Technical support, simulators and ammunition for the 57mm Mk3 and 40mm Mk4 naval gun systems have been ordered for the five Type 31 General Purpose Frigates.
According to a contract notice, the £65m contract was awarded to BAE Systems Bofors for “Provision of qualified ammunition, gun simulators and associated support for T31 Naval Guns”.
The award notice reads:
“Ship Acquisition, part of the UK Ministry of Defence (“the Authority”), proposes to place a contract for a duration of seven years with BAE Systems Bofors AB (“the Company”), for the supply of technical support, gun simulators to be commissioned into a Land Based Integration Facility (LBIF) for T31 Frigate and qualified 3P (programmable) ammunition for the 57mm Mk3 and 40mm Mk4 naval gun systems that will be supplied with the five Type 31 General Purpose Frigates.
In accordance with regulation 4 of The Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/697) this procurement falls to be regulated under the provisions of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 as amended (in particular by SI 2019/697 and SI 2020/1450). Prior publication of a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Union is no longer appropriate.
It is considered that the award of the contract without prior publication of a contract notice in the UK e-notification service is lawful in accordance with Regulation 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 for Technical Reasons.
The Company is the supplier of the 3P ammunition that is currently being qualified by the ship builder and is the only economic operator with the necessary know-how, proprietary processes, and equipment-specific tooling and test equipment to ensure that the qualified T31 3P ammunition is safe to be utilised in the Type 31 naval gun systems at ship acceptance.
The Company also owns the Intellectual Property Rights for the both the 57mm and 40mm 3P ammunition. The testing and integration facility must be constructed and configured for the gun systems which are to be fitted to the T31.
The Company is the supplier of these gun systems and is the only economic operator with the necessary know-how, proprietary processes, and equipment-specific tooling and test equipment to supply and ensure the T31 gun system simulators can be integrated onto the Type 31 frigate LBIF.”
What weapons will be fitted to the Type 31 Frigate?
Last year Jeremy Quin, then-Minister for Defence Procurement, stated in response to a written Parliamentary question:
“It is intended that the Type 31 frigate will be equipped with the Sea Ceptor missile system and will be equipped with one Bofors 57mm Mk3 and two Bofors 40mm naval guns, in addition to a range of highly advanced weapon and sensor systems. These include a sophisticated combat system with 4D air and surface surveillance, target indication radar and the capability to operate a Merlin or Wildcat helicopter.”
So is that confirmation that both the 40mm and 57mm guns will have 3P programmable ammo? Does that preclude MAD-FIRES or Vulcano as well?
I don’t know about Vulcano, but MAD-FIRES is still in development as a joint DARPA/Raytheon project and isn’t in production yet. We’ll hear more about the progress of the round in the spring when the DARPA budget justification book comes out.
True, it’s not in production, but the first Type 31 is still 5 years off as well.
Very true. I’m really looking forward to MAD-FIRES becoming a production program, hopefully in time for the debut of the Constellation class and Type 31 frigates. There is a lot of development still ahead and I hope the program stays on track. Here is completely open source info from the last DARPA budget request: “Title: Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES) Description: The Multi-Azimuth Defense Fast Intercept Round Engagement System (MAD-FIRES) program will develop a point defense system against today’s most stressing threats by developing a highly maneuverable, medium caliber, guided projectile, fire sequencing and control system capable… Read more »
Both the US Navy and Coastguard have a vested interest in MADFIRES. For the Coastguard it will be their main anti-air weapon. Especially needed now that they are being used more in hotspots, such as in the South China Sea near the Philippines.
No Vulcano for 57mm. Only for 76mm.
Btw Vulcano was recently accepted for operational use by German Navy for their frigates that have the Leonardo 127mm gun.
This is one of the big failures of the 57mm as a frigate gun. Volcano is a sub-calibre munition. 57mm Volcano would be a waste of time, even if you could make it work. It would be the equivalent of being able to throw a hand grenade 40km, as against a 76mm volcano at 5kg which is somewhere between 81mm & 120mm mortar round. Not the greatest, but who wants to volunteer to be bombarded by a meter accurate 100mm mortar equivalent from 40km out?
Spot on DJ If the RN has too ever conduct an NGS anything below a size of 4.5 /120 isn’t going too put the fear of God into the enemy
Are we likely to manufacture any of the ammo in the UK? I see BAE maintain IP for these but as many things recently have proved it is good to manufacture in the UK.
