What big changes are coming to the Royal Navy by 2030?

James Heappey, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, answered that question in a recent statement.

“In 2030, the Royal Navy will maintain its primary outputs of Homeland Defence, Carrier Strike, Littoral Strike and Persistent Engagement with more advanced capabilities, as part of Integrated Force 30.

By this point, the transition from Vanguard to Dreadnought will be moving at pace, maintaining the nation’s ultimate safeguard, while the Multi Role Ocean Surveillance programme will be monitoring and protecting our Critical National Infrastructure at sea.

UK Carrier Strike will have reached Full Operating Capability, providing our conventional deterrent.

All five Type 31 frigates will have been delivered and will be forward deployed around the world. The first batch of Type 26 frigates will be on operations, protecting our aircraft carriers and the nuclear deterrent, and the transition from crewed to autonomous minehunting through the Mine Hunting Capability programme will also be well advanced.

The UK’s Commando Forces will have been persistently engaged for over five years by this point, engaging with our allies and partners every day, while being ready to respond to crisis.”

It’s a brief guide but for more, the excellent NavyLookout never disappoints.

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
271 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PRJ
PRJ
12 days ago

if the RN reaches 2030 without having a peer conflict it will have been very, very lucky. If it does I don’t fancy it’s chances against a peer maritime threat, especially given short sighted decision to be the only major navy without ASuW beyond 2023.

Wolf
Wolf
12 days ago
Reply to  PRJ

The Type 23s which are being decommissioned between 2023 – 2027 are the General Purpose (GP) variant, not the ASW variant.

Geoffi
Geoffi
12 days ago
Reply to  Wolf

He wrote ASuW capability, not ASW.

Absolute disgrace that the only anti-ship weapons we have need a sub or a helicopter

Wolf
Wolf
11 days ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Sorry for the misunderstanding – yes, I completely agree.

Sean
Sean
11 days ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Wrong, Sea Captor has anti-ship capability. Won’t blow a hole in the side of a cruiser and sink it, but hit the CIC, bridge, or radar systems and that’s the vessel combat ineffective.

Last edited 11 days ago by Sean
Ben
Ben
11 days ago
Reply to  Sean

If you’re closing within 15 miles of an enemy ship for a surface engagement with your handful of point defence missiles then you have royally screwed up.

Sean
Sean
11 days ago
Reply to  Ben

It’s your dumb ass idea to do that 🤷🏻‍♂️

Far better to keep the ship well out of range and send a helicopter or armed drone to take out the enemy vessel. But for some bizarre reason you don’t think that’s good enough 🤦🏻‍♂️

ps: you either have ridiculously big hands or can’t count if you think 32 is a “handful”
😆

Ben
Ben
11 days ago
Reply to  Sean

?? You’re the one who claimed that we have an ASuW capability in Sea Ceptor and I pointed out it’s almost entirely worthless unless you’re being swarmed by speedboats because it requires you to get suicidally close and wastes your only real defensive weapons. And yes, a helicopter or drone is absolutely not good enough. Against PCGFs or other small lightly armed vessels perhaps, but certainly not anything corvette-sized or larger. Also 32 missiles is woefully small compared to contemporaries, especially for such short range missiles. A modern warship equipped with Mk41 and ESSMs could fit that inside of 8… Read more »

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Short range?
Seawolf at a massive 5-10km was short ranged and CLOS guided.
Ceptor has a decent range on it for local area defence, active homing so no trackers required, its engagement capabilities are very very good and very varied. You need to get the thing to the predicted target point and then let it do its stuff.
In addition having all of them in the air going at different targets is a massive step up.

Ben
Ben
11 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I’m aware of how Sea Ceptor works and what a step up it is over Sea Wolf and its 911 directors, and have never claimed that it’s inadequate at its specific role. But with that being said, fitting our shrinking fleet of frontline frigates with only canister-launched local area defence weapons, which are taking up space that could be occupied by a more flexible VLS, in what seem to be rather limited quantities going by global trends, shows a remarkable level of penny-pinching and lack of foresight. Sea Ceptor being the primary armament of a Type 31/32 is fine, although… Read more »

Dern
Dern
11 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Except it isn’t the only armament of Type 26? Type 26 has a VLS farm for Sea Ceptor and a Mk41 for FCASW and whatever else is desired…. so…. maybe a bit of honesty in the argument?

Ben
Ben
10 days ago
Reply to  Dern

What was I dishonest about? Sea Ceptor is the only notable weapon system the ship has apart from a vague promise that FC/ASW, if it ever materialises in a useful form, will also be fitted. But either way those Mk41s will be filled with nothing but cobwebs for years and the MoD will never fork out the money to get anything else in there such as a MR-SAM or VL-ASROC.

Dern
Dern
10 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Doubling down on your dishonesty doesn’t make it any better.

Ben
Ben
10 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Claiming I’m being dishonest doesn’t make it true. In fact I’m not even sure which part of my statement you’re claiming is dishonest. If you could, please enlighten me then to this wide range of weapons carried by the Type 26 outside of Ceptor and FC/ASW in some form, probably years after the ship is in service, if at all. And not some fantasy weapon fit of ‘oh we could put ASROC, TLAM, LRASM etc in there’ because we both know there’s almost zero chance of the MoD integrating anything else. Frankly we’ll be lucky to get FC/ASW.

Dern
Dern
10 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Yeah, see you say that, but then you spent the entire reply trying to justify your dishonesty. As I said, doubling down on it doesn’t make it any better. You know exactly what you’re being dishonesty because you are getting defensive about it.

But thank you for admitting that we are putting FCASW on Type 26, and showing the contradiction between your initial lies and the truth,

Ben
Ben
10 days ago
Reply to  Dern

I never once claimed FC\ASW wasn’t going on it? Even though I am skeptical of it ever becoming a reality, and very skeptical of its projected ISD likely leaving those VLS cells empty for years. In my initial reply to GB I was discussing the AAW capability of the Type 26, and FC/ASW is not a part of that equation. You’ve gotten the wrong end of the stick and assumed I was talking about overall weapons fit and accused me of being dishonest.

rmj
rmj
5 days ago
Reply to  Dern

What was he dishonest about? His points were clear and well made

andy reeves
andy reeves
20 minutes ago
Reply to  Ben

What’s needed is a mass of martlet systems to be deployed wherever possible, be it in a defensive role, aggressive one in combating swarm attacks with hopefully an ASW version designed and. Deployed it’s cheaper and more flexible than current systems in their conventional roles

Sean
Sean
11 days ago
Reply to  Ben

You clearly don’t understand the difference between a defence armament and an offensive one. 🤦🏻‍♂️

So you’d rather close distance with an enemy combatant, which puts you in range of their systems, rather than send a helicopter or drone to launch something at them. Any particular reason why you want to needless endanger the lives of your crew?

Ben
Ben
11 days ago
Reply to  Sean

I think you’ve completely misunderstood what I’ve said. You refuted the claim that we lack an effective ASuW capability by claiming Sea Ceptor has a secondary surface attack mode. I pointed out that using your small, short range, limited number of SAMs, which are also you’re only defence against air attack to attack an enemy ship is suicidal. As is using a helicopter to launch lightweight missiles at anything bigger than a corvette because it’d almost certainly be swatted out of the sky before getting into range. What I want is for RN surface combatants to be universally fitted with… Read more »

Jon
Jon
11 days ago
Reply to  Ben

LSRAM, SM-6? A tad pricey, and I suspect FC/ASW will be too. If you want a universally installed SSM it needs to be far cheaper. I think we’ve messed up by going in with the French on a top-tier solution without backing it up with a second tier one. We could just place orders for NSM or Sea Serpent, etc, or we could go to MBDA and say, we want an anti-ship/surface missile with a maximum unit price of £500K, export potential, to be in production within three years. You’ve a white sheet of paper and we won’t interfere. What’s… Read more »

rmj
rmj
5 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Agree – some of these commentators have somehow been brainwashed into believing a lack of armaments a good thing, and that jam tomorrow will happen. They’re naive, and would doubt any would be happy going to a conflict zone on a warship without hygiene capabilities.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Which is why putting ASM on our jets beats putting them on escorts. Our escorts should be nowhere near enemy vessels as they don’t need to be.

Jon
Jon
11 days ago

And yet that’s not how it works. Our escorts are constantly near enemy vessels, whether escorting Russian ships through the Channel, conducting freedom of passage in the South China Seas or putting themselves between Iranian ships and civilian vessels in Hormuz. You may think they don’t need to be, but the navy thinks differently, and the missile load out needs to reflect what is.

