James Heappey MP, Armed Forces Minister, has called on Royal Navy ships to be armed in a more lethal way.

Armed Forces Minister James Heappey gave the keynote Sir Henry Leach memorial lecture at the IISS First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference today, the following is an excerpt.

“I also want to see the Royal Navy lead the way in lethality. I thought that Andrew’s predecessor Jerry Kyd, in his haul-down letter, wrote some really persuasive things about the importance of the lethality. And I think it is quite interesting when the US and the UK send ships into the Barents Sea it is the American DDGs that attract attention because of their lethality and their ability to project power from the maritime to the land domain. Our frigates clearly have an important role in protecting those destroyers so our presence was very necessary. But prickly, more lethal naval platforms that pose adversaries challenge at sea and from the sea to land, I think are conversations that we need be having ourselves and challenging ourselves to get right.

I also think that we need to rediscover and all these people with beards who spend their life beneath the ocean or deep in bunkers at Northwood are effusive about this, but we’ve got to listen to them, that the submarine domain is less well understood than space. And we have to invest in the advantage that you can find beneath the oceans because I continue to believe that it is a place from which you can do all manner of stuff in a way that your adversaries don’t get a say in what so ever.”

You can read his full speech here.

I recently reported that former First Sea Lord Tony Radakin stated that the Type 31 Frigates will be ‘fitted for but not with’ the MK41 VLS missile launcher should the warships be required to operate the new surface-to-surface missile system.

Royal Navy looking to ‘increase lethality’ of Type 31 Frigates

During a session of the Defence Committee today, the First Sea Lord said:

“Part of the debate that we’re having is that it’s going to be ‘fitted for’ MK41 launchers but not ‘with’ at the moment. That starts to become part of our lethality debate, particularly around a surface-to-surface weapon and do we extend that programme to include the Type 31.”

Who knows what else might happen in the pursuit of this aim?

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
193 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 days ago

Great.

When is the order for the other 11 (5 for T31 and 6 for T45) Mk41 VLS sets going to be placed? When I say set I don’t mean just one row!

I fear that Ceptor is going into the places earmarked for the Mk41 on the T45 so that probably cannot happen now.

Rob N
Rob N
3 days ago

The two are incompatible on T45 in their present form. The Sea Ceptor on T45 will have a VLS like that on the T23s. A Mk41 could be fitted instead with quad packed missiles. However it should be noted that T45 has the primary tole of air defence of the fleet so VLS taken up by land attack missiles does not help its primary role. T45 could still be fitted with canister mounted ASMs between the main VLS and the superstructure (were tge Harpoons were fitted). Swapping a T23 VLS for a MK41 would make good sense. As more Sea… Read more »

Martin
Martin
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

The sea Ceptor launchers are cold gas ejection and don’t need to pierce the deck. The T45 can carry both and the current earmarked location of sea Ceptor was not the earmarked location for mk41. The space for mk41 was as you say the section where the harpoons where based.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Yes, but there were, apparently issues, with launching that close to the bridge according to the Prof who authored the T45 Haynes manual….

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Hi Martin, maybe I have got this wrong but I thought the 2 x Mk41s space is between the forward gun and Aster silo and not between the later and the bridge? If this the case then yes CAMM 4×6 at the front seems a waste of upgrade potential? If there’s already a space for MK41s in the original T45 design, wherever it is, then surely it’s been placed in a workable and safe location? Even 1 x MK41 and 1 x ExLS x 24 CAMM or ExLS down the sides of the Asters as on the Spartan vessel concept… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Ceptor could be quad packed. But it has never been trialled or cleared. Unless someone else pays for that it is a very unlikely use of expensive and precious VLS space.

There are strong reasons to keep Ceptor cold launched.

The problem is that T45 doesn’t only sail with a fleet that can do all the things. It is often out as the major escort in a small task group.

The issue with Mk41 is more that any number of missile types could be in it and nobody is any the wiser looking at the ship.

Brandon
Brandon
2 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

The T45 is fitted for 16 MK41 VLS if I remember correctly. If they went that route instead of the sea cepter which will only give you 24 missiles, they could quad pack ESSM giving them 64 comparable missiles. They could also only fill 8 of the VLS with the ESSM, which will still give them 32 missiles as well as being able to carry 8 land attack missiles

Martin
Martin
3 days ago

If you look at this photo yiu will see where sea Ceptor is to go at the front. My understanding is the space for the mk41 is at the back under the bridge windows . This is where it is in T26 as well.

https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navys-type-45-destroyers-reaching-their-full-potential-with-addition-of-sea-ceptor-missiles/

Bob Young
Bob Young
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

Sorry Martin that not correct it’s in front of silo. Currently a Gym. So it’s Ceptor or mk41.

Bob Young
Bob Young
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

There is theoretical space aft behind LRR. I might be wrong.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 day ago
Reply to  Bob Young

That article is quite informative and clear, the SeaCepter will go in the space above the gym (as shown in the pic) ahead of the present silos but the fairing around them will be extended to incorporate the new set up towards the gun. If strike length mk 41 were installed it would take up the gym itself. It does say however there is a similar space to the gym left under the present Aster silos so in theory Strike length silos (mk41 or otherwise) could be incorporated there too if desired. I think this is where the confusion comes… Read more »

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
2 days ago
Reply to  Martin

If you read the article you youself stated, it clearly states Mk.41 Gym is located between the 4.5 inch gun and Sylver VLS. On the other hand, we also know that “24 SeaCeptor for T45” designwork has just started, and it can move elsewhere, especially taking into account CAMM’s cold launch capability and, what is more, its light weight. Actually, 24 CAMM is much lighter than 8 Harpoon. This means, if Mk.41 VLS be added between 4.5 inch gun and Sylver VLS (for missiles including FC/ASW or SM-6 Blk1B (mainly designed as anti-surface missile)), space between the VLS and the… Read more »

Bob Young
Bob Young
2 days ago

WRT infront of the bridge, would the space be limited to 1 deck and above? If it needed to go deeper it wouldn’t work.

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
2 days ago
Reply to  Bob Young

CAMM is only 3.5m long “short” missile. Even when CAMM is to be mounted on top of the 01-deck (main deck), it is still significantly lower than the bridge. No problem, I think.

PS In RNZN ANZAC frigates Te Kaha and Te Mana, original Mk.41 VLS (short one) was penetrating 2 decks (01 and 02 decks). They replaced it with 20 CAMM mushroom tubes. In doing so, they freed-up the 01-deck, as the mushroom tubes penetrates only the 02-deck.

In short, 1-deck high plus a bit of mushroom head a top, CAMM can be mounted.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 day ago

Yes you get the just from that pic inside the gym in the article above if anyone wants to check. The gym would be mk41 the space above in that pic for Camm (or similar).

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 days ago

I know some have suggested replacing the T45 gun with a 57mm to enhance its AA role. But would a feasible choice for offensive capability for T45 be the 5in gun and guided ammunition?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

That is a matter of cost and space.

