A National Audit Office report entitled ‘Improving the performance of major equipment contracts‘ has shed some light on major projects, including the Type 26 Frigate.
The NAO claim it sought to identify the causes, and explain the consequences, of cost overruns and schedule delays in the contracts for some of the most significant equipment programmes and to examine how the Ministry of Defence and industry teams are working to improve delivery.
Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, was quoted as saying:
“Too often, the MoD doesn’t deliver its major equipment contracts as planned due to a combination of supplier underperformance, a failure of the MoD and suppliers to get to grips with the technical complexity of projects, and short-term solutions to affordability problems. To ensure defence contracts deliver value to taxpayers, the MoD must follow through on its efforts to embed good practice in its relationship with suppliers. Strong leadership and skilled staff are needed to translate good intentions into results that deliver real benefits for the armed forces and value to taxpayers.”
You can read the report for yourself here.
Anyway, on to the relevant points…
The report explained that delays in the preliminary stages of the Type 26 frigate had originally meant that the first ship (HMS Glasgow) would to enter service in 2026.
“In addition, delays in the preliminary stages of the Type 26 frigate, and an acceptance of a more realistic timetable for the Type 31e Frigate as part of the competition process, mean that the first ships of each class are forecast to start to enter service in 2026 and 2027 respectively. This requires the predecessor Type 23 to undergo upgrade work to stay in service until the new ships are available.”
The report then goes on to explain that the team behind Type 26 were able to bring the in-service date forward by 12 months:
“The Type 26 programme team reported in March 2021 that it forecasts achieving the in-service date for ship one 12 months sooner than forecast at the time of going on contract.”
Adding some background the report states:
“When the Type 26 frigate programme team received approval to enter the ‘assessment’ phase in 2010, it expected to gain approval for manufacture in 2013. Approval for the assessment phase was delayed until March 2010. The estimated cost increased from £8.2 billion in 2009 to £12.1 billion by 2012. Contributory factors included an increase in the planned number of ships, from 10 in 2009 to 13 in 2012, and the need to re-plan in 2010 to reflect a change in requirement for an increased level of capability for the class as a whole.”
Its not April the first is it ??? An MOD project AHEAD of schedule… isn’t that one of the signs of the apocalypse ?????
But great news none the less. T23 is great but getting very tired.
This is also, no doubt, driven by the need to keep available hull numbers up. And part of the quid pro quo of the drumbeat plan – ‘you get orders if you get you backside in gear’
I think BAE got the message when T31 was awarded…..
I seem to mind BAE not being too bothered about the T31’s I think they have their hands full with theT26’s. That was before the T32’s were announced right enough.
I think they acted “not too bothered” – I think they were very bothered actually.
How BAE is perceived to get getting on with HMG matters massively for their international business. RN are seen as being very on the ball ATM with the number of programs that are coming to fruition in good shape.
Whilst we in the UK may be quite ‘down’ on RN procurements the T45 (relatively – apart from Sampson cost blow out and power issue) QEC (absolutely), Astute (absolutely) and Tides are viewed as a roaring success. You compare that the the US Littoral issues and the German listing frigates to get the picture as to why RN procurement is actually viewed as being very competent both technically and in terms of value for money.
This is why RN seal of approval for T31 is a massive export boost: look at how well T26 design sold off plan!
I think they got the message that it was not just a one way street where they were insulated from reality.
Don’t forget the let’s build the equivalent of a 21c battleship then call it a destroyer and hope we can somehow afford to built 30+ then only build three, with each costing around the same as a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.
You mean the Zumwalt class…..
The poster child of how not to do something…..
Astute? Great boat, but the program has been an absolute disaster!
Astute is good now, boats 5-7 coming in on time and under budget. But all the new boats are delayed because boats 1-3 had well documented issues to resolve and boat 4 ‘Audacious’ – which was in reality a ‘flight 2’ design with a new combat system – was delayed.
Not going to argue but IIRC the specific problem that delayed boat 4 isn’t in the public domain. The DSC wouldn’t discus it on record.
T31 was and is a poisoned chalice, we didn’t want it and Babcock are regretting it
Really?
Evidence for that comment.
Everyone in RN who I know thinks it is a decent idea as it is a large well defended platform for medium intensity work. Let’s put it this way it is more of a warship that the Rivers……?
It can be uparmed quite easily with deck mount or Mk41 VLS.
I’ve not head anything negative from Babcock people on T31?
Materials and labour inflation will be a real pain and that will kill fixed price contracts with no inflation provision.
I am curious when the us retired its ships they usually scrap it or use it as a target for exercises has the uk ever done that before.
Used them as a target? Yes, the UK has used several former warships as targets or trial hulls.
Yes indeed Lusty – for example the County class destroyer Devonshire was sunk during weapons trials, a combination of Sea Eagles and Tigerfish.
Sinking a ship is a major evolution. Its easier to scrap them.
The systems need to be sanitised for secret information and circuit boards. The mechanical systems need to be cleaned with all contaminants removed.
So all tanks washed out.
Fuel, hydraulic and lub systems flushed clean
Oil filled transformers removed.
Engines if not removed washed and cleaned.
Usually when you sink a ship you want to get your monies worth. So if its a target it gets a lot of instrumentation fitted.
You blank off sea valves, weld shut doors and hatches, blank off vent trunking. You don’t want it sinking after the first hit.
In real life the crew would be fighting to stop flooding, fires and damage… On a sinkex that isn’t the case.
After being hit with bombs missiles and Gunnery from medium and close range most compartments are flooded. A torpedo is usually the last thing used to break the ships back and to send it deep.
Even then you need a sinkex area that is deep enough to stop people or nations getting a look at the Ship. So its the North Atlantic and over 5000ft to the bottom.
I just read the report – problem is not BAe, its MOD delaying projects to deal with short-term cash flow problems. Once those restrictions are lifted contractors can more faster.
Oh, I think absolving BAE of all blame is a bit naive. Even BAE admitted they needed to up their naval game in the UK hence wanting investment in the frigate factory etc to improve productivity.
I agree cash flow curve reverse fitting was a very major part of it. And then inevitably the project is not run at its commercial optimum.
BAE haven’t filled themselves with glory, but to be fair they have been caught plenty times by MoD/HMG constant moving goalposts. Hence their reluctance to invest.
Or ….Wild speculation..has the MOD released the purse strings for an accelerated (more realistic) milestone payment schedule to allow a type 23 to be released to Greece ! IE. could it be a Greek T23 sale is funding the acceleration from a cash flow perspective.
Irrespective….great news.
