The first of the Royal Navy’s new Type 31 frigates, HMS Venturer, is swiftly taking shape in Rosyth.
The warship’s progress has been remarkable, with significant development made in less than 24 months since its keel was laid.
“HMS Venturer build is taking shape with the team working towards structural completion within the build hall. The second ship in the programme, HMS Active, is emerging alongside HMS Venturer, with the double bottom blocks in-situ and the first hull blocks under construction.”
HMS Venturer is the lead ship of the Type 31 frigate-class currently under construction for the Royal Navy and the seventh vessel named HMS Venturer. In May 2021, the names of the five planned Type 31 ships were announced by the First Sea Lord. The names were selected to represent key themes that represent the future plans of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Venturer, named after the Second World War submarine Venturer, the only submarine ever to have, while underwater, destroyed an enemy submarine in underwater battle, symbolises technology and innovation.
The entire class is to be in service by February 2030.
The vertical launching system for the Type 31 and its associated missile loadout has gone through a number of revisions over the course of its development. Originally, the design would retain, but would however be “fitted-for-but-not-with” its 32-cell strike length Mark 41 Vertical Launching System and in its place was to be a Sea Ceptor 24-cell ‘mushroom farm’ in a similar configuration as found on the Type 23 frigates.
This was later revised with a more modular version of the launcher. However, on 17 May 2023, the First Sea Lord Ben Key stated that Type 31 frigates will, in fact, be fitted with the 32-cell Mark 41 Strike-Length complex.
Very impressive, what weapons fit will they have?
SeaCat
Do we know when the Mk41 vls will be fitted? As the space is already there, presumably at fit out? It would seem a tad mad to fit Sea Ceptor mushroom/ modular farm, only to remove it all again and install the Mk41?
Perhaps it won’t have VLS till sea trials are completed, then it’ll be installed after.
Sea trials under Red duster or after Naval trials with full complement of personnel if the Latter then FFBNW until first Drydocking could be a long wait the penny counters decide when and if not those in need there’ll always be an excuse somewhere along the line
Both Venturer and Active won’t have the MK41 installed due to the build time line for delivery, so will be fitted with the Sea Ceptor soft launchers. Babcock has said they would be fitted at a later date in there update cycle.
No, Babcock’s has not said that.
However one of the capability insertion dockings after the builder handover to the RN would seem to be a likely target.
I am trying to find the article were Babcock stated this, but since you said they didn’t i assuming you work for Babcock and the article was mistaken
Going down the FFBNW road again ….
That seems too be the way forward, POW her CIWS is Gunwhal mounted GPMGs not a Phalanx insight FFBNW should be the Navy’s callsign
FTR has been a thing for decades.
Oh the joys of doing the FTR log inspection on board and going around to each bit of kit every 6 months.
Red painted fuses for long term tag outs.
Cable runs coiled up and secured next to empty foundations
Then finding out what should be there wasnt!
More rabbit runs than watership down and bloody match sticks stuck in sockets Aaaargh
Interestingly that is because POW wasn’t supposed to deploy the CIWS are still mounted on QE. If they had to shift them over to deploy in harms way I’m sure that would change.
It just goes too show the shortage of frontline equipment that has befallen the Navy at least the 3 Invincible class had CWS at all times
In this case I think the Phalanx were removed and there wasn’t time to reinstall after PoW was needed to fill in for QE at short notice.
Why do you think the Mk 41’s will replace the Sea Ceptor mushrooms? The Admiral and the Navy have made it clear the Mk 41’s are for other missile types.
Because there is not room for both
Well unless the base design has shrunk (which it hasn’t as its just a less well equipped version) it does have room for both. If you ever look at the Iver Huitlfeldt design, it is fitted with exactly the same 4 x 8 strike length MK 41 VLS and in exactly the same position as the T31 will. On either side of those space and weight was allocated (and wired up) for a 2 x 12 cell MK56 VLS for ESSM. Someone just needs fund either a mushroom farm of adapted CAMM VLS to fit. It is a very spacious… Read more »
there’s a great documentary on Iver Huitfeldt on discovery channel I think.