The 57mm gun definitely fits into the footprint of the 4.5″ gun and is relatively cheap.

The 5″ gun has a slightly larger footprint and costs a fortune.

Soon a decision will have to be taken as to wether to keep 6 No orphaned 4.5″ guns running using the bit from T23 or to change them.

Steve
Steve
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Range is an issue with gun systems you end up putting the ship in range of land based weapons better with air defence and small boat gun think the 5″ on the T26 should be changed out for 57mm and change the 2 30mm cannons for the 40mm Bofors to bring it into line with the T45. If you want naval gun fire creat a barge foam filled with 3x 5″ gun systems and 2 30mm cannons for air defence and control it remotely so no gets hurt.

DJ
DJ
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve

There are options to get the 127mm out past 100km. The bigger gun gives options that are not practical with a 57mm like hyper velocity rounds, volcano etc. Also not all situations involve opposition armed with AShM or high end 155mm guided munitions. You can bang away all day at an reinforced bunker with a 57mm, or use a very expensive missile. More than one bunker? Most frigates & destroyers carry hundreds of main gun rounds, but only a handful of missiles. If you run out of AShM (provided you have any) or large dual purpose missiles, your main gun… Read more »

Jonno
Jonno
2 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Why not LRMS when you need land attack; then you are talking real range, shock and awe.I think the US Marine corps have tested it.

John Clark
John Clark
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Would it be possible to fit the 40mm Bofors systems to T45?

I would certainly replace the 4.5″ main gun with the 57mm mount, both systems would increase the fleets ‘goalkeeper’ capability considerably…

Daveyb
Daveyb
3 days ago
Reply to  John Clark

Probably, but it depends on what you want to replace, the DS30 mounts or the Phalanx? For purely air defence, I don’t rate the 40. Purely because it has a marginal effective range advantage (ok twice) over the Phalanx, it is not plug and play, plus requires a dedicated feed from another tracking radar. Which means either installing two additional tracking radars or using Sampson. Does Sampson have the additional capacity to dedicate to two 40mm systems? Perhaps more significantly, is that at the moment there are no guided rounds available for it. Therefore, you have to expend shed loads… Read more »

Tommo
Tommo
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Paul The .MK 8 is a good turret for NGS and also after op Corporate it became a defensive point against Anti ship missiles putting up a wall of HE when fused low

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Cheers for that info. Was unaware of the anti missile capability. So no real urgency for replacement.

Tommo
Tommo
2 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

👍👍👍

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
2 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Isn’t the AA-ammo of 4.5 inch gun already decommissioned? I might be wrong, but I remember I read it somewhere (sorry cannot find it now).

Tommo
Tommo
2 days ago

Knowing the MOD instead of 56lb HE fused High we ve now transitioned too using ” Harsh Words ” as a cheaper alternatives Donald

Daveyb
Daveyb
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Possibly, Leonardo and BAe are collaborating on a two piece version of the Leonardo Vulcano shell/round. It is a sabot that comes in two main flavours. One an unguided shell the other is guided. They have a range of between 60 to 100km and a number of sensor configurations from semi-active laser homing to an integrated IR sensor. They are can engage both static and slowly moving targets, such as a ship. The other two possibilities is the Raytheon MAD-FIRES shell and BAe’s hypervelocity projectile (HVP). MAD-FIRES has been designed for ships armed with BAe/Bofor’s Mk110 57mm weapon system to… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Informative survey of what’s going on; futures. Thx.
So, ( to keep the Minister happy) in terms of what we could deploy quickly we fall back to a discussion on the familiar AShMs; Harpoon II, NSM etc. My own pick would be Gabriel/Rafael.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Any particular reason why Gabriel over NSM for example?

Last edited 2 days ago by Daveyb
Paul.P
Paul.P
2 days ago
Reply to  Daveyb

I think Gabriel has given rise to Sea Serpent and Sea Breaker successors.
Basically the AI image processing used in target identification. The RN ROE have historically ruled out using AShM, especially in the littoral. The Israeli image processing was good enough for a drone to identify an Iranian target face. Impressive.
No dependence on radar; no dependence on IR so good resistance to counter measures.

Grant
Grant
2 days ago

There is still space where the harpoon should be for NSM, which would be more sensible for T31 and 45 (and in JSM form for our F35s) The Ukrainians have shown that AShM still are pretty lethal. I find it highly unlikely that us and the French will have built a new anti ship missile by 2028 and even then 6 years without anything is madness

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
2 days ago
Reply to  Grant

You do begin to wonder if there’s any actual work going on with the FC/ASW… Why is it taking so long? Can we risk the wait and what if it gets further delayed?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Yeah like every other missile system has, often for many years.

Grant
Grant
1 day ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The last I read is they are actually producing two weapons under the programme, something hypersonic and something stealthy…. So not just short timelines but split effort… even if we do have a high end FC/ASW weapon each round will no doubt be very pricey so something a little cheaper would makes sense as well anyway.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
3 days ago

‘Who knows what else might happen in the pursuit of this aim?’

WR, I would say – nothing. They have a tremendous cock-up to sort out in Ajax first.

Why are they only discussing it? We might be at the begining of WW3, clearly our ships do need lethality. We have limited dockyard capacity left, fit the Norwegian NSM and stop the RN from being a global laughing stock

Bob Young
Bob Young
3 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I don’t think it’s mentioned enough. The majority of our worse kit and almost failed projects are related to BAE. They have MOD over a barrel, that or there is corruption in a higher level than we understand.. Its so frustrating having such awful build quality and dockyard support from the top down and us in the RN have to swallow it.

Nicholas
Nicholas
3 days ago
Reply to  Bob Young

Saying corruption might be a bit unfair, although you never know, What is more likely is that the very rigid structures of the armed forces and the MoD mean that more often than not the views of those highest up are followed come what may. Emporer’s new clothes and all that. Despite modern projects frameworks include checks and balances and allow for whistle blowing most career civil servants or service personnel don’t want to step out of line to highlight problems. The previous 1st Sea Lord was very definate in declaring sensors and more important that sexy weapons. Was he… Read more »

Ian
Ian
3 days ago
Reply to  Nicholas

The bureaucratic process involved in supposedly ensuring that contracts are awarded fairly and there isn’t scope for corruption is very time-consuming and expensive itself- perhaps more so than the potential loss to corrupt practices would be.

Daveyb
Daveyb
3 days ago
Reply to  Nicholas

That’s definitely true. How many times has it been that a Chief of the Defence Staff etc, has published something condemning the state of the armed forces, after they have left the service?

It strikes as the worse case of hypocrisy. You were in a position to make a difference, but you towed the party line and were a yes man!

