Babcock plan would let Type 31 command US-built drone warships.
Babcock has set out a plan to turn the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates into command vessels for a fleet of large HII-built autonomous warships, forming what it calls “an architecture of disaggregated systems and platforms capable of independent operations and connected by world leading digital capabilities.”
The proposal, ARMOR Force, is presented as the industrial answer to the First Sea Lord’s demand for a Hybrid Navy and is framed as a direct enabler of Atlantic Bastion, Atlantic Shield and Atlantic Strike. Babcock says it will allow Type 31 to “control a networked force of large autonomous uncrewed vessels and systems” that can disperse anti-submarine, air defence and strike capabilities over wide areas.
The centrepiece is HII’s ROMULUS family of unmanned surface vessels. HII describes the drones as bringing “scale, autonomy and real operational advantage” through long endurance, rapid production and AI-enabled mission systems. The vessels are intended to deliver “sustained open ocean autonomy with a focus on lethality, cost efficiency, and scalability.”
Babcock will build the handling system to move modular PODS on and off the ROMULUS ships, creating a payload system that can quickly switch roles. The company says ARMOR Force also includes “modular containerised Persistent Operational Deployment Systems for rapid capability deployment and mission autonomy,” plus an autonomous mission system it plans to have “deployable by the end of 2026.”
Sir Nick Hine, Babcock Marine chief executive, said the proposal is meant to answer the First Sea Lord’s call for decisive change: “ARMOR Force is our response to the First Sea Lord’s call for a re-imagined Hybrid Navy. We are combining advanced autonomy, modular systems, and digital innovation to create a fleet that is more agile, resilient and ready for tomorrow’s challenges.”
HII chief executive Chris Kastner said the partnership is intended to reshape future fleets: “HII is proud to be part of this game-changing industry initiative. The ROMULUS family of USVs brings scale, autonomy and real operational advantage, and HII adds world-leading expertise across land, sea and air.”
Arondite’s Cobalt operating system will serve as the autonomous mission layer across the fleet. Chief executive Will Blyth said: “The future of maritime power will be defined by an adaptable blend of crewed and uncrewed systems. We have built Cobalt to tackle exactly this challenge.”
Babcock stresses that ARMOR Force is built on open commercial and NATO standards to ensure it can integrate with allied forces. Its Rosyth facility will lead development, supported by work on autonomy, real-time modelling, remote operations and mission-system integration.
If adopted, ARMOR Force would become the Navy’s first fully networked system designed to let a frigate command drone warships at scale, aligning directly with the new emphasis on autonomous sensors, dispersed lethality and rapid procurement.
Strange how little the FSL seems to mention the Type 31.
Possibly because he thinks Atlantic Bastion is the priority for getting the Navy funding, and T31 as the global frigate isn’t what he wants to emphasise.
Fantastic news, having fleets of state of the art, cutting edge, World class autonoomous ships to compliment all the other fantastic concepts.
Any Idea who’s paying ?
It’s fine they have autonomous funding streams… no human input needed.
positively, this would make a type 31 ‘patrol frigate’ have the fighting power of a small task force with an ability to fight above, on, and below the surface. Combine it with Littoral Strike and some way to run aerial drones and it could be a really powerful force all built around just one conventional ship.
less positively, its a lot of parts to coordinate with one ship’s crew (plus maybe some minimally crewed ships). Moving that lot into a port visit could be quite a challenge I’d imagine. And there are a lot of points of failure in what would be quite a complex system.
Not last the vulnerability of the mother ship. A decent compliment of CAMM would help rather than a mere 12 ish. We need to build in greater survivability on mortherships or the drones become near useless.
Don’t give up. Hopefully the 12 CAMM becomes 24 or even 32 if in mk41 or 36 if in Exls ….lol. Plus NSM.
Yes, knock-out the mothership and the drones might just be floating multi million pound ducks unless they have the legs to get back to port and be controlled by air, satellite or landbased HQ.
Isn’t this exactly what the Type 32 is supposed to do?
Reading between the lines I think this is the proposal for Type 32 isn’t it?
We are of the same mind – this is all about T32.
