Magazine Torpedo Launch Systems onboard the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates will be upgraded in a £34 million contract awarded by the Ministry of Defence.
During the next five years, Royal Navy ships will undergo a series of technical upgrades to their Magazine Torpedo Launch Systems and threat countermeasure capabilities, the latter of which will help ensure the ships continue to counter the threat of hostile anti-ship missiles, say the Ministry of Defence here.
The contract was awarded to Systems Engineering & Assessment (SEA) in Devon.
“Sustaining 150 UK jobs across Barnstaple, Beckington and Bristol in the south west of England, the upgrades will ensure that critical systems on Type 23 frigates continue to operate reliably, and that upgrades can be seamlessly adopted and installed until their out of service dates.
The Type-23 frigate carries out a wide variety of operations, including securing the UK’s vital maritime trade routes East of the Suez Canal and safeguarding British interests in the South Atlantic. This week the Royal Navy deployed HMS Somerset to play a leading role in protecting critical energy infrastructure, working with Norway and our allies in the North and Norwegian Seas.”
Minister for Defence Procurement, Alec Shelbrooke, said:
“These crucial upgrades will help to ensure our Royal Navy ships remain equipped with the latest counter-threat capability. Supporting 150 jobs at sites across the UK, this contract is another example of how we are investing in the future, sustaining UK jobs and securing cutting-edge defence capabilities.”
According to a statement:
“Type 23 frigates will have electronic upgrades to Seagnat, a system which safeguards the vessel against incoming missiles by firing a variety of decoys to defeat incoming missiles. Some ships will also undergo a further technical upgrade to their Magazine Torpedo Launch Systems – a close range, quick reaction Anti-Submarine weapon system which launches torpedoes from tubes mounted in the vessel’s magazine.”
You can read more here.
Well I suppose that answers one question, does the Royal Navy think that torpedos are still a valuable anti-submarine weapon system, and asks another, what about Type 26s?
I think the flaw in the thinking is torpedoes are only useful against submarines what about using them against surface vessels?
Hypothesis: Say The RN wanted to sink a ship the size of IRIS Makran, It would take a lot of hits with Harpoons and/or 4.5 Gunfire to make an impression on a ship that size, whereas heavy topedoes would finish the job quickly.
These are lightweight anti submarine torpedoes, the same as those carried by AS helicopters. They weigh about 260kg, against about 220 kg for a harpoon.
It’s an interesting idea, but MTLS is only compatible with lightweight Stingrays, range maybe 10km.
Range is more than that.
Hypothesis: Say The RN wanted to sink a ship the size of IRIS Makran, It would take a lot of hits with Harpoons and/or 4.5 Gunfire to make an impression on a ship that size, whereas heavy topedoes would finish the job quickly. The 11 000 ton RFS Moskva was sunk by 2 hits from Neptune anti-ship missiles which have smaller warheads than Harpoons. Sheffield was sunk by a single Exocet and the warhead didn’t even explode. Ideally a good frigate would have both torpedoes and ASHMs, and plenty of each. Jon is right, the T26 definitely needs on-board torpedos… Read more »
You wouldnt have to sink it to make it a Mission Kill. A couple of Martlett into the Bridge, a couple of 4.5 into the same area or the engine room areas. Hit the stern and knacker the rudder.
LWT like Sting Ray have a ceiling height in their software. It was found during trials that the high speed combined with to low a ceiling height caused the torpedo to porpoise in and out of the water during trial runs.
To be honest, I’d answer it with one of my own: Is it more economical to drop a bit of money on maintaining/upgrading a system that is operational, or to pay to get it fully decommissioned out of the vessel and service? I honestly don’t know the answer, Gunbuster, Deep32, or DaveyB or others may have better insight. But in my opinion I don’t see it as simply cut and dried as the conclusion you’ve come to. Thinking of the possible use cases I still see minimal use for sub-launched short range torpedoes. I’d rather cash be spent on an… Read more »
Good point. Type 26 will have Mk 41 VLS.
Yeah, it’d def. have to be something strike length to fit a missile with the range I’m suggesting.
You’re describing MBDA MILAS… MBDA would love to add Stingray to it. Its canister launched so doesn’t take up VL space and can fit on lots of ships… It has twice the range of ASROC… But ship launched LWT will have a role…everyone is assuming they’ll be launched at an SSN or SSK with HWT. But what about all of the UUV’s that will be around? They need killing too… Having a torpedo launch system aboard means you could also use smaller anti-torpedo torpedoes for hard kill… We might even need to resurrect depth charges, particularly for helos, for cheap… Read more »
I don’t know what your service/expertise or history is but your comments are up there with the best
Thanks. Thats very kind of you.