Its a very capable ship that’s for sure
Camm isn’t modular though. Mk56 is essentially deck mounted
CAMM can be modular it is a question of you choose to mount the tubes.
There is a ‘six pack’ design or you can fit into a series of cylinders.
That us advantage of cold/soft launch – no hot efflux gasses….
When I say modular I mean something that can be easily added or removed. So far all versions are below deck mounting and there’s no suggestion of an easily removable version.
Like to see them make the six pack CAMM into an eight to better utilise its space. A cheap and easy way get a 25% shot uptake. Especially for the T45s, IMHO, they could go 3 or 4 x 6 or 8 down the sides of the Aster silo and still put some MK41s in and move the gym to the back somewhere.
And this has been brought up before, when is containerised CAMM happening? Open top 20′ container, should be able to squeeze 2-3 x 4 on a slideable tray, maybe more if in a 40′. Loadable on ships and could be part of truck, rail or land based GBAD.
Has that not already been partly done for land ceptor? Isn’t that dual 2×2 changeable container sets mounted on the back of a MAN truck?
Yes, same, I was also wondering why this same 2×4 configuration hasn’t been adopted for the T26 and maybe T31 and even for the the T45s?!
You need to take into account the cost of reconfiguring the original
CAMM box, the cost would be prohibitive.
Hi Meirion, I don’t think so. Should still keep the same overall l x w x d just 8 holes instead of 6 and all the necessary bits. Maybe it isn’t possible as it would have been done? Still hope they’ll go for 6×6 CAMM or even 8, 2-4 could go on above the hangar (no or minimal FOD) for the T45s instead of just the four.
CAMM has its own launch controller in addition to the electronics of the launcher module. Each one of these controllers can handle 12 CAMM. So standalone ExLS is 3 cell quad packed (12 missiles). Given a choice, the cheapest option is based around the number 12.
I did ser a write up in one of the UK dailys the telegraph if my memory serves me how the Magazine instead of having missiles had Treadmills and exercise bikes the report was quite scaving as this was written whilst Hms Diamond T45 was in the Red Sea with the Defence minister on board
I bet that raised a few laughs as well as questions. Seriously though, if the T45s are going to have another 10+ years service and they’re getting fixed up with PIP and evolved Aster and considering silos can’t be reloaded at sea, being on long deployments and the potential for getting into high intensity conflict zones, plus they’re buying MK41s for the T31, you’d think it should be a common sense next step to utilise these spaces. Extra AAW coverage for any CSG too with more missile shots. What are they waiting for?
It isn’t the Magazine, it’s the space that was allocated in the design for a possible future increase in VLS capacity from 48 to, 64 in other words FFBNW. It’s basically a bloody great oblong hole in front of the VLS launchers with plenty of head room so they decided to use it and stick exercise equipment in it. I seem to remember it was sized for 2 x 8 Strike length MK41 and someone once told me that is why it’s informally called the “Mk41 Gym”. It’s not ideal but the reality was that when the T45 were built… Read more »
Only reporting what the Telegraph had written as Diamond was at the time on station in the Red Sea the paper had a photo with Union flag and treadmills saying Magazine used as a gym ,the gist of the story was evidently ” the Navy is short of missiles ” so the crew have turned it into a Gym
The Mk56 launchers on IH penetrate the extra boat bays on T31
The other option is replacing the 40mm at B with missiles. On IH, B is a Stanflex module. Also, some of the A140 variants on Babcock’s website list missiles at B (but not how many). Possibly 24 in ExLS
Babcock’s T32 concept (there’s a Navy Lookout article on it) has 2 mk41 at B, so 32 CAMM and 8 FC/ASW.