How to leverage all the investment into the A140 platform and yard.
BAE are stuck with T26 now till the mid 2030’s. They could start fabricating a hull in the early 2030’s.
Belfast H&W are regenerating and there is a big difference between RFA and warships…..so yup it looks like T32 to me @ Babcock Rosyth.
Yep and essentially they bring the T31 to to same capabilities for managing an autonomous task group.. it’s would seem sensible leave the gold plated T45 and T26 to focus on their jobs without fiddling around managing an autonomous task group.. after all you don’t want your T26 that’s in hunting mod..messing around craning autonomous capabilities in and out the water.. same for the T45 really. Also the T26 and T45 can then be generated to created escorts for CBGs and amphibious groups .. the T31/2 can then lead the Atlantic hunting groups.
The RN now just needs a cheap low crew presence and patrol ship.
Silly question…these drone ships…won’t they need the equivalent speed and range of the motherships to keep up? The Romulus shown here doesn’t look terribly fast bit i guess must be suitable enough.
Good that the T31 is getting a second life with this – wonder if its a development of the MRNP variant they proposed a while back?
I don’t think I agree with your assesment. The T26 is the ideal vessel to work with a smaller drone type vessel for submarine hunting with the smaller vessel deploying a towed array sonar and doing all the active pinging. The alternative is two T26 working as a pair with one in silent mode.
Something around the size of the OPV batch 2 would do the job and be capable of zero manning and small crew manning when required to carry out repairs at sea.
Yes it would be but the RN will only ever have 8 that means at best it’s probably only ever going to 3 able to deploy.. if it’s got a carrier battle group out and about that will leave 1 and the priority of that one will be supporting the strategic deterrent.. essentially the RN has just enough for these two vital tasks…that is why it’s going down the rabbit hole of autonomous ASW vessels at all… if it had 12 TAS frigates it could use them as singletons leading autonomous groups in the Atlantic.. but with 8 if they are in the Atlantic the carrier is not going anywhere.
Canada with their version of the T26 would be a useful addition to Norway and the UK T26 fleet. As for submarines Norwegian/Canadian SSKs could operate in the shallower waters around Northern Norway and the Greenland Iceland Gap with RN SSNs deep water Iceland UK Gap.
However, as I have pointed out before there seems to be a issue with RN numbers of the T26. As I understand it 3 T26s are to be used in a Carrier Strike Group, that leaves five with one carrier operational but if two had to be operational that leaves only two. With one in long refit and one in short refit, one working up we have no T26s left for the Atlantic bastion.
Yes I know, we have allies, but there could be a point where with no garantees of US support European navy’s could be stretched, so we need the numbers to fulfill some tasks ourselves such as carrier strike and blocking the GIUK Gap. We cannot always trust that allies would have the ability to support us when we need.
Really, a couple Type 26 is all that’s needed for a CSG, we don’t need that much ASW in one spot. And a Type 31 (if actually given the MK41) is a pretty capable ship that could easily enough carry plenty of air defence and anti ship missiles. And the Type 31 is a lot cheaper so perhaps a couple extra orders of those, properly equipped
Requires more funding, and what about MRSS, MCM, T83
If we believe Starmer and Rachel From Accounts then there is a funding uplift coming down the line.
There is a 2.6-2.7% commitment as it stands with 3.5% in the ether. Focussing on the 2.7% for now that is at least a 0.5% of GDP uplift from where defence is right now as spending has fallen in real terms over the last two settlements. That is £14.5Bn per annum uplift.
A 10 ship T32 program would cost £4Bn over 7-10 years and so cost ~£575m/annum that is perfectly real world.
Assume that this is divided in four DNE/RAF/Army/RN that is £3.61Bn uplift per service.
RN will split that into 3 submarines/surface fleet/RM & spares & munitions
So surface fleet get a £1.2Bn/annum uplift.
– T32 @ £575m over 7 years
– MRSS @ £355m over 7 years
– MCM @ £270m over 5 years
T83 then comes starts to ramp up around 2030 with an initial £270m/yr budget ramping to £845m/yr
That is the rough maths.