I agree we need stand-off anti-ship missiles on planes (was Cap 4 ever supposed to handle that?), but we need them on the escorts too.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Jon

I may think they don’t need to be because in war they won’t be. All those are peace time, not peer on peer war. If you’re in visual range the find and track chain is meaningless. And then you have a gun, and you have Martlet, and you have Sea Venom. Posters here are imagining two fleets of battleships lobbing missiles at each other on the high seas. You have to find them first. The obvious peer enemies, Russia, China. Where in the Atlantic will their ships be? Russia is bottled up by geography. In war they hide in their… Read more »

Jon
Jon
11 days ago

Our conventional forces should have a deterrent effect, and it’s arguable that if NATO had been spending 3% of GDP on its military, Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine in the first place. Not having the ability to attack enemy warships larger than a corvette puts our warships in the category of ignoreable. This is not deterrence. If we were engaged with a peer adversary, rest assured, others would launch grey-zone attacks against us. We are not universally loved. Iran might well use proxy irregulars to attack our ships, probably from land. Anti-surface missiles on our surface fleet being a “nice… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

“and it’s arguable that if NATO had been spending 3% of GDP on its military, Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine in the first place.” On that I’m in full agreement Jon. On the T31s, would they be on station or redeployed to where the war is? The UK cannot arm every vessel to the teeth for every eventuality and I would suggest the US cannot do that with every asset either. Or, lets try another route. What goes to pay for the ASM on the ships? You are DS now to make that choice with the funds you have. Proxy… Read more »

Jon
Jon
10 days ago

I’ll hit the juiciest question first. What goes to pay for the ASM on the ships? Delay replacements of nuclear warheads for ten to fifteen years; they may need renewing, they may even need replacing eventually, but they don’t need “improving”. Also stop disassembly and reassembly of warheads every time the polititians decide to virtue signal by changing the cap. That’s a few billion. Audit the requirement allocated to CDAS infrastructure last year, because I don’t believe that the billions going there were warranted either, despite the excellent article in Navy Lookout a couple of weeks ago. That’s probably about… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

I’m not 100% on this, but I believe reassembly and disassembly of warheads is a prerry regular event, not at a politicians whim. Otherwise Burghfeld would be sitting empty and the gravel gerties abandoned. Nuclear infrastructure, who can say? I’ve not seen the article, will have a look. And I’m not a SME on the precision needed to create and maintain the deterrent to judge what is and not needed. I know new facilities at AWE sites have been under way for many years. You could say not spending now is just costing even more later as plenty of infrastructure… Read more »

Jon
Jon
10 days ago

I’m not talking about warhead maintenance overhauls. As I understand it, significant disassembly of warheads to put them out of use followed the Cameron’s 2010 decision to reduce the cap. It takes a long time and is very expensive. The process was still under way more than a decade later when Boris announced an increase on the cap (or so I’ve read). Is it a regular thing? I believe so. Is it a necessary thing? I doubt it. We’ve needed more infrastructure for the Vanguards not least because we only have three working boats. Fingers crossed for HMS Vanguard’s immanent… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Right, understood, that is not something I was aware was still ongoing. The extra 14 billion, is that headroom uncomitted contingency money or committed money for certain items? I must get round to reading this to form a better view, but we know when posters ask where does our money go the deterrent is the huge elephant in the room. Army, as you may have read I favour a RA first policy, so I agree there. I’ll take the easy opt out and won’t get OT on the NFS as it’s been done to death here before, what I will… Read more »

Jon
Jon
9 days ago

According to the NAO, warhead disassembly was supposed to continue until “the mid 2020s”. That’s now the same timeframe announced for the reassembly to return numbers back to 260, last seen in 2005. I doubt that’s realistic. Of the extra money the government committed last year to the next ten years of defence, £46.7bn went into equipment. The big winners are DNO £14.3bn, Special Projects £10bn (I’d guess much of it’s Tempest related), and Army £8.6bn (of which £11.1bn is procurement uncommitted). The £14.3bn increase for DNO breaks down as follows Procurement committed: -£600m Procurement uncommitted: £5.9 bn Support committed:… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Great info this, thanks. Yes, nukes are the greatest elephant in the room. And I support the deterrent.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
9 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Special projects. Yes, possibly, and very much a catch all that could encompass several areas.
I also believe some “Special Projects” teams in DE&S are DSF procurement related.
Lots of uncommitted billions for the army there. So we can expect some goodies.
Posters ask where the money goes. Here’s the answer, alongside high-tech 5 eyes stuff and R&D.

Jon
Jon
9 days ago

The top level budgets are confusing as hell. I called it Special Projects, but I meant Strategic Programmes, sorry. Same difference. It includes things like the Type 45 upgrades, and directed energy weapons. Special Forces comes under Strategic Command, a different TLB. This stuff is labyrinthine. For example, SSN procurement is DNO, but SSN support is Navy Command. If anyone wants to start getting into it there are three documents I’d recommend: UK defence equipment plan 2021 (Aspirational verbage) UK defence equipment plan 2021 Supplementary data tables (numbers that don’t always match the aspirations) NAO report: The Equipment Plan 2021… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
8 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Ok. Yes, there is a Strat Prog area.

Strategic Command has most “purple” areas of MoD, so yes DSF falls there. Though not necessarily procurement activities, but training and operations.

DNO oversees the defence nuclear enterprise, which encompasses most nuclear related stuff. There was/is also a SSE Strategic Systems Executive but these things get rebranded or moved so often it is very hard to keep track! So join the club! 🙄😆

Jon
Jon
10 days ago

T31/T32s don’t need to be armed to the teeth, but they do need to have the ability to undertake other roles than surface patrols. In particular I’d want them to be able to handle escorting littoral response groups, so a decent hull-mounted sonar if only for mine detection and a selection of missiles appropriate to the role, including the anti-surface ones, and dedicated helicopters/large-UAVs. We’ll have between 6 and 10 GP frigates and I wouldn’t waste them doing a job that the Batch 2 Rivers are perfectly capable of, and more cheaply too. Yes, Hormuz is too much for the… Read more »

rmj
rmj
5 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Spot on

Just me
Just me
11 days ago

Your jets can’t be everywhere.
What are you going to do, give every forward deployed warships its own carrier to defend it?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Neither can an enemies assets. But lets move from peer on peer which has been the basis for this subject to wider engagements with all and sundry the world over shant we, for which every RN asset must be armed to the teeth to respond to, there and then? 🙃 I suggest you read up on full spectrum warfare, ISTAR, and how wars start and the build up leading to those wars and the moves that take place behind the scenes. If an aircraft was decided as the best solution to use, If necessary an RAF flight could deploy from… Read more »

Joe16
Joe16
10 days ago

Agreed. The idea of declaring FOC for “Carrier Enabled Power Projection” and a pivot of some kind to the Indo-Pacific, home of the fastest growing non-allied navy in the world, without having an ASM that can be delivered by the carrier’s primary strike platform is crazy. USN and MN both have air delivered medium or heavy weight AShMs for their carrier aircraft, I believe that the Aussies are planning something similar for their F-35B. Iranian, Russian and Chinese maritime aircraft have them, as does India. We are basically putting ourselves at a range disadvantage of hundreds of miles compared to… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

I agree Joe. The ASM on escorts is a red herring IMO. It’s aircraft they are needed for, never mind the issues of finding the target. Risk your jet, not a ship.

Joe16
Joe16
10 days ago

If F-35 sensor fusion and L/O capabilities are half of what new operators seem to be claiming, finding the enemy may very well not be too much of a problem. The “spotter” and launching aircraft could easily be different aircraft- one further forward than the other and running dark. 

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Joe16

Which is where Drones will come in. Still wish LM would get a move on with BIV.

Ben
Ben
10 days ago

If we had to choose one or the other, I’d choose jets too, but given the size and role of the RN, there’s nothing aside from penny-pinching stopping us from having both for redundancy. There also hasn’t ever, as far as I’m aware, been any plans to fit FC/ASW to the F-35. So if by chance that program does produce a capable ASuW strike capability, we’ve basically got to hope a Type 26 is nearby and has a couple loaded, or that a squadron of Typhoons happens to be nearby with them in inventory.

rmj
rmj
5 days ago

Reliance on jets for protection is risky, especially in far flung places. Also need constant presence which means AAR. ASuW is a basic requirement for any major surface combatant, without it it’s a liability to its crew and other surface vessels.

Dprendo
Dprendo
1 day ago

but our fleet isnt in a carrier strike configeration all or most of the time. our escourts will generally be isolated in any encounter. since we dont have many of them, it’s sensible to make them cross spectrum capable imo.

rmj
rmj
5 days ago
Reply to  Sean

The SAM rings will likely not let your helicopter anywhere near, whilst warhead too small.

Sean
Sean
5 days ago
Reply to  rmj

Bollocks

rmj
rmj
5 days ago
Reply to  Sean

With an uneducated response like that your credibility is nil. If you can’t be civil don’t post.

