Brtish military to become ‘more engaged around the world’

The sea ceptor canisters on the t26 and t31 are not the same as those used on the t23 (left over from previous system). The new canisters are position much closer together, but far enough apart to allow inspection of individual canisters. On such large ships the stand alone exls system offers little advantage, it is designed for OPV and corvette sized vessels.

T23 sea ceptor

Sea ceptor On t23

On type 23 : https://www.navylookout.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sea-Ceptor-missile-silo.jpg

On type 26/31: https://www.edrmagazine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/MBDA-Albatros-NG_09.jpg

When was last time drug dealers defeated a ship wit 30mm cannon and 2 gpmg??

… and 2 miniguns on the B2s

I know people will doubt my comments but my employers were awaiting a jackup oil rig that was being towed between Sumatra and Malaysia in the straits. It got shot up by ‘Pirates’ using 0.5 cal who also had something substantially larger up front. Rogue elements of local navy doing some moonlighting.

Would they knowingly take on a RN P vessel with 30mm….no. The issue / risk is that P vessel intervening on something already ongoing.

Look at what Australia and Singapore are putting on their new build/ recent P vessels.

A 40mm, 2x50cal and no helicopter deck? And no facilities for embarked troops? Yeah that’s much more heavily armed than a River B2 *rolls eyes*
As for Singapore, shocking that a small navy with only 6 frigates needs it’s “patrol boats” to have more of a combat role than the RN.

like 50% to 100% additional effective range and a wide variety of smart munition options…like thats not significant…’rolls eyes’ . Setting aside the childish commentary style… The desire should be to match or exceed the threat not come some way towards closing the gap.. Its why policemen in the UK are now often seen with assault rifles rather than truncheons or at best 30 years ago…pistols.

You have to evolve and stay on top of the threats you face.

I welcome many of the fantastic progressions the armed forces, and in particular the RN and the RAF have made over the past couple of decades. The capability is growing but sometimes the penny pinching that takes place on things that may really matter to those on the ground astounds me from the robustness of the capability provided to the abundance of single points of failure within that capability range.

Im sure many of these issues also contribute to resource retention issues frequently seen as well.

Given that the Rivers can carry a Wildcat with load of Martlets and the Arafuras can’t, yup. Oh and by the way the 40mm on the Arafura? Leonardo lists it’s effective range as 4,500m, while the effective range of the DSM30 on the Rivers? 5,100m.
So much for your 50%-100% additional effective range, but facts are so inconvienent aren’t they?
(Btw when was the last time you saw a copper on a street corner carrying a rifle?)

With the Rivers it’s not Penny pinching, it’s desiging for a purpose (hence why Arafuras have 1,000nm less range, and two weeks less endurance than the much longer legged Rivers), and it’s eye rolling and childish response inducing when keyboard warriors throw their toys out of the pram because they don’t get to put a 4 on their stat sheet instead of a 3.

i will apologise unreservedly if the Rivers deploy with a Wildcat permanently onboard (and not just the occasional visit !)

It not being permanently on board is part of the beauty, you can scale your load out to the threat conditions. Imagine that! Saving reasources by not using them when you don’t need them :O

The issue here Pete is how often does something like this happen? Or was it a one off? Has it or similar events with a larger caliber weapon present been documented?

Then there’s the issue that if someone is moonlighting, they’ll have a tough time explaining 30mm damage when(if?) they get back to port.

If they decide to pursue the engagement then all sorts of assets could be called in by the RN on them from other navies, including air assets to track and identify them. Far more likely such a craft would turn and run rather than take that risk. Which illustrates how a B2 can be an effective deterrent to such attacks and piracy in general.

They also don’t know what the B2 has in its armoury. Just being on the receiving end of Martlets or Starstreaks from a man-portable launcher, won’t be fun. The RM might even decide to have a go with a Javelin with its 4km+ range. None of that is going to buff out.

Australia has a single 25mm on the Armidale Patrol Boats, the Cape Class extension of the Armidales has NO main gun, only MGs and the Arafura OPV to replace/supplement the above is slated to receive a single 40mm gun. So which Australian fit out were you suggesting as an example????

Never, easy answer.

4 GPMG, 2 Miniguns, 1 30mm Cannon and a ship full of well-trained sailors and possibly Royal Marines.

Nonsense

I share your doubts. Why, when we have to use a minehunter( to be retired without replacement in the next few years) to escort Russian warships near our coast, are we planning to base significant forces in the Indian Ocean? What the hell for?
I have long been a supporter of increasing defence spending. But this bigger global role makes me question whether we need to. With idiots in charge both at the political and military level, it might be time to cut all spending on people and equipment not directly needed to defend the UK itself.
The RAF needs to double it’s combat fleet, the army needs more not less manpower to deal with potential civil unrest, the RN needs to concentrate on the major( only) naval threat to the UK- Russia, especially its re.- invigorated submarine fleet.
Instead we sacrifice needed capabilities to fund pointless and still under armed naval vessels that will spend their lives in places we have no good reason to be.