Munitions and spares are in the 1/3 with RM
MRSS is a ridiculous project anyway, no issue with that being scrapped and something better in its place, LHD and FSS split instead of a ship promising to do everything.
But the Type 31 really isn’t that expensive. Even with all 32 Mk41 VLS (something that really should have been standard) they would only cost about 360 million, 720 million for arguably the most cost effective light frigate in the world is hardly a bad price, and shows that we like the frigate so it should help with export orders, something the UK has been lacking on in the past few decades with exception of the recent Norway deal.
The MCM project isn’t that expensive regardless of what else is ongoing so it shouldn’t be difficult to budget for.
You think if MRSS gets cancelled well get any replacement? lol
Wonder now if the US would be interested in the T26 now that they’ve canned their Constellation class? Or, they l might go more for the Mogami? BAE’s must have pricked up with this opportunity!?
*BAE’s ears…
Or even the A140/T31 class for the USN? Cheap as chips for lots of ships!
Can we have real warships to go with the toy boats please? Things that can actually deploy to areas beyond the GIUK gap, defend themselves, and carry out other tasks. That means more T31, and maybe making more the the River 2s as J suggested if we get the Norwegian Patrol vessels.
Hi Daniele. Can I ask why you’d want more river 2’s? Without research, I’ve always had them down as very lightly armed patrol boats, basically for policing work and showing mild presence.
Don’t they lack any credible offensive/defensive weapons? I’m not sure where they fit into this sort of strategic thinking.
Probably toreplace the River 1’s and they are great assets to have in their intended roles. More areas covered.
I read that as making more of the Batch 2s. They can retain the overseas constabulary role with minor enhancements and the T31s reinforce European waters through this taskforce concept. But Rovers can mount OSO containers so might be made PODS-capable, meaning they could play a role too.
Typo errors, Jay!
Making more of.
I used to be in the camp of, leave them alone, their good at what they do. And I still am. But…with this news of the UK joining Norway with their OSV program, maybe we could do as Jonathan suggested and uparm the River B2s as light Frigates?
God, wish we had an edit function back.
“They’re” not their.
Another batch of T31, plus the 5 RB2s upgraded, could get the escort force back into the mid 20s.
They’re potentially capable assets, like other Northern European light Frigates as J also pointed out.
I’d prefer more T26 and T31 only, but lets be realistic, there are no more T26 coming for the RN, and I fear no more escorts end of.
Thus the RB2 upgrade idea.
I would do something similar, but reverse it slightly. The Norwegian OPV/OSV designs are already more heavily armed than the current B2s, and could easily do the patrol role of the current three Batch 1 OPVs around UK waters, whilst also having a much superior sub-surface capacity with their drones.
I’d keep the B2s as they are, and push for a slightly more potent armament on the new motherships, which seem to be shaping out less as dedicated MCMV and more as multirole drone control ships. Nothing crazy – a 40mm, recycled Artisan, some NSMs.
I’d agree. The Vanguards could double as both MCM/hydrology support vessels and local UK-based OPVs, including handling some of the obligatory Russian escorts through the Channel, while the RB2s remain globe-trotting presence ships. The RB2s aren’t patrol frigates and can be seen as goodwill ambassadors, intelligence collectors, and constabulary vessels, training with smaller countries’ local navies, turning up for port visits and events. Both the RB2s and the Vanguards can be available for HADR. This gives a significant amount of soft power for the price.
Where we need real patrol frigates, that’s stepping up to the T31s.
You want 3 ships to make up for MCM, OPVs and Hydro while also deploying beyond the UK? Asking rather alot
I want more, but you are right. I had 6 in mind for some reason rather than 3,making me a tad overenthusiastic.
The problem is having a warship ship roaming the wide oceans of the world with only a 30mm cannon in the present climate is asking for it to be hit with a sub war deniable attack.. especially the places HMG has asked the navy to send them.. Africa, close to the Korean Peninsula to enforce a UN blockade of NK and its very likely they will end up in the gulf region.. if I was Russia I would get any number of nasty people in those regions to fly a couple of drones into an exposed rivers 2 as a devastating humiliation to the RN and UK.
