The automatic small calibre gun requirement has been removed from the Fleet Solid Support manufacture contract with Navantia UK, at a cost of £1.704 million recorded as a constructive loss, because it no longer matches the Royal Navy’s likely future gun solution, according to a written answer published on Monday.
Luke Pollard, Minister of State for Defence Readiness and Industry, was responding to Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative MP for Huntingdon, who had asked about the loss disclosed in the Ministry of Defence annual report and accounts for 2025 to 2026.
Mr Pollard said: “The Fleet Solid Support (FSS) Automatic Small Calibre Gun requirement, which formed part of the manufacture contract with Navantia UK, has been removed from the contract as it is no longer aligned with the Royal Navy’s (RN) most likely future gun solution. The RN gun rationalisation programme, introduced since the FSS manufacture contract was placed, aims to reduce the number of gun variants and bring commonality across the RN’s Fleet, providing longer term value for money.”
Setting out the reasoning behind accepting a loss now, he said: “Although this decision has resulted in some financial loss, changing the requirement now avoids incurring greater losses at a later stage, associated with fitting and then replacing an incompatible system. The FSS ships will now be designed to accept a range of future gun systems that will enhance our warfighting readiness and deterrence.”
The Royal Navy has accumulated a considerable number of small and medium calibre gun types across its fleet over the years, each carrying its own ammunition, spares, training pipeline and maintenance requirement, and the rationalisation programme Mr Pollard describes exists to reduce that spread rather than to change what any individual ship can do.
The saving from commonality is felt in the supply chain rather than on the gun mounting. A fleet operating fewer variants holds fewer distinct ammunition natures, trains fewer specialists and stocks fewer unique components, which is where the longer term value for money he refers to comes from.
The three Fleet Solid Support ships are being built by Navantia UK to carry ammunition, stores and provisions to the carrier strike group and the wider fleet, replacing a capability the Royal Fleet Auxiliary has been without since the Fort-class ships left service.
How are those provisions supplied currently?
If anything deserves a laser weapon, it’s these vessels. At no point can the navy leave logistical support at risk. Proof of that was obvious during the Falklands War.
The Falklands was 44 years ago 🤦 We have operated RFA vessels in hostile waters many times since then.
And when have they been on the receiving end of sustained air attack remotely close to that seen in 82 then Captain Complacent?
Yes and taken risk. I spent 30 years i. The RFA and finished as a Captain. All through this time weapon systems on RFA have suffered being second class and generally out of date. They all need a joined up approach and something the RFA themselves can operate, maintain and use tactically. Something which is missing at present
Yes, I know that but we have not lost a vessel since the Atlantic Conveyor, and that’s the reason we should give the RFA ships maximum protection.
I doubt that it has enough power in its current design.
Another “fitted for, but not with” ?
We have operated them with drone boats. I assume this is just a change and not a removal.
I’m hoping to see the MK-IV Bofors mount replace the Phalanx & 30mm ASCG combination across the RFA eventually. It’s becoming evident that saturation of fire is no longer the most efficient (in both cost and managing magazine depth) way to use gun based CIWS, smaller calibre programmable and more traditional proximity fused rounds now avaible for the 40mm system just seem like such a sensible, cost efficient and low number of shots per potential kill solution – a no brainer.
Bofors has advertised that the newer MK-IV requires a similar amount of maintaince time as the DSI small calibre systems boasting an extremely high availability rate whilst also likely costing less than a single Phalanx mount. The non-deck penetrating version can hold 100 rounds in the turret with the ability for it to be reloaded rapidly using preloaded clips – whereas Phalanx can take multiple hours depending on crew efficiency. It also weighs very little allowing it to be retrofitted to vessels not originally designed with that specific system in mind – providing there is some kind of existing radar or EOS avaible for FC function, the main downside of the system.
As for the manually aimed DS30/B systems they are still relevant for limited scenarios and extremely cheap and plentiful in the fleet currently but, not really the most flexible or capable for anything besides shooting at fast surface targets. For main surface combatants or patrol ships that can afford a little space to have them in addition to other close in gun/laser systems thats fine however, for RFA vessels where space and weight is a premium at full load it may no longer be the best use of deck space.
My armchair two sense. Get rid of the existing pairs of guns and stick a 40mm where each Phalanx was.
Phalanx can be re-loaded in less than 5 minutes.
Noticed in Basra it took a piece longer, more like an hour
RW,
Agree, RN may well revise and rationalize CIWS architecture to consist principally of Bofors 40 Mk4 and Dragonfire (Mk1-Mk(n)). Inspiration class (T-31) would seem a nearly ideal choice for prototyping/testbed phases. Subsequent retrofit of T-26, (T-45?), CV and RFA, predicated upon successful performance in T-31. Probable insertion during scheduled mid-life updates, thus, a quite extended timeline, based upon competing requirements and projected available funding. Hope USN is contemplating an equivalent plan. 🤔🍻
If you are proposing replacement of the Phalanx with a 40mm, may as well go for the full fat deck penetrating version. The 30mm are another question. Should they be replaced, and if so, with what? Lasers? T31 and T45 trials with both will surely provide more answers but until then hopefully there won’t be too much design changes and delays in these essential new vessels.
The new French Auxiliaries have a pair of 40mm and their new PA-NG aircraft carrier will have 4x40mm so maybe the QEs might get something similar too?
Are the 30mm still being kept on the T26s then?
It sounds like they know the gun isn’t what they want. So why don’t they confirm what they want and change the spec accordingly. Why change the spec twice, once to cancel and once to replace? Or are they simply not having any small guns ever?