Hi Rudeboy, Your point about UUV’s is a very valid one, but I would caution that the use of any hard kill weapon that relies on over pressure to make a kill. Currently a key threat that UUV’s present is to under water infrastructure so there is a very real risk that you could damage the very thing you are trying to protect. By there very nature UUV’s are increditably quiet some do not even have conventional propulsion systems. I read about one that simply changed its bouyancy and derived forward thrust from fins, in effect as it changed its… Read more »
I think you’ve misunderstood me. UUV’s aren’t just going to be used around critical infrastructure. They’ll be used for ASW, attack, reconaissance…pretty much everything that can be done underwater.
The challenge of undersea warfare is going to get a whole lot more complicated. We’re a little too relaxed about the costs in terms of munitions or detection (particularly around stocks of sonobuoys or torpedoes). We need to look for cheaper and more plentiful methods of dealing with these threats. The return of depth charges could be a useful arrow in the quiver to deal with less complex threats.
MU90 has a hard kill version I think, doesn’t it? That I could definitely see as a use for shipboard launchers still, fully agree. I just thought that the tech wasn’t quite there yet- but could be completely wrong!
It does MU90 Hard Kill. Not sure if anyone has ever purchased it or if it has been fully tested (or for that matter even built). There is also the Sea Spider from Atlas Elektronik that is far cheaper than MU-90.
There are some new ASW munitions coming along for the 5inch gun that would provide the T26 the ability to use the gun to deploy sonar buoys as well as depth charges that could be used either to act as a barrier, disrupt sonar, warn off or attack subs.
They’re a bit weedy at the moment, if you mean the BAES Kingfisher rounds. 3kg of HE that detonates at a particular depth so doesn’t actually hit the target. For comparison Stingray is 45kg of aimed warhead and Spearfish heavy torp has about 300kg warhead.
I wonder if they might be better used against an incoming torpedo.
Very true but stingray launched from a ship has a range of a handful of miles and is very slow..so it’s use is not great. Air launched fine, but it’s a weapon system that only really stacks up if it’s dropped onto a target, but it’s great if in that role. Also the ASW vessel based weapons are there to it stops the sub doing what it intended to do as it’s now so close, the thing about kingfisher is it could put a lot of distraction in the water very quickly, if the sub is busy evading it’s not… Read more »
Kingfisher also has range, which is the big issue with Stingray. You can at least menace a sub out to about 40km with Kingfisher, while a lightweight torpedo you’re looking at about 10km.
40km still not quite as good as a heavy torpedo from a Sub, but at least you don’t have hope that you somehow will live long enough to be directly on top of a sub.
Indeed yes and it can be very fast, effectively you can put down Sonobuoys or depth charges out to that 40km within a minutes as you say it may not kill the sub but really forcing an immediate evasion and stopping an attack would be golden . Your small ship flight although the better way to hunt down the sub would even if it’s up un the air may take 10mins to get in position so those kingfisher rounds would be a great way to keep the sub busy until the air assets can be put in place. If it’s… Read more »
If and it’s a big if. You can fire a depth charge like weapon from a 5” gun, that has some under-water directional control, plus some form of seeker. You could kill a sub with as little as a 10kg warhead. The warhead would be the same high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) that is found in most anti-tank weapons. The 10kg HEAT warhead has the ability to punch through 1000mm of steel armour. This is enough to punch through a double skinned sub’s hull. Though the hole is likely to be no bigger than a ping-pong ball. However if hit by… Read more »
Maybe.
If you have a UAV up to no good then you can use active sonar for a very accurate fix and then use a programmable 5” depth charge round to finish the job.
Alternatively you fire a pattern of sonar buoys to fix the UAV location sending data to a drone relay and then do the same.
Perhaps, for a relatively small investment (some proportion of £34M), enhance the capability to deploy lightweight Stingray torpedo on an interim basis, and facilitate role of T-23 as a testbed during the development of the already announced successor torpedo? Evaluate results of DT&E trials when available and decide whether investment in retrofitting T-26, T-31 and T-32 are justified? Possibly a strategy that an underfunded service. might chose to employ to maximize cost/benefit ratio of investment? 🤔
…investments in retrofitting T-26 and T-31 are justified. (For the T-32 class, the decision would simply be factored into original design requirements.)
People often say onboard ASW torpedoes are obsolete because at best they have a range of 10 clicks. What they forget is that most of the time the submarine will not be targeting the frigate which will be operating several miles ahead of the main force. The submarine’s job is to slip past the frigate unnoticed to attack the main body. If perchance the sub has avoided detection at range, it might be fleetingly detected closer to the frigate. The quickest way to dissuade it from pressing home its attack in such a scenario is to quickly get a number… Read more »
Yep.
Being totally reliant on the ships helicopter is dangerous.
Mechanical fault
Refueling
Wind
Heavy sea
Worst case a crash that’s a total loss
All are reasons it may be unavailable. Its madness to have one of a handful of escort ships effectively rendered useless.
A 2nd option is not something that’s up for debate to me, it’s vital. If something can go wrong it will go wrong, how many times does that need to be learnt?