This is something that has worried me for a while. As good as the River B2s are for constabulary work and being ambassadors for the UK. Drones are now a more significant threat to them, than pirates on speed boats touting a RPG.
The ship’s current Scanta 4100 radar, although good for current purposes, is not suitable for directing the ship’s gun. Granted Scanta should be able to detect the drone approaching and the DS30 then guided by the EO turret. But this is not a joined up way of defeating the threat. The ship’s DS30 mount could be linked to an automated laying system driven by the CMS. But the ship needs a 3D radar to feed it the right data, not the current Scanta, as it cannot provide any target height information. Upgrading the radar using MOTS should not cost a massive amount in purchase costs, integration wise it may do. However, the upgrade would give the ship a massive capability boost, especially defensively. Though anything faster that a drone, the DS30 will need to be replaced with something like the Bofors 40.
Yes realistically a modern warship even a presence warship should have a 3D radar as well as effectors out to the 8-10km range.. that means 40-76mm medium gun with variable fused air burst and some form of short range missile… realistically if it’s going outside of your own EEZ or close friends EEZ then it needs to be armed to the standards of what was a patrol frigate… which a 2000 ton hull can be.. we don’t need to jam it full of offensive missiles, but it should be able to defend itself as its running away.
That would certainly make them reasonably armed. 💪
As far as I’m aware the rivers 2 are build to a far higher standard of survivability than the new Norwegian patrol boats which are commercial standard builds..the issue is the global presence ships should actually be armed to the standard of a patrol frigate.. now I don’t have an issue with using the Rivers 2 as presence ships away from our EEZ as they are build to warship standards but they need to be armed to do that presence work and that is not the job of a ship armed with a 30mm cannon..if your sending them to the Korean Peninsula,Africa or the gulf they should have more than a 30 mm cannon… because at some point Russia is going to get someone or other to fly some drones into them in a very deniable way… so yes keep the rivers 2 as global presence ships but give the crews the tools, a 57mm cannon and some CAMMs.. do as the French do.. they are experts at presence work with low numbers of escorts.. but their presence ships ( the Floreals) have a 100mm medium gun, 2 20mm cannons and 2 Mistral SAM launchers.
The problem is that you need a 3D radar with a full CMS to start using CAMM or full directing the front gun.
Upgraded radar is a given. A 40mm keeps things at arms length without costing ££££. I’d rather put a second 40mm to over the rear arc than put an expensive 57mm. If you start putting 57mm and missiles onto it – it starts to shout warship and it will get sent into harms way.
You also need to ask would the monies spent upgrading B2 to this standard be better spent on T31’s with a tiny bit better outfitting which are real warships. Upgrading ships is a good way of spending huge amounts of ££££ very quickly.
Hi supportive in my view it’s already too late and the B2s are already deployed in a far higher risk environments than they should with their present capabilities and global deployment of the B2s is now the norm. I think that is only going to worst.. HMG is going to put them in harms way more and more as the frigate situation worsens, and I suspect at some point a B2 is going to get attacked.. that is the world now, Russia and may other actors want to engage the UK and we don’t have any choice really but to either deploy them or retreat from whole regions that are very important.. the sensor issue is a real thing and in reality they should have had 3D radars as standard, but it’s my understanding that a pairing of the Sea Eagle optronic director and Scanter 4100 will provide adequate hight range and azimuth data to que a CAMM and definitely a 57mm work wise in reality it’s not going to be much more effort to put a 57mm over a 40mm ( as long as they are both deck mounted).. but your suggestion of 2 40mm guns is far better than what they have now and may be enough to at least manage a deniable gray drone attack..
Nope, the Scanter isn’t the right radar for the job.
EO is far too short range to deal with the full range of threats that Sea Ceptor is competent for.
As with Argentina and T42/Sea Dart it would be perfectly possible to work out the weaknesses of the system and get around it. So it does not provide the degree of defensive assurance required for the job.
I’d really not be fond of the idea of up arming the River B2s that is an act of desperation and not consideration.