What idiots do you think are in charge of our military? The only idiots i see are most of the commentators on this thread except Daniele and Deep32. Some truly ridiculous comments.

Anyone who promotes Boris’s frankly silly global Britain theme at the expense of our real security.
If we had a budget large enough to provide fully for our own defence with some to spare for more far flung missions, then OK. To do the latter when the funds aren’t even sufficient to do the former is strategically illiterate.

Well Peter, we are moving the posture of the Country, lock, stock and barrel, back to a Global trading nation.

The RN is, as it always has been, the guarantor of these critical supply lines.

So regular Carrier groups and other deployments to the Indian and Pacific Ocean, will be the order of the day through the 2020’s and into the 2030’s.

After many decades of decline and North Atlantic anti submarine specialisation, the RN is finally going to the top of the pack again.

The 2025 SDSR will probably see this pushed further, with plans for large scale use of unmanned systems ( air/surface/ sub surface) coming to fruition.

I fully expect the surface fleet to steadily and slowly expand over the next 20 to 30 years, over the 24 escorts planned for.

We have been a global trading nation for centuries but over the last century our share of world trade has shrunk dramatically. The imperial pattern of selling UK manufactured goods to captive colonies in exchange for raw materials is over. We have to produce goods and services that other countries want to buy, in competition with others that don’t see the necessity for a military presence to support trade.
Military presence might foster sales of military equipment but Germany does far better even in this area without a presence. I doubt that anyone in SEAsia will choose Jaguar over Mercedes because an OPV has visited.
The Integrated Review and Defence Command paper have conflated trading ambition with military presence in a way that may have serious consequences.
I think your optimism over future force expansion is misplaced. We are delaying some purchases (F35)and cutting operating costs (F35 flying hours, naval reservists training) just to try to stay within a budget that has had to have £16 b injected over the next 4 years to pay for existing commitments.
Try getting the electorate to vote for more defence spending to boost our presence in Asia/Pacific.

Perhaps worth reading why France does this.
https://www.navalnews.com/interviews/2021/05/video-interview-the-french-navy-in-the-indo-pacific/

And the link below shows the route the LHD Tonnerre and frigate Surcouf have taken out to Japan, along with all the stops. Tell me that isn’t trade and relationship building.

And before someone jumps in with a comment about another country trying to relive days of empire, I’d point out that the French have made 2 port stops in Vietnam. I doubt the latter is celebrating France’s past empire with the French.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/02/french-amphibious-ready-group-set-sails-for-the-indo-pacific/

The French are doing that because they always want to get one up on us! They hear we’re off to the Far East, so they have to go too, and try and get there first! 🙂

Vietnam makes the best baguettes and croissants in the area.

I’m a bit of a glass half full sort of chap Peter.

All I am saying is that the Royal Navy is our guarantor of our trade route.

While the UK has certainly been trading internationally throughout its membership of the EU, it was increasingly done as a small voice within a monolithic organisation.

Now it’s all on us. The main manufacturing base in the world is the Far East, so a UK strategy of pivoting in this direction is not only necessary, but desirable.

The RN is going back to its core business as the underwriter of this trade and helping to cement closer diplomatic relations.

Mutual Defence goes hand in hand with strong trading and diplomatic links and we need to become increasingly engaged in this region.

Not much point building aircraft carriers to sail around our own back yard in really.

Agree totally about defence presence not boosting trade. Germany has very little presence and yet manages to sell globally because they produce high quality, flexible, and affordable equipment, the same with the French.
We mostly produce high-end inflexible equipment that is unaffordable to most, and then not upgraded in a timely manner to keep it at the high-end. The type 31 is just a showboat for foreign systems anyway as nobody is going to order the hull itself built in the UK.
“Global Britain” is a nonsense phrase made up by Brexiteers, the reasons we don’t trade as much globally as we use to are chronic underinvestment in R&D and skills and a short-term outlook that has led to many of our more successful companies being broken up and sold off, it has very little to do with the EU.
That said, I do think T31 is a pragmatic step and will provide useful service, it could always be “up-gunned” later if needs be.