Hi Pete,
Given that the slow build rate was down to the MoD budget schedule, I’d say you are probably right, although I suspect that BAES may be pushing a head with the build rate anyway as they may well be looking to free up the yards for other future work.
Cheers CR
There is one hull that is able to be released right now – although that is hardly war worthy as it is pretty stripped out.
Montrose(?) is to be released pretty soon.
So my **guess** is that this is to do with attenuating the dip in hull numbers and to clear the build program for follow on work.
There does appear to be drive and a plan for building a fleet. Much helped by 1SL actually appearing to be a pleasant person in conversation and able to articulate a point as well as gaining people’s trust.
I think it’s Monmouth first, she has been alongside in Devonport for the last two years and has been well cannibalised for spares. Montrose is due back from the gulf in 2023 and it’s been well trailed that she will pay off then as well.
Montrose has just had her engines replaced, no? Wonder if she is being offered to Greece with T31s to follow.
It was only the generators in the forward machinery space, not a full main engine replacement. It could well be that circumstances require her to run on past her OSD. Or indeed she could be on her way to Greece.
She had 2 of 4 DGs replaced. Nothing done to the GTs.
Thx; presumably by more modern diesels. I think she came out of a ‘bare metal respray’ Lifex refit with Artisan and Sea Ceptor in 2017. If she leaves RN service in the next year of two she has to be worth something on Gumtree.
Nope not new model diesels… Same old valentas….. Intercity 125 engines.
Monmouth was disarmed in preparation for LIFEX. Given the current in service dates for the new vessels it would have been wise to put her in and do it.
I find 1SL evidently easy to get along with as well, so was surprised to hear that he was apparently not very popular with the Cabinet, so was unlikely to get CDS over the Army. Erm, like they should be current flavour of the month, or something?! And like Radakin doesn’t appear the most effective Service Chief at the moment?
Also heard that Wallace was viewed similarly as SoS Defence. Now, I had initial misgivings, but he seems to have most of his ducks in a row as well, to be honest.
What constitutes judgement in the Cabinet, I wonder?
the retiring of t23 opens new opportunities for new lateral thinking. the whole world engages in the trade of warships Britain is far too snobbish to take on other nations castoffs even though it may be a good idea trading t23 in exchange for say the slàted for retirement of the Collins class submarines may be a good idea plus there is a bonus in that they are already built. the cross decking of as much óf the t23 to other ships should be a priority
Exchange the crews as part of the deal?
Basically swap all our old crap for their old crap.
I’m all for the UK getting some AIP type ‘steaming bat’ submarines for inshore ops/sneakies but I don’t think there’s much to be gained from some kind of ‘bring and buy’ type scenario. The logistics and training involved would cost a fortune, we’d be just as well buying off the shelf if we’re looking to spend big bucks.
I’m struggling to see the upside in this.
The Collins class are now very long in the tooth and the hull life of a submarine is limited by pressure cycles.
They would need an unknown amount of refurbishment before they would be of any use for a short time.
If RN was to by AIP boats then it would be better off buying off the shelf.
All that said I see the close to shore sensor role being fulfilled by drones pretty soon with enforcement by P8 + drone friends dropping sonar buoys.
Unless its your last paragraph mate, I’m not sure why you’re quoting me. I’ve no wish for some old second hand boats, as for ‘robot submarines’ doing sneakies then maybe but I still feel you’d want submariners there to make the ‘real time’ calls. Then there’s insertions…. I accept that currently we’ve moved away from the simpler (and more scary) ways of getting guys from inside the submarine to the outside to go and do their thing. Its still possible though. Leave the proper deep water Fleet boats to do their thing.
I think we may be at crossed purposes.
I agree with you.
Sorry, exactly how would the Royal Navy get its hands on the Collins class? The subs will be 40 years old by the time they go out of service, the only reason they will be so old is the fiasco with the French designed future sub for the Royal Australian Navy…. There is no way the Australians will part with the Collins class, and when they do get decommissioned I think it will be straight to recycling into razor blades….
HY80 razor blades…hmm😀
Correct about the purse strings – but no decision from Greece yet. Maybe Ukraine will get Type 31 too?
Or Ukraine might get a couple of T23. They are unlikely to operate frigates at anywhere like the same intensity as the UK does, so might take refurbs at some point and still get 5-10 years out of them based on their use model.
RN Budget is allocated and spent some 18-24 months down the chain because they resolve there best practice and delivery. IE Army withheld a £81m payment on the Warrior Update as there were targets not met. But they didnt spend that £81 on other projects so that money got returned and lost it. its why Army procurement is such a mess.
Yep, delivered 12 months early, equipped for, but not with engines or grey paint.
Joking aside Andy, it’s a good sign that some of the additional money (and the RN being dealt to the top of the pack in importance), is being directed towards rebuilding the Navy.
It also gives the possibility of cats and traps on the QE class later this decade, a bit more credence too…….
They should just build another 4 QE’s. 3 fitted with Cat’s and Trap’s and one not. Steel is cheap, new designs are not.
late April fools joke
The quicker the better if all requirements are meet .Hope the Type 26 gets the weapons fit there need for the challenges a head 🇬🇧
RN will regret not have a ship with area defence like the CAN/AUS versions, Italian and USN FREMM’s
Good things come to those who wait…
… and how long have we waited…
They are replacing the 23s, they have managed without.
As we have repeated endlessly on here the UK has T45 which is a state of the art AAW.
T26 is a state of the art ASW platform.
T31 is a general purpose dogsbody ship.
So adding the sensor suite eta for AAW will drive compromises, increase complexity and drive up cost. If you look back at the history of area defence objectively Sea Ceptor, which is state of the art, is really area defence: the range will only get longer as mod states increment.
Point about CAMM on the CSC, Wikipedia (I know) is claiming they’re fitting both that and ESSM in the Mk41. Surely one makes the other surplus to requirements?
It does seem rather odd.
The thing with Ceptor, being soft launch, is that you don’t need fully clear decks for launch.
So that just **might** be the reason.
In regards to the CSC fit;
ESSM will be fitted to the normal Mk.41 cells and provide short-range/point defense. Obviously fit can vary by mission and perceived need by navy, but as I understand typically four cells (16 missiles) tend to be loaded with ESSM for this short-range role, leaving the other 28 cells for SM-2MR’s and Tomahawks (the latter of which the RCN seems intent to procure, though whether they will be able to or not is an open question).
CAMM is being installed in the six ExLS cells (24 missiles) amidships, and functions as a CIWS system, in place of something like RAM or its equivalent. The missile lacks the reach of ESSM, but is well suited to rapid reaction in all directions against the ship if the situation arises, and allows for a more effective layering of air defense between the three missile systems.