Sean
Sean
5 days ago
Reply to  rmj

Well if you talk bollocks, expect it in return.
It’s one of Newtons Laws.

rmj
rmj
5 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Clueless pal. You’ve clearly never flown in a helicopter, let alone tested the RWR at different heights or angles against the acquisition or tracking radars. If you have then let’s compare notes and experiences. A Wildcat won’t get safely within range of most destroyer SAM rings to deliver its 3kg or 30kg warhead missile- which itself will achieve sweet fa.

andy reeves
andy reeves
27 minutes ago
Reply to  Sean

Drones are used as targets in naval exercises and are usually easily shot down so Stealth technology will become a need for these craft in the future.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago
Reply to  Ben

Hand full? You have big hands to hold 32 of them.

The range is a fair bit longer than 15 miles as well.

Consider this. Without OHT what is the effective range of Harpoon? Its the surface search radar horizon.

Paul Green
Paul Green
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

You really dont want to write stuff like that on an open forum. If an MOD worker see’s it we will be f….d.

I can see it now, boss I have come up with a great idea to save more money….

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Geoffi

And if the sub is in the right place and the helo isn’t shot down prior to missile or torpedo being launched. Venom and Marlet need to have they’d range increased by 1/2 to double especially the Marlet.

andy reeves
andy reeves
31 minutes ago
Reply to  Geoffi

Armed anti submarine drones will become a real part of ASW in the future no doubt

andy reeves
andy reeves
32 minutes ago
Reply to  Wolf

The retiring T23’s should be stripped of anything that cannot be crossdecked to other ships and the hulls given to the new Zealand and Australian navies.as a real show of gratitude for the loyalty given to the u.k in the past, maybe two for south Africa in exchange for the basing rights to use Simon’s town again.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
12 days ago
Reply to  PRJ

I agree but I fear this tells us much about the guy dictating things from above all mouth no trousers, literally in his case.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
12 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Or would you rather have the Russian scrap heap challenge approach and have loads of weapons around that don’t really work.

There is a limited budget and it needs to be focused on things that works really well.

That said retaining upgraded Harpoon, which clear works against Russia/Soviet junk is viable as a bulk weapons system backed up longer term by the higher tech alternatives.

Thing withs upgraded Harpoon is that it is a fixed price job, with kits available from Boeing, and all the services are already plumbed into the ships.

John N
John N
11 days ago

Here in Oz the Government is speeding up the replacement of the current Harpoon Blk II missiles with NSM for the 3 x Hobart class DDG and 8 x Anzac class FFH (I would imagine the 9 x Hunter class FFG will also end up with NSM, plus Mk41 VLS launched LRASM).

The new missiles are due to start entering service from 2024.

https://adbr.com.au/australia-to-buy-naval-strike-missile-fast-track-jassm-er-buy/

Maybe the RAN can sell the surplus Harpoons Blk II stock to the RN?

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

Very interesting article about the recent US Navy Valiant Shield Exercise in which the Navy sunk a decommissioned frigate with an SM-6 missile, along with other US anti-ship missiles. It seems that the SM-6 is being developed into a true anti-ship missile that should be of interest to Australia and the UK. The article also gives an excellent summary of where the US is developing anti-ship missile capability.
SM-6 Missile Used To Strike Frigate During Massive Sinking Exercise In Pacific (thedrive.com)

John N
John N
11 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Yes I read that article too.

The SM-6 missile has been on the procurement list here in Oz for a few years now.

My understanding is that the RAN Hobart DDGs and future Hunter FFGs will have the Mk41 VLS loaded with SM-2 and SM-6, ESSM Blk 2 and potentially LRASM.

https://adbr.com.au/adf-to-commit-to-maritime-missile-programs/

No shortage of options, plus future hypersonic weapons too.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
11 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

They were also testing the new “quicksink” free fall bombs against in this case a small tanker that had its back broken with just one bomb, the draw back is that the aircraft has to get quite close so it is well within the Anti Air Missile range of most modern ships but would be effective against the logistical support vessels and lightly defended naval units that stray out of the protection of the main fleet.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
11 days ago

The small ‘bomb’ might have been a warhead test?

What is to say that it couldn’t be put on the front of a Harpoon style missile set to do a rise’n’dive (under momentum profile.

OK the problem with the dive bit is the unbelievable stress it puts on the missile but maybe the warhead releases and that bit alone dives down?

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
11 days ago

Quicksink is a new strap-on system for a 2000lb bomb so it can track it target then the bomb will not explode until it is under the hull of the target so explodes braking the back of the vessel. The draw back is that it is not powered so it is limited to a gravitational glide path. There are moves afoot to give it a winged system to extend that glide path to up to 60 miles but still within Russian and Chinese anti aircraft missile systems so the delivery aircraft/drone is still in danger of being shot down.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
11 days ago

I wouldn’t describe 2000lb bomb as small in any context. Having looked at the video what is pictured isn’t a 2000lb bomb: it isn’t big enough to be that. Absolutely no reason why you could not have something like that on the front of a heavy weight missile and use the missile to toss the warhead onto a glide path. The problem is that when the ‘bomb’ enters the water at speed the deceleration is savage. So the ‘bomb’ must detach from the missile otherwise it will crumple. Also the water guide fins will either need an aerodynamic fairing over… Read more »

Netking
Netking
10 days ago

I read an interview with the people behind the quicksink idea. This weapon is designed as an affordable way to attack lightly defended ships that lack long range air defence weapons. Think PLA maritime militia which reported numbers in the tens thousands of vessels.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago
Reply to  Netking

I get the idea. Which is sound.

Thing is that it can be scaled for a bigger effect against combatants.

Netking
Netking
10 days ago

I read an interview with the people behind the quicksink idea. This weapon is designed as an affordable way to attack lightly defended ships that lack long range air defence weapons. Think PLA maritime militia which reported numbers in the tens thousands of vessels.

Steven Alfred Rake
Steven Alfred Rake
10 days ago
Reply to  Netking

Yes it looks as though it is going to work (all the tests to date have been positive) but as you rightly say it will only be of use against lightly defended targets but still worth having on board the carriers for the F35’s so that they can take out a lightly armed target without the fleet having to use expensive and limited number of ASM’s

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

Surely another good enough reason to put 2 MK41s on the T45s where the original slots are and CAMMs down the side or else where? If FC/ASW is ever late there’s the TLAM, SM6, NSM options and even a mix of these.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

And LSRAM.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
11 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

As I’ve previously speculated the reason for not putting the Mk41 onto T45 *might* be the desire to reserve some space for hypersonics which *might* need bigger launch tubes.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
10 days ago

You *might* be right and if that’s the case then that could also be so for T31/32/26/83. Here’s hoping always for the best for the RN. At 1£bn + warship you don’t want to be underdone.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Hypersonics would probably need the more sophisticated radar suite on T45.

I cannot see the point if putting Gen#1 hypersonics on a T31.

Gen#2 hypersonic will likely be more compact and go into Mk41 VLS.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago
Reply to  DanielMorgan

At 5m USD a pop though.

Nick C
Nick C
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

The great thing that you have in Oz is that defence seems to be treated as important by all politicians, so that when a need arises it is actioned. The problem we have here is that the politicos are more interested in their second jobs and whose back they can stab next. Add to that that the MOD procurement process is labyrinthine and every layer of it says no because they don’t want to be seen to have made a mistake. So even when a decision is reached on how to satisfy a need the Treasury then says no, mostly… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
11 days ago
Reply to  Nick C

I would phrase that a bit differently. The general process is labarynthine in nature. So it does run out in the sands of time. Politicans by their very nature have an attention span that moves from crisis to crisis. It might well have been that the former 1SL could have convinced everyone that Mk41 on T31 was essential and that an NSM buy was important. But by the time that he has moved to a new post news cycle has moved on new priorities arrive in the politicians in trays All that is swept away. And as you say the… Read more »

John N
John N
11 days ago

Mate, can you explain something for me?

Here on UKDJ I’ve often seen reference to the UK Treasury being a problem for Defence spending, why?

Is UK Treasury independent of UK Government spending/budget decisions? Or does it operate under direction from the UK Government?

Here in Australia, Treasury doesn’t have a say in what the Government can or can’t spend on Defence.

The Government sets the annual national budget expenditure for the various departments of Government, including Defence.

I had assumed the Australian and UK Treasury systems worked the same?

Thanks,

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

As I understand it big purchasing decisions get a yes or no from HMT.

And why else is T26 drip fed slowing things down. MoD must realise it’s an inefficient and costly way of doing things.

HMT is the greatest enemy HM forces have after general political indifference and ineptitude.

John N
John N
11 days ago

Thanks Daniele,

That just seems to be a very bizarre set up to me.

It’s sounds like the saying about the ‘tail wagging the dog’.

In effect are you saying UK Treasury has more power than UK Government over Government policy?

Or is it a useful tool by the UK Government ‘to pass the buck’ and blame Treasury?

Here in Oz, yes Treasury can provide advice to Government, but it has no power to say yes or no.

Anyway, what a bizarre way to run your nations finances and spending.

Cheers,

Martin
Martin
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

Governments come and go but the treasury remains. If you go back to the 1920’s and 30’s you will see the treasury doing the exact same thing it does today. Making defence decisions based on costs. The treasury are the ones who were behind the Washington Naval treaty, the treasury are the reason the navy does have have any strike length VLS on surface ships. The navy had to call the invincible class throw deck cruisers so the treasury did not think they were aircraft carriers.