Neff ovens, Bosch electrics, VWs, V2s, Weissbier, Boxer, Leopard, St Hildegard….if it’s German it works.
The full impact of Brexit is now personal. The Wheat beer shelves at Aldi are not stocked like they used to be…
Neff ovens, Bosch electrics, VWs, V2s, Weissbier, Boxer, Tiger, Leopard, St Hildegard….if it’s German it works.
The full impact of Brexit is now personal. The Wheat beer shelves at Aldi are not stocked like they used to be…

Just check stats on UK R&D we’re are below Germany spending 1.7% against their 3.1%. However diving deeper the UK Government investment in R&D actually exceeds Germany in funding R&D and provides much better tax breaks for companies investing R&D. So its not a Government problem more a problem with British industry.

Many Americans think (rightly) that Europeans cannot defend the Continent without them. It is no great leap to suppose that others might think that the UK should stick to Home/BOT Defence first, then to use any surplus military capability to aid ‘the Europeans’ with Continent defence.
Is there really anything left over for significant and sizeable Global operations after the recent defence cuts, excepting perhaps for a single CSG on periodic deployments?

Exactly my point of view. In these areas of operation, we can offer full spectrum capability. We have just about enough equipment and manpower to maintain a serious presence in the gulf. To go beyond these commitments really requires bigger budgets and more forces than any political party would countenance.

Hi Robert, i just want to say, even as not having served in the military myself, my father yes, WW2, survived Dunkirk, Africa, Singapore and Burma, and as his son I am grateful for his and everyone’s service and sacrifice past and present. I and others here just want the best for the British armed forces as I’m sure you do. The perception of under arming on the naval ships is a real concern to a lot of us. Happy to wait (a bit) and be proven wrong.
Up the Brits!

Hi Quentin. The OPV’s aren’t designed for high end warfare against the Chinese fleet. But for drug smuggling, piracy, freedom of navigation ect, roles that are currently carried out by a Frigate or a Destroyer. Now we don’t need a 1Billion T45 chasing drug runners around the Caribbean. So these globally deployed OPV’s free up our T45’s & T23’s for carrier task groups ect and the high end tasks. And the OPV’s are very capable assets. A warships capability isn’t simple measured on how big it’s gun is. Certainly not on an OPV. Other nations patrol vessels may carry more weapons than ours do, but they don’t have T45’s and T23’s and aircraft carriers ect. 👍

Exactly. There is more to the R2’s than just their current armament. There’s the ‘boring’ stuff like range, endurance, elint, etc. Even without mentioning build quality such as watertight bulkheads, enhanced firefighting ability and armoured magazines to name just some. Many of these comparison opv and corvettes of Russia, China etc, are little more than armed barges that are tinderboxes and a waiting deathtrap for their crew.

Couldn’t agree more mate. And I could well imagine the training of your average Russian or Chinese sailor isn’t up to western standards, or the exposure to large scale exercises like Joint Warriors, or Red Flags. This Russian exercise near the Ukraine border looked like something from the early 80’s judging by the state of the equipment and the personnel.

Yes.

Peter, what is the relevance of whether a Russian ship’s escort is a minesweeper, OPV or T45? Russia isn’t going to kick off WW III with the initial act being the sinking of a minesweeper or OPV. They won’t have surface ships anywhere near the UK if we are in a hot war with them.

We are positioning naval assets further afield because we have commercial, financial and political interests in these places. Piracy is an increasing everyday threat to merchant vessels, the Gulf of Guinea and the Singapore Straits being two hot spots. Drug running is destabilising and often liked to terrorism.

While merchant navies are dominated by flags of convenience, the UK’s Merchant Navy is still the tenth largest in the world and we have significant interests beyond this tonnage for vessels registered in British Overseas Territories and elsewhere.

In other words the RN and RFA are about more than just war fighting and much of the day to day tasking is constabulary ops, for which B2s are fine.

Exactly yes Russia gunna sail up to coast and launch missle attack on Harrogate. Get grip I know it East ideal and hopefully navy is being rebuilt but does any other nation keep a war ship on constant home alert like we do?
For god sake stop making it political and stop running great nation down

Daftest rubbish ever and I see some rubbish on here. The reason the Royal Navy are the best in the world is there experience. The go all over the world and have real world experience. But no your right let’s turn them into equivalent of bloody third world home guard. Yes they need reinvestment after ten years of war, yes MOD spending needs sorting but guys we are worlds 5 economy stop running us down like some third world hell. Yes we are minor partner to the cousins but hey!

The thing is we are a nation with national interests across the globe. If we don’t defend those interests our security and well being suffers.

The threat to our home islands is at present very limited and is more related to policing and monitoring. It’s the wider world which hold potential threats to our national interest wealth and wellbeing.

Can I just ask exactly what level of civil unrest are you talking about that needs the army to manage. Civil unrest is a policing matter. Asking solders (who are trained and equipped to fight wars) to manage civil unrest is just asking for trouble and a really unfair thing to ask our armed forces to deal with. It’s a right to demonstrate, this should be policed in a way that protect all involved.and if there is rioting we have a perfectly adequate and trained police force restore order.

