SEA, a maritime defence system supplier, will provide the Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates with an upgrade to the torpedo launcher and countermeasures systems as part of a major new contract.
Valued at £34m, which also includes through-life support for the systems, this is the largest single contract won by SEA to date.
“Securing this contract means that its Torpedo Launcher Systems are in service across the entire UK Type 23 Royal Navy Class, and its countermeasures system across the Type 23, Royal Fleet Auxiliary, Albion, and Type 45 Classes. As primary supplier to the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), SEA will upgrade the Royal Navy’s torpedo launcher systems to provide next generation capability.
This will see the Royal Navy further benefit from SEA’s weapon-agnostic Torpedo Launcher System, which is also in service with a number of navies across the globe. As part of this contract, and as the legacy design authority for the countermeasures technical refresh, SEA will upgrade the ships’ countermeasure capability with a new fixed barrel system to provide an effective response to modern naval threats.”
The contract will also see SEA provide in-service support for these systems across the UK naval fleet. Initially, this is a five-year programme, with extension options, and is in addition to a significant support framework contract previously awarded to the company by the UK MOD, covering sub-systems in the undersea battlespace domain.
Richard Flitton, Managing Director at SEA, was quoted as saying
“This contract underlines SEA’s proven track record of delivering, upgrading, and sustaining high-end maritime capabilities and providing open and weapon-agnostic capabilities. The maritime battlespace is evolving faster and becoming more complex, requiring these operationally flexible solutions that can adapt to the changing nature of the threat.
Upgrading the lightweight torpedo launcher systems and installing new countermeasure capabilities will provide the Royal Navy with the ability to rapidly defend itself against these threats. This major contract, SEA’s largest to date, demonstrates the systems knowledge and maritime domain expertise within our UK-based team and builds on our long-standing partnership with the Royal Navy.”
SEA is an independent subsidiary of the defence technology group, Cohort plc. Andy Thomis, Cohort’s Chief Executive said:
“Through this contract SEA is supporting the Royal Navy to defend itself against the real threat it faces today. This contract adds to the significant amount of work that the Group has been doing for the UK MOD as a major supplier for the UK Armed Forces. In the past 5 years we are proud to have delivered a variety of equipment, systems, and services, both direct and indirectly, to the British Armed Forces.”
Strange. The internal torpedo launchers are getting ipgrades. Yet type 26 next gen ASW frigates wont be getting this system?
If its worth spending £34 million on now then surely type 31s/ 26/32 should have an integral torpedo launcher and torpedo/ anti mine defensive systems?
Absolutely agree with you Mr. Bell. From what I understand, that 34M would more than pay for Mk41 VLS on the Type 31s (estimate I saw was 25M).
Seems a total waste of increasingly hard to find resources if not cross-decked to another platform.
Still, no-one knows this more that the RN itself, so maybe there will be an announcement later that the Type 26 – which will be our primary sub killer – will be getting them? Fingers crossed.
Its a system that arms most of the escort fleet and will be in service for another decade. Keeping it relevant while its in service is common sense, not wasteful, but that doesn’t mean putting an old system on future ships is a good idea.
Type 26 has Mk41 and helicopter/drone/gun delivery options for ASW, putting a lightweight system with limited capability on future platforms doesn’t make economic sense.
This entire thread is interesting, checked the BAE Systems website, and they are touting the improvements of Sting Ray Mod 1 (e.g., new sonar system, new nav system, insensitive munition warhead, etc.), but include no reference timeframe of introduction. Believe there were articles published w/in last several yrs. indicating MoD interest in a feasibility/concept design study for an evolution/ replacement of Sting Ray. Topic has gone dark in the press. Anyone have a clue re current status? Presume SR Mod 1 is NOT the result of this study?
It is possible that I was simply hallucinating re this information in it’s entirety…🤔😱
SR already has an IM warhead. It was one of the first things the RN pushed for on the last upgrade. On that upgrade It also got new power management systems to improve endurance, new processors, sonar, better sea water battery, improved actuators and new software. In effect its the same shape as the old torpedo and thats about it. It was basically a new torpedo.
Hi, understand your description of SR Mod 1, thanks. So…bottom line question: is there a current MoD funded program to evolve/replace SR Mod 1? Thought MoD had funded preliminary activity, but could have simply misinterpreted articles.
The would be 25m USD per T31 so a 125m USD program plus other attendant costs.
Mk41 VLS is, in my view, essential. It leaves the decks clear for other canisters and keeps the metacentric weight, with a full load out, down.