Frank62
Frank62
3 days ago
Reply to  Bob Young

Whatever else, lots of money goes into some defence firms for little actual useful product. I get the impression our massive inefficiency & serial cock-ups are definately in the interests of those who rake in massive profits which backers/puppeteers keep it this way as all they seek is their own selfish greed rather than any sense of good for the country. If the powers that be were in any way disturbed by it they’d have sorted it out decades ago, just like all the tax havens. Most of our cabinet are, or are appointed by, those who benefit greatly from… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 days ago
Reply to  Bob Young

I am fed up with this BAE bashing. Yes, BAE is hard to love, but most of the failed projects are due to MoD/Treasury cock-ups. HMG starts a project without really knowing what it wants, it constantly changes numbers, specifications & delivery dates. Then it is surprised when things go wrong & BAE becomes the whipping boy. Does the US hate Boeing? Does France hate Dassault? Why does Britain pick on one of its few remaining industrial champions?

Stu
Stu
3 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Good point. BAE do have their issues & have (on occasion) effed-up & taxpayers foot the bill, but the taxpayer only foots the bill because the contract said we would… who wrote the contract?

The career civil servants with HMG are ultimately responsible for delivering the capability needed & ensuring the taxpayer gets value for money. Much easier to deflect blame onto the big bad defence contractor though eh!?

Bob Young
Bob Young
2 days ago
Reply to  Stu

Your right the contract writing is Nieve. And probably not written by end users. BOTTOM LINE, BAE build warships, are the Ships they build reliable? Who is to blame?

Stu
Stu
2 hours ago
Reply to  Bob Young

“Are they reliable?” – good point. Again, a well written contract would ensure that such things are properly tested before being accepted OR some sort of warranty provided. In all my dealings with UK Gov. it’s the Gov that write the contract.

If we were to go and buy a Ford, 2 months later (when the weather warms up) we find the A/C doesn’t work, Ford will pay for this under warranty. I don’t see why the UK taxpayer can’t have the same asurances when spending billions.

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Fed up with the UK punishment mentality? The Lord loves a repentant sinner 😂

Malcolm Rich
Malcolm Rich
2 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

I worked for BAE and they spend a lot of time an effort making sure corruption is not part of their culture. In the UK we like to bash BAE for failures that are often not in their control and it happens elsewhere and often worse….. all I need to say is USA and Littoral combat ships, SNAFU 😂
Or you could look at the glorious tanks/APC/AFV built by the Russians, not so great now.

Bob Young
Bob Young
2 days ago
Reply to  Malcolm Rich

When type 45 (Duncan) was due for trials they had to lock away brass fittings because they were being stolen by build staff in Glasgow.. really wholesome and loyal workers, don’t forget the razor blades found on ladder chains.

Grant
Grant
1 day ago
Reply to  Bob Young

Building navy ships in Glasgow… might as well build them in Russia honestly.. SNPs home town

Bob Young
Bob Young
2 days ago
Reply to  Malcolm Rich

At a higher level in managment throughout BAE I expect its pretty sound and there are probably many workers who care and would be upset to see or hear issues related to their work. The damage to the shareholders through open corruption would be high and cause reputatuonal harm. Most of the staff are probably really good and solid workers. However there is a reputation, and its not in isolation. Hence A&P, CL other yards getting more of the work.

Bob Young
Bob Young
2 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

John, you probably know a lot about the subject, did we have as many major issues with VT, SWANHUNTER, Etc? You don’t need to look far to see BAE mugging off the RN almost daily. Do you honestly reckon they have been helpful with CL and the PIP programme in Liverpool? Or is the fact its failed and moved back to Portsmouth just coincidence in favor of BAE. We could also talk about the almost criminal negligence of build quality for Batch 2 OPVs.. The same bloke who didn’t torque the bolts properly on Forth is probably not doing it… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
2 days ago
Reply to  Bob Young

I think we need to understand there have been failings all round & rather than do the blame game, lets be adults, find the problems & sort them.

Bob Young
Bob Young
2 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Hard to argue with that. I
It’s also hard as a customer when it doesn’t seem to be getting better and the attitudes remain stagnent.

Grant
Grant
1 day ago
Reply to  John Hartley

BAEs ability to compete for US and other international orders shows that it is a capable commercial organisation. It does have its bad projects, many driven by poor procurement, some driven by the inherent complexity and some driven by the supplier doing a crap job. The Civil service invented the T31 programme to diversity supply (looks promising but let’s see) and chose anyone but BAEs for both Ajax and Warrior upgrade (both went badly, whilst BAE continues to sell armoured vehicles to other countries including the yanks….)

Jay R
Jay R
3 days ago

Naval lethality to me means long range anti ship missiles. Both shipborne and airborne, something the RN is lacking, in comparison with Russia and China.

Crabfat
Crabfat
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Also means long range ship-shore missiles, such as Tomahawk, so the shooter can stand away from the enemy coast – and e.g. Neptune-type missiles. Of course, the shooters could still be taken out by a sub…

Rob N
Rob N
3 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

I think Tomahawk ASMs have had their day. We should buy something fast and long range.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

If such a thing exists and we have the luxury of time.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

Tomahawk gets my vote at this time.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
3 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Sadly I think Tomahawk is transitioning from a weapon to use against a peer state to a weapon to use in asymmetric warfare. Its not really keeping up with the pace of technology.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
2 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Interesting to receive your perspective, Wkpr. Was based upon reports like this one:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/12/14/the-us-navy-has-an-upgraded-tomahawk-heres-5-things-you-should-know/
Seems a good interim choice for RN, before any much-vaunted SPEAR version arrives at least.
Rgs

Rob N
Rob N
3 days ago
Reply to  Jay R

The fact the UK has no heavy ASM says it all. As Harpoon is retired we have nothing….that is just negligence by Government/MoD they have left the RN with no teeth.

Stu
Stu
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Well, we had a plan for an interim ASM while we wait for FC/ASW (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-stops-interim-anti-ship-missile-project/) but it was scapped late last year to save a paltry £250M… because a ‘capability gap’ will be fine… ‘our ships don’t need them because Subs and P8’.
I agree – negligence.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

How do you target these really long range anti ship missiles? You can’t see the ship visually. Send up a chopper to find it? Use it to fire the weapons. You can’t just shoot missiles off and tell it go 500 miles that way. Find an enemy ship and hit it. What if it hit a British/allied ship by mistake. If the U.K. has the tech to spot ships and target them then fine. But I don’t think it has. On the mark 8 gun it’s here for the duration of type 23/45 service. The RN has picked there area… Read more »

Stu
Stu
2 hours ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

I can imagine a scenario for two warships to come across one another, pick each other up on radar & can identify one another at distance. Radars can do this with jets already. Do you want to have to close to gun range to engage or run away? How much quicker to launch an ASM v launch a helicopter? Quite often in combat, first to shoot wins. Equally, the Chinese plan is to use sattelite images to find & target USN CSG’s to shoot DF21’s at. With five eyes, networked combat systems, satellites becoming cheaper & easier to deploy etc.… Read more »

Goldilocks
Goldilocks
3 days ago

If they don’t mess up on FC/ASW and get it made into different variants (Such as VLS launched, Container launched, air launched or even submarine launched!) then a more deadly British fleet might be possible. If there feeling cheeky they might even make a ground launched variant 😉

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

Can we get a concrete update on the FC/ASW…to put us all out of our misery…or, maybe we’ll be joyously surprised!? It’s coming early!?😱

Stu
Stu
3 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

😄😂

Stu
Stu
3 days ago
Reply to  Goldilocks

Sounds great! We can have our ships kill other peoples ships in… some indeterminate time likely 10+ years from now.

