The Royal Navy’s Common Combat Vessel remains in the initial stages of design, and the aspiration is to sequence its arrival with the out-of-service dates of the Type 45 destroyers in the mid-2030s onwards, the Ministry of Defence has said.
The position was set out in a written answer to Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, who asked what the planning assumption for service entry was for the new class.
Minister Luke Pollard replied: “The Hybrid Navy Integrated Air and Missile Defence capability will replace the current fleet of six Type 45 destroyers. While the Common Combat Vessel (CCV) remains in the initial stages of design, the Royal Navy’s aspiration is to sequence the arrival of the CCV and wider Hybrid Navy Integrated Air and Missile Defence capability with the out of service dates of the Type 45s in the mid-2030s onwards.”
The answer is framed around the Type 45 retirement schedule rather than a fixed in-service date for the new class, and describes the intended sequencing as an aspiration.
When the programme was announced on 29 June, the department’s press release stated: “The Common Combat Vessel will replace the current fleet of six Type 45 destroyers, with delivery expected from the early 2030s.”
That release also said the funding announced in the Defence Investment Plan allowed the National Armaments Director Group to commence the design work underpinning the change in how air defence is delivered at and from the sea. Delivery of a warship from a shipyard and its entry into operational service are ordinarily separated by a period of trials and capability assurance.
Pollard’s reply also draws a distinction the June announcement did not. The answer attributes the replacement of the Type 45s to the wider Hybrid Navy Integrated Air and Missile Defence capability, with the CCV sequenced alongside it, rather than to the vessel alone. The press release described the CCVs as part of the system that will replace the current destroyers.
Under the Defence Investment Plan, at least six of the vessels are to be built, acting as control hubs coordinating uncrewed systems in the air, on the surface and under the sea. They are intended to work alongside eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates, together with Type 91 uncrewed missile platforms, Type 92 uncrewed underwater sensing platforms, Type 93 extra-large uncrewed underwater vehicles and Type 94 uncrewed sensor platforms. The programme replaced earlier plans for the Type 83 destroyer.
Dan Jarvis, who was Defence Secretary at the time of the announcement, said that the vessels would give sailors “hybrid ships that are designed and built for the increasing threats we face”, adding that they would be British-built and developed with British industry.
Given past experience fitting in the ISD of the new vessels with the phasing out of the 45’s is never going to happen.
Every day I become less confident that these are going to be anything more than six extra T31 frigates.
With a name change and T82 merged/dropped to save money.
I don’t see an issue with them being 6 X T31, seems like a sensible platform to use as it’s big, cheap and available. Ideally we want these ships being delivered well before the OSD of the T45 so if it’s doesn’t work then we can keep T45 going.
Do we know the number USVs that will be bought?
The T31 platform is fine, even superior to the other available platform, the T26.
My worry is that these will lack the advanced AAW sensors, tall mast, et cetera, required for the fleet air defence role.
I’m aware that these are planned for the T9X. However, if those don’t pan out, the RN is left with nothing.
A middle ground would be an Iver Huitfeldt or an FDI style ship.
From an operational perspective, if the plan is for many smaller radars, surely you’d also want to put those on as many hulls as available.
But they aren’t going to be designed as conventional fleet air defence destroyers like a T45.
I think the idea is the T94 will negate the need for a high mounted sensor as the radar will be mounted up threat and over the horizon from the ship, if the command ship is having a large radar then I think it needs to be more focused on ballistic targets looking up instead of high mounted looking down for sea skimming targets.
Why do they even have to be tied to the T45s retiring date? They’re just spending millions on upgrading these ship, how about using them first. Bring the CCV into service as you as possible. Just 19 main ships and god knows how many drone ships seems very out of balance. Why not another T31 GP, another T26 and these six CCV ships, gets a rule of three on all classes for 21 ships. And 3-4 B1 River replacement OPVs and add the 5 B2 Rivers, for a pretty decent fleet. As other posters have suggested a single hulled T83 requirement might actually reappear later which would be quite funny. Giving the T31s an search radar in addition to the NS110 could give them a AAW uplift as well as having the 4xMk41and CAMM farm hybrid mix, maybe repositioning the NSM launchers.
Why do they even have to be tied to the T45s retiring date? They’re just spending millions on upgrading these ship, how about using them first. Bring the CCV into service as you as possible. Just 19 main ships and god knows how many drone ships seems very out of balance. Why not another T31 GP, another T26 and these six CCV ships, gets a rule of three on all classes for 21 ships. And 3-4 B1 River replacement OPVs and add the 5 B2 Rivers, for a pretty decent fleet. As other posters have suggested a single hulled T83 requirement might actually reappear later which would be quite funny. Giving the T31s an search radar in addition to the NS110 could give them a AAW uplift as well as having the 4xMk41and CAMM farm hybrid mix, maybe repositioning the NSM launchers.
No idea why it doubled, sorry.
Wouldn’t a T45 batch 2 fulfill the role nicely? A strong hull to take the radar mast and perhaps a reduced number of VLS will save space for the task of mother ship? It will save time and money in designing a new ship.
Question, who is responsible for the initial design. It used to be the DNC with the builders working out the detailed design, but as we no longer have a DNC who carries out initial requirements and design?
Also with the CCV would the types 91-94 not need to be designed first to understand communications, computer and mothership requirements of the CCV.
Naval Design Partnering (a mix of private companies and DE&S) does an initial reference design. The project is then put out to tender and the bidders each bid something completely different but meeting the general specification. It is a very wasteful process which leaves intellectual property in the private sector, so the MoD can’t put successive batches of the same design out to whichever builder offers the best price as used to be done. The last warship done the old sensible way was the Type 23.
Still at the PowerPoint stage
Just keep building T26’s and T31’s till we have 12 of each in the fleet then sell off the older hull. Cuts down on design costs and logistical support for a new hull types. With the increase of frigate numbers along with the proposed un-crewed fleet you will be able to cover 100’s of square miles with the frigate in the middle of the box controlling the area of interest.
I agree, no need for any new multi billion pound warship designs just to keep multi billion pound warship designers in work. The T31 and T26 hulls should be fine for decades to come. Both already come in enlarged versions if we need something bigger. If the command ship and drones doesn’t work out then we should opt for a Canadian River Class destroyer on the T26 hull with enlarged radar for a more general purpose destroyer rather than a air warfare cruiser like the T45/T83.
These should be built along with the T83.