Plus subs have or are developing sub launched SAMs that can take helis down, or they may just be tasked elseheree at the time.
Yeah, those SAM’s have been in the pipe line for decades now, though as far as it’s known none have ever seen adoption. Would love to know why, technical issues or do they just think that the hovering helicopter isn’t such a threat to warrant it?
I’m sure I’ve heard that a helicopter on frigates have very rarely if ever missed a tasking when it’s been needed.
The other thing is when has a ship launched torpedo ever been used in combat to sink a vessel.
I’d prefer 2 helicopters on type 26 than a surface launched lightweight torpedo system.
The ship launched torpedo systems arent super duper expensive so they must have reasons for keeping them off the future class.
Put the investment in detection systems and helicopters and the systems on the helicopters.
Basically, they’re big. I think GB was telling me that the launcher and reloading mechanism for the stingray launcher on a type 23 spans about 4 decks (may be misremembering that though).
That’s a lot of space that can be devoted to other things.
You have miss remembered about the size of the system. You can find images of the size of the tubes fitted onto other ships like the T42 as they had triple tubes on deck.
The reloading mechanism is clunky but your belief of 4 decks is way out of the true size
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-frigate-weapon-systems-to-be-upgraded/#comment-676440
Yeah I’m taking GB over you.
That’s your choice to do so.
All I know about it is that I loaded the tubes and fired a torpedo from the system we are talking about less than 18 months ago.
Sure you did.
I don’t know your background is or even who GB is who told you facts that by your own admission you may have misremembered however certain ships have certain equipment that needs to be tested.
I have 1st hand experience of the subject we are talking about having loaded and fired it.
I can assure you that the air weapons magazine is not spread across 4 decks.
Gunbuster below this comments has also said that it isn’t spread over 4 decks
Thanks for clarifying the glaringly obvious facts that we don’t know who you are. Now I’m going to go back to trusting the source that I know, and has a proven track record of knowing what he’s talking about, over the random stranger who claims “yeah I definitely fired a torpedo.” out of the blue.
I fully understand that you don’t know me and as you have a trusted source why don’t you go back to them and get them to confirm what you have already admitted that you may have misremembered.
Do you not think that someone has to fire the torpedoes to test the systems?
Ask someone. I would ask Gunbuster as I think he may have an idea about this.
As I am new here I don’t know who Gunbuster is however going by the user name I would think he has an idea what a back afty does on a T23.
I see you didn’t bother to actually read this thread.
Oh dear.
Run along now, and bother someone who actually cares about you. Bye.
You seem to have most your information correct in other parts on here. It is on this subject that you have admitted you may have misremembered some information Has GB confirmed that the magazine is spread over 4 decks? I hope not as that would then damage his credibility on this subject. Have you asked anyone who has been on a T23? Being new on a website does not make me forget how to operate certain systems that I have been responsible for. Having over 2000 posts does not mean you are automatically correct. I would suspect that you care… Read more »
Yawn bye troll.
So you cannot admit when you are wrong even when you say you may have misremembered.
Just read what Gunbuster has said about the system.
He has worked it and so have I.
T22 had a lift from the bottom of the ship (4 deck) to the hanger (1 deck) and then up again to 01 to load STWS.
T23 is a big mag as wide as the hangar but on the same level. Its big to allow for the mechanical handling gear to move missiles and torpedos
I was on a T22 Batch 2 frigate in the late 1980’s. We had TWO Lynx’s embarked (unthinkable these days) and both were unserviceable when we received an urgent operational tasking whilst in the Med.
Never had a helo unavailable for ASW tasking. Had STWS and MTLS go TU though. Had our Gulf Mod Full optional extras Lynx decide it no longer needed the tail boom during a land on following a surface search in the Med. That was an interesting day ! Craned it off minus the fully removed tail boom in Bari and pushed it around the dockyard to another T22 who took it back to the UK. Apparently the wrong size rivets where used on the tail boom. 75% of them failed on landing and the tail dropped/sagged. If had come off… Read more »
Well the Swedes have their new Torped 47 with a 20km range. They also have a new surface ship launcher for it. The wire guidance means they can target an enemy ship that is near friendly or neutral ships.
Its a different ball game in war time conditions, the strain on machinery and crew builds.
When has a helicopter launched torpedo ever been used to sink a sub?
I agree 2 helicopters, even if just in time of war, would be far better than just 1.
I have serious reservations over a critical and scarce asset having a big glaringly obvious single point of failure that can render it useless.
HMS Cornwall’s helicopter was unavailable as it was refuelling when its boarding party was kidnapped by Iran
Different circumstances. Most of that cluster was due to the Boarding Team leadership making very poor decisions and not listening to the advise of more experienced team members. Infer from that what you will!
Yes both the RAN and RCN ships will be armed with LWTs.
The RAN Hunter class will be equipped with MU90, and the MH-60R helicopters will carry Mk54.
The RCN CSC frigates will use Mk54 on both the ship and CH-148 helicopters.