It is also good to have them in the magazine and stores!
I think that MOD contracts will in future not allow the Swiss excuse. I.E the export agreement will have to specifically exclude those kind of stops.
We have learned just in time!
Noticed it announced last week as Rishi was in Ukraine that Isreal has allowed export of weaponry with Israeli IP to be exported to Ukraine with UK specifically being mentioned as the main beneficiary and likely requester of this relaxation. So hopefully indeed there is a consciousness of the necessities of actually making your weapons usable and not only by yourselves.
So what do we think it relates to that has Israeli content that the uk would want to gift to Ukraine?
The spike missiles the army’s had for Afghan? Are they still in use or in a warehouse?
BAe have a facility near Usk that manufactures “bang” stuff.
DRS wrote:
I doubt it as the contract was given to BAE Systems Bofors based at Karlskoga Sweden:
The BAE 155mm artillery shells are manufactured at their plant in Washington T&W and then filled at their plant in Glascoed Wales so there is the potential for a UK supply chain.
I believe they also fill mortar shells as well. I guess that would be 81mm from the UK?
The original Bofors were built here under licence, indeed in various countries and the ammunition of course, so wouldn’t be the first time.
The recent Type31 models have had only 1 40mm. Any news there?
Do you have a link? Might you be looking at the Polish design?
See picture
There was only ever one at the back. The second is at the front behind the 57mm.
The honking radar on top of the hangar gives a clue this is not the UK config.
Ahh gotcha. I thought maybe they were looking to use the 30mm bought but not used on the QEs. But using 3 different gun system on one unit wouldn’t be smart.
Believe there was reference in a recent article that the three 30mm would be installed on QE class, in the event of war. In the interim, O&M costs and staffing issues minimized. Not certain whether arguments presented are entirely rational, but someone wrote the article.
Fictional set up with 3 x 30mm mounts. Nothing wrong with having the 30’s as well as there will be lots going free after being taken off the T23’s so next to no cost. Ships in the past had many different weapons even as recently as T42’s and T22’s which had 4.5, Goalkeeper, Phalanx, 20mm gambo and 20 mm WW2 mounts. not including the many gpmg’s all over the place. What she needs is a surface to surface missile set to give some punch.
Is that dragon fire? Or a firing solution radar behind the centre gun? I also want that model.
Good spot it does actually look like current Dragonfire so perhaps this model is purely aspirational.
Three 30mm? I think someone is having a bit of a laugh here. Lol 😁 Nice to see the S1850 search radar, something the RN could also do if they want a couple of T31AAW capable variants to complement the T45s prior to the T83.
Navy Lookout and UKDJ have both published articles on 31’s armament. UK 31 will have 2x40mm and 1x57mm. You might have been looking at one of the export variants.
Display models aren’t design authority documents. I wouldn’t worry, there’s lots of errors in that model.
Also often at trade shows the models come with interchangeable pieces so the booth staff can demonstrate switching modules or weapon load outs.
You can see a row of modules off to the left of shot.
So this may be a unique ‘build’ for one day only!
Yeah if you want to attract export orders always best to give a good first impression to suggest flexibility and potential or ‘over gunning’ as we would call it in uk service.
2 x bofors 40mm and 1x BAE 57mm gun. The rear 40mm gun is often hidden or not included in the models but the online designs of the type 31 clearly show the rear gun position.
We are becoming very dependent on overseas sourced weaponry. US built 5inch guns for type 26, 57 and 40mm for type 31 from Sweden and US supplied 30mm bushmaster for a range of ships. On land, new tank guns from Germany and French made CTA 40 for Ajax.
For a country with a chronic trade deficit, this is nonsense.If the private sector cannot supply these basic weapons, we need to re-establish a state owned company that can. At the very least, we should insist on UK manufacture as USA has done with Bofors 57.