The reason for CAAM plus ESSM on the CSC is that Sea Ceptor will be used as the PDMS – the Minimum Engagement Range on ESSM is much greater than CAAM which puts it at a diisadvantage,although at longer Ranges their capabilities do overlap somewhat.
No, they compliment each other. ESSM has got longer legs but has a greater minimum engagement range. If it’s anything like Aster, which MBDA state as 1.7km, it leaves a dead zone below the ballistic arc the missile travels after leaving the vls cell. It may be greater as Aster uses a thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle to tighten the turn.
SeaCeptor on the other hand is lobbed vertically up by compressed gas. Then reaction jets activate to point the missile towards the target, before it activates the main rocket mount. MBDA state the minimum engagement range as below 1km. This puts it in the same category as the RIM-116 rolling airframe missile (RAM) that’s replacing the Phalanx CIWS in most navies.
The Canadian CSC class will use a multi-layered approach to air defence. For long range it will use the latest SM2, medium range the ESSM and close range SeaCeptor.
The CAMM-ER is really in the same category of ESSM, i.e. an engagement range of around 40 to 50km. However, the ER version still retains the cold launch and reaction jets to point it towards the target. Which means it’s more threat capable than ESSM, as it can also do the CWIS function.
Other two differences of note is that ESSM is a Mach 4 missile against CAMM/CAMM-ER Mach 3 & ESSM can do semi-active if you have the gear for it (B1 is semi only, B2 is dual mode semi or active).
Agreed.
HI AlexS
From what I have read both the CAN/AUS projects have run into issues with weight / stability trying to squeeze more kit into the T26 hulls. If they can’t sort the issues out quickly I would not be surprised to see cost overruns and the projects scaled back. Canada has quite the record of cutting back defence projects.
Cheers CR
You do wonder at the thinking here.
Why buy a de-risked design and then start changing it. That is what the UK would have done 15 years ago.
I agree that the AUS/CAN requirements are different and that the AAW kits can go in the VLS without too much bother. However, it seems a little zany to start putting high top weight panel radar systems in place.
I do chuckle when people assume that flat panel radar is like a flat panel TV. Flat panel radar is actually not very flat as there is a lot behind the flat panel and it is very heavy. To put flat panel as high up as Sampson is on T45, would require something of around 30,000t and with decent beam.
So there was a reason Sampson was chosen. Yes, Sampson is heavy but flat panel is heavier and has larger physical dimensions so that high up windage is a real issue.
Hi Supportive Bloke,
Just to make sure I understand you here. The rotating Sampson radar is lighter than the multi fixed panel radars. Hence an advantage of the kind of hybrid rotating panel AESA radar such as Sampson is that they can be mounted much higher – nearly 40m above sea level in the case of T45…
I read sometime ago that one of the success stories behind the Sampson was that a supplier came up with a clever solution to the cooling system for the radar head that significantly reduced the weight.
So I am guessing, but it seems to me that the big issue is waste heat / cooling requirements. So a fixed 4 panel AESA radar is going to need a lot of cooling and hence weight…
Cheers CR
That was exactly my point!
The panel structure is big and needs to be very rigid for it to work properly.
As regards cooling: most of the flat panels are liquid cooled. So the top weight of the coolant is significant. Sampson is air cooled by blowing cold air up the inside of the mast.
See the attached link to the Navy Lookout site (Save the Royal Navy). It has a very good page on how Sampson came to be, as well as insights on how it works. Clearly it doesn’t give everything away, but it provides enough meat to get a good understanding of the system.
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-royal-navys-sampson-radar/
I worked with some Aussies on a Anzac Frigate who had had the first part of their new radar upgraded.
A new lightweight mast and Cefar phase one radar fitted. 5mil AUD a panel. A shed load of cooling to keep it going.
The phase 2 fit removed the long-range search radar. Modded the mast yet again and added long range panels as well. It also added lots and lots of ballast to counter the top weight.
Heat management is a big issue.
On a T45 you would need to get chilled water from the chiller plants, vertically up the mast to the heat exchangers. This isn’t easy. Booster pumps, high pressures lots of pipe work are all needed to manage the wild heat. As it is the T45 uses an air blast system in the masthead which still uses CW but the CW is used to cool air which is forced over the back of the arrays. This helps to keep things simple and means less weight at the mast head.
Interesting so I wonder how the proposed third panel on Sampson placed horizontally I believe above the other two affects the equation. Not quite as straight forward as it might seem judging by what you have said about weight and cooling for these things.
The attached image shows the Raytheon AN/SPY-6(V)1 for the Flight 3 Arleigh Burkes. The SPY 6 is an active electronically scanned array (AESA) unlike the SPY 1, which was a passive electronically scanned array (PESA). The Spy 6 also combines both a S-band and X-band radar in the one array panel. It highlights how large and deep the radar array is, but does not show the interconnects for the power supply, data transfer and cooling the array requires. This array is about 14ft in height and width, containing 37 transmitter-receiver modules (TRMS). Whereas the flight 1 and 2s will only be capable of using 24 TRMs due to their top weight issue.
In some respects SPY-6 will be better than Sampson, as the X band will generate better target resolution, especially against sea clutter. Also, as the array has a much larger surface area it can be made to handle more power, whilst giving the receiver more faint signal sensitivity. It still has the downside of being lower on the ship, thereby having a shorter radar horizon compared to a T45 with Sampson.
Hi DaveyB. I’ve asked this before and never had an understandable answer. Is it possible to have a big radar low down looking at “most” of the sky, and a small radar very high up looking at “only” the horizon, then a pc to blend the images together as needed? If it would work, why isn’t this already being done?
Yes, is the answer you are looking for. The T45 in particular does this. The BAe Combat management system (CMS) integrates and blends both the data from the Sampson and S1850M radars. It also integrates the navigation radars plus the electro-optic and IR sensors.
If you search for the series on HMS Duncan, there a a few scenes in the combat center. The cameras got a few images of the screens, where most had segments blanked out but overlaid a chart etc. This is what the CMS does, it tries to present information and data so that rapid decisions can be made. However, you can filter out and show just what the Sampson sees etc
Thanks DB.
You almost never see raw radar data anymore except on bridge nav radars and nowadays that’s an electronic lcd not crt display. . Track extractors remove target info from the received radar returns and pass it to the command system. The command system then displays the target as a symbol. Red is bad…. Blue is good.