Jonathan
Jonathan
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

It’s not so much the treasury as the chancellor of the exchequer who is the minister of state for the treasury. But the treasury is the most senior government department and what the chancellor says goes in regards to tax and the budget allocations for all other departments.

Steve
Steve
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

Na, HM Treasury takes their orders from the PM/parliment just like in any country. Its just treasury is more powerful than the MOD, as the MOD has to request budget from treasury. In theory the treasury could say no and the PM overrule them, in practice it would get that far as treasury would sound out the PM ahead of any major decisions.

There is often friction between the PM and treasury, but that is PR designed to get the PM of the day off the hook for unpopular decisions.

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
11 days ago

I think the problem is that many laypeople on this site don’t understand how their government works and then support all sorts of conspiracy theories, often involving various government departments, like the Treasury. The MOD are given a budget, within this budget they have projects to manage. The budget is one of the largest defence budgets on the planet earth. But many on this site are convinced that it is a small budget and that we are paupers and always trying to save money. In this alt universe, the MOD is always penny pinching and having unsuccessful projects and all… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
11 days ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

You’re using logic. Rookie mistake.

Stc
Stc
11 days ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

The treasury problem is a problem of lack of debate at election time. It’s the practice of politicos to avoid debate on military funding as they know they will look incompetent. No civil servant is put in control of a project so there is no accountability for failures and large overspend. Blame can be spread around and you cannot sack a civil servant! Plus the funding is always drip feed, this gives the manufacturers the opportunity to inflate costs drawing out the time to build com pounded by inflation. I’ve just wrote the history of Tempest, you will see unless… Read more »

Tommo
Tommo
11 days ago
Reply to  Stc

Morning Stc treasury, whitehall Civil service ,When I was in the Navy 70ts 80ts 90ts Cold war NI troubles Falklands, gulf ,Fmr yougoslavia we on the front line amounted too around 90,000 personnel and for every 1 personnel there was apparently 4 Civil servants on a hell of a better wage than us the frontline doesn’t waste the budget its the Civil service wasting the frontline

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
11 days ago
Reply to  Stc

See my previous reply, as someone that has researched this particular issue I would welcome any evidence that you have in regard to Treasury’s interference with major defence projects. Having read many of the relevant reports I am at a loss to understand where this urban folklore has come from.

Last edited 11 days ago by OkamsRazor
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
11 days ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

If only that was totally true. Treasury do have their fingers in the pie of larger contracts. Yes, MOD and contractors, are mostly the problem with often jokerishly unrealistic budget expectations. These are made much worse by Treasury aggressively enforcing a lack of flexibility. The fear is give and inch take a mile. Departments start ‘running a tan’ borrowing gets out of control. That dates mostly from Thatchers corner shop approach to accounting. She didn’t think big but books had to balance. Historically Treasury is the most powerful department and has created a lot of political problems for Major (black… Read more »

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
11 days ago

SB, appreciate the folklore perspective, but do you have any evidence of this? My research into large government contracts, as part of my MSc in Risk Management, albeit many moons ago found no such evidence. Whilst I appreciate it is nice to have a bogey man to point the blame at, the reality is that the MOD and their Ministers are the people that make the decisions.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
10 days ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

Treasury are physically in meetings where major projects are discussed and budgeted. I’ve been there. I was usually trusted by them as I was honest about what I thought costs were likely to be. The biggest problem was always getting big fat projects cancelled because of the sunk costs fallacy and many were employment schemes even though they had failure written all over them. This is why I have a high degree of sympathy for the MRA4 decision – even though it left a terrible capability gap that has only just been backfilled with P8 in the Nick of time.… Read more »

OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
10 days ago

SB, nobody is saying that Treasury don’t have a watching brief over major projects, it would be weird if they did not, especially with the MODs track record. However, the responsibility for major projects lies squarely with the sponsoring service, the MOD and the departmental minister, in that order. These are the people who determine the success or failure of projects, not some bogeyman at the treasury, as half the commentators on this site seem to think. If you have any examples to the contrary, I and many other professionals would welcome the education.

McZ
McZ
10 days ago
Reply to  OkamsRazor

The reason for MOD projects being regularly over time and budget is the trend to build world leading systems at the cutting edge. It’s not like in France, where they are content with having second-class SSNs, for example.

What the RN at least seem to have understood is the fact, that you need a hi/lo mix to get back to numbers.

We can debate, if the JSMDF or Italian Navy get this right by building lean-manned, high-tech Mogami or PPA classes, while the RN bets on T31.

Last edited 10 days ago by McZ
OkamsRazor
OkamsRazor
10 days ago
Reply to  McZ

I’m afraid that you are sadly misinformed if you believe that the French have a better record on major projects than the MOD, the grass is always greener, as they say.

John Hartley
John Hartley
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

There is nothing more expensive than HM Treasury saving money, with a genius idea that falls flat in the real world.

Jonathan
Jonathan
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

Essentially the chancellor and the treasury set the other department’s budgets. The departments such as the MOD etc make requests but the treasury sets the spending limits and rules. So at the moment we have all the public sector pay awards coming up, each department can set it’s own limits but the treasury has put in a rule that no pay increase will be funded so it all has to come out of department budget savings (cuts). The relationship between a chancellor and Primeminster are very interesting in the U.K. as although in theory the Chancellor works for the PM,… Read more »

John N
John N
11 days ago
Reply to  Nick C

Mate, our politicians here in Oz are pretty useless too, and rarely agree on anything. But the exception has been Defence policy and funding, whilst they might disagree around the edges of Defence a bit (and criticise the other side for political purposes occasionally), in general it is bipartisan from both major political parties. Something that confuses me a bit, I’ve often seen it reported that UK Treasury gets in the way of Defence spending, is the UK Treasury ‘independent’ of Government decisions? Here in Oz, Treasury is under control and directed by the Government of the day, Oz Treasury… Read more »

Nick C
Nick C
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

Hi JN. I think that the problem is our system has too many checks and balances in it. The wish list is always greater than the cash available, and unlike the US system, where the departments ask for X but also put in an unfunded wish list, in effect “nice to have” we seem to run each programme on its own merits and to its own timescale. For instance the new SSBN programme is scheduled to cost £x bn, but this is spread over many years. It doesn’t stop any armchair commentators pointing out that that sum could buy an… Read more »

John N
John N
11 days ago
Reply to  Nick C

Nick,

Thanks for the detailed explanation, much appreciated.

Defence, or non Defence, projects here in Australia can be sped up or slowed down, more funding, or less funding, so no difference there.

But those are decisions of the elected Government of the day, not Treasury, and yes there are checks and balances too.

In other words, those decisions fall squarely at the feet of Government to continue a spending decision or not, to continue with a policy decision or not.

Again, here it’s not the tail wagging the dog as appears to be the case in the UK.

Cheers,

RobW
RobW
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

I don’t think there is any difference between the UK and Aus as regards the role of the Treasury. When posters on here lament the UK Treasury what they are really doing is criticising the Government of the day who set the spending agenda. It is just the Treasury’s role to facilitate and manage it that’s all. Yes the Chancellor has real say on Government department budgets, but ultimately it is a political decision and led by their own party in Government.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

I am puzzled by why the RN the NSM buy was cancelled.

But I doubt it was solely about money. There has to be another, deeper, reason allied to that.

It might have been integration costs? Which is probably why T31 has TACTICOS, so the BAE CMS can be forced into open architecture, to prevent that kind of cost leveraging?

John N
John N
11 days ago

Mate, I struggle to see that integration of NSM in place of Harpoon is a major problem.

There is a growing list of nations operating, and soon to operate NSM.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

I don’t either.

But BAE CMS in unique to T45 and T23 with a newer open architecture on T26 and that may go to T45.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
11 days ago

I remember at the point of scrapping the defence secretary and first sea lord agreed that £250 million for 5 ship sets of 4-8 missiles was not a good use of governmental resources. Yet spending £3.4 billion so far on Ajax is?
At least NSM would work and can deliver a capability we are in danger of losing.
I would have thought an interim purchase of 10 ship sets for £500 million would have been money well spent.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

That’s another thing that got me annoyed, why only 5 sets!?Spend a bit more, maybe go for 10 plus some for reserves. £250m is peanuts. Anyway let’s hope FC/ASW ticks all the boxes and arrives on time if not a bit earlier. And if it’s range is too short for ship based land attack there’s always TLAM!