What RN needs are large command and control frigates to go with the hunter drones. They need to be big to take the radar and other systems as well as having space for all the crew to control all of the drones. Yes, I mean that ‘autonomous’ drones are not very autonomous at all!
So I do think this is really a conversation about T32 – which as you know I am in favour of.
Sadly supportive we are really at the state desperation and not consideration..I would not normally stick Oneg blood to a person with AB blood types.. unless they are bleeding out on my resus room floor… the simple reality is even if they ordered new T31 frigates today they could not lay down the first one until late 2028, when Buldog is likely launched, and a second in 2030 when Campbeltown is launched.. so if they order a further 5 commissioning would be between 2033 to 2038 as is with the rate the type 23s are falling apart and failing their 6 year drydock and refit the are may be down to 4-5 frigates from about 2027…
So yes the RN needs more frigates.. but actually the only real option it has for increased its deployable fleet and covering its requiremented deployments is rivers 2s so it should give the rivers 2 a 57mm gun and some CAMM.. because let’s be honest if they don’t those rivers are getting deployed to the gulf anyway with a 30mm cannon and a prayer… just as they have been to east Africa and close to the Korean Peninsula… because HMG is going to tell it to go with what it has.
And perhaps NSM and a telescoping hangar? Wouldn’t be an elegant or inexpensive option, merely potentially feasible. There is probably a UK shipyard, somewhere, capable of performing the mods in a relatively timely manner. Needs must…
Why the River 2’s? Stupidly expensive for what they do. No true weapons so poor for dangerous waters or even escorting Russian ships. They make good patrol ships for anti piracy and drug smuggling, but what could they do in Norway, it’s hardly a piracy hotspot.
We are losing the R1’s and as you say, they are good patrol ships for the jobs they do. ?
Because they are so expensive. Ability, yes, they are good ships, but for their price they don’t offer much. if they were cheaper I wouldn’t really be able to fault them. But the River class cost about 127 million, the Italian Comandanti class cost about 90 million euro (80 million GDP) yet also comes with a hangar for almost identical tonnage.
Their prices were inflated as a result of the TOBA and they were under armed versus versions in other navies or similar sized patrol ships
Don’t use them there. Use them elsewhere. I’m talking upgrading existing not building more.
I want more T31.
Ahh, sorry. I must have misunderstood what you were asking for.
Not really their fault. The majority of the cost was down to paying BAE to not lay off their workforce while they mucked about with the T26 design. That said, we definitely should have got more for our money and insisted that they were built to higher damage control standards, as we were paying enough. It would also have been good practice for the workers to build to those standards
Who knows the what’s in the minds of the powers that be. Surely replacement, on station, of the 5 Batch 2 Rivers with the 5 T31 ordered. Decommissioning of the 3 Batch 1 Rivers leaves no GP frigates in Home waters. (Assuming a T31 becomes Guardship for the Falklands?). “I know nothing….. Aaaah he poke me!”
Of course the two B2s in the Far East could always be decommissioned on Station, or sold, rather than the cost of returning to Blighty.
What’s this talk about selling off the B2 Rivers? They’re doing a great job just need a bit of a gin/missile/radar (lots of spare ex T23 Artisan’s) upgrade and maybe some extendable/containerised hangar for drones. And we don’t need to be in a mad rush to retire the B1s either. If they’re still on good knick maybe give them a radar and RWS upgrade too.
*gun…
Agree totally. Just being sarcastic based on recent decommissioning of Gulf frigate.
We need ALL the Rivers to be retained until the Vanguards are available as both MCMV and OPVs. Again, I know nothing only hopeful.
Isn’t that part of the role of the Vanguards?
Far better than the T31s replacing B2 and the B2s replacing B1s, which has the net effect costwise of replacing £35m ships with £350m ships and getting no real benefit from either upgrade. What a waste!
Actually, having a T31 doing a South Atlantic Patrol tasking alongside the guardship might well be a choice I’d make for the second T31, after the Gulf post had been restored. Why you’d permanently post a frigate to the Caribbean or Gibraltar I don’t know.
