A major air defence exercise known as Neptune Strike 23-2, featuring fighter jets from the UK, Greece, and Turkey, was recently conducted under the leadership of the Royal Navy’s Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2).
SNMG2 flagship, HMS Duncan, served as the command hub for this critical exercise.
“Bringing this number of military assets together to operate seamlessly is an impressive demonstration of the strength that comes from combining individual national capabilities into a far greater, integrated, and effective, multinational force,” said Royal Navy Commodore Paul Stroude, the Commander of SNMG2.
Four NATO ships from the aforementioned nations integrated into a defensive multinational force. The exercise provided an opportunity to test the tactics, techniques, and procedures for integrated air defence and anti-air warfare. Participating vessels included the Hellenic frigate HS Limnos, Turkish frigates TCG Gokceada and TCG Goksu, and the HMS Duncan, a British Royal Navy destroyer.
Fighter jets fulfilled the roles of both friendly and hostile forces. This created a realistic and challenging operational scenario for the task group. The combined force of fighter jets included Hellenic Air Force F16s, Turkish Air Force F16s, and Royal Air Force Typhoons, whilst a Royal Air Force Voyager provided air-to-air refuelling.
The exercise, part of the larger NATO-led Neptune Strike vigilance activity, showcased the capability of NATO’s common operating procedures in coordinating multinational air assets, reinforcing the strength and coherence of the allied nations.
During the Neptune Strike 23-2, the US Navy aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford and the Italian aircraft carrier ITS Garibaldi were brought under NATO command.
The Italian flagship ITS Stromboli and Italian minehunter ITS Viareggio, part of Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group Two (SNMCMG2), also participated, clearing a path for following ships. “SNMCMG2 completed this interaction with very successful results, increasing our level of readiness,” commented Italian Captain Ettore Ronco, the Commander of SNMCMG2.
Any news on when NSM will be fitted? Three ships are slated to get it this year with HMS Sutherland only one that we know of that has been confirmed.
Anyone know anything further?
Given the current level of tensions – equipment related announcements will be carefully calibrated.
Fitting the actual units will be done in the usual periods alongside.
Cabling etc could well be done at sea if there is real urgency.
UORs are available if required.
Nice to see Turkey and Greece cooperating.
ITS Stromboli is an old tanker.
Might have been the FREMM Margottini and Alghero minehunter 🙂
Nice photo of the T45 there. It’s going to look even better when the CAMM are added. And if I can rant on again, there’s surely room down the sides for another 2*2*6 CAMM for 48…. rant over. 😆
2*MK41s would be even better… Lol 😁
A Mk41 8 cell launcher to buy via FMS is around 15m USD for a strike length (8m Long ish). You get hot efflux management, flip open door on top and firefighting arrangements for hang fires in the cell. Then add fitting and set to work in the dockyard. Or Fit the self-contained stowage/launch cannister for the cold launch SC into a deck using the simple cannister securing arrangement that you have on T23. No need for the extender spool piece to stick out above the deck because there is (unlike the T23 fit) plenty of room below the deck… Read more »
Great reply as always GB! Thank you for all the extra detail and common sense!
OSA ?
Room for another 16 Sylver A50/A70 and then 24 CAMM maybe ? Can only dream for the funds if a possibility, either way 48 A50 and 24 CAMM is still powerful asset.
Yes, it’s all certainly a welcome upgrade. Just think in the CAMM Dept it could be a tad more. One MK41 alone could hold 32 CAMMs if that’s what they’re going to put onto the T31 or if they’ll have a separate 24*CAMM farm? Wonder if they’d ever adjust the 3*MK41s and 2*24 CAMM on the T26 to 4*MK41s and 1*24 CAMM? The T26s ASW role must be more suited to the current layout. The weight/cost of the MK41s must be a consideration too.
Is the quad packed MK41 available for the CAMM-ER/MR or just the standard CAMM ? Increasing MK41 VLS on our ships does have advantages if the price is right. Not sure on the T31, I think I remember seeing that there would be a separate 24 CAMM in addition to the 32 MK41 when it was announced, my initial thought at the time however was it was a bigger increase than expected, be very happy to see 32 MK41 and 24 CAMM on the T31
I’m not sure if any CAMM is MK41 ready just yet and there’s no mention of using ExLS. But I believe the Saudis have MK41 CAMM integrated on some of their newer patrol ships. The 4*MK41 plus 24 CAMM mix on the T31 is pretty substantial, well and truly up from the initial 12 CAMM!