I meant to pick up on that point. Its a bit unusual for anyone in the UK to think of the Army managing civil unrest.

Why? Or were you asleep during The Troubles?

The civil unrest will come because of government authoritarianism. Or are you people so obsessed with gunboats to miss the obvious? We are broke, Scotland and Wales want out of the union. NI is bubbling because Doris sold the Loyalists down the river. The pandemic has created a generation of disaffected youth, let down over education, housing and employment. Some of our Muslim and Afro Carrib communities are creating no go zones in cities and towns. Reason? They do not trust government.
Speak to the average citizen in any part of Britain and it is not global presence that they worry about, it is paying a mortgage, worrying about their kids, job security and elderly parents. Also the NHS. The ideal conditions now exist for major unrest from several sources. So, as Peter rightly points out, an increase in Army numbers would be preferable as no way will the police cope with major civil disturbance. On the wider North Atlantic/ Arctic scene, yes we have a role to play as part of Nato. We have access to the South Atlantic because we have territorial possessions there.
Our dear Chinese friends are no doubt buttering up Argentina and others to gain access to the Atlantic because it is rich in oil, gas and fishing reserves. Why do people think we maintain a presence in the Falklands? The Chinese already own South Africa. Thats why we kept all those tiny islands like St Helena, Ascension etc,
So Russians in the north, Chinese via the south = a squeeze. The Pacrim is best left to Uncle Sam, Britain is best using what resources it has to use in the Atlantic, north and south.
Looking at all angles, both internal to Britain, and the immediate external is the priority.
Now George will probably delete this post, it happens to posters who do not tow a certain line or who even dare mention politics. Fact is those two undeniable truths are politics and defence ARE linked. Just because you have an aircraft carrier does not mean Nelson is back.
And finally, it is financial bust time. Accept that, and you can accept the reality of our true position in the world. A debtor nation.

“Am I the only one who thinks all this basking in the glories of empire is a bit daft”

Empire long gone. The UK is a P5 UNSC member, G8 member, one of the worlds biggest economies, and a medium ranked power with niche capabilities others lack.

And as a residue from that empire we have diplomatic, cultural, political, and military ties around the world. So being globally engaged is nothing whatsoever to do with empire, no more than France or any other medium power.

What is an issue is the lack of forces. It is not making China think we are hard, just that the UK has the capability to deploy if needed.

What ships are we not arming properly? T31, RB2?

Such a lot of doom and gloom about mate! I feel the pain constantly trying to explain what where why etc.
HMG finally trying to do things and we’re still not happy it seems!! Yes we’ve had to swallow some pride with the cuts, but, we are slowly working on regenerating capabilities.
RB2 are built for a few specific low end tasks, and equipped accordingly!
All we really know about T31 is that it’s got 3 guns, upto 24 sea ceptor missiles and will have a helicopter. As it’s not even built yet, a bit like T26, why not wait and see what they come fitted with. We might just be surprised!!

Morning Deep. The T21 of its time? Or better, given the capabilities of systems now.

I’m pleased with its size, so there is room to expand if needed.

I feel forums like this are vital to fight the trolls, doom mongers, or just try to put some reason and perspective on things. I hate the cuts as much as anyone but one must try and see beyond them and compare just what the UK can do compared to most other nations bar a few which can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

As an example, if Poland has twice as many tanks? Good luck to them, they need them! We don’t, in that number at least.

What the UK does need IMO is a comprehensive RN and RAF with capable SF and intelligence community alongside.
Which is why I always advocate a RN / RAF first policy.

Regards.

I think part of the problem is people see numbers of tanks, planes and frigates thinking that’s the end of the matter. Not really understanding that protecting our national interest is about the ability to apply the correct resources in the correct place. Be that an OPV with with fast boats and boarding parties to chased down drug dealers in the Bahamas , a frigate as part of an international effort to prevent closure of a strait, a show of amphibious capabilities in norther water, as well as a reassuring presence in the most souther oceans, escorting foreign warships in home waters and at the highest level having the ability to permanently deploy an at sea nuclear deterrent and a credible carrier force. There are only two nations in the world with Navy’s able to do that one is the US the other is the U.K. most people have know real understanding of what that really means and what a significant achievement it is that the fifth most wealthy nation in the world has one of the two only truly global navy’s.

What is also an achievement that is rarely considered is that we are a post imperial power that still retains very significant global influence. That’s very unusual as most empires collapse completely and either revert to an inward almost national coma or suffer catastrophic economic collapse and or violence. Where as the end of the British empire was more a managed retrenchment into a Modern influential nation state. Which is probably related to the unusual Method of formation and character of the British empire itself ( not being and empire In the main created by conquest).