The Caribbean is an interesting one because actually what is really needed is resources for constabulary work ( eyes in the sky and small fast boats and then lots of disaster management resources.. manned rotors and equipment.. a full fat warship is a waste really.. an auxiliary type vessels to commercial standards would work well.
Look out for Viking longships perhaps?
Get a grip and try getting your brain around what is happening in toto…Jeez Brits are these days impossible to get thinking beyond the past
Hi DM. Personally, I am fine with the retirements of the Batch 1 Rivers. provided the MOD orders a second batch of 5 type 31/32s .That is to say, a return to 24 surface warships before Cameron’s 2010 cuts.
Hi Chris.
Agree, IF they are replaced.
So far, ships are disappearing with no replacement.
Do you reckon they might even be tempted to use some of the coming five T31s in this role to bring the mothership program forward? Have we heard any further news on the CIP for the T31?
Be nice for the RN to get additional ships for having more naval presence and options. Can’t see drones ships doing diplomatic port visits and flying the flag for the UK!
I think of them as useful force multipliers. I fear HMG simply see them as a headline to detract from the fact our actual warfighting assets keep reducing.
HII ? I don’t know if Babcock got the memo but they don’t exactly inspire confidence at the moment. Virgina class Late, Columbia class Late, Ford class Late the entire US ship building industry is struggling to deliver ships on time or on budget or both.
I think at present HII are getting HHI to assist them getting programmes back on schedule ! If someone had told me 20 years ago the mighty US SB industry would be getting Hyundai Heavy Industries to help out I’d have laughed out loud and advised them to add more water next time.
“Rosie the Riveter” must be rolling in her grave ☹️
PS It may also have escaped Babcocks attention but the RN has never bought any Foreign Warships ever. We may have Pinched or borrowed some and bought an “The American sector” and some guns to put in but that’s about it.
I originally come from West Yorkshire and so am needled by the fact that the only ever HMS Leeds and HMS Bradford have been destroyers, built abroad and transferred from US Navy surplus. The notes against HMS Leeds show she was deeply unreliable and “rarely operational for more than four consecutive weeks at a time”. A bad look for my home city and I demand a do over!
However, where will the autonomous ships come from if not abroad? In the water in two years according to the First Sea Lord, so perhaps that does rule out Huntington Ingalls.
I don’t think I agree with your assesment. The T26 is the ideal vessel to work with a smaller drone type vessel for submarine hunting with the smaller vessel deploying a towed array sonar and doing all the active pinging. The alternative is two T26 working as a pair with one in silent mode.
Something around the size of the OPV batch 2 would do the job and be capable of zero manning and small crew manning when required to carry out repairs at sea.
To do it in two years you purchase existing large trawlers and fit rowed array sonar and work with minimum manning not zero.
Each trawler working with a T23 or T26 could double the effective effort in hunting submarines. We have other systems to persecute an attack once found. Merlin helicopters or P8 aircraft.
If the T26 is to travel with two noisy trawlers, why have we paid so much extra to make it the quietest warship in the world?
Because to catch a submarine you need to be quiet and listen for reflected noises it probably doesn’t matter if these are from active sonar pings or from a noisy trawler in order to establish something is there.
However by using a towed array sonar on a noisy trawler to ping at different depths you will be able to make a much more accurate picture of where the submarine is and therefore have a better chance of eliminating it.
It’s rather like using a beater to shoot game birds, you could use two expensive T23 or one T23 and one trawler. Given that many trawlers operate at sea anyway any submarine would have to consider that any trawler it hears could turn into a beater at any time
A dedicated drone ship run on batteries may be better as it could also be very quiet but we don’t have five years to design and build one. When we do it would be better to be a submarine drone anyway so probably even longer to design and build unless we have already started to do it.
Even if we could employ silent submarine drones today a noisy beater (trawler) might well still make sense in making noises which the T23-T26 and other silent devices
Acua Ocean In reality the US HII option is no more mature as neither exist yet.. if we actually wanted mature autonomous ships then we need to ask china nicely.. but if I don’t trust the US anymore to not put us in a corner that goes triple for china.. autonomous vessels really do need to be sovereign.