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  John N

Might need to give some Harpoons to NZ as well but I’m not sure if their frigates are fitted for any AShMs?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

They have Ceptor on the new Anzac fit

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Yes, a 20 CAMM 2×6+2×4 configuration. Shows what can be squeezed into a mk41 space. Their Seasprite helos carry Penguins AShMs which is not too bad but I don’t think their frigates have even FFBNW deck based AShMs, maybe they to don’t think they don’t need them too? Hope the huge Chinese fleet doesn’t come down their way anytime soon.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
10 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I have worked on Aussie Anzacs. They have harpoon in front of the bridge. ESSM is up by the funnel. Interestingly the Aussies have Seahawk Helos but the ship needs 2 different types of torpedo. One for the STWS tubes (its a European one, cannot remember which one) and the Mk 54 for the Helo. Not ideal needing two torps for two systems. The joys of buying American aircraft that are only integrated with American weapons to make you only buy from them (sounds familiar! ) The Kiwi Anzacs don’t have Harpoon. As they don’t come out to play in… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
9 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Mu90

Jonathan
Jonathan
11 days ago

Yes if we are just carting around a heavyweight anti ship missile on escorts incase, then upgrading harpoon would be the sensible option. Does not waste to much money as the RN is unlikely to ever fire them in anger. Then spend some money on moving forward with things that will probably get fired in anger, like spear 3 and a solid air launched anti ship missile for our fast jets and as the T26s and T31s come online something modern that is due ASuW and land attack to go in the Mk 41 silos as well as getting silos… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB
11 days ago
Reply to  Jonathan

The beauty of NSM is that unlike Harpoon you can use it in congested waters. The imaging infrared sensor allows it to recognize the target it searching for. Harpoon cannot do this. It’s radar is too basic for proper target discrimination. It will latch onto the largest reflection it finds. The latest block 2+ Harpoon with the data-link, allows it to be retargeted. But the operator has to to be able to see the target to do this. Or be given up to date information from a third party.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago

You’d hope there’s a ready supply of Harpoon’s for the RN if stocks are low. Aus is a long way away but I guess missiles can be flown in. Maybe there’re are closer NATO weapon pools that can be sourced if needed? As John mentions below the RAN’s getting AShMs fast forwarded and surely the same can be done for the RN. You’d hope so. The last time I looked (last weekend) some of the docked Hobart’s and Anzac’s had their Harpoon’s at the ready.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
11 days ago
Reply to  PRJ

If we come up against the Chinese, as things stand now, never mind in eight years time, we don’t stand a cat in hells chance.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Totally Geoff, bet it’ll be rough. Maybe some people will only wake up when the barbarian’s are at the gate so to speak!

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
10 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Wake up? If. The “don’t worry about it crowd” are always with us and always find someone else to blame when the manure hits the fan.

Klonkie
Klonkie
9 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Hi Quentin. Mate, I fear they are already here or will be soon in the Solomon’s. At least you have a government trying to do something about it and make a stand. Not here in NZ though.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
9 days ago
Reply to  Klonkie

Hi Klonkie, China will probably want to “slide” in even more into the region under pretexts like providing so called “security training” (what a load of BS), rebuild their airports, roads and seaports (how jolly covenient that will be for the CCP and PLA army/navy/airforce), plus set up the telecommunications, businesses, have more frequent naval visits, start overfishing other nations seas, not to mention putting in listening posts/cables to monitor allied sub and coastal movements and cable traffic in strategic spots. The West maybe has been a bit lazy in some relational areas and needs to counter by either doing… Read more »

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
11 days ago
Reply to  PRJ

Sucinct

MJ
MJ
11 days ago
Reply to  PRJ

?

Subs are the main ASuW capability of the navy and always (in its current form) has been. Airborne assets provide a secondary capability.

PRJ
PRJ
11 days ago
Reply to  MJ

we have just 5 subs. They’re not ubiquitous, whilst they’re no deterrent. Airborne assets have no heavyweight capabilities. ASuW is a basic capability all major surface vessels should have, otherwise they’re liabilities in a conflict.

Frank62
Frank62
11 days ago
Reply to  PRJ

Spot on. We’ve tolerated gapping nonsense way too long. It’s playing Russian roulette with our security & credability. Our warships must be able to engage enemies with the significant clout only AShMs give. A decent main gun is also essential but if we rely on that, we’re probably sunk before we get within range by enemy AShMs. The only airbourne AShMs are quite lightweight & only carried by Wildcat heli’s. If you only have Merlins aboard you’re stuffed. They carry no missiles. A Wildcat would have to get well within the enemies SAM range to launch a missile, which is… Read more »

Last edited 11 days ago by Frank62
AlexS
AlexS
11 days ago
Reply to  MJ

RN have 5 SSN , their most important objective is to catch other subs only after that they can dedicate mission to attack surface objectives. In short they will not if the enemy have a comparable quantity of subs.

Marked
Marked
11 days ago
Reply to  MJ

What airborne assets? They don’t have anti ship weapons. Unless you count getting suicidal bombing range.

What subs? We have the lowest number in service for decades. Of them how many are at sea? How many missions can a couple of available subs support? They may be good but they can’t be in 3 places at once.

RobW
RobW
11 days ago
Reply to  Marked

The reduction to 5 has been known for a while so the RN has planned for it. Efforts have been underway for over a year to increase the availability of the SSN fleet.

Getting boats to sea – efforts to improve Royal Navy submarine availability | Navy Lookout

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  MJ

Too few subs. Torpedos too slow and relatively short ranged and too few TLAMs too. Bloody marvellous really, not!

RobW
RobW
11 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Spearfish travels at up to 60 knots. Is that too slow? What could out run that?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
10 days ago
Reply to  RobW

Sorry, what I meant was in relation to AShMs torpedos are obviously slower, but I will say 60kts is pretty quick for sub-surface.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  PRJ

Yes, talking 2030, what about now, 2023,24, 25? Why not 30 RN ships by 2030 plus an additional Astute? Lots of rambling hot air. Seriously hope there’s more stuff going on behind the scenes and less underarming of RN vessels and more intentional maximising of ships capabilities preferably at first build. That’s my 5p of hot air for now!

andy reeves
andy reeves
42 minutes ago
Reply to  PRJ

Alongside the cheapest for the money frigate, maybe we should be doing the same thing in increasing the ssk department cheaper faster to build boats conventually powered, low crewing boats like the Gotland type, the Swedes built for 100,000 Swedish krona(compare that with the overpriced overrated slow to build astute s. The Australians intend to retire it’s Collins class boats. and want to go nuclear. The U.k should take the six of them and give them some of the boats currently clogging up rosyth and Devon port

Just Me
Just Me
12 days ago

The Royal Navy by 2030 – how will it look by 2023?SUNK if it ever gets in a peer conflict as it had zero Anti surface capability on its surface combatants

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Just Me

Why? Does it’s AA defence not work?

And why will our escorts be coming within range of Russian ships like skittles at a fair? They have to come to us remember?
Out of the Black Sea.
Out of the Baltic.
Out of North Cape.

Where NATO sinks them in short order.

We need ASM, sure. But for our fast jets primarily. And retaining Harpoon would also be sensible considering it exists and works.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago

I’d also add Saying ZERO anti surface capability on our escorts is blatantly untrue with Sea Venom and Martlet.

Just me
Just me
11 days ago

Very short range missiles only useful against rubber boats and fast attack craft.

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

They are much more useful than that.The RN wouldn’t have bought them if they aren’t very capable weapon systems.

eclipse
eclipse
11 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Robert although I agree that Sea Venom is a useless asset… I wouldn’t say that your argument for it is solid. We could then argue that the Ajax is very capable because otherwise the Army wouldnt have bought it. Oh wait. 😂

eclipse
eclipse
11 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

Sorry sorry i meant *useful here.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
11 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

👍

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
11 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

The difference is, Sea Venom and Martlet are in service and meet exactly the requirement they were purchased for. Ajax currently does not. Yet. I generally don’t comment on Army vehicles, because I know naff all about them.

Dern
Dern
11 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

The issue is the Army needs a Ajax style vehicle. The requirement for formation recce hasn’t gone away.

Just me
Just me
11 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Martlet? What a joke, its just a laser guided 70mm rocket.
Sea Venom? Might sink the Gosport Ferry on a good day.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Well I guess I’ll trust the requirements of the RN more than a random angry lad on the Internet.

Jon
Jon
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

It’s worth having a look at what Lynx/Sea Skua did in Iraq. Arguably Sea Skua was the most successful missile the Royal Navy has ever wielded. I don’t see how the Wildcat/Sea Venom combination can be so casually dismissed.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? Do you have any idea of the complexity of systems in a warship? The interdependency of systems on other systems? You dont need to sink something to mission kill it. Even small missiles will cause damage to systems to take a ship off the grid for a considerable time while BDR is undertaken. If you want to really screw a ships systems hit the lesser systems like say Anemometers. They feed info for Gunnery, Helo Ops, EW Decoys. All are degraded without that input. Yes the systems still… Read more »

Just me
Just me
11 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Ah I see, so you are going to fly your Wildcat into eyeball close range of a real warship with a SAM system to try and peck it to death with 70mm bottle rockets. Do you even know what the minuscule range of the Martlet is?
Stick to playing World of Warships

Ian M
Ian M
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

You’re picking on the wrong bloke “Just Me”!