Click on a symbol and you get a load of meta data such as course, speed future intercept point, closest point of approach. If the info is tied to an AIS contact or a known contact via a link or Gold report you will get name, class etc displayed .
The command system combines all inputs onto the displays. Primary radar, secondary, nav, sonar, EW, link picture, EO. You can see it all or filter it out as you want.
Hopefully when you do your weapon system alignment the radars display the same contact in the same position. When adding link contacts it gets a bit fought at times if the link picture drifts. Usually someone is allocated to specifically manage the link picture to ensure this doesn’t happen and that what is seen on radar is the same as the link picture being seen and sent out to other units.
“You do wonder at the thinking here. Why buy a de-risked design and then start changing it.”
Well they need area AAW, everyone need it.
Well AUS and CAN do not have indigenous design capability so they could only have bought a Burke or a FREMM that already come with it.
Mate, depending on which media outlet here in Oz that has published an article on the Hunter class, it’s either doom and gloom, or that weight is still within the design margins previously set.
Defence was a bit dumb when it first published a full load displacement of 8800t at the time the design was selected, the RAN version was still very much an estimate at that time.
The suggestion now is that full load displacement will be closer to 10,000t.
System Definition Review phase is underway and will continue at least until the end of this year.
Five ‘prototype’ blocks are currently in production, for testing and training purposes, actual production block manufacture is due to start in 2022.
Cheers,
The construction phase should be starting next year on the Hunter class.
So something will have to give quickly in present design stage, or the project will face delays.
The RAN already have 3 AAW AEGIS Destroyers recently commissioned based on the F100. Whilst they may include AAW capabilities, the current spec for the Aussie Type-26 are all firmly ASW.
“The RAN already have 3 AAW AEGIS Destroyers recently commissioned based on the F100. Whilst they may include AAW capabilities, the current spec for the Aussie Type-26 are all firmly ASW..”
.
The AU version have AEGIS and SM-2 so how are they not AAW ?
They will have also a new version of very sophisticated CEAFAR radar developed by themselves.
Nothing compared with Type26 UK which has a very mediocre radar (in context of area AAW).
3 AAW ship are no enough, neither 6. An enemy can lob missiles at 30km distance and you can do nothing about it.
Aegis is a command system nothing more.
Fit it to a T23 and it would still be an Asw Frigate.
An enemy can lob missiles from 300 miles away. Having an AAW destroyer would do nothing either.
You shoot the missiles down or decoy them.
Are you telling me that AEGIS, SM-2 and CEAFAR does not make it a AAW capable hip?
A 300 mile missile is another ballpark and it limit the quantity per vector significantly. We are not talking anymore about spike, sea venom brimstone class. that can be a dozen per.
CAMM is an area defence missile. It’s a very loss definition but CAMM does site within that group.
No it is not.
With an admitted 15 mile lethal zone (probably more like 20 plus) it it certainly is a local area air defence system.
Quite capable of putting an air defence umbrella over a small task group.
CAMM is a 99kg missile, does not have that kind of range +20 miles. Of course i have seen very “creative” ways to “increase” the range of a AA missile… like counting the distance that the enemy aircraft travel from the missile firing to up the death zone.
Hi Alex if you look at reliable open source the manufacture and Jane’s, the range is something between more than 25kms and less than 60km. That’s area defence.
Isn’t the issue that Sea Ceptor was designed post Falklands (as the successor to Sea Wolf) to address, as its most demanding, fastest reaction time, threat multiple mach 1 sea skimmers popping up at the horizon.
A range of 25km is probably adequate for this. The horizon for a tall Type 45 radar is about 22km. For a smaller frigate its more like 15km. The attacking missile flight time to target after acquisition will be the best part of 60 seconds which should be enough for a crew and systems already at action stations to deploy decoys and Sea Ceptors as necessary.
Any target at altitude will be visible much earlier. A medium range drone could be taken out long before it gets within range of launching a glide bomb or a Hellfire type missile. And a Bofors 40mm or Phalanx will take out a glide bomb.
That said I agree that for longer ranges against the TU22M type supersonic missiles you need SM2/6 or Aster 30 but then its WW3.
CAMM is a point missile defence system(PMDS).
We will have to differ on this one.MBDA reported open source range is over 25Km, Jane’s ( as open source goes pretty reliable) has reported in trials ranges of up to 60km
Doing the math on the lowest reported and highest reported (assume reality is some place in the middle) ranges and assuming pi is what it aways is and the universe has not turned upside down and inside out =
Range of 25k means:
diameter of circle= 25km
radius of circle= 50km
area of circle ( area of sea covers by missile) = 1963.5 km2
Range of 60k means:
D = 60km
R= 120km
area = 11309km2
So the missile covers somewhere between 1963.5km2 and 11309km2. Now that’s an area defence weapon by definition.
Clearly you have other limiting like radar horizon, but I can’t be arsed to look up the height of the radars on a type 26.
RN Type 45 is for area defence. Though saying that the Type 26 will carry Sea Ceptor which has a decent range of over 15 miles officially, though during testing SC reportedly could hit target up to nearly 40 miles… Much better over the 70’s Sea Wolf which was a real short range missile.
“though during testing SC reportedly could hit target up to nearly 40 miles…”
Sorry but that is ridiculous a 99kg missile with a range of 40 miles. I wonder what would be the Aspide NG(CAMM-ER) range then…
It’s not a direct comparison, as air launch always gives you a speed and range advantage (which is very significant), but the RAAF have stated that legacy Asraam’s range is 60km+. A working range of 40km should be possible for CAMM. As for CAMM-ER it will depend very much on its flight profile. The addition of strakes for enhanced lift, particularly during the coast phase of flight, and the wider and much longer rocket motor will give at least 60km+ range. I suspect a working range of up to 80km might just be feasible.
Yes but that’s what was stated, it’s out there In open source.
Sure is wasn’t 40km?
No Jane’s reported 60km range in trials.
Not a major priority, though. I’d be more concerned about a lack of short-range ASW weapon (Stingray, ASROC) or just general utilisation of those Mk.41 cells. Type 26s – particularly when operating in a carrier strike group with T45s and air superiority fighters – doesn’t need to worry so much about air defence beyond its own protection.
The Merlin helo armed with Stringray torpedos is the best warpon against submarines, according to experts who have served on ASW vessels. And ASROC is outdated and useless.
Thought the Japanese had a much improved, faster and almost double the range (Relative to US) version of ASROC that would be worth exploring. Merlin is fantastic but wouldnt ASROC provide redundancy and speed of reaction gains while Merlin gets airborne…or if it has a problem.