And the hull is at a great price, if they have this potential then surely we should be looking at 8-12 rather than 5. I would take 5 tho as some so called Genius in government would lower the 8 T26 to save a few quid.
Yes. The A140 is so adaptable to many roles. Even prior to T83, they could get a couple extra AAW variants on the cheap too. 😁
Hi Phil, You might yet get your wish as Babcock have published a concept for the T32. It is a modified T31 being 2m longer, the flight is reduced from Chinook size to Merlin capable and the mission bay is significantly extended. More here. Personnally I’d like to see the T32 renamed and reclassified as a Stretched T31. As such, the concept and assessment phases could be reduced as it is a modification of a current design rather than new design. As a variant of the existing (soon to be) in-service design it could to considered as a spiral development… Read more »
Thanks for the link CR, looks like the deck above the mission bay would have space for a decent amount of NSM launchers. I think it is a no brainer to stick with a T31 design for the T32, as you say it would be cost effective and the build rate should be quicker than starting with a new design, and future upgrades to the T31 should be easily adaptable to the T32.
Hi Phil, I’m hoping that the NSM stays in service even after the new FC/ASW (SPEAR 5) heavy weight system comes into service. If it does it can be used to provide a medium weight capability leaving the heavy weight weapon to deal with the really big high value targets. The reason I suggest this is based on what has been happening in the Ukraine War. Different weapons provide different challenges to the defenders and then there is the consumption of munitions – I believe NSM will relatively cheap compared FC/ASW and in war treasure counts… As for the T31… Read more »
All plans are subject to changes in government. In the past there have been far too many excellent projects scrapped because a new government wanted to do its own thing and/or “create a legacy” for itself.
Hi Cedric,
I couldn’t agree more. I, and many other on here, have said we need a national, cross party, concensus on defence. That goes for any other area of government expenditure that runs over multiple parliaments / governments. Government course changes cost us billions…
Cheers CR
In the present circumstances, HMG is willing to relax the purse strings a bit. Wallace may not be very popular with the army because he was forced to implement cuts that were not of his making, but he has extracted a much better overall deal than we could have hoped for the period until the next election.
As far as I know Quad Camm is just an idea no one has actually done it so the cost would be prohibitive
I thought Caam has been tested in those ExLs launchers, they hold 3 as the 4th quadrant contains launch components. Can’t remember the source I read it a long while back.
Other users on here said that the quad pack is just a future idea
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_3_Cell_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
The launcher has been qualified between LM and MBDA, ignore what I said about the 3 missile capacity looks like I misread the document the first time. 3 launch tubes each quad packed for 12 missiles.
Wow well found sir
Hi Andy, not sure if it actually exists or not but they’ve definitely been quad mockups on display. I think the Canadian T26s have the 24 CAMM ExLS, not sure if it’s 3*4*2 or 4*3*2, need to check. Slightly angled off centre too. The CAMM-ER /MR’s extra length might make them more suitable for MK41s. Someone more expert here will know. And the truck mounted CAMM are 4*2 so kind of quad loaded.
If you want that, go and build your own !
Going to say this as often as necessary, the RN are on the ball, with the platforms and people they have they seem to achieve the unachievable! A good example to the Army how to plan, prepare and adapt to the future!
T31 and T26 are opposite end of the acquisition spectrum.
T26 – all whistles and bells: designed and redesigned to essentially the same spec three times for political reasons.
T31 big’n’cheap with plenty of growth margin so no need to over obsess on how it is delivered.
As you know mate, the Army keep chopping and changing. And they are not short of money either, compared to others.
It is what they do with it, and inability to stick to a plan ( A2020 was fine ) for more than 5 minutes before some General becomes misty eyed at the next grand vision of perfection.
I hate to say this, but if the army had a front line to patrol, they would soon learn the benefits of sticking to a plan. Perhaps if they viewed HMG as an inconvenience rather than as an enemy things might improve.
SHAMAN ESM fit is a massive boon for the AAW. You get SIGINT/ELINT data through the CTs that allows you to identify things like threat axis, raid numbers, estimated time on top exceedingly early sometimes even before the aircraft have left the ground. It lets you formulate the defence plan ahead of time and no transmissions on radars required making it difficult to pinpoint your location.
👍 Assume Ardent Wolf and Eddystone are similar regards SIGINT performance.
Question for the experts….could we see T31 with Mk41 taking part in this kind of exercise, its cells and missiles acting as it were as an AA or ABM extension of T45?
In theory yes – all depends on what the MOD /RN want or choose to put in the Silo’s.