Whilst it makes sense to rationalise the small calibre portfolio, i have to admit that my mind immediately turns to Pete’s earlier comment of “for but not with”. Or the ever more popular, recognised but not resolved, “capability gaps”.
It is becoming increasingly popular, throughout construction programs that i am involved with, to fettle and tinker with designs even when they should have long been locked in place. These vessels were required years ago, thier design should be mature and accepted at all levels. How and why do they believe it is appropriate to change the scope once the build has begun and will there be further itterative changes?
Should be a lesson from Ukraine. At a pinch you can make almost anything do the job. However you can’t make nothing do the job.
All RFA work with a FFBNW as they are only ever fitted with weapon systems if the risk assessment requires it ( and sometimes not even then) .
Reduction of types is sensible, as is avoiding greater costs down the line.
Though I agree with others, we have a penchant for winging it time after time.
One day, there will be egg on the floor and people looking at each other to deflect blame.
Critical assets like this, which applies to all the RFA, should be properly armed.
Just more Cost cutting ..Assets that appear to be Expendables in someone’s eyes at the MOD..To save a few jobs or Pensions in the civil service no doubt..
Bloody stupid..!
This is not cost cutting it’s costing.. essentially they are burning a lot of money to move away from the ubiquitous DS30M Mk 2 to a wider set of options..
In this it seems to be suffering capital loss to keep their options wider.. it’s not going to cost they to just keep the DS30M Mk 2 capability.. it’s cost them to change it..
Makes me think DS30M Mk 2 will be going sooner than we think..
Maybe the 40mm for B2s then? Maybe all these unloved 30mm sets could help make some useful Paladin Tetrahawks for you know who.
To be honest the UK could do with some ground based 30mm anti drone systems for key civilian infrastructure.
And still no news on the UK looking at getting Boxer mobile shorad like Skyranger 30 with HVM/LMM or, even based on other chassis’?
Not that I’m aware of at present.
Could we see 40mm or even 57mm perhaps lasers on these Valuable assets..
Or is that just a dream..!
It’s a nice dream, personally I think moving to a 40mm bofors for everything would be essentially a lowest level of what is sensible for a world infected with surface and airborne drones.
I would also see every ship with a main gun have a 57mm ( apart from the T26s with their 5inch )
When you think moving to a 40mm bofors would move the air engagement range out from 3km to 5kms.. that’s a lot.
The cynic in me says “reduction in types” is the excuse, not the reason. That same cynic feels that if you remove the last 2 words you are getting closer to the truth. Especially when it is removed without any plan for a replacement.
ok, what will they get? a mega phone to shout harsh hirty words at attacking aircraft , save money, but never fix what you remove thats the MODs way, gab some thing and hope we never need it
This is very interesting as it’s my understanding that they would be fitted to take DS30M Mk 2, the standard fit apart from the older MK1s and 20mm GAM-BO1.
So one assumes that the RN now sees the DS30M Mk 2 as having a potential short life span.. which is odd because it’s ubiquitous and is going on the T26s..
There would be no point changing out the system unless it was for significant upgrade.
And isn’t the USN adopting the mk38 equivalent?
Knowing our government and the universally efficient MOD it probably cost more than £1.7 million in meetings about cancelling.🙃
Suspending war games, writing off the new version of defence detection and now cutting guns. Anyone see a pattern developing?
As an engineer from childhood, I endured MoD, while in the Service, while in Saudi, while making AFV, and finally at ABW , sleepy hollows…it was a mixture of great engineers, time serving jobsworths and high flying genii. Led by Power, which meant fear. I had some good times there , but was frustrated often..example Warrior, 30 years experience on her, suddenly the Final Drives were smashing gears. Metal fatigue was mooted as the cause. Except..well when I was allowed to look at a picture, it showed that rollers from the bearings were jammed into the teeth. Cursory examination showed that the bearings were breakihg up, releasing the rollers into the gear train.
Could the Leadership accept theyd got bad advice? No, metal fatigue was the reason to buy new gear trains for the fleet..millions later, whoops..60 clicks out of base overhaul, the final drive broke. By now we were red lining Warrior from public roads because of loss of control issues. At the same time running gear issues sprang up, tracks broke, and amazingly, the crew got blamed mainly.not the bearings.
After the MOD Police investigated, it emerged that , DSG were buying dodgy bearings, also ignoring the laid down instructions for overhaul of pretty much everything. Not the lads on the floor, but the whole of the Quality department and buying functions conjoined to cut prices by skipping checks, and buying from unapproved sources. In one case scrapping a large quantity of Bearings, that rusted due to water ingress…which were sold back to the stores, each in a plastic bag full of oil, with the rust still visible. Being unable to measure bearing housingsnthey resorted to holding loose bearing in place by centre punching around the bore….totally corner garage tactics. The list was endless, stupid penny pinching..shot blasting road wheel nuts, to reuse them..they were stiff nuts originally, but the shot blasting wore the threads away. The face seals on the Final Drives, hand lapped in pairs, sealed and bagged. Oh the Aesp calls up a pair, but D of Q is each..so they opened all the packs and wrapped one off in brown paper….leaks galore, and rusting merrily in stores. Oddly, the Police were unable to get any information from DE&S as to what DSG were contracted to do…no underhand issues here.. suprisingly when the actual issues were discovered by Consultants, I recieved nothing in the way of apologies, but did leave the MOD.
The wasted money didnt bother me so much, as the danger to the guys and lasses who depended on the vehicles to perform as ordered.
PLAQUE ON MOD BUILDING SHOULD READ..
“Never, Ever Underestimate the Stupidity of the MOD!’..