The Japanese version of ASROC, the Type 07, does have increased range but not double… (30km vs 22km for VL-ASROC).
But why bother?
The most modern western anti-submarine missile is the MBDA MILAS. It’s got a lot of advantages over the VL missiles..
where do we sign !!!
Of course, it is vastly superior to any other anti-submarine weapon in use by surface vessels. Similarly, Aster 30 is the best weapon for defending against aerial targets that a Type 45 has access to, however that doesn’t stop Aster 15 and CIWS being valuable.
In a wider and perhaps more relevant sense, F-35Bs with AMRAAM/Meteor can travel hundreds of kilometres away and launch long range AAMs with far better accuracy and detection platforms, however that’s not much good if the aircraft appear right in front of you and you don’t have time to launch F-35Bs. T26s won’t always have a Merlin in the air around them to engage a submarine so a ship-launched weapon makes a good backup.
Also I don’t know how you view ASROC as useless. It is essentially a rocket booster to extend the range of a lightweight torpedo. It’s basically the same as a Merlin with Stingrays except the torpedoes are propelled by a different means and obviously more restricted. Both end in a torpedo entering the water near a target and engaging it.
I would be fine with ship-launched Stingrays instead, but if we have the Mk.41s we may as well use ASROC and extend the range slightly.
A better radar Thales NS 200, for example, and CAAM-ER would fix that. I am hoping the Type 83 will be an expanded T-26 with multi-role capability. I read somewhere that the Hunters are close to displacement limits – too much kit topsides – so maybe a lenghthened hull for T83?
The T26 is at its L/D limit. That effectively rules out any extend. A new design is most likely for a T83.
And why is that it is at weight limit? It is not that it has any big weapons quantity, big radars etc…
Length(L) over midships depth(D). A rough measure of the longitudinal strength of the ship. Any longer and it would be too floppy.
I always thought the key issue is you GM and stability. Longitudinal strength is more related to keel design ?
With you on this! Fully fitted, armed and in the water! Same for the T31!
I am quite surprised, usually the first of it’s type takes longer as it is a complete new design build etc the rest usually go quicker as lessons learned a bit like HMPOW after HMSQE had been built…so this could only be good news if nothing goes wrong in the meantime…
They did give themselves 7 years to build it. So good example of under promising and over delivering.
I would love for someone to explain to me why a time delay in a project makes financial sense when it adds an extra billion or two on to the cost price?
It saves money in the very short term. But as you correctly highlighted, not in the long term. Fixed pricing like what we have done with the T31, and upgrading as you go along once it’s in service seems to be the way ahead.
Exactly so and in a nutshell one of the reasons for
budgetary problems and a very definite lack of value for money. As an economic tool slow downs might be considered appropriate in the very short term. The problem with defense spending is that so many slow downs have continued beyond the short term. I wouldn’t be surprised, for instance, if the extra costs of slowing down the build of an Astute year on year would add up to the original project cost of an Astute.
Cash flow and MoD annual budgets, in otherwords short term thinking.
Hi DaveyB,
The MoD, like everyone else, only has a certain amount of cash to spend in a year. If a project over spends they end up trying to keep the annual spend within budget by delaying or slowing other projects. So long term the spend on the delayed project(s) increases, meaning something else gets delayed and so on and so on and…
If it was down to me, if a project into trouble because of poor decision making on the MoD / service’s part, I’d cut it. That way well run projects get rewarded with the funding they need and deserve and the badly run projects run by donkeys get axed. Hopefully, I’d only have to do a couple of times before the message got through..!
I’d only except two reasons for delays; 1) unforeseeable technical issues; 2) natural disaster. If the former was a delay in a sub-system e.g. a radar or laser weapon, I would require an assessment of the time and money to correct the situation and if feasible would use fit-for-not-with to keep the platform build on schedule and keep cost overruns to a minimum.
Cheers CR
I think it’s simply been down to MOD eyes bigger than its belly over the years Davey. The equipment plan has outstripped the annual budget year in, year out ….. The only way to keep the plates spinning was to drip feed funding and keep the projects moving.
Unfortunately, the net result is mushrooming costs, piss poor really…..
The NAO kind of embarrassed Treasury and MOD into sorting that out so the long term value for money was attained.
Before Boris was prodded into action by Jeremy Hunts leadership campaign (promising Naval funding his dad was an admiral not of the armchair variety) and Boris’ own Churchillian pretentions MOD was just looked at like a money pit.
Hence the Navy/RAF focused policies.
Unfortunately the army equipment plan is a total mess and until they sort out the sink holes they will not attract the ‘love’
Added 1 billion to the QEC carrier programme too.
It’s in year accounting Davey, all areas of government have it, from the MOD to NHS to local governments. It’s means your not allowed to overspend in year, so although you may have a planned 5 billion budget over five years, if you are only budgeted for 1 billion in year, that’s it you can’t bring forward the whole budget. In most years departments are also asked to make n year savings ( generally 10% savings in year is a favourite of the government) . So even though you had a 5 billion budget for a project you will only be allowed to spend .9 billion of that in year. So it may make complete financial and project sense to spend 1.5 billion that year to keep the project on track and within total budge, but you can’t ( accounting rules are accounting rules) you have to delay work and only spend .9 billion even if that ends up causing a years delay and making the total cost go over the 5 billion total budget.
It was Margaret Thatchers government who developed this process so they could have more control of state funded organisations.
Think the treasury has given depts a degree of wiggle room as far as carry over goes.
So, someone in the MOD Procurement world has learnt contractual butt kicking at last. Well done!
Waiting for some-one to complain that UK Government is intending to finish the ship-building contract early, putting people out of jobs, when they were promised employment out till “the 12th of Never” 😀
Hi Mark,
It could be the risk of Scottish independence.
Cheers CR
Hang on just a second. Nowhere here does it say that it’s 12 months sooner than 2026… It says that it is due in service in 2026 which is 12 months sooner than when they entered the contract.
Unless I’ve missed some nuance.
Hi BobA,
The quote say 12 months before the contracted date. I believe the contract delivery date was 2026. So yeh the inservice date looks like it could be 2025.
Of course, we are all getting excited about an early deliverly, but that might yet get scuppered. For example, the RN will have planned its crewing for 2026. They should now have plenty of warning to jig their plans, but this type of change is not without challenges.
Cheers CR
We heard that T26-hull1 “in service date” was 2027, from 2016 until now. At the same time, we also heard that she will be delivered to RN on 2025. RN plans to spend 2 years for “first-of-class ship” initial training. Reasonable.