David Steeper
David Steeper
3 days ago

It’s very strange to hear this from a defence minister. Like everything this is down to money. We could fit lots more stuff that goes bang to our warships but only be reducing the number of warships. On SSN’s it’s build capacity and build tempo. Again cash. This is public criticism of the Navy leadership.If it is.The ‘silent service’ needs to become vocal about Ministers public criticism of a Service that even the most one eyed would hesitate to describe as the weakest link in our defence.

Last edited 3 days ago by David Steeper
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Maybe he’s reading UKDJ! Even Tobias Ellwood has said similar things It’s just some bloody good old common sense. Seemingly too much faffing around going on… waiting forever for the FC/ASW…where really is it at now? If things get hot we’ll more than likely need way more hitting power than what we’ve currently got. The carriers also need more defensive armament. Not to mention all bases should have some shorad at short notice! And keep the sub numbers up!

David Steeper
David Steeper
3 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Maybe !

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Words are free. Weapons cost money. Until this is funded it’s just words. they can shout about having lasers shooting out the arses off the biggest sailors on deck or building a Death Star next to the moon.
The only good thing is if U.K. defence spending is at a 2% gdp it can’t go down anymore. Can it?

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
3 days ago

predecessor Jerry Kyd, in his haul-down letter, wrote some really persuasive things about the importance of the lethality……
The phrase “no sh#t Sherlock” comes to mind.
AA

PragmaticScot
PragmaticScot
3 days ago

I live for the day when “fitted for but not with” is a sackable offence at the MoD.

Graham Lee
Graham Lee
3 days ago
Reply to  PragmaticScot

My wife wants to renovate the kitchen, wonder if she would buy into ‘fitted for but not with’ a fridge, stove, microwave etc. A short term capability gap until the late 2020’s, then we could possibly afford some new ‘wonder’ cooking appliances. Capability gaps and fitted for but not with are deplorable nonsense.

PragmaticScot
PragmaticScot
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Lee

You’d be brave to try it that’s got sure!

Yeah I can’t understand why we design there’s ships at great expense then don’t bother with half the stuff designed to go in it.

ExcalibursTemplar
ExcalibursTemplar
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Lee

LMAO i think the divorce papers would start getting filed mate.

👍

Matt
Matt
3 days ago
Reply to  Graham Lee

My house has been FFBNW an ASHP for about a decade now; ditto the charger for an electric car in 2015; and soon a lift.

And empty cable conduits with drawstrings to stop the Virgin gorilla drilling holes right through everything.

You just need to get your predictions right !

Last edited 3 days ago by Matt
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  PragmaticScot

Totally! It’s high order incompetence and carelessness.

KM
KM
3 days ago

Seems odd for a defence minister, who presumably has a say in budget and procurement, to say the Navy needs more lethality. You’d have thought he’d be one of the people who could make that happen.

Gr
Gr
3 days ago
Reply to  KM

I suspect the power to provide the resources necessary is above the pay grade of a lowly junior minister. Boris and Rishi are the only people with the real power to change this.

Jon
Jon
3 days ago
Reply to  KM

Heappey was asking good questions about shipbuilding as a back bencher and I really hoped he’d get to keep the procurement brief he only held for about a month. Unfortunately that went to Quin in a reshuffle. Heappey got people (Minister for the Armed Forces).

Paul T
Paul T
3 days ago
Reply to  KM

I wouldn’t put too much faith in him – he doesn’t know the difference between a Typhoon and a Tornado.

BobA
BobA
3 days ago
Reply to  Paul T

He has of course, actually gone toe to toe with the Queen’s enemies on the battlefield. Like all people, he makes mistakes. As far as politicians go he is a good one. Even if the ‘chubby subbie’ has carried on his love of Maryland Cookies!

Daveyb
Daveyb
3 days ago
Reply to  KM

I think he has made the statement to try to justify an increased budget from the Treasury.

David
David
3 days ago

That could mean many things. Cooperative engagement capability across the fleet to cue weapons. Weapons that can be cued by crowsnest / wedgetail , protector remotely. Future hypersonics dropped from the ramp of an A400M with 1000km range means that the ships themselves don’t necessarily need to be the shooter. A type 31 launching small stealthy Elint drones could geo-locate SAM sires, HQs etc , oher platform could do the shooting. Bay class LSD were cheap and cheerful, or an RFA Argus type conversion with a bank of Mk41 is just as capable of lobbing tomahawk class weapons as an… Read more »

Barry Larking
Barry Larking
3 days ago

The War in Ukraine is changing everything. We do indeed ‘live in interesting times’.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 days ago

Til stuff is ordered it’s the same old waffle.

Proof is in the pudding.

And yes, for me the silent service should be no 1 where’s the RN is concerned.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago

With you Daniele, love to see 1-2 more Astutes happen. Even down here in 🇦🇺 for the RAN to get another 2 diesel subs in the interim for a fleetof 8. So more availability, more patrols, working with drones, it could all be very crucial one day.

Michael S.
Michael S.
3 days ago

In Germany we have a similiar discussion. Our most modern frigates F125 were designed for peacekeeping missions like fighting piracy, not for symmetric warfare in the Atlantic and Baltic Sea. And the older, very capable Sachsen-class frigates have a great anti air radar, but are lacking missiles…

Daniel
Daniel
3 days ago
Reply to  Michael S.

The difference being that the German government seems to have finally accepted that there is a problem, whereas successive British governments have hidden behind the fact that we have been spending more money than countries like Germany in order to pretend that UK defence is sufficiently funded.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 days ago
Reply to  Daniel

My main hope for Germany is that it gets its strength back. I’m far from an expert(or even novice) on Germany but It seems to have good equipment and it’s budget increase will hope get spent filling a few gaps and getting serviceability numbers up. Spares etc what ever is needed to be able to use its full forces if needed. Germany really is the centre of Europe and borders countries that may need back up. Being able to move its forces and sustain while there is where the German forces should excel. Hold the lines until other nato forces… Read more »

Andrew Munro
Andrew Munro
3 days ago

Does it mean get ting the pop guns of the rivers and installing 75s minimum??.