Morning SB, I was wondering on that T32 concept whether there coukd still be a 24 CAMM farm over the multi mission bay? So in addition to the 2 MK41s.
If you go to NL: Babcock showcases Arrowhead 140 Multi-Role Naval Platform concept with view to Type 32 frigate competition
The pictures show nothing above the mission bay, but there might be space for a T26-style silo in front. It might have problems with the mast, though; need DB or someone to help with that.
I’m not sure it would help very much anyway, 32 CAMM + 8 ASM is the same as T23 and the frigate has other capabilities as well.
Evening SB, yes I read that article. NL is pretty good with their photos. Nice looking concept ship. I was just thinking if they also have a 24 CAMM farm atop they can use the MK41s for other missile types. The Spartan light frigate has 2*MK41s and, I think, 4*4 CAMM alongside the portside hangar wall plus a CIWS on top.
Well boat / mission / VLS bays are in exactly the same place as they are on the IH and the VLS are all mounted forard of them so they don’t.
There are very few mods to the design as it’s such a flexible design.
https://www.seaforces.org/marint/Danish-Navy/Frigate/Iver-Huitfeldt-class.htm
I’m sorry but you’re wrong IH has two boats bays in the superstructure to the rear of the midships weapons deck.
A140 has up to four boat bays. The original two like IH and two more forward under the weapons deck either side of the space for the Mk41 launcher.
T31 has one of these two extra boat bays giving it three.
On A140 MNP the Mk41 space is deleted to open up the midships area into mission bay allowing 3x 11.5m workboats\USV etc. The missiles moving to B turret.
Nope they don’t. Proper contains a link so it’s waiting approval. The whole missile load is ahead of the boat bays.
On IH they penetrate into the open deck below the weapons deck. You can see videos of them loading the harpoons and mk56 in stanflex modules through holes in the deck.
On A140 fitting Mk56 or any CAMM launchers would penetrate the same space which on T31 is the extra third boat bay on one side and on other A140 and the original T31 design with 4 boat bays would encroach on both.
My thoughts exactly. Hopefully there will be some clarity on the missile for soon.
I believe the HMS Venturer twitter did say Mk41 will be fitted after delivery to RN. So CAMM will be initial fit at least
The Tweet I mentioned:
https://twitter.com/HMSVenturerRN/status/1659508678293086211?s=19
“No the Type 31 will be fitted with Sea Ceptor initially with Mk41 Vertical Launch System at a later date once delivered to the RN”
👍Exactly!
I do not think that the Admiral stated the number of Mk 41 cells that would be fitted. I think 32 is an assumption made by a couple of less than 100% reliable sources.
Could be wrong.
Nope you are not wrong, I’ve just read the transcript of his speech who ever wrote this hasn’t !
It’s an intent to fit and no numbers given.
This is a direct quote from his speech transcript and lifted off the UK Gov website
“Hence the decision to ensure the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo is fitted to the Type 26 and, I am delighted to say, we intend to fit it also to our Type 31 frigates. This will enable potential use of a large variety of current and future anti-air, anti-surface, ballistic missile defence and strike missiles”
Wikipedia and Daily Express have also claimed 32 cells explicitly, as did a RUSI article, but I can find no official source. NavyLookout is sometimes cited, but I remember that article and it never said how many cells would be added, just that it was being built with the underpinnings for 32. Instead a Navy spokesperson was quoted after the Admiral’s speech: “Working closely with the US Navy, we have commenced an assessment phase to explore the options and costs associated with fitting T31 with Mk41. It is too early to provide any further information whilst this commercially sensitive work… Read more »
Please at least be more than the original 12 CAMM! 🙏 🙏 😂 Remember that? What where they thinking?! 12 might be alright on the B2 Rivers though if there’s room.
Admiral was making a wish, not a certainty.