This is the first time ever, we heard that “in service date” is 2026. So, I “guess” it means BAES will deliver her on 2024?, so that RN can take her in service in 2026.
This is what I can see from all the publicaly available information (as much as I know).
Wonder how the build is getting on, might have to try and swing by and get some phots next week whilst I’m on my travels westside to Pressers
To be honest I was wondering how on earth they were going to stretch the fitting out and acceptance trials over 5 years!
Modern shipbuilding techniques see each super block largely ‘fitted’ with the major systems before assembly. Obviously, there is a lot of contecting up to be done and I guess stuff like cabin fittings to be completed and perhaps the CIC systems, but all large systems from galley ovens(?) to engines would be fitted – wouldn’t they?
I am also assuming that this refers to the commissioning date rather than IOC or FOC?
Cheers CR
Let’s face it, We need More ships.
This should clear up the schedule for Type 32s sooner.
Woohoo! Not a comment expected to advance the debate, I’ll admit, but I don’t care. I haven’t read the fine print yet and am just enjoying the moment.
Your not alone.
The NAO document doesn’t make for happy reading in a large number of projects:
See Figure 5, Part 2, page 29 of the PDF:
https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Improving-the-performance-of-major-equipment-contracts.pdf
There are thirteen (13) projects listed, two projects are ahead of schedule (Boxer -14mths, Type 26 -12mths), three projects are on time, and eight projects running late.
The total ‘months delay’ for those 13 projects is 254 months.
That is MORE than 21 years in delays, I’ll repeat that ‘MORE than 21 years’!!!
There is also mention in the document where the numbers of equipment was reduced to cut costs, one that stands out is the P-8A fleet was cut from an original 12 to 9.
Again, not happy reading.
Cheers,
Lots of those are historical, not new delays.
Mate, yes I understand that, but it’s still not a good look.
A list like that should be waved in front of those managing new projects as a ‘do not follow this example’.
Agree John.
Reminds me that the Nimrod MRA4 MPA order was cut from 21 to 9. Hmmm – we either need 21 or we need 9 – what’s happening?
Yes it was interesting to note the NAO document was very clear that the cut from 12 to 9 P-8A was purely on cost, and 9 being the ‘minimum necessary’, and yes it’s a long way short of 21 Nimrod.
Here in Australia the RAAF originally had 20 x P-3C Orion (one was lost), 18 were upgraded to AP-3C standard (one wasn’t), of the 18 upgraded, two had their ASW gear removed and became Electronic Warfare aircraft (similar to the USN EP-3E), that left an ‘active’ ASW fleet of 16.
When the time came to replace them the plan was originally for 8 x P-8A and 7 x MQ-4C Triton (later changed to 6 firm + 1 option).
When the Government eventually ordered P-8A it became 8 + 4 options, this then became 12 + 3 options.
Today 12 are in service, two more have recently been ordered, and one option still outstanding.
The end result is the RAAF will end up with 14 x P-8A and 6 x MQ-4C (plus the option of one extra of both types).
All in all the RAAF has done very well with its replacement capability.
Cheers,
CAAM-ER sucessfully test fired http://navyrecognition.com/index.php/naval-news/naval-news-archive/2021/june/10364-mbda-successfully-fired-the-camm-er-air-defense-missile.html
Hi James,
It will be interesting to see if the bigger CAMM-ER can fit into the RN’s GWS-35 / mushroom farm VLS… I have my doubts.
CAMM weight / dimensions
Weight – 99kg
Length – 3.2m
Diameter – 166mm
CAMM-ER
Weight – 160kg
Length – 4m
Diameter – 190mm
CAMM-ER with Cannister
Weight – <250kg
Length – 4.4m
Width – 275mm x 275mm
Not sure if this is a launch cannister, if it is then I am even more doubtfull that the GWS-35 VLS can accomodate the CAMM-ER especially given the square section of the cannister.
My suspision is that the T26 will not be able to carry the CAMM-ER. T45 could carry take CAMM-ER in place of Aster 15. The Italian Navy was reported on here has going in that direction, especially as MDBA report that the CAMM-ER can be quad-packed into the Sylver VLS.
All data from Wikipedia.
Cheers CR
I wonder if the RN will convert it Aster 15s into 30/30NTs go for some CAMM/ CAMM-ER on the T45s too? I thought I’ve read somewhere that the standard CAMM has got a range well over 25km and up to 60km? Which is pretty useful.
I would also consider that SeaCeptor can be used for CIWS, whereas Aster can’t really. MBDA state that the minimum engagement range for SeaCeptor is less than 1km, whereas they state for Aster it 1.7km. This is all to do with the cold launch method and that the reaction jets tip the missile towards the target. Aster is ballistically launched and even though it has a vectoring exhaust nozzle, must follow an arc. Therefore it will have a dead zone where it cannot engage close-in targets.
MBDA and the RN are quite rightly very cagey on minimum and maximum engagement ranges, as it can dictate how an opponent targets your ship. However, knowing SeaCeptor is literally pointed at the target before the main engine fires, must give a lot of confidence to the crew, that it can engage targets that get pretty close to the ship.
CR you may have a point. The GWS-35 was built on the development of the vertical launch version of Sea Wolf, which had a diameter of 180mm. But I bet the diameter of the vertical tubes/canisters are actually wider. Gunbuster would be the one to know.
From all the CAMM-ER videos, they used the square canister for launching, could this fit in the round VL tube of GWS-35? If not how much would it cost to rip out and replace with a farm of the square canisters?
It would be interesting to see what the maximum range of the CAMM-ER is. If the reports of SeaCeptor doing over 60km using a ballistic trajectory are true, what would CAMM-ER be capable of? Especially now that they’ve given SeaCeptor an anti-ship/land attack capability.
Camm can quad pack into sea wolf vls, the RN chose not to, so I assume VLS length is likely the key factor.
For T26 the Seaceptor VLS will be new and a sensible decision would be to go for a length that is somewhat future proof. Perhaps mk57 or mk41 tactical length.
As stated gunbuster will definitely know the answer to this, but for t26 it shouldn’t be an issue, unless the RN is ridiculously short sighted
It was clearly shown several times that T26 will be equipped with mushroom tubes. There is no info yet, if it changed.
The depth of the section could be as deep to hold CAMM-ER. Anyway the mushroom tubes is (to my understanding)
so, I understand it’s only the depth of the VLS section which matters when thinking of CAMM or CAMM-ER.