Sean
Sean
3 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

Won’t happen, the RN isn’t going to add another calibre to inventory system. Maybe the 56mm or 40mm that are featuring on the T31 and provide close-in air-defence.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Munro

I don’t see what only a bigger gun does on a river class. Maybe the 40/57mm that is going on the type 31 in a refit. 30mm is great gun, high fire rate, great for taking out small boats etc. The river class are great at patrol etc. Most important of all is what there ecm fit is. They have freed up roles that frigates/destroyers used to have to do. Is the ecm fit the same as a frigate? Say you wanted 12/24 sea ceptor on board(space permitting). What radar do you need, is there space for computer systems. How… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
3 days ago

For an active minister to state this seems significant i.e. in contrast to some retired Admiral or some such.

A British Tom
A British Tom
3 days ago

Looking at recent events we need to start planning for worse case scenarios ie our ship’s will be in the middle of ww3 and plan accordingly, my personal wishlist bmd missiles land attack and anti ship missiles for the type 45s and Camm ER and anti ship missiles for type 26 and 31s buy off the shelf short term, while developing more bespoke solutions in the longer term.

Something Different
Something Different
3 days ago

Depends on what we mean by lethality. On paper the Slava class in many aspects outmatches UK surface combatants. However, as the loss of the Moskva shows, the crew, systems and weaponry need to be properly integrated and functioning to be effective. The vessel also needs to be understood in terms of the wider fleet composition. Do other platforms offer capabilities in sufficient mass to mitigate any deficiencies in the platform in question? That said, surely extra lethality, if it does not detract too much from overall numbers (due to budgetary considerations) is a net positive?

geoff
geoff
3 days ago

The loss of the Moskva could signal the end of an era in Naval warfare and I am surprised it has not generated more discussion particularly around the seeming ease with which it was dispatched!. There has been much talk of late around the vulnerability of large surface vessels, even those possessed of all the latest in Naval technology and weaponry. Might this not signal a change in the mix-perhaps super size submarines and a bigger number of smaller more agile surface ships with low radar visibility?

Last edited 3 days ago by geoff
David Steeper
David Steeper
2 days ago
Reply to  geoff

Moskva’s weapons and radars were essentially all 1970’s technology. Imagine if the RN was still deploying unmodernised Type 42’s. Add in an essentially untrained crew and you have a recipe for disaster.

Something Different
Something Different
2 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

I tend to agree with you (based on the open source knowledge that is available). During the first Gulf War a Type 42 with a sufficiently trained and motivated crew successfully engaged a anti ship missile. A Type 45 would presumably be a considerably more capable air defence asset.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 days ago
Reply to  geoff

What the sinking has shown is that having your systems in top working order is a priority. Also how rubbish older systems are.
The same could of been said after losses in falklands. Most important was learning, adapting tactics and equipment. It’s showed having numbers with old weapons is not very valuable and having modern systems is essential

nonsense
nonsense
3 days ago

have to decide what concept RN’s ships will work with. Will it be limited to 200-400 kilometers of skirmishes or will it be aimed at fighting beyond the super-horizon? Missiles such as Tomahawks are excellent, but they are large in size.  =There is a limit to the amount of arms. Ships like Type 31 are different from Type 45 – limited radar performance. When forming a fleet, should focus on Type 45 air defense capabilities, but in normal times, the activities in local conflict areas before the skirmishes, Type 23, 31, and 32 ships should focus on the platform as a… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 days ago
Reply to  nonsense

Perhaps, but it will depend on the role and the context that the ship has been expected to do. Take the T31 for instance. Initially it role was for anti-piracy patrols and escorting ships through the Red Sea and Gulf. It was purposely given a light self-defence armament. As its expected attackers would be fast inshore attack craft, perhaps a few aircraft or drones and perhaps anti-ship missiles fired from a coastal battery. To that end Sea Ceptor, 57mm and 40mm guns are its armament. Along with a Wildcat capable of firing Martlet and Sea Venom. The Navy also chose… Read more »

nonsense
nonsense
1 day ago
Reply to  Daveyb

https://www.defensedaily.com/navy-bae-test-vulcano-precision-guided-navy-munition/navy-usmc/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate in case of type 26, I think VULCANO would be suitable in a limited battlefield. -bae systems It is budget-friendly and relatively easy to upgrade.  It is easier to expand and budget than cruise missiles such as NSM, and easier to maintain and operate.  The easier option is not to interfere with the capacity of the CAMM. in case of type 31  I think it would be better to think of a different possibility because there is volume for expandable space  Instead of wildcats, vertical take-off and landing drones can be loaded, and in this case, multiple drones can… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
20 seconds ago
Reply to  nonsense

The ship will keep a manned helicopter. As it will be used for air assault, along with communications. The T31 has hangar space for a single Merlin or two Wildcats. So the ship could carry a largish UAV as well as Wildcat. There is a better shell in development than the Vulcano. This is the NAMO ramjet shell. It has a range fired from a 155mm of over 150km. It can be scaled down for the 5″ (127mm) naval gun. It will still have a range over 100km. The other benefit at closer targets is that it has a much… Read more »

Richard B
Richard B
3 days ago

Maybe ministers are finally realising that building warships that are able to carry sophisticated weapons – but don’t actually have them due to an insufficient budget – is almost pointless. The RN’s lack of modern Surface to Surface Missiles is an obvious standout.

Last edited 3 days ago by Richard B
Rob
Rob
3 days ago

Lethality? I thought the main purpose of the Royal Navy was to support woke, liberal ideology? Every picture published of a ship’s crew lately, usually shows a minority or female front and center (in the case of brown people, using their image to promote an ideology is racist behaviour, by the way). I don’t think “lethality” is what they have in mind. The US Military is following same path.

farouk
farouk
3 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Rob,
When I did my Equal ops instructors course at Shrivenham , we had a load of Naval officers on the course, including a couple from the silent service. During a discussion about relgion, one of them revealed that they had set aside a room inside the sub to be used as a prayer room, he then laughed and stated that their sole Muslim had no issues eating Bacon sarnies and never used the room.

Last edited 3 days ago by farouk
Jon
Jon
3 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Could ships be fitted for but not with a prayer room, which could have some missile silos installed until the money can be found for the stained glass windows?

Grizzler
Grizzler
2 days ago
Reply to  Jon

or with but not for….

Something Different
Something Different
2 days ago
Reply to  Jon

And how much has the military spent on chapels and chaplains I’ve the centuries?

grizzler
grizzler
2 days ago

deflection at its best

Something Different
Something Different
2 days ago
Reply to  Rob

Utter rubbish. Being woke is about reasonably accommodating differences and being tolerant and I cannot think of a sensible reason why you wouldn’t do that for the sake of moral and attracting recruits. I bet you can in no way evidence how that detracts from the lethality of the armed forces compared to the degree of mismanagement and underfunding by successive governments (lead by white people so you better blame them using your own logic). Do you know who also accommodated religious difference? The British empire during two world wars hence why Sikhs could wear turbans and facial hair. If… Read more »

farouk
farouk
3 days ago

Talking of lethal, the Japanese commissioned the first of 22 New Mogami-Class Multirole Frigates the other day. I was most impressed with how stealthy she looks:

4t42uh5rgts71.jpg
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  farouk

22!!!…that’s bigger than the whole RN fleet!