Propellerman
Propellerman
11 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

yes – kind of cringy to read this gobs*ite

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

No no, let him hang himself mate!

Ian M
Ian M
11 days ago

👍

Julian
Julian
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Wow. You had a pop at Daniele – “Do you actually understand anything about anti ship missiles?” (yes he does) and now this “Stick to playing World of Warships” comment to Gunbuster. Those of us who have been on this forum for a while are very aware of Gunbuster’s depth of training, knowledge and experience and have benefited from that on many occasions thanks to his detailed explanations of various things, all subject to only dealing with unclassified info of course. And yes, I am sure that Gunbuster knows the range characteristics of Martlet in great detail. If you want… Read more »

Just me
Just me
11 days ago
Reply to  Julian

Meh, this ‘expert’ can’t even get the very basics about the missiles he’s banging on about right.

RobW
RobW
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

I would imagine Gunbuster chuckled at that comment. He is literally the most knowledgeable commentator on UKDJ as regards the RN and its’ ships. He has spent a career working on them, taking them apart, and putting them back together. As Ian said, you picked on the wrong bloke.

Just me
Just me
11 days ago
Reply to  RobW

I’m certainly laughing at an ‘expert’ who thought Exocet was an anti submarine missile. Les chaps at Aerospatiale are still rolling on the floor in hysterics.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

If a target is a surfaced SSN or a ship what is the difference?
And that is not what GB said either but it clearly escaped you.

Airborne
Airborne
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Where did he say that? All your doing is making yourself look a bit silly throwing unnecessary insults about.

Dern
Dern
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

😂😂😂
Mate, not a great way to introduce yourself to this forum….

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Using the benefit of your real world naval experience please let us know of just one instance post WW2 where a modern frigate or destroyer has detected a peer enemy surface combatant, tracked it and acquired a firing solution, fired its missiles and successfully engaged and sunk the warship. All without being detected and counter attacked itself. Just one.

We’ll wait……

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

And what real world experience do you have??

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Sea Venom is ever so much bigger than Martlet and its also far longer ranged than the system it replaces, Sea Skua. Skuas actual range was again somewhat longer than the advertised range. Anyway Venom, being an IIR homer doesn’t need to transmit anything to home. The Wildcat PID can ID the target from a considerable distance again no transmissions to give anything away. No EW racket to give a warning… So for SSMs If you want to do OHT for say a ship launched harpoon strike you are still going to be up flying around and within a ships… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Now this is going to be amusing……keep going, please! Stand by to be blown out of the water!

Just Me
Just Me
10 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

By what? Gunbluffer?

eclipse
eclipse
8 days ago
Reply to  Just Me

No matter what you say the first step is getting people to listen. And by making yourself rather unpopular I should say you’ve failed that!

Dern
Dern
11 days ago

Sea Venom, CAMM and Martlet even.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Dern

Indeed.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
11 days ago

I have a basic issue with our surface fleet, Daniele. Of course you’re right regarding our defensive capabilities and our need for ASuM. This always puts me in mind of a soccer team with a great goalie but limited forwards; sooner or later, your goalie is going to let one in while vainly awaiting a strike against the opposition. You lose! Secondly, our surface fleet is well served by the Carriers on paper. But still the RAF seems to hold the controls over F23B. In time of conflict, the odds on them stating that all are needed for their own… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Yes, independent FAA if enough F35 were bought, that’s one issue.

And if RN owned F35s, does the RN have the budget to buy them? Nope.

On ASM on escorts, would you expect our ships to come closer to Russia to fire them? And thus closer to risk? Range depending?

I prefer ASM on fast jets myself.

Just me
Just me
11 days ago

Do you actually understand anything about anti ship missiles?

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Yes he does. Daniele has fantastic defence knowledge, about many areas of defence. He is correct. Air launched anti ship missiles are much more affective than surface vessel launched. Why? because warships radars can’t see over the horison at surface level. And you need a kill chain to successfully engage anyone. Find, track, engage. Finding and tracking warships in open ocean at extended range is very difficult to execute, especially when they don’t want to be found. Anti ship is one of the most difficult engagements to pull off, it’s not like the movie’s.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Respect, my friend.

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
11 days ago

Anytime mate 👍

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Bump!

Ian M
Ian M
11 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

👍

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Do you understand anything about wider defence capability beyond my guns bigger than yours??

AV
AV
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Your reply says more about yourself than it does about Daniele.

Deep32
Deep32
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

During the Falklands, we had T22s, Leander’s and County class DDGs armed with Exocets, yet we never fired any. It was a SSN that sank the Belgrano with WW2 era torpedos!!
Our ships were sunk by aircraft launched Exocets and bombs, despite the Argentinian fleet having ship launched ASM!
Do you understand anything about the way the RN fights? It’s probably a more pertinent question!!

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

Exocet was originally purchased to kill subs.

Let that one sink in for a minute… To kill subs!

It was to be used to kill surfaced Soviet Cruise missile subs such as Echo’s and Juliet’s , launching on convoys or against land targets.

When Charlies came to the fore the need kind of diminished for sub killing but was retained for anti surface work. At the time the MM 38s used by the RN where limited to around 25-30 mile engagements.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Good Lord, I never ever knew that!!

Just me
Just me
11 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

No Exocet wasn’t, that was Harpoon, (The clues in the name). Exocet was always and anti ship missile.
Even a Google Admiral like you should have been able to find that out!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

A Google admiral like Gunbuster! You’ve just embarrassed yourself mate.

How long do you think GB was in the RN in its various branches?

Harpoon came into the RN at the end and after the Cold War on the B3 T22s and the T23, first being Norfolk.

Just me
Just me
11 days ago

He can’t even get the very basics right… what was he, the pudding pusser?

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Silly me… Of course the Exocet PJT I did was wrong…obviously the RN who designed and ran the courses in Collingwood didn’t know what they where talking about.
You should have let me know earlier and I would have put it on the course critique form when it ended.

Airborne
Airborne
10 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Oh dear, how sad, never mind! Subject matter knowledge and experience always beats internet grumpiness and limited academic research. GB will hand you your arse on the subject of the RN every day of the week. Stop being silly and insulting.

Deep32
Deep32
11 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I wasn’t aware that was it’s initial use until you posted it on another thread, wasn’t aware of its initial shortish range either mate, ta.
Some just don’t seem to want to understand that AShM isn’t always the be all that they think it is. They won’t be happy until all our ships are fitted with at least 48 AShM each!!!!! Not sure who were going to kill with them all either…

Posse Comitatus
Posse Comitatus
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Go and read Daniele’s many previous posts on this forum. He knows more than you could ever hope to understand.

Ian M
Ian M
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Still picking on the wrong guy!

Propellerman
Propellerman
11 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

yes – begining to wonder if this is just a wind-up merchant and/or troll

Ian M
Ian M
11 days ago
Reply to  Propellerman

It’s not often, thankfully that a poster such as “Just me” appears and starts picking on knowledgeable and sensible readers / posters. I can only make a S.W.A.G. that he/she/it is a failed RN apprentice, booted out for gobbing off, or possibly a Russian troll with all the wit of a sausage.

Herodotus
Herodotus
10 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Or a disgruntled former contributor? Not me, I might add!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  Herodotus

Well hello H. You’re still lurking.😀

Herodotus
Herodotus
10 days ago

I’ll have you know that I have never lurked in my life! Just a vicious rumour. Very interesting of late to see the comments on the ‘Russian threat’ on these pages….puts into perspective our defence needs that have always (to my mind) had little to do with the security of the British people!

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
11 days ago

Certainly agree your last, at least when F35 is certified for ASuM. Still, my fear remains that the first fight the RN may have will be with RAF i.e. getting the aircaft on the Carriers. Somehow feel there will not be much time to resolve the lively discussion.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
10 days ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Just noticed I put F23B! We’ve probably got even less of those than F35B.

Just me
Just me
11 days ago

So you want a Navy of surface combatants that are purely defensive and completely unable even to sink a light Frigate.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

So how are you targeting the anti ship missile from the frigate. Sending the helicopter to spot it and pass the targeting data? Be aswell the heli launches the weapons. In visual range of the ship the gun can hit it. The earth is not flat. It’s come down to money mainly. What would be cut to pay for new anti ship missiles that haven’t ever been used from a Royal Navy ship. Spear, new anti ship missile due in 2030, new radar for typhoon? Be aswell just sticking with the cheapest option. Keep the launchers on ships and shut… Read more »

Just me
Just me
11 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

If only someone would invent an object that could fly into space and orbit the earth, data from off ship platforms could be passed to ships from it, we could call it a ‘satellite’.
Other than that, your ARE aware that maiden ASM’s can be fired into a targets general location and told to go find it.

Jacko
Jacko
11 days ago
Reply to  Just Me

Peer conflict with who on our own?

