family and future developments do the same?

BAE I think put forwards the GMF variant with extra VLS because there were groups in the Australian navy complaining that the new ships couldn’t compete with Chinese surface combatants (no VLS AShMs ordered for the Hunters). CEAFAR is a very powerful system so there’s no reason it wouldn’t work as a destroyer.
The problem is that using the T26 hull in that way goes against what the Navy have been saying ever since T45.
BAE have already had to enlarge the hull to fit the massive radar, so there would be no room for new VLS or radar upgrades.
DDX is the opposite, with only 64 VLS on a 10,000 tonne hull. If it could be anglicised with our radar, weapons and mk41 it would be a useful common platform, but that sort of modification tends to end up costing more than a new design.

An example would be USS Constellation class. At what point do you still call it a FREMM, as the US have changed 3/4 of it from the baseline design.

Have you been to Appledore ? Its setup isn’t conducive to assembling blocks from elsewhere. IMHO it would make more sense to build blocks at both yards and assemble at CL in a Drydock. Or in an ideal world get Inchgreen back up and running.

HW have a hell of a lot of capacity for steel work across its medium sized yards.

Not sure what you mean by sub hunters.
These motherships are specifically to do MCM in places that the platforms like Stirling Castle can’t go, like the Gulf or even the Baltic during a conflict.
One of the autonomous boats is supposed to be able to do littoral ASW, but the main role is mine clearing on a wider scale than a traditional minehunter.

Theyre building 2 ships at a time so far as we can tell they are making use of all the space.

There was a Navy Lookout article on June 24; “The Royal Navy wants three new-build minehunting motherships”
That suggests an OSV based design, rather than this which is more obviously a warship.
I do think we need more, but the official requirement is for three.

Evening from Aus SB, You’re absolutely right. I even read the NL article too! From my couch here I reckon six would be better. But I know nothing. Lol 😁 😎 🇦🇺

I’ve just skimmed through the original Black Swan paper, and I can’t find an obvious point of difference between that and what I wrote above.
It does have a strange emphasis on the ships working in groups, though, which is unlikely.
It’s now a given that unmanned is the way ahead, whereas in 2012 the tech wasn’t far enough ahead to stimulate the imagination of those in power.

I reckon there are similar discussions taking place in respect of size, number, crewing, capability of MRSS. It’s got to be easier to navigate through to an affordable shipbuilding plan if you start with different roles – mcmv mothership, amphibious and frigate rather than trying to design a Swiss army knife.

Yep 76mm the only RN vessels to ever have the OM 76mm compact ( a very good gun)…even island class was armed with a respectable bofors 40mm MK3…..I honestly don’t know why they ended up with the 30mm on the rivers…once the T31s come in and take over the east of suez deployments I honestly think they should stick a 57mm MK 3 on the Rivers as well as a 40mm mk 4 and use them as faster smaller well armed mine warfare, autonomous vessel motherships…really taking advantage of the 2000 tones ..

That at lest would give one large mine warfare mothership for home and deterrent protection…2 large mother shops for over seas..more benign..then five smaller upgunned rivers for when you want a smaller, swifter well armed mothership..

Morning DM, I know the Rivers well, made of steel doing deep trawl going after WW2 and Russian moored mines. Would role and pitch even on wet grass. The only vessel that I was ever sea sick on. All were Fleet Minesweepers (MSF) with MCM Sqn 10 of the RNR.

Morning Ron.
Yes, I recall you’ve mentioned your time on them before.
Were They all RNR crewed or with a regular contingent?
I usually only remember the 50 odd Ton sweepers from the cold war, then the Hunts, Sandowns. The Rivers passed me by.

I was on Helmsdale, she was all RNR crewed. I think they were all RNR manned except one. No idea why that was. It makes sense that many people forget about them as the complete class only served for about 10 years, Helmsdale only five before she was paid off. What a waste of investment.

I don’t think an ‘innovative system for territorial waters Surveillance & Protection’ translates to a frigate. I think there are 2 roles and 2 ships. That’s not to say a frigate should not have an organic mcmv capability in extremis if its the only vessel present. But for the frigate solitary roaming GP role or ASW escort we should just build more T31 or T26.

I think the T32 has no defined name yet, just a “Platform for autonomous vehicles” therefore it fits nicely in that category ? unless of coarse BJ just got confused !