Additional benefit is that Sea-ceptor can be quad packed into said canisters compared to the current cells that are slated to go into the type 31 class. I would think they would rather have 16x or 24x mk 41 which with the quad pack would allow the type 41 to have atleast 64x or 96x sea ceptors. Now normally they wouldn’t have that many for a general purpose frigate, but an adversary wouldn’t know just how many a ship would be fitted with, therefore in a conflict scenario, these ships would be quite safe even from swarm attacks, unless an adversary uses enough to overwhelm the Artisan.
But ofc the treaury and MOD wwouldn’t look at the bigger picture.
So…spend 25mil for a Mk41 hot launch VL system to quad pack it with a cold launch 800k (ish) missile that comes sealed in its own launch canister anyway, that the RN can put in its own very simple and robust mounting system for next to nothing… Ok…
The Ceptor launch canisters are the same green, square cross section canisters that Sabre uses. On RN ships there is a bracket arrangement on the deck to hold the bottom of the canister and a bracket arrangement at the top to hold the canister. On T23 the mushroom at the top is a result of the smaller cross section square canister being fitted into the legacy Sea Wolf circular larger diameter hot launch canister hole. As Ceptor is longer that the legacy SW canister the circular holes in the deck have an extension piece fitted to allow for the longer canister protruding above the deck. On new builds there should be no need for the extension piece as the mag can be designed from the offset to hold the longer Ceptor canister.
What I haven’t seen yet is the actual silo arrangement on new builds , only rendered mock ups. There may be no need for the round mushroom caps currently fitted to T23. They could be just the square canisters fitted into the deck
So why did the rnzn put mushrooms in as well for sea ceptor when they had the mk41 for sea sparrow
Different engagement capabilities of the missile. Cold launch ceptor has a very short min engagement range compared to ESSM. In addition its preferable for the cold launch system to have a slight cant outboard so that if it goes up and doesnt fire off the motor it will go overboard.
This larger CAMM/CAMM-ER fit-out could also fit nicely into a AAW A140/T31 variant to complement the T45s and maybe be more suited to North Sea/Baltic Sea/Mediterranean/LRG type deployments
And what you have in it is a secret, which keeps everyone guessing what capability your warship has.
And to re-mention, 2 x Mk41s for the T45s too, the slots are already there, and CAMM side silos, maybe 2x3x6 silos = 36 CAMM would make these ships even more fabulous.
Is the 25m mk41 for the type 31 for 8 cells each? Or is that 25m per ship?
No idea how big a company Sea is, but it could be a deal to keep them afloat because the RN want the counter measures but that order alone isn’t big enough. Kinda like what happened with BAe and the river2s.
SEA are part of a much larger group that has lots of companies in it. SEA have been known as various other companies in the past and are where they now after various mergers and acquisitions.
Think Ferranti or Marconi ending up as BAe….
I guess overall size isn’t the issue, it’s the size of the specific operation. BAe could have afforded to subsidise the ship making operation but no listed company would do that, as return on capital is everything.
They may be planning to use either the mk41 or more likely the T650 UAS. Getting close enough to a submarine to launch stingray from the ship is probably suicidal these days. However at least they are affirming we are still in the business of frigates having the ability to engage submerged targets without a helicopter.
Wonder how the introduction of underwater drone threats affect the value of ship launched stingrays, or indeed what defence against it would be deemed the best solution. Certainly a single helicopter is simply not going to cut it in a serious situation of that nature. If not ship launched weapons (or if they are not effective) then certainly ship launched anti drone drones of some nature will be vital.
MTLS is everything in the Air weapons mag and the MTLS electronic in the Sonar Room, OPS room and Hangar.
MTLS had one upgrade whilst I maintained it to overcome component and parts obsolescence so this is not anything new. The upgrades are to make the electronics system that more generic for weapons. Instead of having to select weapon type ( SR/MK50/Mk46) the system will do it for you and apply the correct type of settings to the weapon. The electronics are not just RN specific. The electronics are going to be the same as that used on STWS fits ( 2 or 3 tube) used by other nations.
In addition the handling system, a huge air driven ,(Heath Robinson looking!) system for getting weapons ( SR, DC Mk 11, Skua as was) out of the racks and into the tubes or down onto torpedo trolleys for helo loading is getting some work. With the Sea Venom missile and Martlet coming into service there will be alterations to the handling system.
The Sea Venom pallet trolley is not the same as the old PT 15 that Skua was housed in for storage in the mag racks and manoeuvring out to the helo. The handling system will need some work. The racks will need some work the whole system will need testing in operation for crew training and a new load test after the alterations as well.