Agree. Well said. Better than me.

Why so many are offended by the UK being somebody and post empire think the UK should shrivel up and go away is beyond me.

I agree with your comments, and there are the usual glass well empty types on here running everything down. Taking up your point about lack of forces, it’s good to see the OPV’s being forward deployed, and we are going to see some headlines soon about anti piracy in places like West Africa and the Malacca Strait. But consider this, the five T31’s will replace the same number of T23’s. They will then leave UK waters to replace the OPV’s forward deployed. So actually we are depleting the Frigate force in our primary area of concern, NATO, rather than increasing it.
I know the politicos can witter on about increasing numbers of ships, true, but they are spreading the butter very thinly, and with the best will in the world the T31 does look underarmed compared to its peers. I would be very happy to see a speeding up of the build rate of new frigates, and a solid commitment to more hulls as soon as possible, but it will always run up against the need for money.

Morning Nick.

I’d hope the T31’s augment the RB2s rather than replace them so more ships are deployed forward. Maybe though they will return to UK waters to replace the B1s.

For home waters / NATO / N Atlantic the MPA, autonomous underwater systems and dare I say it more SSN is what deals with Russian submarines.

For me the RB2 is almost perfect for its role, pity lack of hanger though, I’d read that could have been included in the costs of TOBA? I’d be more interested in giving the RB2 a UAV and a comprehensive SIGINT fit so they can be even more useful when overseas.

Agree with your last paragraph. We are where we are, and compared to the army I am encouraged by what the RN want to do.

Hi Daniele, i would agree with your assessment of the RB2, and add that the greatest criticism of it is the cost of the programme, which is purely political as it was used as a stopgap while decisions were made on future frigate numbers.

If things had been properly worked out in advance, the RB2 could have been potentially done cheaper and maybe also by another UK shipbuilder, concurrent to the T26. But, hey, the painful part is over, we are where we are, which is ironically back at the start where the RN wanted to be, with the C1/T26, C2/T31, and C3/RB2 format, and each in their own way is well thought out and gives plenty of scope for further development.

I like your assessment too that in time, T31 supplants RB2s in the fleet-forward role (at least in APAC, Indian Ocean, not Caribbean), and RB2s can take the place of RB1s.

Morning TM.
Planning. If only.
I’d like to see full transparency, MoD decisions accountable to parliament, and criss party agreement regards defence and spending commitments going forward.
Not just the PDSC, which has no power.
How else can planning be done properly otherwise.

very true, Daniele, and yes it would be good to have full transparency. Also, did I imagine it, or is there a plan to keep military officers and civil servants in charge of procurement in place for longer, to keep continuity and responsibility for projects and decisions etc

Not heard that myself but I hope so.

Hi Daniele, Nick C and others

I have read this thread with interest. So I’ll lay out my position up front. I do believe that the T31 (as rendered), the T26 as being built and the T45 as completed are under armed. There is a very good article on Navy Lookout doing a comparison of armements of various ships from across the global and the T26 does not compare well.

However, I do agree with you that the capability is often about more than the weaponry, as you say SIGINT is a big part of it along with lots of other stuff the navy rightly keeps to itself. There is still an issue with funding and the recent uplift merely undoes much of the damage that has previously been wraught on our armed forces.

However, like you I also think that we have, hopefully, turned a corner and that defence will continue to see improvements over the coming years. We are, as you say, where we are but at least the first step has been taken.

With regards to overseas deployments. It is only part of the wide range of tools a nation state such as the UK can deploy to protect its interests and develop relationships with like mind friends and allies around the global. An OPV doing a port visit isn’t going to lead to billions of £’s in trade deals (one of the comments from above), but it reasures that we are there to work with partners to mutual benefit and such reasurance in the context of other activities (e.g. aid and diplomacy including wider treates) can lead to favouable trade deals if that is the main aim.

All of which I think we agree on.

The biggest issue we face as a nation – too many mediocre people promoted to high office while the really capable people get stuck in middling roles. We have become a mediocrity rather than a meritocracy, and that is going to be a tough one to fix.

Cheers CR

Hi mate, like you I’ve read the NL article, and have found it a tad misleading WRT both the T31/26 units.
T 45 score yes agree totally, but the other two are not built yet, so, we do not know exactly what the final weapon outfit will be.
T31 is slated to get I-SSGW from the T23s as they retire.
T26 will be fitted with MK41 VLS, no decision has yet been made as to what’s going on them, nor does it have to be yet!!! So, a trifle unhelpful for comparison purposes. Yes, when built and if nothing else is fitted, then the score is absolutely correct, but for now, just opinion and idle speculation surely?
Agree if going by the T45 it doesn’t look good, but I think we might just be in for a surprise!