Another MOD/Contractor progress blurb that is full of great words and phrases such as “Remarkable”, “Significant” and “in less than 24 months”. Then later on goes into listing the RN changes to the central VLS outfits that have been made to the original design. And what is noticeably absent any mention ? Any update on launch date or completion date.🤷🏼♂️🤞🏻 So IMHO I will for the uninitiated try and put the blurb into context of what it means and why it may just be slightly “gilding the lily”. HMS Venturer was laid down on 26/04/22 and has now been in… Read more »
I agree.
I’m not impressed.
The delays could get worse in fitout if pre outfitting us as poor as I suspect it was in the block build stages.
Have you ever seen photos of the IH in build at Odense, it’s an interesting comparison.
A couple of publicly available ones…..
Probably the same ones, 2 in the Dry Dock, bloody hard buggers those Vikings.
Anyone looking at the picture can see how old fashioned it is. Lower keel section with a small hull section welded up. what do you reckon 25/30 tons ?
Mate, summed it all up perfectly.
Not sure the build time comparison is entirely valid. The Iver Huitfeldts were built in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania, which were towed to Odense for assembly and fitting out. Babcock are building the basic hull from scratch.
The Danish ships do look well armed for a variety of roles.
No difference what so ever the build strategy is determined by the baseline design and that wasn’t what we would today call Block building. No A, B, C, D, E, F hull blocks being built and pre outfitted then joined up and welded together. The base line design for the hull on both is the same and would need pretty well a complete redesign to optimise it for Block build and that is very expensive. They are both built out of far smaller sub blocks, starting with the lower keel and then assembled bit by block upwards. Which is why… Read more »
The whole point of the T31 build is that it uses best available methods for build. You state completely the opposite to be the case.
And to top it all the original design was by BAE?
The best available build method is Block build, which is series of almost complete, outfitted and painted hull sections all assembled and welded together. To do that the ship has to be designed from scratch so that you don’t do daft things like cut the magazines or machinery species in 2. If you look at the RN adoption of this it spans from the latter Yarrow Build T23, through the T45 to its final iteration in the QE’s. Using this method is in the long term more efficient and you get a completed ship quicker as a lot of the… Read more »
Which bit of BAE did the design work as I’m assuming it was done before or soon after merger with Marconi. Was it Yarrows, VSEL or BAESema?
BAe word Spaghetti time it was “BAe Sytems, customer solutions and support”.
After the RDN had their preferred option they tendered the detail design and construction out to 2 Danish yards Odense won and BAe supported the detail design.
Odense wasn’t out of the shipbuilding industry when the Absalons were built. They carried on building nearly 40 ships over the next decade . Most over 100,000t some nearing 200,000t, mainly container ships for Maersk but also bulk carriers and ro-ros
The IH were the last ships built at Odense. Shipyard closed straight after Niels Jule left the yard. So it’s fair to say that they were pretty well out of the SB business.
I think were talking at crossed purposes.
I was referring to when the Abasalons were built when the original Absalon\IH\A140 design was born. Mioolions of tonnes of ships were built before the IHs and the end of the yard.
I did try to pin down the exact timeline of the IH build. As far as I could tell, the timescales given for the construction by OSS excluded the preparatory block build in Estonia and Lithuania. The fitting out process in Denmark does seem to have been very rapid.
The fabrication of the sections offline is irrelevant, it’s no different to saying when long lead items start to be delivered. The common way to assess the build time is the keel section is laid down it doesn’t matter if that is on a slipway, drydock, undercover assembly hall or even in a Block Assembly hall hundreds of miles away. Thats when the build is deemed to have actually started. In fact it is universally celebrated by a keel laying ceremony and announcement. So we know when the 1st bit of the IH keel was laid down in the Odense… Read more »
I beleive the T31 is built in the most effecient way, go check out OMT website who advised Babcock not just on the design but how to optimise there new facitlies. On the website go to expertise then construction. OMT were involved in the Danish ships. Also its certainly block built.
Contractor will perform to the contract. The bottom line is if the ship is late then the civil servants didn’t put big enough penalties into the contract to ensure on time delivery so the buck stops with them.