Yeh, T31 + Acua Ocean + Proteus and more Merlins and = the answer to any shortfall in T26 numbers.
Can’t they squeeze out one more T26 out of any spare change? For rule of 3 and all that. Costs must be as low as they’re ever going to get…unless you can sell this to the US?
Aren’t Babcock working with HII in Korea on development of their subs? And HII are up for the large Canadian sub requirement. Could all be utilising their relationships nicely.
The UK bought a considerable number of American built escort aircraft carriers in the second world war. Built brand new for the royal navy.
ABCR,
Absolutely concur, there is already a surplus of hungry alligators in the swamp, snapping at HII’s chitlins. Perhaps revisit the issue w/ HII, circa 2035? In the interim, many possible ENATO partners available for an autonomous vessel research/production consortium: Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, etc. Further abroad would probably include Australia and Japan, and possibly South Korea. 🤔
Looking at the picture couldn’t we just get the canal boat builders to knock them up. Or alternatively the guys who knocked up the Thames Barrier which HHI seem to have merely ripped off for its aesthetic.
More questions for those who know these things…with these large autonomous boats/ship drones, if they’re crewless how and where do to they dock and get tied up at the wharf? They use have their special area as they’re lower in the water?
Do naval ships use pilots and pilot stations when coming back into port as I’ve never spotted them in any photos? We can see the tugboats.
We shouldn’t buy into US automation software. I’ve no objection to using T31 to augment T26 if it can be done but the RN should should carry on with a s
the Bastion development path we are on. If Donald Trump want to wants an Atlantic cruise to Scotland I’m sure the RN, the RCN and the Norwegian navy will be able to assure his safe passage.
and if the data link is hacked? or the command vessel is taken out? Are they so stupid just to save money and up numbers but in reality rely on technology tat could be compromised!!!
And having just read the new US Security Strategy paper all the way through please please not US. Can’t we build our own sea drones for heavens sake? As things stand the orange turd who currently occupies the Whitehouse is more likely to take direct orders from his bestest pal Putin and instruct the drones to sink the T31!
Either that or decide to support Argentinian in claiming the Falklands.
All bollocks. Nothing at this scale has been shown to function. The RN needs more real ships not these geek wet dreams.
A proper first step would be to build something with low manning before betting everything on unmanned platforms.
And Huntington Ingalls hardly inspire confidence.
Why the hell would we want to buy American autonomous vessels that don’t really cover the brief.. low range and not optionally crewed at only 57meters.. I thought the RN was looking for an optionally crewed boat for at least the type91…. If they are looking of a basic 40-60 meter vessel that cannot have an optional crew and has a range of around 2500miles for the type 92 then they may as well go for the Acua Ocean option..at least that is British and sovereign.
I find the mindshift to SWATH or trimarans to get more stability from smaller ships interesting. It gives us the promise of smaller drone ships capable of traversing the big oceans. We do need to test it out on full-sized ships.
Even the ACUA thing is supposed to be able to have crew if necessary, and like I said before as diesel-electric the range will likely be quite a bit more than 2500nm. I don’t see how a monohull in the 40-60m range is supposed to keep up with an escort across oceans, if they want seakeeping it has to be SWATH and a trimaran or catamaran for speed.
Maybe there’s a need for an even bigger mother ship with a well dock to collect, refuel, rearm this mini fleet of drone ships? Something in the Elliade Strike class? This formations is like a whale and its calves. In calm waters okay but in high seas?
Since we first had drone-mania around the MCM boats and the T26 mission bay I think navies have generally decided that a drone small enough to need a mothership isn’t really useful and isn’t a force multiplier.
So now all of the new concepts we see are for either coastal self-deploying boats or ocean going ‘unmanned escorts’. The MCM boats have survived but they are replacing a dedicated class of specialist vessels, so it is easier to go from “MCMV” to “MCM Mothership” rather than adding an entirely new type of ship. So these large missile-armed USVs are going to be big enough that a mothership isn’t needed.
It’s an interesting concept. GB historically has surprised the world with innovative naval technologies. Oh for some budget and decisive leadership.
‘command US-built drone warships.’ – what happened to all warships having to be built in the UK?