As for torpedo and mine defence , RN ships have degausing systems fitted to reduce the mag signature and when required a Torpedo Defence system with a counter torpedo electronics system, towed detection sonar tail and upperdeck decoy launchers for putting decoys into the water.
MTLS? STWS? Please.
My Toes Like Socks.😊
Shipborne Torpedo Weapon System-can also refer to the Stingray lightweight ASW torpedo.
Not sure about MTLS, possibly Magazine Torpedo Launch System.
Magazine Torpedo Launching System.–The Tubes are fitted inside the torpedo stowage mag making reload easier. and they are, except for the armoured tube doors, protected from the weather
STWS- Ship Torpedo Weapon System– 2 tube or 3 tube mounts on the upper deck. You need to move torps from the mag on trolleys around the upper deck and then use a separate lifting hoist to reload.
Interesting! Perhaps some systems can be moved across to the T31’s along with the interim anti-ship missiles being procured.
Does anyone know if the 25m for the MK41 is per type 31? If so how many is it for? Just 8?
In 2020 the US dept of defence sold Finland 4x mk41 vls systems to the Finish navy yo equip their new corvettes for 70 million dollars. They were strike length systems so capable of full plethora of current missile load out. Tomahawk. Lrasm, NSM, ASROC, Standard mk 1-6 air defence missiles etc etc.
So about 17.5 million dollars or around 15 million pound per warship. Not bad at all. I think MOD hasnt gone over to mk41 vls system for simple reason they would then need to equip warships with a missile load out otherwise whats the point having them? They dont want warships that can actually deliver the fighty element of their role.
Ive checked. Each new Finish corvette has an 8 cell mk41 vls system with quad packed evolved sea sparrow SAMs in situ. Interesting choice. Decent anti air capability for a small ish vessel. You’d hope in a vessel type 26/31/32 frigate sized you’d get 24 or 32 vls cells to really pack in the firepower. Say £45 million for a 24 cell and 60 million for a 32 cell launcher system. Expensive but not ruinously so.
It’s mental when you think it would only cost £300m to put 32 MK41 on each of the type 31. What’s 300m today in a £50b defense budget? Arnt we paying £257 to upgrade tomahawk to block V?
The problem is if you spend £300 on the MK41 VLS systems for the Type 31 Fleet you lose one Ship – the budget was very limited and specific to get the project to delivery.Maybe they will be upgraded at a later date but the priority is just to get the 5 built on time and within budget.The 1SL has expressed a desire for them to be fitted but like most things needs the extra funding.
This is my frustration though there should be no need to lose a ship in the grand scheme of things, 300m is an “account correct rounding up” exercise for HM treasury. It’s peanuts. It seems that the excuses for not building 20 type 31 is because we either don’t have the man power to man them, or we can’t afford to recruit them. Finding 300m to fit something that would cost peanuts to maintain, does not require any more men aboard is just a no brainer to me. Being able to launch pretty much any ASHM in the nato arsenal for £15m per ship has to be the minimum to call a ship a warship. Tomahawk upgrade for £257m or MK41 on all type 31’s? I know what I would rather have
Hmm it seems quite expensive to me. I read somewhere a couple of years ago that the US pays 56m dollars for 12 sets of 8 MK41 launchers for the burkes. That’s without installation though. I’d be happy with 24 ceptor and 8 MK41 strike length on a T31 if we had a much bigger navy. If we had multi purpose destroyers like the burkes that could launch aster 30, SM6, tomahawk etc then it’s not too bad having that load out on a T31 but, we don’t, and it’s mental to me that we spend all this time designing and building a ship, expensive radars, engines, management system etc to then give them no firepower. If the long term plan is 24 escorts, the minimum load out should be 32 MK41 per ship. Even the Chinese type 54B is going from 32 vls to 48. That’s the same as our type 45 on a cheap frigate
Mk 41 is a hot launch system for hot launch missiles.
Ceptor is cold launch.
You dont need to quad pack a 5+ meter long Strike length Mk41 with a 3 meter long missile. You would be wasting a valuable VL tube that is next to impossible to reload at sea .
Use Mk41 for something worth while such as Tomahawk Block V ( 2 mil GBP approx) or go the whole hog and get Standard Mk6 at around 4-5 mil GBP a pop.
Ceptor is around 800-900 K a pop. Thinking about it you could probably reload it at sea if needed. The canister is 3m long and weight wise is around 120kg. You could do that by hand with a couple of field gunners!
Thanks for the explanation Guns.