PRJ
PRJ
11 days ago
Reply to  Jacko

doesn’t matter if it’s on our own or with someone else. A surface combatant without ASuW would be seen as the weakest link and treated accordingly. Expecting others to fill a deliberate capability gap is negligence and puts undue pressure on other units. Not sure high performing teams work like that.

Sean
Sean
11 days ago
Reply to  Just Me

Who are you planning on taking us to war with, on our own, without any allies such as NATO? 🤷🏻‍♂️

Try not panicking about nonsense hypothetical scenarios and you’ll have lower blood pressure and sleep far better.

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
11 days ago

Hopefully the RN will change their recruitment SOP and revert from the “ we’ll hire anyone as long as their breathing model “ and stop taking on incompetent ‘ dangerous moronic fools who get given senior officer positions and email each other from onboard ships and subs……….. Lieutenant Sophie Brook and Commander Nicolas Stone types.

No amount of Gucci kit will ever be enough to compensate for hiring imbeciles to operate such kit.

that said the RN is slowly moving in the right direction on the hardware front 👍🏻

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

Wolf
Wolf
11 days ago

Agreed. 

Last edited 11 days ago by Wolf
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago

😀👍

Crabfat
Crabfat
11 days ago

“…the Multi Role Ocean Surveillance programme will be monitoring and protecting our Critical National Infrastructure at sea.” Excuse me.., is he referring to the P-8 Poseidons – all three of them? Today, at least one is going to and from the Black Sea, monitoring the situation in Ukraine. One more may be contributing to the Baltic effort, leaving one on the Atlantic patrol, protecting the CASD. That’s it. No spares. And that’s just today’s threat, in ‘peacetime’. Yes, money is always an over-riding factor but so is defence of the Realm and, in particular, the North Atlantic routes. The Navy appear to… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

I thought he meant the MROSS to replace HMS Scott regards protection of cables and other undersea infrastructure.

Yes, too few P8.

Jon
Jon
11 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

I think he’s refering to the Scott replacement, and possibly the Echo class too. So seabed and ocean mapping, and a new focus on monitoring subsea cables. I’d guess that’s the critical national infrastructure he’s talking about.

Originally it was going to be a ship, MROSS, but the final S (ship) was dropped and it became a capability. Not sure what that means, but it’s speculated to be a bought in civilian service.

Last edited 11 days ago by Jon
Dern
Dern
11 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

No. The MROS program is a ship, probably a replacement for HMS Scott.

David
David
11 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

I think this is a reference to the new ships that are intended to monitor and protect underwater cables. Also, the planes that are monitoring the Russians over the Baltic and Black Sea are the three Rivet Joint electronic monitoring aircraft operated by the RAF, not the Poseidons. There are 9 Poseidons, not 3.

Bob
Bob
11 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

Nine P8’s, there will be three E7 Wedgetails.

Frank62
Frank62
11 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

If you need to properly support the navy with airpower a Navy run FAA is essential. With such limited resources both the RAF & RN need to be able to focus on their own remits without hoping it can borrow assts when needed.
Thank goodness we figured out the need of a navy run FAA before WW2.

Andrew D
Andrew D
11 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Well said 👍

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
11 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

And how are you going to fund it? FAA with it’s own independent fast jet fleet is a pipe dream in this day and age. And that’s not me being overly negative, it’s just the reality. The joint force Lightning is a sound organisation, it just needs the resources (which it is getting) and we will have a very capable and flexible 5th gen fast jet fleet able to operate from land and sea when required. The advantage of VSTOL F35B, is the crews can deploy to sea and be deck qualified very quickly. A far lower training burden compared… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
11 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Funding is not the issue Robert. There’s loads of money when HMG need to bung allies, bail out banks or throw at useless contractors. They even just print non-existant money. Getting those with the largest pockets to pay a bit more is an option that after 10+ years hammering every body else we have to consider.
The problem is the political competance to supply what is necessary rather than chasing the current theoretical financial dogma.

Sean
Sean
11 days ago
Reply to  Crabfat

It’s a reference to underwater cables that carry internet traffic etc. The primary target will probably be the submarines Belgorod and Losharik; assuming the Russians every refit the latter after the 2019 fire.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
11 days ago

One thing the above linked to Navy Lookout article suggests is that the T31 could get up to 32 MK41 with some quad pack with CAMM the rest loaded out with FC/ASW. Whilst this is the first time I have seen such speculation outside of the comments / posts to articles it is encouraging to see it on Navy Lookout as they seem to have access to ‘sources’ (as do UKDJ of course). Such an upgrade on the T31 would turn them into very capable patrol frigates, especially if we can get some extra (autonomous vehicle) ASW into the mission… Read more »

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
11 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Its already been mentioned the type 31s will be fitted for but not with mk41vls- therefore if history and past form is anything to go by they will never be fitted and the type 31s will remain woefully under-armed for such large surface combatants. Do they need Mk41 VLS- yes- therefore fit them during build and let them go into service as a heavily armed escort able to forward deploy and protect themselves and prosecute the national interest. Otherwise they are simply missile magnets and will get chomped to pieces in any conflict against even a reasonably competent peer. If… Read more »

Louis
Louis
11 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

And it has also been mentioned that Mk 41 VLS will be added to current and future vessels so there is a very large chance that Mk 41 will be added, although not 32.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
11 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Hi Mr Bell,

I should have been clearer in my post, as I am aware of the earlier comment about fitting the MK41’s but it is the first time I have seen any number mentioned or the idea of quad packing in the same article.

As I said it is encouraging to see that openly talked about in an authoritative or well connected website as Navy Lookout. However, as Louis said 32 might be a tad optimistic on reflection.

Cheers CR

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Hi CR, correct me if I am wrong but Quad CAMM or CAMM-ER won’t be able go into Mk41s as they’re not launched at a perfect right angle. I think it’s off centre by at least 5 degrees. Even the ExLS silos are tilted when packed in 3x4x2 as on the Canadian T26s. Someone here will know.

Jon
Jon
10 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Sea Ceptor can operate from the SYLVER and Mk41 launchers using a quad-pack configuration to maximise packing density and for optimum installation on smaller ships.

MBDA website.

As I understand it, the tilt on the Type 23s is so that if you two launch missles simultaneously from either side of the block, they won’t hit each other in error. Clearly missiles can be spaced in time, too.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
10 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Hi Jon, I understand the a T23s, what I was referring to was on the Canadian T26s the 2x3x4 ExLS has the two 3 quad silos tilted away from each other. You can see it quite clearly. So the banks of ExLS are not a flat top like the Mk41s. …or, maybe it’s my eyesight that’s a bit tilted?!! Lol.
The CAMM-ER three cannister set up on their DDX model also looks tilted.
I’ll check my 👓….

Jon
Jon
9 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Even though it has a purpose, the tilt is not essential.

Frank62
Frank62
11 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Well put sir.

Sean
Sean
11 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

The space for the Mark 41VLS is being used for Sea Ceptor farm, which the RN thinks is a better use of the space. So a bit of a disingenuous conclusion to come to.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Yes, this gets up my goat especially on the T45s! They should be able accommodate both on the T31/T32s. Just look at what the Danes pack into their IH ships with their Staniflex system! Even the latest Polish T31/A140s are pretty heavily kitted out.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
11 days ago

All this tells us is the grindingly slow speed we move at. Really it boils down to the RN having three T26’s active and five less capable T31’s replacing eight of the T23’s between them. Apparently it’s also going to take ten years to refit the six T42’s. If we’re lucky we’ll also have about ten F35’s available for each carrier. I know very few people are bothered about that but I thought I’d mention it once again.

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
11 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

I think it’ll take a lot longer to refit 6 T42’s bro 😳 more like 50 years by the time they manage to find all the bits and put them back together 🙈😉

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

T42s…lol…T45s please!

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
10 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The Artist and Quentin…. OK guys…Geoff did a bloomer.😂 T45, not T42 or was I thinking about T81? They, sorry it, lasted for decades.

John Hartley
John Hartley
11 days ago

RN 2030, a rowing boat, fitted for but not with oars, leased on a PFI at £1billion a year.

Andrew D
Andrew D
11 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

😀

Sean
Sean
11 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

No that’s the Russian Navy, assuming the Ukraine doesn’t sink their last row boat too.

Farouk
Farouk
11 days ago

FFS, the MOD has gone all BBC:

eclipse
eclipse
11 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

Who hasn’t yet. Instead of bothering with proportional representation and other unnecessary things why cant they just pick the candidate that’s best for the job. True equality is when your ethnicity doesn’t play any role in your professional life. If the RN is 70% indian because they were the most qualified candidates, so be it. If the RN is 100% white because they were the most qualified candidates, so be it.