Sorry CR but I’m going to disagree on your rating of that Navy Lookout article. IMV it was far too simplistic and ignored capability of systems. The author admitted as much with his caveats but then used the comparisons anyway.

Hi Glass Half Full,

Yup, I agree with you and I did point that out early on in my post to be fair. But I still think there are significant and silly risks being taken, for example, there is apparently still no torpedo system procured for the T26 despite the fact that the facility is there for one to be fitted.

So yes the comparison is focused on weapons only which is simplistic and it uses data on based on what is currently announced, what else could it be based on? I think the value of such comparisons is that it highlights risks that the penny pinchers may be considering, so highlighting them and getting them discussed in places where they might be noticed is one useful way to generate at least some awareness and possibly a bit of pressure.

After all we know that trying to get platforms properly equipped is more difficult once they are built, especially at the moment with money still tight even after the up lift.

Don’t get me wrong, the T26 has huge potential and are capable ships. My concern is that that potential is not wasted by penny pinching. In addition to the torpedeo tubes apparently being gapped, I believe that the mushroom farm vls is also a waste of potential capability when ExLS would have offered so much flexibility for cold launched quad packed weapons such as Sea Ceptor and the proposed / illustrated SPEAR 3 variant (SPEAR 3 quad packed was illustrated on MBDA as an option months ago but has since been taken down I believe).

Cheers CR

Each to his own CR, but the article seeks to make issues where there are none IMV and focuses on counts rather than capabilities.

For example, of course the T26 will initially go to sea with nothing in its MK41 … because we don’t have anything qualified for MK41 yet. The T26 will be the qualifying platform for the RN. But the article then assumes that we won’t have any weapons for the MK41, because it assumes T26 will have no SAM, no ABM, no SSM and no Land Attack capabilities. It considers a torpedo launcher critical, worthy a category all its own, but doesn’t list VLA/ASROC. Do we really think that it is likely we will fail to qualify and populate the MK41 with anything?

Ref T45 he states “Activity is ongoing to unlock the Type 45’s ballistic missile defence capability but why wasn’t this in place when the system was commissioned?” This conveniently overlooks the fact that Sylver to this day doesn’t have a missile for ABM. MK41 has SM-6 and SM-3, but SM-6 only entered service in 2013 and the only SM-3 worth having is 1B which entered service around 2014. It also ignores the threat environment where a ballistic missile is still currently a questionable threat for a ship due to current kill chain issues.

As for the author’s love affair with the Arleigh Burke! Gunbuster made similar observations in the comments there as he has on this site about some of the limitations of the AB today. I will add that IMV the ABs will be far more vulnerable to sea skimming saturation attack than RN vessels until they get SPY-6, especially get the high mounted SPQ-9B (since SPY-1/6 is low on the ship, the Aussies and Japanese fit this radar to their AEGIS ships, the USN is only just starting to), and active seeker ESSM and SM-2. Back to practical capability rather than meaningless simplistic comparisons.

Its this positioning that makes the structure of the article worse than useless. The weak, easily undermined arguments, actually work against the intent of the article, which was presumably to encourage greater armament.

To take up your example of torpedo tubes on T26. Maybe we would have a more effective, in depth, overlapping counter by implementing the BAES Kingfisher system that deploys sonobouys and depth charges using the 5″ gun? Then perhaps we might add the BAES proposal for a VLA, presumably using the new lightweight torpedo? All augmenting helicopter delivered torpedoes. That would have been a more useful discussion on options for the T26.

Regarding T26 Sea Ceptor capacity. There will be 48 low cost cells. Why pay a premium to quad pack in ExLS? Maybe those same cells could support a cold launch SPEAR 3 if one eventuates?

Hi Glass Half Full,

To be honest I do not think we are that far apart. I agree with what you say above, my main concern is that there is so much for which there is apparently no funding. If you are aware of any announcements from the UK MoD regarding qualification of new weapons for the MK41 I would be very interested. The point I am trying to make, badly it seems, is that until there is a funding line in the procurement plan there is no capability and I have seen no mention of what will go into the MK41’s and this is a real concern I believe.

With regards to a cold launched SPEAR 3 I believe that the technology is well within the abilities of MBDA to bring forward quickly and cost effectively. A surface to surface capability has already been developed on the Brimstone 3 missile.

To answer your last question I have been unable to find any costs for the two systems, but would point out that even if you only put 18 ExLS and quad packed them with 72 CAMM you would be better of in the face of a saturation attack and the through life costs may well turn out more favourable, given that we are the only nation to use the GWS.35 VLS (I just found its formal name on Wiki 🙂 ).