RobW
RobW
3 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

If we had China on our doorstep I daresay we would have a bigger fleet too.

Stu
Stu
3 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Go check out the size of the Japanese forces. Then check their budget. Check our force size & budget. Deduct £2B per year from ours (way overestimated) for our CASD from our budget. Granted we can deploy globally, logistics, etc. etc. but for me, it raises some serious questions. They have a lot more GOOD kit – F15 is no slouch, V22’s, Apache, Mk10 MBT…

RobW
RobW
2 days ago
Reply to  Stu

SSBN SSN Heavy lift aircraft ISTAR Protector 2 x QEC Some of the kit we have they don’t. But yes I generally get the point we seem to have less of everything compared to others with similar budgets. Our subs take up a big slice of the budget, way more than the £2bn you mention for the SSBNs. If it was a choice of giving up those and adding more visible assets I’d stay with the subs every time. They are the real game changers and keep us in the top tier. I’d also add that we spend more on… Read more »

Last edited 2 days ago by RobW
Stu
Stu
2 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Fair one BUT, things they have that we don’t: 70 x P3 Orions + 60 x P1 (half yet to be delivered). 22 x SSK 4 x LHA / 2 x LHA + 2 x Light Carriers 36 x DDG The £2B I mention for SSBN was the lifetime cost of Dreadnought Programme spread over 25 years + a bit for inflation/overruns. According to an FOI I found from 2015, Astute costs £9.885M per year to run. Sounds low so I suspect this doesn’t include all the onshore facilities, crew training etc. needed though. Obviously purchase price is a LOT… Read more »

RobW
RobW
2 days ago
Reply to  Stu

Their military certainly looks good on paper. There isn’t much we’d win on in a game of top trumps. What we don’t know is the availability of their kit and how much they exercise. Well I don’t know anyway 😀

I wonder if pensions are allocated to their budget? Might explain some of it.

Stu
Stu
2 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Good point, I don’t know how well looked after their kit is either. Can’t imagine they’re as bad as Russia though 😆.

Exercise wise, for the Army my understanding is their training programme (inc. frequency of exercise) & tactics are a copy of the US Army but obviously they’ll lack any real world experience (not having fought for 77 years) so how good it really is, I have no clue either.

On budget – that’s another good point you make. We have been known to inflate our numbers with some “creative” accounting sometimes. 🙄

grizzler
grizzler
2 days ago
Reply to  RobW

ah yes …Osbournes sleight of hand

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 day ago
Reply to  RobW

Not to mention Russia down the road knocking around with China. Mind you just looking at that I suspect would sink a Russian ‘competitor’.

Tams
Tams
21 hours ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

1. Having China as your neighbour does this (and they have great grievances – to a degree valid).
2. Many of the current Japanese frigates are in a bit of a sorry state. Not from a lack of care, just age. And yes, I’ve been on one.
3. Japan still has a massive domestic industrial base to build these.
4. Only one so far.

James
James
3 days ago
Reply to  farouk

That is a very decent looking ship!

Paul T
Paul T
3 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Yes, they strike a good balance between capability and numbers, another bonus is they use RR MT30 GT’s too.

Stu
Stu
3 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Beautiful. Japanese take on a T31. Only slightly more expensive but well equipped – proper gun, ASM’s, 16 x Mk-41…

Last edited 3 days ago by Stu
donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
2 days ago
Reply to  Stu

A minor comment.

The first 4 FFM does not carry VLS, relying mainly in SeaRAM for AAW. A cost cut feature. From hull-5 onwards, they will carry VLS (although its anti-air missile is yet to be decided).

Not a big issue. It is typical “spiral development”, and, with 22 hulls to come, there are plenty of tasks to be covered by 4 of them, which does NOT need ESSM or VL-ASM4 or alike.

FFM is “M”, multi-purpose, which included MCM.

Stu
Stu
2 hours ago

Interesting. Did not know that. Cheers bud. Do they still get a towed sonar etc?

Makes me wonder if there’s a Japanese Defence Journal website where people are fiercly debating the virtues of these ships & calling them “oversized OPV’s” 😄

Last edited 2 hours ago by Stu
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago

Music to my and our ears!!! T45s exist now and need this extra capability now. The slots for the MK41s are already there. Put some CAMM side silos, try for 2*3*6=36. Even NSM between the Asters and the bridge and add a UAV and upgrade the sonar. There’s a real opportunity here to go Aster/CAMM/ TLAM/SM3/6 ABM/Asroc! That would be fabulous upgrade for the RN on these ships once PIP is all done. Less talk, less FFBNW, more capabilities!
Sorry for my rant! Back to my ☕

eclipse
eclipse
3 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

T45 is an enormous ship; there is definitely space on it for more than 64 VLS cells. We need the 48 A50s to be used for 32 Aster 30 and 16 Aster Block 2. 16 MK. 41 where they’re meant to go for the TLAMs and in the future FC/ASW. LRASM to be canister-fitted; NSM is a halfway solution that shouldn’t be pursued if the MoD and Treasury are finally serious. Fit another 8 MK. 57 cells to carry the 32 CAMM; this will take up less space. That would be a properly armed Type 45 being used to its… Read more »

geoff
geoff
3 days ago

My main concern is with the word ‘lethality’. Not quite in the same category as Trump’s ‘bigly’ but concerning nonetheless. Lethalness? No that is almost as bad! ‘More lethal’ is my offer or how about ‘deadlier?’

Last edited 3 days ago by geoff
geoff
geoff
3 days ago
Reply to  geoff

…although ‘more lethal’ is not a noun so let me ponder morely on this..😎

Stu
Stu
3 days ago
Reply to  geoff

The use of language is very deliberate. ‘Deadlier’ derived from dead which is common parlance for humans having been killed. In the PC world, we have to fluff up the language & make it passive so we don’t offend anyone. How often do you use “lethal”? Most relate the word ‘lethal’ to overhead power cables or bleach that only ever hurts people by accident.