For five guns? How does that makes sense to set up a whole factory and line for that sort of production run? Then what does the factory do when it has made the 5 No guns? OK you will say they make 40mm guns for something else. What about all the specific tooling for the 57mm? For the amount of money you would spend on that gig you could buy another batch of T31. We just need to accept that there are certain things that are COTS/MOTS. As with ship building you need a constant batch ordering for that kind… Read more »
i take your point on the likely costs of building 5 systems here. The US navy and coastguard obviously order far more. But we are supposed to have a Defence Industrial Strategy of which I see precious little evidence to date.We could soon be in a position where no naval or armoured vehicle guns are made here. If we want to continue to be a defence exporter, we have to sustain the operations that produce the equipment. France does, so does Italy which has a defence budget about 50% of the UK. I think the Type 31 illustrates everything that… Read more »
Yeah if only we had the defence requirements of a military giant like Sweden. You are right mind now that we don’t have a company like say Vickers who unlike Bofors and indeed it’s German rivals never really saw the point of generating ongoing export sales. To think post war we designed and produced some of the best guns on the planet. Indeed one of them is still excelling in Ukraine for what little benefit it does us. A cautionary tale of British Industry generally sadly.
Sole source supplier dependency, who could possibly foresee that an issue could arise in the future…of course it is a UK based multinational…🤔
would this programmable ammo have a long shelf life and can be stock piled? hopefully these guns fire other rounds if supply is limited
The gun is American, but if I understand things correctly the rest of the mount is British. Interestingly the US is contracting with your MSI for the systems to upgrade our MK38 Gun Weapon System to the new “MOD 4” standard, which will be a switch from 25mm to 30mm with the MSI mount and sensors. The units for the USN will be built in the US of course. There is info on the program at about 4:30 into this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90BV0Wzsndk
BAE again. 🙄
I don’t think there is much wrong with BAE – I worked with a number of their staff a few years ago on a tank support project at Abbey Wood. I wish they had made Ajax for the army… and supplied 155mm towed guns – they also of course make great submarines etc.
If BAE had been left alone to make Ajax it would have happened by now. That also might be true of GD!
But as we discussed, back in the summer, these things grow legs all of their own. And extra humps….
They would have supplied CV90 which actually works. BAE are also a little less susceptible to MoD nonsense.
BAE do have there moments, but in general they are a very professional outfit (glued bolts excepted). They have some excellent engineers & scientists. Give them an inch & they will take a mile, but if you know what you are doing, they will go the extra mile themselves. For some reason, US, Australia, Canada, Sweden don’t have a problem with BAE. Is that because the local branch have adapted to local expectations or because UK MoD & BAE have squared up & no one wants to blink first?
Bae is your standard multi-national conglomerate that buys a lot of things and puts their name on them unfortunately most of the patents and factories to build the stuff are in other countries. This website needs to stop with the breathless BAE Fanboy thing. The factories are all someplace else and any time of emergency the UK has no say at all in what goes on.
No different to other large defence multi nationals. Eg GD, LM, Leonardo, Thales, Boeing, etc,etc. If a company develops something in another country, under most international arrangements, the IP belongs to the nation(s) in which it was developed. So the new RF seeker being fitted to Konsberg’s (Norway) JSM & slated to be back ported to NSM, is Australian controlled IP, developed by BAE Australia. They even got an Australian government grant to help out with the original idea. BAE UK cannot do what they like with the technology, even though they own BAE Australia. If BAE Australia wants to… Read more »
Wonder how much considering the price per round of the 3P ammo?
And it’s not bloody 3p before a few of you well known smart arses reply 😂👍
Haha if only. I doubt even the simulator round will be that cheap😂😂😂
You mean it is 3p before VAT?
Rejoice!
Royal Navy believes in guns again after 60 years of missile obsession…
Now… where are the radar directors in Type 31?
The Thales NS100 will be used for gun direction.
It is a rotating radar, how does it have the data rate and precision for anti missile work?
Hi Alex, good question, so here goes: Similar to the BAe Sampson, it is an S-band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. The antenna rotates at 30 rpm or once every 2 seconds. Though it can also slow down the rotation rate to 15 rpm (rotates once every 4 seconds). Thales have also incorporated a electro-optical thermal imaging camera in the array, along with an identification friend or foe (IFF) transceiver. But it can also have a frequency modulated interruptive carrier wave (FMICW) radar added to the base of the array. FMICW/FMCW radar are traditionally used for semi-active radar homing… Read more »
That depends on the missile making precise predicated path. Remember that a subsonic missile moves 300 m per second. .If 0.5 sec is outside radar view it means it moved 150m. What i suspect: the guns in T31 are not for anti missile work unless in a last ditch hail mary effort and are for gunboat diplomacy against surface targets and drones. Sampson is for different proposes. To give data to missiles which being active guided have so to speak their own radar director do they only need to be sent to the general target position and acquire the target… Read more »
Very interesting. Thx.