I did 22 years in UK defence procurement. I was not a senior person by any means and make no claims to any kind of brilliance, but there were many very very good people in the system doing very clever stuff. Unfortunately, the donkeys at the top couldn’t make a sensible decision except perhaps by pure luck. Hence my concerns about the lack of information regarding funding lines for the UK MK41 load out options this strikes me as a case of can kicking behind closed doors so I would not be surprised if no new weapons were qualified anytime soon. I suppose we could always quad pack CAMM into them – that would at least shut me up with regards to saturation attacks.

I worked, briefly, with MBDA. They are very very good and have a lot of imagination and innovation. Rather than penny pinching we should be exploiting their capabilities to the limit. With the Brimstone/SPEAR 3 development programme the hard and expensive stuff has already been done, so we should make the most of it.

Penny pinching gets people killed, as I am sure you would agree.

I’ll stop now as it is starting to sound like a rant. Please rest assured that it is aimed at the donkeys at the top, not your good self. This is actually an interesting debate.

Thanks CR

Hi CR, you make a valid point about funding lines, without which nothing happens.

However, I believe we are not hearing about population of MK41 (and perhaps other weapons) just yet for a couple of other reasons.

1. We need to decide which weapons to qualify
2. Glasgow isn’t due to be operational until 2027

Focusing on the weapons choices. The main issue is many of the weapons we might fit are in the define, design and development stage, so its unclear what capabilities they offer and/or what gaps might be left.

If T26 gets a medium range SAM then do we select Aster 30 or SM-2 Blk IIIC with the active seeker, pros and cons for both. But we also don’t know how good … or not … SM-2 IIIC will be. Do we want SM-6 as a high end SAM to counter hypersonics or will Aster 30 Blk 1NT handle that?

For land attack do we go with Tomahawk, which is still a slow non-stealthy missile, or wait for the FC/ASW solution(s). Does a solution like NSM make sense to complement the high end. Or will the USN OASuW Increment 2 weapon be the better choice?

For ASM, the FC/ASW is the plan of record, whether we use in deck canister for this role, or from MK41 is not defined. Does SM-6 have a role for the RN here too? Or NSM? Or the USN OASuW Increment 2 weapon if the FC/ASW program has problems.

For ABM, does Aster 30 Blk 1NT meet our needs, or do we want SM-6 and perhaps even SM-3. Or is Aster 30 Blk 2 BMD the right approach? Does T26 fit these and launch against targeting provided by a T45 or similar or do we wait for T83 to carry them?

For VLA, there’s no current attractive solution. We may decide a BAES solution makes sense with the new lightweight torpedo, or we may decide that VLA as a concept doesn’t make sense in the context of other systems.

We should not overlook what the 5″ gun will be capable of and how that might overlap with other weapons systems. I already outlined how it might play into ASW. But what if instead of adding ExLS and 72 CAMM, we use the Mk45 with HVP to take out missiles, or perhaps the Mk45 will have a system like MAD-FIRES being developed for the 57mm.

So the TL;DR is that there are a lot of developments and innovations going on around naval weapons, so making choices too early, before we have to, may not be the smart move.

BTW, I think NZ, Chile and Brazil are all using GWS.35 VLS with their CAMM.

I would like to see rocket launched Stringray torpedo, fill some of cells of Mk. 41. VLS.

Hasn’t all the wording at the moment re:River B2’s in the Far east been along the lines of “Joined by an Inspiration” rather than “replaced by.”
Agree re pity about the Hangar but it’s not all doom and gloom, the River can embark a Helicopter for a few days at a time if needed, and it has the facilities to refuel and rearm them so it’s not like it’s just a quick touchdown for the pilot to have a snack, especially in the more enclosed waters we’d be seeing in SE asia I presume.

Hi Daniele, Do you think the plethora of “military power” sites which compare numbers of weapons and personnel, cause this “we don’t have enough armaments/personnel/missiles” argument? I have read very little on the internet in general about quality of forces and any need for such things, plus the logistical tails which grow with every additional armament system. I agree with FFBNW as we have historically expanded provisions at times of real need.
Lets get the hulls/aircraft/vehicles first!

Maybe Russ.

I think the reality, certainly for me, is that many of us have followed this subject for decades and are more than a little sensitive and sick to the back teeth with the endless cuts since 91.

I myself do see the qualities and capabilities the UK military have kept, though. It’s not all about numbers, though numbers are important. Logistics, know how, training, experience, all play a part.

I’d rather have all of those and fewer assets than lots of assets looking good and no ability or will to use them.

Nick, the T32 will be an uplift in frigate numbers. Adding a class of 5x would increase destroyer and frigate numbers to 24x from the current nominal 19x.