Tarnish
Tarnish
11 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

Oh dear I see what you mean. Pity the RAF is under-represented in that photo call. Oh but hang on a minute, I forgot, the RAF are too busy getting on with the work.😜

Andrew D
Andrew D
11 days ago

It should of never got to this point were navy have to knock up the numbers of hulls to find in case of a fight ,or for RAF and Army to lack of Resources let alone manpower.Plans are still going a head to cut the Army regardless of the Army General speaking out last week .Come on BORIS smell the coffee ☕please.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
11 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Everything in the defence world has got dramatically more expensive than in the past. This has caused the issues there are today. Ever increasing budget buying less and less stuff. This leads to purchases getting slowed down, delayed to fix issues one year but creates large problems in following years. Even doubling the defence budget for 5 years wouldn’t fix all the gaps.

eclipse
eclipse
11 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Worst part is he can’t really do anything about it. It’s bloody Sunak. Johnson cant really make the chancellor do anything; he can only fire him. And if he fires Rishi that destabilises his position in his party and loses him a lot of supporters.

dave12
dave12
11 days ago

My comment has been deleted again UKDJ thats twice now with no reason given , can you explain this please.

eclipse
eclipse
11 days ago
Reply to  dave12

Probably some troll reporting you. I think it only takes one report for it to get hidden.

dave12
dave12
11 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

Yes orc trolls most likely are the culprits , very desperate they are😅

OldSchool
OldSchool
11 days ago
Reply to  eclipse

I wish. I’ve been trying to get rid of that spammer ‘Brooklyn’ for a while and it still pops up.

I got done the other day. Post removed for no reason – except the facts weren’t PC I suspect. But that’s the choice of the moderators and fair enough to them.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  dave12

Mate, email George directly if any issues. He’s v friendly.

dave12
dave12
11 days ago

👍

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
11 days ago

I completely agree about the lack of any Anti Ship missile to replace Harpoon, it is short sited and potentially a lethal mistake. It is fine to say that being fired from an Aircraft is better but the Type 31 will be forward deployed so where do these aircraft come from ? My main concern is pretty well captured in the CGI at the top of the article, 3 T31 each with a Merlin onboard. As we only have a total of 30 plus 28 Wildcats. Allow 5 Merlins in maintenance, 14 on a carrier and 1 on each Frigate… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
11 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I have read many times on this forum from posters such as Lusty that the remaining HM1s were cannibalised, sadly. If I had my way they would have been the dedicated ASCS assets with Crowsnest in 849 NAS. “but the Type 31 will be forward deployed so where do these aircraft come from ?” We are talking about general war against a peer, and in my comments the best way I feel to engage another ship while not endangering your own, not some brown water navy lobbing a missile at a T31 out of the blue. Things don’t tend to… Read more »

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
10 days ago

Not sure where to start but here goes. Firstly wars do just happen with some signs but no one believes it will happen. Examples Yom Kippur and more recently Ukraine, in the later case not one single Nato ship or aircraft was forward deployed to the Black Sea, Poland or Romania. the EU all turned yellow, slapped their heads and went Duh !!! Secondly the T31’s are slated to be forward deployed to replace the Batch 2 Rivers so lovely Littorals like the Persian Gulf, straits of Hormuz and Mallaca etc. As for not just letting one off and we… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
10 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yes, but the UK and US knew full well it was coming didn’t they. So it didn’t just happen. A build up of such magnitude cannot be hidden. USS Stark was hit by an air launched ASM, we are discussing the pros and cons of a ship launched ASM on this thread are we not. Which I believe while nice to have is not necessary based on how the RN conducts it’s business and the complexities of finding the OPFORs warship. Now an ASM on an aircraft, absolutely. And we would “have time” to use air power, since when is… Read more »

Mac
Mac
11 days ago

The biggest threat to the RN isn’t the Russians or the Chinese, its the SNP knuckledraggers and that toxic little twot, Sturgeon.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
11 days ago

MK41 cost around 20mil USD under FMS for an 8 cell launcher. 8 cells and the associated electronics . No missiles, no pipework for the fire suppression systems that it needs. You also need to decide what length of launcher you want. Self defence , tactical or strike. then decide whats going in it. So yes quad pack a 3 m long , cold launched ceptor and put it in a strike length hot launch 5m long Mk41 if you want. Or put ceptor in its own dedicated cold launch and simple launcher module. Unlike the T23 square peg round… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
11 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

It’ll be interesting to see if “mushroom CAMM” appears on the T45. If they’re on the T31/T26s I think it’s likely on the T45s. Make you wonder why they don’t go for the square cannister on the T31s too.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
11 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I doubt it as the Italians are fitting CAMM-ER into Sylver launchers on their Horizon DDGs / FREMM to replace the Aster 15. So shouldn’t need it.
Personally I would fit 2 MK41 VLS to the T45s to replace the MK41 Gymn 🤔 Then fill it with quad packed CAMMs which adds 64 extra Missiles, which makes the T45 the system it really should be.
Just add 8 NSM as an interim measure.

AlexS
AlexS
11 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Italian Navy have not made any moves yet to use CAMM-ER. Only AF and the Army.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
10 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Their DDX model does show CAMM-ER…you have to look hard but they are there. I think Spain is also going with CAMM-ER, anyone know?

AlexS
AlexS
9 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I think it only shows Aster.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
9 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

Hi Alex, sorry I just can’t find the CG image of the triple cannister configuration of the CAMM-ER on a model of an Italian ship. I’ll post or reference it if I come across again. The Italian’s do like to arm their ships quite heavily, both in guns and missiles. Bit of a contrast to the RN. Maybe the threat environment is a bit more in your face, a bit more littoral, in their mid-end of the Mediterranean? As has been mentioned before, the Italians selling CAMM-ER to Pakistan I think is a real security risk that should have been… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
8 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

In principle i agree concerning Pakistan sell. At same time i admit don’t know enough.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
10 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I might be wrong on this too, but Mk41s filled with just CAMM would be a waste of space, eco endive and heavy to boot. ExLS (a mini Mk41) is specifically designed for CAMM and like type missiles could be fitted as on the Canadian T26s. One of the BMT Venator concepts even showed a 1x Mk41 plus 1 x ExLS mix which I thought would be pretty useful for the T45s if 24 CAMM was all that was deemed necessary and the Mk41 with whatever takes your fancy…or, 2 x ExLS for 48 CAMM, that with 48 Aster would… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
10 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

*eco endive?….sorry, expensive

Stu
Stu
10 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Cheers for the info on why mushroom farms look the way they do. Every day is a schoolday 😀

Can I ask – where did you get the figures for the cost of Mk41 module? I can’t find a definite source but have seen some say as low as $3.3M per 8 pack (for hardware alone). That was the reported cost for a large order (70 modules).

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
10 days ago
Reply to  Stu

The US Govt posts most contracts for FMS online in US Govt sites With a bit of fishing and some easy calculation you can work it out. It depends on what Mk41 you buy. Self defence length is cheaper than the full length strike version. What the USN pays is not what everyone else pays. FMS is a licence to print money for US defence contractors. That said so are foreign sales for UK contractors. The cost of buying Sea Ceptor will be considerably more for other users compared to what the RN pays. That said if they are going… Read more »

Just me
Just me
11 days ago

Every man and his 3rd world navy is fitting ASM’s with ranges in excess of 300nmi now, but oh no, not the Royal Navy! Its oh so clever – it’s the only Navy on earth totally giving up on ASM’s for the foreseeable future.

Farouk
Farouk
11 days ago
Reply to  Just me

Poppycock, I’ll have you know the Royal Navy uses Twitter in which to strike fear into others and nothing betters the rainbow coloured flag for protection from attack. In fact the US Navy seeing how effective this is, has decided to go down this path also.

RobW
RobW
10 days ago
Reply to  Farouk

You’ve got to be kidding me! I thought it was a spoof at first. I can just imagine the reaction of the average matelot to that video.

Brooklyn
Brooklyn
10 days ago

I am making $92 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience mass freedom now that I’m my non-public boss. That is what I do.. http://www.profit97.com

Last edited 10 days ago by Brooklyn
Herodotus
Herodotus
9 days ago
Reply to  Brooklyn

Well chase me sailor!

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
9 days ago

What is meant by ‘Persistent Engagement’?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
8 days ago

Interesting subject. Perhaps George you could do similar pieces on the Army and RAF?

andy reeves
andy reeves
53 minutes ago

Typical politicians talk, it’s all very well talking about the projected future for the RN but what they don’t say is when all those pieces be in place. Ships take a long time to build and the U.k is woefully low in yards I thought that another T31 was going to be built alongside venturer. Getting the T31’S INTO SERVICE IS VITAL ESPECIALLY IF WE EVENTUALLY GET MORE THAN FIVE. WHAT WOULD PLEASE MOST OF US ARMCHAIR ADMIRALS, WOULD BE TO SEE A MODERN DAY LEANDER CLASS IN NUMBERS AND FLEXIBILITY AND PUNCH.

andy reeves
andy reeves
52 minutes ago
Reply to  andy reeves

Ten please and a T83 destroyer from the T26 model

andy reeves
andy reeves
40 minutes ago
Reply to  andy reeves

And make a commitment of at least a thirty ship front line fleet.