Why do you think it was renamed to the “Ministry of Defence” instead of what it is/was – “The Ministry for War”

John Hartley
John Hartley
2 days ago
Reply to  geoff

greater naughty step capability.

geoff
geoff
2 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

😂 More biglier spankage activation

TS
TS
3 days ago

T26 needs a mixed load out of a new asroc type missile, fcasw, and tomahawk. T45 needs anti ballistic missile, and a secondary ability of asm and land, so fcasw. T31 should focus more on littoral, so get t26 5″ guns with the 57mm going the other way. 24 ceptor and 16 mk41 with 8 fcasw and the rest quad packed with spear 3. River b2s need a 40mm and a small number of containerised ceptor, say 6. All LSD and LPD should also have ceptor and shore bombardment capability. Use the older 4.5″ coming off the T23s and some… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  TS

It’s all so obvious to us here… why can’t the bigwigs just see it and do it! Wasting time, money, just select the best value interim available and get on with it. The RAN down here is up arming it’s destroyers, frigates with Sam 3/6, TLAMs, NSM and upgrading its subs as a matter of urgency, the RN can do some of the same. Why not even muscle up the Sea Brimstone to something even more longer range and lethal and maybe call it “Bloodstone” or something like it…. Lol 😁

Martin
Martin
3 days ago

So they are only considering fitting the T31 for and not with mk41. At what point does the threat level actually warrant these being fitted? Perhaps when a European power starts going on an invasion rampage or when another countries fleet exceeds the US Navy.

Armchair Admiral
Armchair Admiral
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

As I understand it, T31 is already sort of ffbnw as there is space available in the design and this space is not due to be crammed with fireworks at build.
Absolutely these ships need to be built as contracted (hopefully with more sea Ceptor than we think) or the price will rise due to constant meddling by HMG and the build time will slow.
AA

RobW
RobW
3 days ago

Absolutely this. Get them built as designed and contracted, then upgrade later. The T31 is big, there is plenty of space. I’m sure it will happen, but will likely be the end of the decade. Not much point in rushing when we have ditched the interim anti-ship missile and FC/ASW doesn’t arrive for 6-8 years.

expat
expat
3 days ago
Reply to  RobW

The idea was to flog the old T31s and replace with new builds before an expensive refit is needed. There some logic in keep on banging out hulls as longer runs tend to get cheaper(relatively) as you apply production improvements.

RobW
RobW
3 days ago
Reply to  expat

Has that idea been followed through into policy? There is logic there but it also means that the T31s are unlikely to get upgraded with mk41 unless it happens very early on in their RN lives. Not much point spending millions adding upgrades just to flog the ship a few years later.

David Steeper
David Steeper
2 days ago
Reply to  expat

Yep that’s why Type 32 needs to be an improved Type 31.

John Hartley
John Hartley
2 days ago

Just bolt on the 2×4 canister launchers that they were designed for. There is a lot of choice for that. I think the Teseo Mk2/E is interesting. 350 km range, stealthy, land attack & anti ship.

Martin
Martin
3 days ago

We desperately need mk41 on the T45 and the purchase of a decent number of block V tomahawk for them. This solves a lot of our interim problems and leaves us a missile that is also very useful for years to come for land attack. It’s probably a waste of money to trying investing in an interim anti ship capability.

RobW
RobW
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

There has been talk of adding mk41, I believe Radakin even mentioned it as a possibility. PIP is ongoing and they are planning to bring them in again to add the Sea Ceptor silos. If mk41 were to happen it needs to be done at the same time. Even then I wonder if it is a good use of money given their OSDs and the timeframe for FC/ASW. We’d certainly need an uplift in budget to make it happen with a purchase of Tomahawk.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  Martin

It’s an absolute no brainer! Imagine, Astutes and T45s, both with Tomahawks? Range, accuracy, hitting power, land attack and anti-ship capability! Up to 16 in 2 Mk41s, what’s not to like? And I believe quite cheap USD1-1.5milliom each? in comparison to newer missiles? If no sub available then there’s the ship and v/v. A force multiplier and stocks can be spread across other vessels.

Bill
Bill
3 days ago

We’ve lived with the “fitted for, but not with” nonsense for years. We should post the Latin equivalent as the motto of the RN!

Jon
Jon
3 days ago
Reply to  Bill

No one else having a go? <dusts off schoolboy Latin>

Disposito sed sine.

Grizzler
Grizzler
2 days ago
Reply to  Jon

isnt ‘sine’ nothing …I think it was in our old school motto …this is starting to remind me of that Monty Phyton sketch 😄

Jon
Jon
2 days ago
Reply to  Grizzler

Sine is without. Nothing is normally translated as nihil (as in annihilation). Can be used together in the school motto nihil boni sine labore. Nothing good comes without work.

grizzler
grizzler
2 days ago
Reply to  Jon

yep that seems to fit in with my old school motto …People called Romans they go the house.

Caribbean
Caribbean
3 days ago
Reply to  Bill

Maybe <abandoning schoolboy Latin and dusting off Google translate>

disposito sed non aptavit

Paul
Paul
3 days ago

The navy needs critical mass of floating and airborne assets. One day of warfare will see everything wiped out.

Steve
Steve
3 days ago

They should at least put deck launchers in them and use 4 for NSM as these can be used with the F35s as well to get reach and should get the 4 of T17 Japanese ashm that can do land attack as well these are currently being upgraded to 1500 km range these would give us a good mix, Perseus can live on the T26 and new T45. A mix would allow us access to weapons if supply chain is compromised.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
3 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Not sure about the B? JSM is a very useful system which can be launched from land-sea or air platforms.

“The JSM, JSOW-ER and AARGM-ER are set to become the internal bay compliant Stand-Off weapon options on Blk 4 F-35A and C variants.”

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/03/jsm-anti-ship-and-land-attack-missile-successfully-tested-from-f-35a/

Still lots to do and worth reading in full, including the links to gain a fuller understanding of where we are currently with the F-35 programme.

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2022/03/f-35-program-stagnated-in-2021-but-dod-testing-office-hiding-full-extent-of-problem/

Last edited 3 days ago by Nigel Collins
Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
3 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

This article must be your idea of a wet dream Nigel 😄 back in the real world. Nations can’t wait to get this capability in service. And as the years pass, and the more F35s are entering service across the globe, order books are filling up, Air Force’s and Navy’s are unlocking its game changing capability, your anti F35 posts are looking more and more juvenile.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
3 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

It appears things are progressing slowly in the US too as they wait to see what will replace their 600 F-16s, it was supposed to be the F-35. F-16s to Serve Nearly Two More Decades, Replacement Choice Still 6-8 Years Away “Rather than a high-low mix, Nahom said USAF’s future fighter force structure would be better described as a bell curve with the bulk being low/medium capability F-16s and medium/high capability F-35s. At the very low end would be a small number of aircraft only able to operate in permissive environments while the upper end would be aircraft like the… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 days ago

Well its preaching to the converted. Putting VLS with land attack Tomahawk is the top end, but how about fitting simpler armed drones to OPVs? Also, while extra weapons are great, the sinking of the Moskva shows the need to keep electronic warfare defences up to date.

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
3 days ago

Minister calls for more lethality but fails to explain how the RN are to pay for it…

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

Maybe there needs to be greater efforts to sell more UK equipment abroad to bring in additional revenues?