RNZN Te Kaha class replaced their Mk.41 VLS with mushroom. By doing so, they freed-up one deck to be used. But, we see the top of the tube penetrating the deck. So, “one 1-deck plus 50-60 cm” = CAMM tube. In T26, mushroom head is almost at the deck level. I “guess” this means in T26 2-decks are reserved for CAMM. If this is true, moving into CAMM-ER will be easy in future…
# By the way, many navies are going for mushroom, not ExLS nor Mk41 for CAMM. Interesting, there should be clear merits there. (might be just “cost”).
I believe the mushroom VLS has a tube around the CAMM launcher container to help contain any premature ignition.
Elf n’ safety is the reason given for mushrooms.
The article linked below (see half way down) would agree with your perception that it is only depth that differs, with CAMM-ER leveraging the same 2×3 module planned for T26 and T31.
https://www.edrmagazine.eu/albatros-ng-naval-air-defence-system-detailed
“The CAMM ER maritime launching system (MLS) is based on the compact design developments by MBDA UK for the Royal Navy’s Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.
The CAMM ER MLS solution is functionally identical to the single cells MLS for Type 23 frigates, characterized by a basic but cost effective solution, which sees the single missile launch canister with the same upper chimney assembly of the CAMM, maintaining the same bolting mechanism to the ship through a simple shock mount, without a dedicated launcher system and ancillaries with related weight, power and space requirements.
The solution selected for the new UK Type 26 and Type 31 frigates’ MLS is based on a multiple of new six-cell (2×3) modules characterized by a reduced footprint allowing for more missiles to be accommodated in the same space of the Type 23 solution.
The Albatros NG MLS is based on the same six-cell baseline solution, except for longer canisters due to the CAMM ER extended length.”
Here is image of the module.
thanks! That’s one of my source.
Thanks
Interesting point from the article:
‘The Albatros NG MLS is based on the same six-cell baseline solution, except for longer canisters due to the CAMM ER extended length. **”The modules are spaced to allow canisters inspection**.’
This would seem to suggest that the canisters are not enclosed below deck? i.e. not a tube at all, just a deck plate with the bellows, and most likely some sort of separate support arrangement at the base. In this case it would be trivial to extend the length, just by raising the deck plate, with an adaptor frame.
Perhaps the below deck assembly uses a similar approach to the vehicle based launcher, i.e. an open framework that holds the canister. That assumes the canister needs more support than just at the top and at the bottom but perhaps the canister is robust enough not to need that since it has to contain the missile ejection forces anyway.
Yep, I think the canister works on its own it just needs to be supported. Here’s a picture of CAMM next to a CAMM-ER canister – not much difference. It looks like the soft launch works like a bicycle pump!
The square peg in the round hole fit was done because it was quick and easy. Very little was needed to be done structurally to accommodate the new missiles. An adaptor over the existing round Seawolf launch tube holes and some work in the mag.
To fit new missiles in you would need a full magazine redesign. New steel decks on top. New steel support structure in the mags. Additional safety systems.
On a T 23 with an out of service date on the horizon its not worth the spend.
The CAMM-ER container has an identical cross section to regular CAMM. So if CAMM fits in a Sea Wolf tube width wise, then CAMM-ER will also fit.
Max ballistic 60km range of CAMM when fired is pretty meaningless. The missile will not have maneuvered and its end energy would be low. Stick with the effective range of 25 km in most conditions.
Cheers Ron, it’s good to know that the ER version can be a relatively easy upgrade.
I know the 60km max range is pretty meaningless for defence against a fast and maneuvering threat engagement. But if the target is a slow moving drone or helicopter and you had a 3rd party designating it, it may prove useful. If you were the opponent being engaged beyond the “published” effective range, it would be a very unwelcome surprise.
If the Navy are looking at using SeaCeptor as a pseudo land attack missile as well as anti-ship missile. It will give the ship more options for target engagement. However, the problem would be it depletes your magazine of air defence missiles. If T31 is only getting 12 missiles, it would leave it worrying short, especially as you can’t do a replenishment at sea.
I agree, 12 cells seems way too little. Seeing that the MoD is responsible for the purchase and fitting of the missiles, some folks think there is wiggle room for the number to be increased before they enter service. Just a matter of money.
On a T23 The square peg will fit in the round hole… A new adaptor plate would be needed for the slightly larger square peg.
It will also stick up above deck a lot more so there may be extra RATTAM protection required around the silo.
The support structure on the mag deck would need to be upgraded for the increase in weight
It’s a longer square peg, not a larger one.
The CAMM-ER container has an identical cross section to regular CAMM.
The CAMM-ER container has an identical cross section to regular CAMM.
The booster might be fatter but the distance across fins/strakes is the same i.e. the diagonal width of the square section.
Test was in December in Sardegna against a maneuverable cruise missile if this is to be believed.
http://www.rid.it/shownews/4252
Really good news suggesting confidence and a significant tightening of project planning planning and budgeting tolerances. Good work all round.
So good news, then comes the questions, with the first ship being delivered a year early to the fleet does that mean all Batch 1 build T26s are going to be a year early? What happens to the Batch II ships will they be ordered also a year earlier than planned? Is it possible that the increase in build rate is something to do with T83?
Hi Ron,
With both the T83 and T32 being planned I would see BAE Systems and Babcock looking to get themselves into position to win build contracts for these two projects.
Whatever the reason for the early delivery it is fantastic news for the RN and defence in general.
Cheers CR
Time will tell if its a case of all the T26’s getting made quicker or if this is just a ‘one off’. Its conceivable that BAE have been given the nod that more work will be forthcoming as soon as they get the 26’s out of the yard. Rosyth will be kept busy with the T31’s and probably the T32’s which limits the options for building whatever is coming next.
Whatever, as you say CR, its fantastic news.
This is good news indeed. I wonder if the purchase of the off the shelf interim anti-ship missile will be sorted in time to arm it.
Good news. If the RN needs more hulls in the short plus term, do you think they could stretch the life of the last few refurbed/newest Type 23’s to boost numbers?
I hope not, the only way we should be boosting numbers is by building ships.
A 30 year plan would see the RN/RFA launching 3 major vessels each year to maintain a 90 ship navy.
That could mean the following mix with a ship from each class being launched once ever 2 years (subs,low end and specialist vessels in odd years, other classes even years to help smooth the cost profile).
15 subs – £45bn
15 large support/amphib vessels £10bn
15 high end combat (T26/T46) £20bn
15 medium combat (T31/T32) £10bn
15 low end combat (New) £6bn
15 other/ specialist (Other) £6bn
Add in 120 sub 30m vessels each year and you have the beginnings of a National shipbuilding plan baselines around the Royal Navy. So the Royal Navy needs circa £4bn annually just to refresh its fleet with new equipment, add in an extra £1bn for munitions and you can see how fast the money racks up.