I’ve read it and to describe it as a block build is a bit of a push. It’s a keel up traditional build but using smaller prefabricated sections. Which I would best describe as sub blocks or semi blocks, you just need to look,at the keel section next to Venturer to see its small sections being built up on larger keel sub blocks. What most folks think of by block construction is HBCM in which steel is fabricated, welded into small sections, those are then added to to build a Full hull section or Mega Block. That is built in… Read more »
All block start keel up either way. If you build mega blocks you need to put them on hydraulic wheeled jacks and precision align them. We’ve traditionally done this because we’ve lacked space or have built at blocks at different yards.
I’ll post a link separately but Google “ship building timelapse detailed version – worlds first methonol ship”
First video in the search shows how it’s done.
Swiftly? Wasn’t she supposed to be in the water by the end of last year? She still looks a ways off from that!
Originally: “in service by 2023” (National Shipbuilding Strategy, 2017).Then: “in the water in 2023…. in service in 2027” (letter to the PAC, Jan 2020).Then: Navy Lookout, Sept 2023, flagged in the water “first quarter of 2024 but that schedule could still be subject to change”.Now “in first half of 2024” is the latest line (Babcock quoted in NavalToday, Dec 2023). Back in 2020 the in service date was mid 2027, so following a 9 month slippage, we would be looking at in service in 2028. However, if a capability insertion period applies to Venturer immediately after delivery — and I… Read more »
All 5 in service by 2030 yeah right and the cheque is in the post for the VL, the speed of British wokers we will lucky to get 1 t-31 and 1 t-26 in service by 2030
Except the whole competative bidding process was halted in July 2018 and the whole competition restarted in August 2018. So the 2017 predictions were derailed less than a year later. Then add in Covid raging whilst the build hall was being completed in 2021. Is it really surprising thingsxare rrunning late. With the inexperience of Babcock building Frigates early delays shouldn’t be a surprise. We should judge them on ships 3-5, from the laying of the keel though to in the water.
I agree. I’m not judging or blaming Babcock, far from it. I applaud them trying to get this right. I’m just trying to figure when we’ll start getting new frigates. If we predict the frigates are likely to become operational in 2029 rather than 2027, we can look to do things to speed it up. I’m not sure how, but perhaps we can speed sea trials. We can certainly do as Donald points out and leave off installing the Mk 41s from the first two ships for five years. We also need to ask, how can we cover an even… Read more »
We also don’t know the effect of the contract dispute between MOD and Babcock. If the stage payments weren’t covering the costs ………
That dispute was resolved quite recently.
Yep but it took most of last year. So I just wonder if it held things up a bit.
“This was later revised with a more modular version of the launcher. However, on 17 May 2023, the First Sea Lord Ben Key stated that Type 31 frigates will, in fact, be fitted with the 32-cell Mark 41 Strike-Length complex.” yes, but the talk was very unclear about “when”. It can be before IOC, it can be in the mid-life, for the first 2-3 hulls, at least. By the way, are there any order for Mk41 VLS from UK/MOD or Babcock? How long it will take from order to delivery. Also, we shall not forget we need ExLS ordered to… Read more »
You don’t need Exls for MK41 as there is plenty of space to fit them alongside. The base line IH design was for 4 v 8 strike length MK41 but have a 12 pack MK56 on either side. That space / weight is still there.
How do you have both a boat bay and deck penetrating missile launchers?
I don’t think the CAMM six pack silo need to be deck penetrating. The 4×6 on the back top of the hangar on the T26s aren’t.
.
The missiles are 3.2m tall the magazine for the missiles extends below the deck. You can see this in models\visuals of the T26 mission bay. There is a large box across the front wall of the bay below the missiles.
There’s been no FAA announcement in Congress for the MK41 sales, so not sure there on order placed yet with Lockheed Martin?
Indeed..a decent amount of camm launchers and retrofit NSM at earliest opportunity as it seems to be a quick job. In the water ASAP.