The gun choice on the type 31 I approve of. These are very modern and deadly weapons capable of laying down a heavier weight of fire than the 76mm oto gun (in terms of the BAE 56mm) and the 40mm bofors are also excellent in surface engagement mode and CIWS function. In surface engagement mode the 40mm bofors is terminally effective against all known fast attack and patrol craft as well as low flying helicopters and UAVs. A type 31 equipped with sea ceptor and 56mm and 40mm guns would be a good close defence partner for a QE carrier… Read more »
Yes, for those nay-saying the capability of the T31, a close in escort par excellence. The 40mm in particular a great choice just as we see the use of java in Ukraine and the difficulty in countering them.
I could see these bulking up a carrier group if the poo ever came onto contact with the rotary air distributor.
Check out the MARSS Drone interceptor….straight out of Flash Gordon!
AA
Java=drones…poxy auto correct AA
3 x more T31s would be great with a castoff T23s 4.5″ for NGS (or better still, for commonality a 5″)!
I think we have discussed the pros and cons of the 57mm vs the 76mm before. But it is a misconception to say the 57mm will provide a greater weight of fire. Yes, it will definitely put more rounds down range, but it’s affects will be less round for round. As the standard 57mm HE shell, contains less than 1/2 of the explosive content of a 76mm shell. For beating an area the 57 should have the advantage against targets in the open, due its better rate of fire. However, the 76 will be more beneficial against hardened targets. But… Read more »
While most things can scale up from 57mm, the reverse is not true. Volcano especially.
Would agree to a point. Vulcano like MAD-FIRES is a saboted round. It uses its forebody canards to make the round glide generating a quasi-ballistic path, thereby extending the range to over 80km, when fired from the Pz2000 during trials. It has been scaled down, so that the 76mm gun can use it. But scaling it down further to 57mm, would mean the shell contains even less explosive. So, it is basically doable, but the effects on the target would not be great, probably similar to a 40mm HE shell. Using saboted rounds against fast and manoeuvring targets makes sense.… Read more »
The main ‘pro’ for the 57mm has to be commonality with the USN and probably low price.
Waiting for ALaMo guided rounds order. It is fielded in US, very good at fast-boat swarm handling.
Ministry for Defence Procurement has probably budgeted for ammunition after each vessel is commissioned.
Any thoughts on deploying this round on the Batch 2 Rivers?
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/northrop-grumman-demonstrates-%E2%80%98proximity-round%E2%80%99-drone-killer-recent-test-198173
This is just disappointing and disjointed thinking. The UK has already invested heavily in CTA40 which has a range of munitions made in UK. the RN should be forced to standardise to a common standard and for T31 CTA would be a great fit, as it would for the rivers. Bofors is a good product, but in an age where we are told supply chains count and cost of munitions is key, we need to standardise as much as possible. Given we have 200+ CTA40 sitting in a warehouse and a uk munition supply chain this is a poor decision… Read more »
Check out the Thales “Rapidfire naval 40mm based on the CT40
Exactly, that’s my point, the uk has invested tens of millions in CTA and we need to standardise on it.
the RF can be put on the rivers with no penetration as well as on HX or man trucks. Perhaps paired with martlet it would be a very capable system.
this is a short sighted decision, that will end up with anothe4 niche capability when the army has a perfectly capable system in use (with the French all in).
Looks ok.
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/markets/defence-and-security/naval-forces/above-water-warfare/rapidfire#:~:text=RAPIDFire%20is%20a%20multi%2Drole,requirements%20of%20the%20armed%20forces.
However the CT40 weapon hasnt been proven as a naval weapon. Unlike the 40mm bofors. The whole point of type 31 is to derisk, buy off the shelf proven capability and not incur extra unforseen costs.
How many ct40 naval sets are in service now? Vs 200+ 40mm bofors mounts.
Slightly off-topic https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/11/royal-navy-selects-kongsbergs-naval-strike-missile/
https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-to-buy-the-naval-strike-missile/