As for ASROC, the RN T26 only has 24 Mk41 VLS, the USN DDG 51 class have 90 (flight I & II), and 96 (flight III).
Yes the RN could add ASROC, but it cuts down options on an already relatively small VLS capability.
Cheers,
If you want a quick reaction short range a/s weapon against a clandestine attack on subsea intractructure, then a ready to fire onboard system may be useful. At the moment, say HMS Somerset or any surface combatant detected such in situ, what’s going to do, exactly?
I note the Swedes are still investing in new 400mm wire guided torpedoes for their surface ships & subs.
I’m confused about this. I thought Type 26 wasn’t getting anti sub torpedo tubes. Yet Type 23 is getting their system upgraded ..because they’re useful ??
Same here there seems to be some argument for not fitting them to future RN ships, yet they are being upgraded on the 23s
Mmmm MOD procurement that appears to make no sense 🧐 not seen that before. It would make sense if they purchased ASROC for T26.
Reminds me of the days of Ikara
Perhaps the reassessment of current threats means the Type 26 will also be equipped with Torpedoes but it has not been officially confirmed.
Just so. The logic escapes me.
The logic is quite clear: to me anyway.
Only SSK or SSN will have a heavy ASh Torp.
Dealing with mini subs or UAV’s is a different proposition?
Given the Gas(ski) Explosion(ski) that ‘accidentally’ blew up all four gas pipelines at the same time maybe thinking has changed because of of facts that have emerged or are emerging?
Or because the threat analysis has changed?
That is my educated **guess** anyway.
You have to wonder if the future of securing things like underwater cables and pipelines is actually the perfect job for autonomous UUVs after all your not asking them to chase around at high speed ( which they cannot do) just slowly patrol up and down a fixed point. Your never going to be able to afford manned assets to protect all the sub sea infrastructure, but with some of cheapish larger autonomous UUV for far points with greater endurance and smaller ones for coastal us, Maybe you would have a shot at meaningful levels of protection, using your manned… Read more »
Knowing how the MOD do things it’s probably a last minute thought, welcome one at that and probably means T26 is getting them too
I agree. When I questioned the lack of torpedoes on T45 and T31, there were plenty of posters here telling me that the omnipotent Royal Navy knew better than every other navy and had decided that this capability was militarily useless. That doesn’t seem to square with this decision.
Steve the T45s a AAW destroy that problem could not find a sub unless it accidentally rammed it and the T31 is very much focused on ASuW/constabulary work. There may be a case for A light organic torpedoes on a Type 26, but in really they have very little use and are completely niche and organic ship launched torpedo would have a range of around 5nm at most and would take ten mins to get out that far ( they are slow and even their terminal attack speed is on 45kns) light torpedoes are designed to be dropped on top… Read more »
A Mk46/Mk54 may have that speed…Sting Ray certainly doesn’t. Its way way faster and has way way longer range than 5nm
Interesting gun buster thankyou, the published data on stingray is vague. So from someone that knows it do you think it’s worth the expense, crew and space costs to add it to the T26 ? Or do you think other options would cover it and the space, weight, money and crew would be better used on something else ? As it is a bit of a change of orthodoxy.
Its vague for a reason because the actual performance specs are classified. There are some major issues with fixing tubes onto decks especially as most decks are now enclosed. That leaves flight decks and you dont want weapons near a potential crash on deck. PODS may be an option for T26 . Also Remote boats with a simple slide out into the water tube to deploy torpedos well away from the ship. Boats with thin towed array lines have already been trialled. They could prosecute a target themselves. Look at what the MCMV world is doing with sensors and deploying… Read more »
There are torpedoes on T45. It has a mag full of them. It doesnt have tubes but it can use the Wildcat as a pony to drop on a target using VECTAC/ MATCH
How does it detect them as Wildcat has no ASW detection gear and it’s been widely reported that T45 sonar is no longer manned? Fair enough if those reports are erroneous of course.
It doesnt need to detect them. Anyone with a link picture can be ASW commander. Idealy though its an ASW frigate. Same sort of thing regarding AAW. If you have a T45 with you they do the Air Warfare because they have the sensors and skill set to do it but you can have say a T23 do it at a push. I have done a CASEX , as ASW commander on an LPD that has no sonar and no helo and no torp mag. Its about coordinating task group assets such as Active and Passive ships, Helo Dippers and… Read more »
Thanks for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive reply. Unless I’m remembering wrong though, we have deployed T45’s as singletons in ASW threat areas. When Iran started interdicting merchant ships in the Gulf (2019?), the only available hull to supplement T23 assigned there was HMS Defender. There’s a considerable ASW threat from Iran in terms of submarines and mini-submarines had things escalated but Defender and the T23 were operating independently of each other to maximise the number of ships that could be escorted. I also understand that we usually use a GP T23 in the Gulf which has… Read more »
Wildcat can drop buoys if the ship has receiving gear fitted to do the processing. Its been done before. In the Gulf you can look down wearing a good pair of Polarized sunglasses and pretty much see the bottom! ( I know I dive the Gulf and the Red Sea and its pretty clear all the way down.) Airborne Camera systems with various optical filters have been used and do exist to see mines in the Gulf. If you can see a mine you can see a sub. A T23 with towed array is the same as a T23 without,… Read more »
Thanks again for such a detailed and insightful reply. I didn’t know that Wildcat could carry sonar buoys or that active sonar was preferred in the Gulf.