AA
Really surprised that wasn’t what the announced for T31. Would have been a robust upgrade with minimal schedule/ capex outlay for a patrol frigate. T32 ..if thats a thing.. can then go full MK41
CAMM comes in a rectangular box that is the launcher. Its exactly the same box as fitted to Army Sabre units. Its even painted green! It houses, transports and launches the missile throughout its service life. The Mushroom farm is just a means of securing the box into the ship. There is a deck mounted frame at the bottom on the magazine deck and also a means of securing the top of the box as it passes into the deck. T23 mushroom farms use the existing legacy holes in the deck from the old VL Seawolf launch cannister with a… Read more »
Evening GB, yes, I was wondering why they haven’t gone for a 8 pack fit at least. The six pack seems overly spacious. Light weight, low maintenance, cheaper I guess, compared to a MK41.
I thought I read somewhere that the spacing was to allow maintenance between packs? AA
I hope not. I’m keeping fingers crossed that it’s to allow for a quadpack canister or at the very least they are thinking ahead about the dimensions of CAMM-MR.
You could not squeeze between VL SW containers. Ceptor boxes are way smaller and you can easily fit between them. There is no maintenance to do. Almost all complex weapons have zero onboard planned maintenance except for the preps for firing routines. Connect the cables to the box …thats it.
Cheers, Thanks for clearing that up. AA
See my reply to you further up. The magic number is 12.
Thanks DJ. We all want more than “12”. 24, half decent, 36, semi decent, 48, bloody ripper!! We’ll have to wait and see.
The RN desperately needs a follow up order for another batch of type 31s. Frigate and destroyer numbers are desperately low.
Unless it’s an order from a different shipyard, such as ordering Mogamis from Japan, they won’t arrive in time to help with the current frigate gap. However, buying from abroad would be politically unacceptable. We’d also have to recruit and train more sailors. Right now that would be politically unacceptable too! HMG just don’t get it. Despite everything, we are still hollowing out the Army. There a limit to how much money we can usefully throw at the Type 23s and I don’t think we’ve reached it. Otherwise we’ll keep following the current “eyes-tight-shut fingers-in-the-ears” strategy and praying there won’t… Read more »
Hunt is one as is his boss, they just dont get it do they with our own defence forces?
Meanwhile in the real world, I see Russia making a breakthrough in May and it being all over by Christmas. I blame the EU and USA. Ukraine is a tragic and wholely unnecessary war.
Yeah I really wish I’d voted for Corbyn as he would have had sorted this defence mess out by now 😀. I’m in no doubt his first strongly worded letter to Putin, Putin would have not even thought about going into Ukraine.
Mind you I didn’t vote Tory either so I’m in the clear on both counts 😀
Not saying I disagree but its interesting to listen to Ben Key speaking to MPs on the defence select committee- praising the work and availability of the Rivers. He gave the impression that despite the pressure on frigate numbers that the RN could cope with their commitments. I’m starting to research what I can discover about a future labour government’s defence thinking. A couple of things seem fairly certain: the Indo Pacific ‘tilt’ will be scaled back. OPV ( and future T31) deployments will continue but the carriers will be deployed in Med and the Atlantic, Jan 16 24 quote… Read more »
Pleased to read that quote from Healey, and I agree with it.
On the “Indo Pacific Tilt” that is mostly industry related, AUKUS, TEMPEST, and soft power, so Rivers and our bases.
However, the west pulling out completely is a big no no for me due to the vacuum that leaves for Russia China to fill.
Which is why I support our military assets deployed there.
But Healey is right, the QEC should primarily be in the NATO area.
Any idea where these reform U.K. folks are on defence?
Can’t find anything worth reading. One person had a bit about how HMs dauntless has more firepower than the entire fleet sent to falklands.
I’d seen a few saying on here that’s who they would vote for so tried to look into them.