“Too often, the MoD doesn’t deliver its major equipment contracts as planned due to a combination of supplier underperformance, a failure of the MoD and suppliers to get to grips with the technical complexity of projects, ….”
You have noticed?
Good news. The RN needs new hulls in service asap, providing of course they actually come with weapons…..
So a move from a requirement for 10 ships moving to a 13 ship requirement was a contributing factor to cost overruns that then lead to a reduction to 8 ships. Blimey I thought the department of health ( and social care) hard to work with.
In my experience of supplying to MOD, is that projects are delayed because MOD change design specifications far too often or after build has started or they haven’t considered applicable safety requirements in their specifications/design.
Spot on. Too many incompetent cooks.
Perhaps this opens the door for the USN to get onboard with its five eyes partners and buy into this platform, once they get a good look at it operationally I think this may be an opportunity they just can’t pass up.
I can see a faint glimmer of hope that the US start building QEC carriers and T26’s in order to square their own budgets and get ship numbers up.
Unlikely, but certainly not outrageous.
Any foreign purchases have to be pre approved by Congress. They never approve anything see Brimstone.
Already approved, it’s the constellation class I believe, clearly I am not expecting the uk to build these, but think the USN getting onboard would dramatically improve through service costs and improved commonality must be a good thing.
just look at the QEC and what we are doing with the USMC at moment.
we have a highly skilled ASW platform and organisational knowledge that theUSN would be mad not to tap into, especially given china’s submarine programme. So I am seeing this more from a common set of platforms and interoperability than commercial gain for uk.
US already have the Italian FREMM variant modified to their liking.
There is no reason to get a ship that is even bigger for no reason.
BAE has US yards …
see Fincantieri & FFX 😉
I thought it strange that the USN chose Two Different Designs for its LCS Requirement – id be very surprised if the same principle was applied to the FFG(X) Programme,and although a precedent was set i think if they really wanted a Type 26 based solution they would have found ways around the tendering process to get it.
Congress would never allow it. The only non US weapons the US Congress approves are those entirely built by US yards and armed with US supplied weapons. The fact it’s UK design means it’s even less likely. Same with ‘US free trade deal’ never gonna happen.
Yup, agreed and a bit disappointing given our expertise in this area and the fact that we are really the joy country they can rely on.
couple of things have changed though, with Canada and Australia now onboard it would make sense to have a global fleet that can be maintained in both the pacific and the Atlantic with a high degree of common parts and if we can get Glasgow up and running that then meets another criteria.
as I said, I can but hope..
Hi everyone. The Navy is not getting all these goodies because they’re the political flavour of the month. It’s because they’re wasting less of their share of the budget. If others get their act together they’ll benefit the same. No names no pack drills.
Call me a cynic but I’ll believe it when it happens…
If Type 31’s production schedule can be similarly successful and get pushed up a bit we might avoid a frigate gap altogether.
Hi all know it’s not related to the article but I see that the “Lightweight” Trophy APS has been selected for Challenger3, does anyone have any info on the lightweight version and reasons for selection? Thanks in advance
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/uk-integrate-lightweight-active-protection-systems/
Already posted in Challenger topic but seem no one noticed.
Maybe weight/power limits
Thanks
I suspect 99% of the cause is the short term cost saving point. Until such a time when MOD expenditure gets disconnected from short term politicial gains, we will forever won’t get good value. The only way it works is when the orders are big enough that short termism doesn’t deliver a cost saving
I will believe the 12months ahead, when it actually happens and we have the ship in service.
I’d be surprised if it was about short-term political gain. I think it’s more likely to be about treasury cash flow control. You can’t spend more than the budget. Historically, you couldn’t spend less either as it would be clawed back.
But best value would be gained from spreading costs over the entire life-cycle, including construction, operation and maintenance. For that you need the ability to bring money forward, and hold it back too. It must be like a jigsaw puzzle trying to fit requirements to cash-flow budget control.
But you can understand why the Treasury do it. Every time HMG cuts the budget, the MoD play games, creating a black hole, hoping HMG will fill it from outside the budget. So the Treasury won’t trust the MoD to shift money between years as they’d just create a bigger black hole.
The Defence Committee wrings its hands, and the Audit Office produces reports, and we all go round again.
Great. Can we get ships 2 and 3 in service quicker and the type 31s and 32s. We do need a sense of urgency getting these vessels into service asap.
The RN is in a perilous state due to lack of warships.
Need to aim for 26 frigates/ destroyers as the golden number to cover service requirements and tasks.
Would love it if someone who knows what they are on about explains why a T26 has a big gun and a T31 a small one. Seems back to front to me (as a layman): Assuming the main thing it’ll be used for is shore bombardment, wouldn’t you want to risk the cheaper asset?
The real answer is cost. However there is some benefit to having the bofors 57 and 40mm guns. But again if cost wasn’t a key factor you would imagine the uk would standardise on CTA (there is a naval version)
It does make sense for the air defence asset that has TLAM capability to have the lighter guns and for the more general purpose asset without TLAM to have the main guns. So this decision is point in time and cost related
For constabulary tasks and to handle fast boat swarm or alike, 57 and 40mm rapid fire (240-300 rpm) guns are much more useful AND cheaper than 127mm slow (25 rpm) gun. And, T31 main tasks are such tasks. I think it is reasonable.
By the way, on NGFS asset, I think there are two trends in “on which asset it shall be carried”.
I think both is true.
Another aspect is
Which is true? I think both it true.
So it is just a matter of choice: RN will use T26 for every tasks other than AAW, while use T31 for lighter tasks. That’s it for me.
Uparming T31 needs additional money, and hence it is another story. Personally, if such money is there, I think T45 shall be added with 48 CAMM, T26 shall have better radar, and P-8 and P-7 number must be increased. These “shortcomings” are much more important than T31 added with 127mm gun, for sure.
Thanks Both.
There are clearly lots of variables, lots of trade-offs in these decisions – most of which forum warriors like myself won’t begin to understand. Having said that, I can’t help but think this is one of those decisions which just sort of happened rather than being the most optimal deliberate choice. If that is indeed the case, it probably has quite a bit to do with a relatively short-term procurement focus where the long-term master planning of equipment requirements to meet challenges becomes very difficult.
Build some more QE class aircraft carriers. With catapults. It will be cheaper than retrofitting the current ones and give much more redundancy and flexibility.
Shame that the frigate factory didn’t get done the ability to produce two ships at the same rate would have been a mass
ive deal for the shipbúilders on the Clyde