I still think a T45 with a none working hull sonar and a T31 with no sonar is at risk there though as I’m guessing that however clear the water is you can’t spot a submerged submarine in the dark?!
Know knows that the updated defence review will state! Alot more money could bring sub tubes to the type 26
OSD for Type 23 is 2035+. So plenty of years left in service, they need their kit to work unti then…
Usual story. Penny pinching on what in the grand scheme of things are not bank breaking costs. Yet they seem to find plenty of billions to waste on spending that results in nothing whatsoever entering service.
there may be some grow ups now running the RN. Up until only very recently RN was dispensing with ASuW, that dangerous thinking has now thankfully changed.
Because they will be in service for a while yet
I’m surprised these tired old ships still warrant extra spending on them, TBH.
They’ve all been run ragged for the last 25yrs, more so since they flogged 3 of them off to Chile.
And decommissioning T22 early.
And replacing T42 with 6 T45
And as you rightly say selling 3 T23 to Chile.
Add that together and you have a very toxic mix of wear and tear.
Decommissioning the batch 3 T22s was criminal really as was selling 3 type 23s to Chile, especially if you add in the mix that they knew recapitalisation of the frigate fleet was going to be problematic and delayed. What any responsible government should have done If they did not have the ongoing funding to keep all the ships operations and were only planning to have 11 active frigates, was to have a programme of sticking half the frigate hulls into extended readiness At any one time and rotating the frigate fleet hulls into and from extended readiness as they do… Read more »
I agree.
I thought there were four T22BIII
Yes there were and what is sad is that they had plenty of scope for refit having 400 more tonnes of displacement and being 15meters longer that the T23s and not being really much older ( a year or two between the batch 3s and early T22s.
T22 was a more solidly built frigate.
However, it did use older style more engineering intensive machinery. The fundamental design for T22B3 was signed off in the 1970’s and had 1960’s elements to it.
OK by the time they were decommissioned they had a totally different electronics fit.
B3 also was a specialist ELINT / EW version which was part of the reason for a larger crew.
As was pretty typical of the time there were a lot of small(er) compartments.
None-the-less they were good ships with decent sea keeping.
Hi supportive, cheers that was interesting, I had not considered the pedigree as you say although built at the same time as the early T23s there was a decade+ difference in design. When you think Russia is still building ships now that were effectively a design generation behind and not even peers of the T22s, with the so called modern Adamiral Grigorovich being a modernised version of and direct descendant of the Krivak design which started in the 1950s and with the fist hull commissioned in 1970. Something seriously wrong with their ability to design and build new complex warships… Read more »
Ship design and damage control thinking moved on a lot post ‘82 and those broad lessons can be inputted into the more advanced modelling used now to produce even more robust ship. WRT the Russian surface ships my only combat concern would be those with nuclear reactors. You are stuck with shredding the front end and superstructure. The biggest risk is to their own crews if the reactors overheat due to lack of cooling when the systems go down. Mind you the biggest risk to any Russian surface vessel is, allegedly, smoking on board. This is also, allegedly, an increasing… Read more »
Yes it’s turned out the US never needed Regans 600 ship navy plan to defeat the USSR, they actually Only needed The Marlboro man.
I get the feeling we will see some very old frigates still in service over the next decade or so. Any new Labour government will want to spend money on social/welfare programmes. That will be the vote catcher.
at present the Labour Party is very much projecting the idea of capital expenditure, not welfare. Building ships has economic and jobs that labour would not ignore, after all who built the carriers.
~Trust in any politician or political party is a myopic activity nowadays. The veneer of “Blairite” Labour is just that. It is still infested with Corbyns drones.
Evidence?