Dauntless- That’s rather an exageration I think. MG is the same as most escorts in 1982 carried(The old twin 4.5″ arguably performed better than the newer single one, the modified version which still arms T45s & T23s today), so that’s simply 100% wrong. No land attack missiles then & none on Dauntless either, so wrong there too. AShMs- some escorts in 82″ had Exocets, today sometimes our T45s carry practically obsolete Harpoons, sometimes the y don’t, so effectively the same. ASW, about the same as any escorts in ’82. Sensors & ASW torpdoes are better but we no longer have… Read more »
To also compare dauntless would have everything that the fleet took gunning for it also. So multiple subs, missiles, aircraft, dumb bombs, a cruiser etc etc.
it was Dave Holland from reform U.K. who said it. It’s one of the few items about defence from that party I could find.
Dauntless. Harpoon when fitted x 8 with a range of 70miles compared to Exocet 30 ish. You can also dogleg it unlike exocet Anti air- 48 missiles at 48 different targets at the same time over 360degs. Dart was, if you where lucky 2 shots per target and possibly a max of 3 engagements before getting hit. No Falklands ships had land attack capability with missiles. Bofors manually aimed as where 20mm 7A. They dont even compare to Phalanx (Radar) and 30mm (EO) directed. Mk8 Gun no AA software but far longer ranged with base bleed shells and way more… Read more »
👌 Great reply
The type 45 is a profoundly better AAW asset that a T42..infact a modern RN ASW frigate is a better AAW asset than a type 42…. The original spec for a UK carrier group in 1960s was looking at an expectation of 4 sea dart armed escorts as a min..a sea dart armed escort could probably engage 2 targets at most so those 4 ships could engage maybe 8 targets before being overwhelmed…a RN frigate in 82 ( apart from the handful of sea Wolf armed vessels) had literally no meaningful self defence against air attack by missile armed aircraft.… Read more »
No idea mate.
Indeed, we have to been seen to be able to deploy into support our pacific allies. But actually that is more about the wider support and showing we will not be intimidated by china from taking an active side with our allies…but in any indo pacific war the RN would probably be fully engaged in ensuring the supply chains and seas from the Indian Ocean to Europe and would probably end up leading the fight against any PLAN task groups in the western indian occean..nailing down Iran from miss behaving and keeping its European NATO commitments up…this would free up… Read more »
Agreed. I don’t want the RN QEC in the Pacific.
I do want it in the Med and Middle East, Indian Ocean.
And that was what concerned me regards Labour’s earlier rhetoric.
Interesting now that the RN is engaged in the Red Sea how that rhetoric on focusing on Europe has vanished.
You can see why Trump is winning in the arguement to leave NATO. If Europe is attacked US must come running, if US is attacked we’ll let US go off and fight and say its alright we’ll just keep and eye on things around here whilst you’re pre disposed. Hardly a compelling arguemnt to stay in an Alliance that supposed to have each other backs.
Your making an assumption that we’ll maintain the ability to sail carriers globally. If we only need to deploy to local waters as part of a stratgic objective then do we need tankers, support ships? North Sea and Med their plenty options for resupply at port If China knows it will never face a T26, T45, QEC and other non US weapons systems it doesn’t have to plan for those eventuallities. Huge upper hand NATO has is dvisersity of weapons. You start ring fencing and regionalising them we loose a tactical advantage. Only the US keeps a reserve fleet, far… Read more »
The reality of the tyranny of distance is that it will alway be better to free up and allow a US carrier to be freed up from the Indian Ocean into the pacific than sending a UK carrier..and china is not stupid it’s not going to kick of in the couple of months every 3 years or so that the UK can provide the US with an extra CBG in the pacific quickly….It would take the RN probably 6-8 weeks to react into the western pacific at best speed…within that timeframe PLAN and the USN would have torn each other… Read more »
I hope HM opposition are listening, mate.
I fear they have their own agenda.