SteveP
SteveP
3 days ago

I’d go with cannister launched NSM on 3 T45 and 3 T31. These would be the ships yo be deployed on independent operations (T45) and to the Gulf. I’d fit the Mk 41 to the remaining 2 T31 and they would become our cruise missile platforms releasing an SSN for more value operations.
An interim buy of the latest version of Tomahawk would fill the Mk 41’s on the T26 and T31 until the FCASW comes into service

Mr Mark Franks
Mr Mark Franks
3 days ago

We are really going to have to wait for the Chancellor’s Autumn statement, Meanwhile inflation is rising, the servicing of the national debt will rise and tax receipts will fall. The Bank of England have warned us. Governments first priority is the defence of the nation. The 24 billion in addition funding is rapidly being eaten up. The bean counters still insist on slow builds as a short term accounting trick to keep the spending off the books but in the longer term the spending commitments mount up and becomes someone else’s problem and the MOD ends up with a… Read more »

Simon
Simon
3 days ago
Reply to  Mr Mark Franks

Tax receipts are going up, not down at the moment

Mark franks
Mark franks
3 days ago
Reply to  Simon

Hi Simon, if as the Bank Of England are saying we enter another recession unemployment will rise and tax receipts will fall. With the surge in energy prices and the profits from Royal Dutch Shell and BP then yes you are correct the Treasury will see an increase in tax receipts. Overall its pretty gloomy and the inevitable spending round in Autumn one wonders who is going to have to make the biggest savings. The MOD are notorious in wasting money I’ve seen it with my own eyes. You could argue the same with the NHS and Home Office but… Read more »

grizzler
grizzler
2 days ago
Reply to  Mark franks

OK…as someone who has no idea about finance..what are tax receipts &v how do they affetct ‘shit’ ( cant believe Im asking this on a defence site :))

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
2 days ago
Reply to  grizzler

Tax receipts are how much money the government take in from taxes. Tax income. So income tax, VAT, business taxes etc etc. (Too many taxes to list) The government try to guess what they will get from taxes In the next year and spend it. The government have always spent more than they have coming in so this leads to borrowing more money. Just as a loan from anyone you pay back a bit more on top of the amount you borrowed. As the U.K(and most other countries) spend a bit more than they get in from taxes this adds… Read more »

Simon
Simon
1 day ago
Reply to  Mark franks

very true, the MOD and the Army have wasted shed loads of cash which I suspect make a defence increase a hard sell

expat
expat
3 days ago

A lot of talk about up gunning surface ships but our next evolution of attack sub needs more ASM,AAM, LAMs and Hypersonics. Also I would not be in favour of changing the T31 design now build has started, we know where than ends. Better increase the rate finish the current batch and buy more at a higher spec. We’ll always need some low end hulls anyway.

John Hartley
John Hartley
2 days ago
Reply to  expat

Next generation RN SSN need to get VLS, such as the Virginia payload module.

Tommo
Tommo
3 days ago

The Navy was supposed ,to be more Lethal after Corporate and did it ?

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

For a while yes, then the Warsaw Pact collapsed & peace dividend dominated political thought.

Tommo
Tommo
2 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

As seen through Rose tinted glasses a Ploy that the west fell for Never trust a Russian even Russians dont trust Russians

Frank62
Frank62
2 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

Never underestimate the great British failing of forgetting lessons learnt the hard way after a conflict.

Tommo
Tommo
2 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Cheers Frank at best with haven’t fell foul of Einstein’s term of Insanity ,Doing the same thing time and time again,and expecting a different result but we do have a habit of forgetting what we’ve been taught thank god for FOST

Matt
Matt
3 days ago

Good piece.

@George I’d welcome a piece about Type 41 tubes and how they work, and especially why something that seems relatively simple costs around $50m for a pack of 12.

That seems a little OTT when compared to the cost of a Type 31.

Jon
Jon
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt

I’d like to see that too, and why CAMM can be quad packed in Mk41s, but on future RN ships the CAMM silos will still take up acres of space.

Sceptical Richard
Sceptical Richard
3 days ago

Is that what we are down to 5 SSNs MR Heappey?

peter fernch
peter fernch
2 days ago

The RN ships hve allways been under armed compared with Russian and US ships. Allways purpose armed not multi armed and its a glalring example of minimal cost spend disregarding that they would undergunned in a confrontation
Given that we are under equiped hull wise its utterly stupid and indicative of the weakness of the the admiralty when faceing up to the treasury

David Steeper
David Steeper
2 days ago
Reply to  peter fernch

You’re not seriously comparing unfavourably UK with Russian warships ? 😯

Steve M
Steve M
2 days ago

T-45’s need to act as AAW/goalkeeper (Aster/CAMM 57mm & 40mm with Wildcat)
T-26 ASW (57mm & 40mm, mk41 with subroc/tomahawk, CAMM) with Merlins
T-31 Gp 5” (NGS) & 40mm Mk41 with tomahawk and SM-6 (controlled by T-45) plus Merlin for ASW
T-32 as long endurance patrol/ mothership for MCM/ patrol USV – 57mm & 40mm with CAMM
ALL NEED AShM pref AGM-158c in Mk41 and NSM in canisters
just my few billion pence worth

Frank62
Frank62
2 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

I would’ve liked to see the 5″ gun, once selected, as the standard across the escort fleet rather than using the 57mm which is too light for several tasks. Probably better for AAA or anti-missile defence though than the 5″.

Steve M
Steve M
2 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

My thinking is that the T-45/26 are escorts and as you say 57mm with the 3p rounds are better defence weapon, would we really want to put billion £ ships in close to hostile shore? having t-31 for that task would be better after they have already launch all the long range missiles from the Mk41 during the approach they can use the CAMM to help protect landing area and 5” for NGS for the booties

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
2 days ago

Much of this issue would be an end to the fitted for bit not with policy if budget systems within the tender stage properly it should be fitted without excuses. If the reason is fiscal then accepting the design is a failing other people should answer to. There’s no excuse for this issue itss like having a tank without a turret or a plane without wings

Tams
Tams
2 days ago

I mean, for that we need more ships, and not just some ‘pocket frigates’ like the Type 31 and Type 32 (as great and useful as they will be). Ideally destroyers.

Steve M
Steve M
2 days ago
Reply to  Tams

10/12 T-31/32 for patrol work is fine as you say we more AAW & ASW platforms. would say min 10 AAW (2 per CSG and 2 with LRG) min 14 ASW ( 2 per CSG, 2 with LRG, 4 on patrol for deterrence/GIUk) then 4 of each rotating through maintenace/FOST

Frank62
Frank62
2 days ago
Reply to  Tams

I always thought it was madness to go for any light frigates when we have insufficient escort numbers to start with. The T31 is not a small frigate though, thankfully, & I hope they’ll see the sense in arming it properly rather than just a token number of SAMs & add a decent AShM.

Sooty
Sooty
1 day ago

Things must be really bad if even politicians have noticed! This forum has been highlighting the matter for years.

Mark B
Mark B
19 hours ago

How easy would it be I wonder to strap on additional missiles etc. when needed and simply integrate them. Also will not adding drone capability not increase the platforms and strike range