😅
Then what do you suggest, disband and destroy our system of government, Because those who seek power are all arseholes…. I will tell you secret….. almost every who seeks power over others is alway aways going to be an arse. another little secret altruism does not really exist, everything we do is for reasons of our own needs ( even caring people care because it fulfills a need they have). all the matter is results, listen to what each party says it will deliver and vote for the one that makes sense to you and you think will deliver, if… Read more »
😊 The strength of democracy, which authoritarians view as its weakness, resides in precisly what you highlight. Keeping our elected focussed upon their transitory lifespans. I only have one amendment I’d make to your above, on the disbandment question at the start, as it lies outside of just this democratic strength. To wit, I want the Upper House out of the picture as currently constituted. It started out in theory as a repository of sage knowledge on the various technical issues that intrinsically bear upon legislation submitted by whatever party was in power. But now, notwithstanding any genuine individuals who… Read more »
Gavin I agree the upper house needs a bit of reforming, the whole concept of a life peer needs to change, there are actually still 91 hereditary peers siting in the chamber for goodness sake. Personally I think it should be an apolitical chamber with memberships not affiliated to parties at all ( it can work as parish councils are almost always full of non affiliated councillors) . I think it needs to be that chamber of wisdom full of wise heads and experts, but not individuals who have followed a political career, I think anyone who has sat in… Read more »
Well thought out proposal for some meat on the bones, Jonathans. Certainly the basis for a long overdue debate. Though perhaps not by Their Lordships who might decide things aren’t ‘too bad’ as they are (in fact, we’ve already been down that route in part – how did that go again?) I think that the issue in your last paragraph is likely occurring to more and more of the electorate, possibly aided by the increasing access to information on parliamentarians’ behaviour. That tendency isn’t all bad, mind. I recently viewed an internet forum with our local MP and captains of… Read more »
Please don’t mention labour building the carriers and Cameron trying to scrap them it upsets some people on here.
If he was analytical he would admit that the carriers were built to be part of the European Navy. Of course, all that changed because the voters decided they wanted out of the corrupt EU. And Brown wanted to keep Scottish yards in business. Trust in any politician is rather like a kid accepting sweets from a stranger. However, as most on here seem to read The Mail as gospel it is an uphill struggle to ask for any lateral thinking.
Did I not say that the hulls were built because basically labour actually tend to like to build and invest in big capital projects, because it creates good unionised jobs. To be honest I never give two shits about why and what motivates someone to do something as only the outcome matters. You can spend your whole existence trying to figure out why someone is doing something or if they did it for a noble aim. In real life it’s only outcomes that matter, other esoteric arguments and analysis are for the birds. So I actually could not care less… Read more »
@John Stott
You like to throw the word corrupt around. The Ukraine’s corrupt, The EU’s corrupt. Can you point to any evidence that either are any more corrupt than the UK? All I know is the both of them have far cleaner and more democratic electoral systems than we have. Hence our recent semi-Fascist coup via dirty referendum.
Did I say the UK was not corrupt? You are a pro-EU fan obviously. That’s the outfit that dare not admit its auditors cannot balance the books for the past two decades and longer. THAT’S corruption.
I think there’d be little difference. Both parties see the defence budget as a job creation budget. They’re be happy to build the ships which creates jobs but not interested in properly equipping them as spend on weapons and sensors creates fewer jobs per £ spent than building the hulls does.
You think any politician cares that much in either party? Politicians set budgets defence chiefs spend the money. Most defence secretaries get less than 2 years in jobs. Ships take decades to procure and build.
I think that they care a lot about the headlines around creating jobs I think it’s the reason we spent £2bn (in 2022 prices) trying to develop our own AEW platform before abandoning it for technical reasons and buying the US equivalent that we could have had in the first place. I think it’s the reason we spent £4bn (in 2022 prices) trying to develop turn 50 year old airframes into a new maritime patrol platform (MR4A) before abandoning it for cost reasons driven by technical risk and buying the US equivalent that we could have had in the first… Read more »
I think Putinia will concentrate Party minds whatever previous memes applied.
At the end of the day the defence budget is simply a risk management budget. Which means it’s spending on mitigating something that may or may not happen in any given year (war). It’s like insurance, no one likes paying it and we have to balance the cost vs the potential risk of loss and the outcome of that risk be realised and not mitigates ( losing a war). Other spending tends to be on need…we actually need to replace this many knees in a given year ect. As it’s easier to understand and more popular. It’s why we spend… Read more »
That’s a bit lame. Labour set the carriers in motion. Labour along with pretty much all parties are in agreement defence cuts have gone too far. The butchering of defence over the last decade has been Conservative driven. Yet you roll out the tories spin doctor line that Labour will be the enemy of defence??
Because TB Liar wanted to be EU President and needed cred in the new empire. Brown wanted Scottish yards in work. Then of course Cameron put the kibosh on it because they expected a remain vote. Just join the dots and follow the money. It really is that simple.
Hold on, you started this string saying Labour would want to spend on social / welfare., which they always do. The responses were about what in fact transpired (on the RN front), in this instance We know that political decisions are – political.
Perhaps because the previous leader of the Labour Party was anti-NATO and wanted to remove the nuclear warheads from our Trident missiles 🤷🏻♂️
I voted Tory* for years, but Labour have just as good a record on the military, however we view that e.g. the nuclear deterrent and QE carriers.
* and in passing, they are doing nothing to impress me either now, on any front.
So we’re spending money updating a system that apparently isn’t needed on the next generation of frigates!
Stingray is purported to be a very good torpedo. If the magazine launch system isn’t going to be transferred across to T26 then maybe use them on the T31 instead?