The US has pretty well got rid of its vast mothballed reserve fleet, it’s literally down to old supply and transport ships. The reasons are complex but mainly down to overall costs, the US keeps its ships in service far longer than they used to. By the time they go out of service they are pretty well worn out and scrapped or used as targets. The Oliver Hazard Perry frigates were mainly sold of to friendly countries. There are a number of Ticonderoga class cruisers in “inactive reserve’ at Norfolk and San Diego plus some LCS but that’s about it… Read more »
Define NATO area. Currently Canada and USA are still in NATO, its a big area. Actually the carrier are not pivital to the NS, NA or Med. You build carrier strike to strike 1000 of miles away not 100’s. Exactly what is the QEC going to use 38 F35’s and the rest of the stike group for in the middle of the atlantic is beyond me, certainly nothing other assets we could procure and operate at lower cost can’t do. From the NATO perspective Med is covered, with Syria being the only wild card unles we foresea then the need… Read more »
The bases are actually my No1 worry.
The PJOBs being prime. Cyprus, Gib, Ascension, Falklands, enable a huge area to be covered. Cyprus being the absolute Jewell there considering what is there.
Bahrain is critical also. We’ll flippantly get rid of bases and many will say in today’s world we shouldn’t have them. But believe me try establishing one again especially in the east, China will use its economic muscle to make sure it never happens. Only fools would give up what we have, oh wait we’re talking about politicians 😀
Let’s see if my fears are right. I hope I’m are wrong. As the west pulls out China, Russia move into the void.
We should be out there in the world winning hearts and minds, displaying soft power and hard power, and I’m afraid Labour will just withdraw the UK up it’s own arse.
Labour’s policy is to demonstrate to the electorate they are credible on defence. So keep in mind they need to make the argument as binary and uncomplicated as possible. It doesn’t need to be logical because other than a handful of people , the average person will not get past the headline. With Russia being front and centre in the press they have come up policies that make them look credible and try to show that the Tories have been wrong, so Europe vs Global. Hypertheticaly say there had been an attack on say Australia 2 years ago and not… Read more »
Even a few more would useful. Cheap, quick to build, well armed… just a bit more will, money and sailors required. 😆
Absolutely! My reading of things is that, absent the financial prospect of more frigate hulls, the RN is doubling down on strategies for ramping up availability: forward deployment, crew rotas, forward base upkeep capabilities, standardisation, ship automation / lower crew numbers, parallel processing of refit tasks, slicker planning and delivery of training programs. The MRSS program got a mention from Ben Key. MRSS would replace 3 ship classes with one.
Don,t worry, wait to the next SDR, numbers will get even lower
Good to see them cracking on, and impressive that Active is taking shape there too. Will the ship be completed within the build hall?
Usually up to launch state. Then moved out onto the water for further fitting out, which allows the next T31 to be laid down in the space in the ship hall.
It’ll get a potato gun and a crossbow. They really need to get their act together and give these ships proper firepower and not a bag of promises and wishes
Potato gun = 57mm gun and 2 40mm guns.
Crossbow being sea ceptor missiles and whatever can fit in strike length mk41 launchers.
Ill give u the gun……as sure ots going in….the rest lets see what it gets actually fitted with
I am ever hopeful until badly disappointed 😂😂😂
Its the dissapointment that gets u in the end…….maybe we will be pleasantly surprised 😮
View from the bow end:
https://
twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1761035138526302420/photo/1
German frigate fires for first time in combat for a long time. Since WW2?
2 SM-2 Standard missiles fail to intercept – due to malfunction -an American drone that was with no IFF so classified as hostile.
1 Iran/Houthi drone destroyed by the 76mm gun
1 Iran/Houthi drone destroyed by RAM missile.
Indeed – she had quite a memorable baptism of fire 🔥.
2 Out of 3 ain’t bad- unless the one that gets through mission-kills you!
It’s a German Warship based on their History they tend to scuttle them if threatened..