No specific service entry dates have been set for the Common Combat Vessel or the four classes of uncrewed platform that make up the Hybrid Navy, and planning assumptions support progressive introduction from the early 2030s, according to answers given in Parliament.
James MacCleary, the Liberal Democrat member for Lewes, asked when the Common Combat Vessels will enter service. Luke Pollard, the Minister of State for Defence, referred him to an answer given on 20 July to Stuart Anderson, the member for South Shropshire.
In that answer Pollard said: “The Defence Investment Plan announced at least £1.3 billion of investment in the Hybrid Navy Fleet, comprising uncrewed missile platforms (Type 91), uncrewed underwater sensing platforms (Type 92), extra-large uncrewed underwater vessels (Type 93), uncrewed radar platforms (Type 94) and a future class of Common Combat Vessel (CCV). Detailed requirements and delivery timelines remain subject to ongoing concept and assessment work. Current planning assumptions support the progressive introduction of Hybrid Navy capabilities from the early 2030s, but no specific service entry dates have yet been set for these platforms.”
Type 91 is an uncrewed missile platform, Type 92 an uncrewed underwater sensing platform, Type 93 an extra-large uncrewed underwater vessel and Type 94 an uncrewed radar platform, with the Common Combat Vessel the crewed element alongside them. The designations were announced earlier this year, and the department has since told Parliament that construction dates remain undetermined.
A prototype uncrewed missile ship is expected to join the fleet by 2030.
That’s because they have not figured out how these uncrewed fleets are going to work yet.
a few concerns I have (and by no means an exhaustive list):
Communication links data reliability and Latency Bottlenecks
Command signal latency in battle conditions.
Communication links signal attenuation (especially on high seas)
Seaworthiness and sailing as a large flotilla
Maintenance, fault detection, and mitigation at sea.
Battle damage detection and control
Rearming refueling at sea
Risk of Boarding and Sabotage or electronic hijacking
Yes but as the CDS just pointed out there are also great risks in not pursing autonomous distributed platforms.
If we rock in with one £3 billion Type 83 cruiser against an enemy that’s operating a dozen automated platforms for every one manned platform we have then we are highly likely to loose.
I wish they’d give up on this smokescreen…T45 is going to be extended into the late 2030s/early 2040s, and that’s no bad thing.
It’d have been more respectable for them just to announce that in the DIP, rather than the opaque mess we received instead.
For clarity, the CCV/T9X idea could work, and could work really well. There’s nothing inherently flawed in the concept, despite what some pretend.
But to deliver it, timelines would need to be stringent, goals clear, and plans well-understood and defined. Instead, we’ve got quite literally none of that, and the only T9X that seems to be moving forward at anything like pace is the T93 – the only one not directly relevant to the CCV/T9X concept.
I don’t think that kind of detail is going fo be released into the public relm just yet. And also wouldn’t expect accurate in service dates yet.
A fantasy fleet from a fantasy government. Never going to happen.
What gives you to think that? The budget has been awarded, a couple of T9X are in trials and development, various companies are offering capable options. Certainlyt it will all be dependent on overcoming the many technical and operating challenges, which Bringer of Facts examples above. But I can’t see why we should start from such a gloomy dismissal of the whole programme, unless it is to make some party-political point?
One thing you can guarantee is that by the time they’ve figured it all out and used up the committee expenses budget, it will be too late and most of the T45’s will be retired before the first one is ready.
Defence Secretary in Parliament rowing back on 3% by 2030.
What a surprise.
These Charlatans are all the same.
They can row back, but the Americans get a vote.
My guess is a lot of FFBNW followed by a couple of Capability Insertion Periods (CIP). It all comes down to having a solid concept of operations, which might be the problem.
Too early in the development phase to have any timelines and an upgraded T45 escorted with some drones is a viable interim option with a modified T26 also being a very suitable plan B.