Maybe it could be given it an anti-torpedo ability or for the newer lightweight torpedo? You’d hope the aT26 would have the same. Who knows.
Bit of a rant of mine again but I’d like to see some investment in Mk41s on the aa T45s too, plus CAMM side silos as there’s still 10+ years in these ships and post PIP! And some increased decoy/defensive armament on the carriers.
Hopefully the thinking on T26 is that there are alternative weapons available for the Mk41 and being developed for firing from the gun that they’ll have other ways to establish a sterile zone for submarines around the ship. I agree that the lack of such options for T45 and T31 means that they should have shipboard torpedo tubes (and even more impo they need sonars).
Yeah hopefully either ASROC or the smart rounds being developed for the Mk45 gun can give T26 a decent anti-submarine punch.
Cross-deck the anti-ship missiles replacing Harpoon, the Stingray magazine launch systems and ensure they have a minimum of 24 (preferably 32) Sea Ceptor’s and the T31’s start to look half decently armed!
Agree. I’d like to see the hull sonars cross decked (or in this case, cross hulled) as well
How much life do these ships even have left?
Unless they expect to be fighting submarines in the next few years it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Some will continue be in service for well over a decade
Lots of comments around what about the T26, but there are lots of options in the present fit that would cover and provide better options than an organic ASW missile. So ASW rounds for the 5inch gun ( kingfisher) or something in the Mk41 silos. We don’t know what actual munitions a type26 will be deployed with.
Oh yeh and we’re back too talking about ASROC for the 17th time. Identical arguments in favour each destroyed by identical arguments against showing why it’s a waste of time. In the meantime the RN who might possibly know a little more about the subject display no intention what so ever of introducing them. 😱😱
Yes simply the RN will be able to buy whatever if feels is cost effective and appropriate for the type 26.
Radakin mentioned ASROC in a defence select committee meeting as something the RN was considering. That surprised me somewhat, but someone on here pointed out that Japan use an updated version, so perhaps it isn’t quite as useless as I thought.
My money is on Kingfisher though for the 5 inch guns on T26, plus lightweight torpedos delivered by UUVs and UAVs.
Yes, GB has explained on several occasions.
I think the problem with ASROC is more to do with the execution rather than the concept: Mk54 is not a great torpedo, but that’s not the end of the world. Once the guidance system has flipped it from vertical onto the right ballistic trajectory, it’s unguided, so not necessarily the best solution for a long range weapon that wants to drop the payload as close as possible to a moving contact. Also, range tops out at 22 km for the latest version- less than half the range of a heavyweight torpedo. Basically, you’re in a situation where you’re outranged… Read more »
The issue is that a torpedo, that is any use, weights 250kg or so up to 1800kg for a Spearfish that is a proper ship killer.
That is getting to the heavy end of warheads that can fire out of anything that actually exists or won’t take up half a ship.
You would end up with something that looked like a V2 to cart a payload like a Spearfish around.
So the answer is that different approach is needed?
But then, do you actually need a heavy shipkiller torpedo to engage a submarine? Let’s face it something as simple as a small fire on a submerged sub is a major problem. So even a small charge, as long as you can project it out to the sort of ranges needed, should be something a sub captain needs to worry about.
I think you do as a full size sub is faster and more manoeuvrable than a UAV.
Double pressure hulls are designed to deal with smaller explosions and impacts.
The smaller round would require a direct hit NLAWS style to be effective. Any significant manoeuvring will bleed off speed fast never mind the resistance effect of going through water….!
I see your point, but the counter to that is that Stingray is fine as a ASW weapon when dropped from a Helicopter (thus negating it’s short range). So it’s not the warhead that’s the issue. It’s the delivery mechanism. If you can get a small torpedo like Stingray onto a Rocket and launch it ASROC style (hopefully with better range since 20km isn’t great either) then you have a credible shipborne ASW weapon right there.
NGF describes an arc so will the 5” projectiles.
But the arc is disturbed by the air / water interface. You can think of it as a change in refractive index.
Helo dropped will be perpendicular to the water surface so less of an issue at the interface.
So I think the hit probability on a fast moving target with the Kingfisher projectiles is too low. Whereas with a UAV it is probably OK as it is slower so the parameters are less complex.
I take your point, that’s a big “warhead” for a missile. But if we’re talking VL or cannister launched out to 70-100 km (that’s a guess, based upon the range of a heavyweight torpedo), then the range is also less than many strike-length missiles- so space that would otherwise be needed for fuel could be given over to the torpedo instead?
BAE is suggesting that their new lightweight torpedo replacement for Stingray could be smaller with similar performance, although I doubt they’ll be able to cut loads off the weight.
Why would anyone want to ditch the AS Torpedo upgrade to buy ASROC ? You add a completely new bit of US kit to maintain and supply. Plus if you want to put Stingray on it, you need the US to develop ASROC for maybe 8 frigates.