We should also note that due to various issues we have had 1x T45 and 1x T23 tied up alongside on extended readiness, in combination with lifex on T23 and PIP now under way on T45. So for the last 4 years the numbers actually deployable have been very low, that’s now improving.

This link, while a little dated, has an excellent illustration of how this plays out https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1229857912903872513.html

GFH! Good evening. A very interesting thread on The Reader, and certainly cautiously optimistic. There are a few things I would disagree with, for instanceHMS Monmouth is very unlikely ever to go to sea again, which brings the T23’s down to 12, but when the piece was written that was probably not the case. Likewise the T45’s are now getting back out and their availability is very much better than it was. And yes availability for deployment is getting better, thank goodness.
The concern that I have is that although we have been shown/ told that both the T32 and the T83 are projected no timescales have been given. What would really give me hope that Whitehall is thinking long term would be an announcement, say at the keel laying for the first T31, that the 32’s have been defined and the spec set, and contracts are being negotiated for an immediate follow on to the current contract. Then we really would be showing an increase in numbers within a defined timescale.
What the T32 will look like is anyone’s guess. My preference, as I have said on this site before would be something like an updated Absalon, with enough armament to support a good sized landing. A couple of frigates with up to 300 marines on each, supporting a littoral landing ship, would be quite a chunky piece of influence.

The analysis is no doubt aging as we now have early retirements for 2x T23 GP. IMV, its greatest strength is reflecting what it takes in total numbers to support availability numbers and that its the later we should care about, not the former.

T83 isn’t going to hit FOC any earlier than when the first of the T45’s leave service, so 15+ years away.

T32 is unlikely to start build earlier than 2027. Many assume it will be T31 based, but I suspect MOD will compete the design to see if a more modern and optimised platform is a better solution. They have the time for this now, when they didn’t for T31, where the competition had to leverage existing designs to meet the timeline.

So IMV your timeline for T32 announcements at T31 keel laying is far too aggressive. Its also worth reflecting regrading specs. We know fairly certainly what the minimum build for the T31 will be fitted with, we don’t know if that will be expanded in certain areas, say more than 12 Sea Ceptor cells, a SSM fit added or mission modules added. So specs/capabilities, even on the T31, may change/improve by the time they enter service.

The T32 build timeline may also depend on how the shipyards are loaded up, the over arching goal of the shipbuilding strategy being to avoid feast and famine build schedules.

We are like France bud. A broken debtor nation with the potential for serious civil unrest bubbling. Except the Eton educated idiots and Daily Mail readers want to play with the big kids.
Then the Indians and Pakistanis do play cricket wot?

“Now I am not talking the country down”… but you are 🤷‍♂️

Dose of realism.

We can afford it but it involves choices. We spend 2% of GDP on defence FFS, cut another area by 1 or 2%.

Or borrow more? Put off the pain until later.

Atlantic, Med, Black Sea, Africa…. 40mm isn’t as big as I’d have expected.

shrug there really isn’t much need for anything more than a 30-40mm on an OPV IMO. You want to deal with something that something of that caliber can’t deal with you’ll be needing CIWS, some sort of missile, and maybe CAMM or Aster, at which point you don’t have an OPV, you have a Corvette/Light Frigate/Aviso.

Indeed, me, too! It’s something I’ve been grinding my teeth about for over a decade, tbh, so I’m very happy about this shift in focus and I do think it’s great to be getting back engaged with the APAC region, because, ultimately, this will be Asia’s century, and it’s where all the economic growth will be. In the same way, I think it was good to join the AIIB (against US wishes) and the sucessor to the TPP.

China, in a sense, is already over, the days of the quick buck are passed and it’s not so welcoming to gweilos, but there’s still plenty of growth potential in ASEAN and it can be a more level playing field than chasing China trade. We’ve got good historical ties with Spore, Malaysia, Brunei, plus Australia and NZ obviously, and a good deal of connections with Thailand, too, both trade and diplomatic.

I think Vietnam has potential to be a great partner, too. Although we don’t have so much shared history (other than Ho Chi Minh used to be a pot washer in my old local – how much the working conditions there fired his revolutionary spirit would be worthy of some historical investigation), that lack of historical baggage is potentially to our advantage; not that they seem too upset with the Frogs or Yanks: they gave them a sound beating and sent them packing, and now they make money off them both when they come to visit on cruise ships. Plus, ultimately their bile is reserved for the Chinese, which again makes the basis for a good diplomatic/trade relationship with us!

Philippines would be good too, if they get a levelheaded leader in charge. Where’s Manny Pacquiao when you need him??

Then there’s Taiwan – would be great business to flog them some Typhoons, and maybe some T31es. The Typhoons would give them a big advantage over what the PLAAF have, and give us some dosh! Germans would probably have kittens at the prospect, mind…