The T23 carries Helicopters armed with Stingray, using AS tubes adds a whole new short range element.)
What about the T45’s? Or have they already been done?
T45’s dont have any except by helo to deliver anything really. Lots of space for a fit but that mean adding more ships company and already they have run out of bed space. Plus they seldom go to sea
They are air defence ships, they don’t have anti submarine capability.
The T42’s had torpedo magazines and the T45’s had until recently bow mounted sonars.
All major surface combatants should have a well rounded set of capabilities.
100% agree. The AAW vessels in every other western navy have a sonar, ASW torpedoes on the ship and a far better ASW helicopter than the Wildcat. What’s particularly annoying is that the T45 cost more money than most of those ships as well
Wildcat is not anymore a ASW helicopter i think.
SOME ships will get the torpedo upgrade. Presumably not those which will be going out of service soonish?
With a government saying it intends to increase defence spending one obvious area would be to upgrade RN warships that are considered by many to be too lightly equipped.
To claim the T26 will be the best ASW platform around it really needs everything. StandOff / Local Launch & Helicopter. I’d love to see StingRay strapped to the front of an Aster15 booster for example 🙂 Having all 3 means you are always in a position to engage a contact, be it near or far.
Just buy ASROC for mk41 stick stingray on it.
Are you providing the superglue as head of weapons integration and trials?
If not, you can get it on Amazon Prime so please post the trials results next week 🙂
Recalled this. Covers most of the discussion.
https://www.navylookout.com/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/
Rgs
Your opinion and the article you quote is not wrong. But if you want to be a sub hunter killer you have to be able to prosecute a contact with total violence. When you think about underwater warfare, its safe to say the UK is still on top, if not the best.
How? ASROC carries an Otto fuel carrying Mk 46 torp which is 1960s speed and tech. Yes its eventually getting an upgrade…but nobody knows when. Sting Ray is a seawater activated battery powered weapon. To get Stingray to operate you remove the warhead Safety Arming Unit wire (SAU) Battery Ports Cover (BPC) and the umbilical connector. The BPC lets the water into the battery to power up the weapon. Getting the cover off isnt easy , its held in place with shear bolts and takes a substantial force to dislodge it either by a dedicated HP air powered piston in… Read more »
Just possibly the magazine systems have been left to decline over the years, but now there is a perceived Underwater drone sub woteva threat to pipelines and undersea cables, these systems would appear to offer a quick fix solution (of sorts), and not necessarily a renewed interest in firing them at subs, given the heavyweight/lightweight range issue. Upgrading the decoy systems…probably in the pipeline anyway especially as the T26 are being built and would have upgraded systems on them. Always wondered how usefully close to a sub you could drop a lightweight torpedo from a rocket? Personally I like the… Read more »
Interesting, this is the kind of important but low profile contract that the MOD could have avoided awarding, with excuses that the T23’s were too old to justify the investment, and that their replacements were well in hand. Combined with other recent announcements (e.g. MROSS and UUVs), the MOD must be confident of a significant budget uplift sooner rather than later. Otherwise, a major unfunded black hole is about to reappear in the equipment budget.
Some of this could be UOR to deal with the pipeline threat and other Nad Vlad related stuff.
It is possible the kit has already been developed for T26 and so it is being hosted onto T23?
Yes the RN could add ASROC, but it cuts down options on an already relatively small VLS capability. The RN T26 only have 24 Mk41 VLS, compare that to the USN DDG 51 class, 90 VLS (flight I & II), and 96 VLS (flight III). If you add ASROC to 8 or 12 cells, then it doesn’t leave much VLS space for anything else. The RAN and RCN T26 variants will both be armed with LWTs. The RAN Hunter class frigates will be equipped with MU90, and the MH-60R helicopters will carry Mk54. The RCN CSC frigates will use Mk54… Read more »
….not forgetting they have 48 ceptor tubes for air defence, so the Mk41 cells are for anti ship and whatever else. in other words there will be 72 VLS tubes in total.
AA
Why the flippin’ eck do all these modifications take so long? Admittedly I don’t know about these things but it does seem a crazy amount of time!
Some do…some dont. The mods and A&As need spares to be bought, engineers to be available and then matched in to the RN Fleet availability program.
I know of a A&A that I put forward on an LPD that took a couple of months, start to finish because it only involved 2 vessels, one of which was in refit.
For T23 it will take a lot longer because there are more vessels and a fair few are operational.
STWS and MTLS had upgrades a couple of times when I maintained it. New tube sensors, new boards in the cabinet and software for the system. Its not unusual for obsolete parts that are no longer available from manufacturers to be replaced by new parts that provide the same fit form and purpose. Winchester Disk drives where a thing once on Sonars…they have been replaced by COTS drives simply because they where not supportable and better COTs options where available. The contract also notes the Mag Handling System. That is a huge air driven , heath robbinson affair to remove… Read more »