It has been confirmed that the ‘Future Cruise/AntiShip Weapon’ will be fitted to the Royal Navy’s Type 26 Frigates.

The vessel will also be armed with a five inch main gun as well as Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles, click the below image to learn more.

Click to enlarge.

The information came to light in response to a written Parliamentary question.

Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham, asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the planned service date for the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon.”

Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“The Planning Assumption for Service Entry for Future Cruise /Anti-Ship Weapon on the T26 Frigate and Typhoon aircraft is 2027 and 2030 respectively.”

Quin also added:

“The Concept Phase has been focussed on conducting in depth operational analysis, technical studies and initial design activity to refine user requirements and better understand the options available to MOD to meet these. The Concept Phase findings forms part of the Programme’s Outline Business Case for Ministerial consideration.”

What is the Future Cruise /AntiShip Weapon?

The FC/ASW aims to replace Storm Shadow/SCALP air launched cruise missile in operational service in the UK and France as well as Exocet anti-ship missile in France and Harpoon anti-ship missile in the UK.

Last year we reported that two years into the FC/ASW (Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon) Concept Phase, MBDA announced the successful achievement of its ‘Key Review’, jointly conducted with Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and the Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA), the British and French armament procurement agencies.

“The conclusion of this Key Review makes it possible to select the most promising missile concepts in order to meet the requirements expressed by both nations’ armed forces. The conclusions of this study will also make it possible to establish the road maps for maturing the technologies required, and to launch any follow on assessment phase.

This new phase will demonstrate the necessary maturity of the weapon system and its key components, to be followed by the development and production phase in the 2024 timeframe, so that current weapons systems can be replaced in accordance with required timescales.”

It was also stated recently by Quin that the total spend to date on Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon and associated activities by the Ministry of Defence is £95 million.

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
96 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
OOA
OOA
3 months ago

If the programme stays on track, this would roughly coincide with the commissioning date for HMS Glasgow IIRC??

Farouk
Farouk
3 months ago

In light of the uncertainty with what the future holds, I think it would be prudent for the MOD to keep on file all the work they put into trying to find an interim SSM to replace Harpoon.

Right , I’m back to watching Broken Skull Challenge on Amazon.

eclipse
eclipse
3 months ago
Reply to  Farouk

Farouk, while I completely agree with you, I don’t really think the MOD were ever, however incompetent, were simply going to drag the file into the bin 🤣

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
3 months ago
Reply to  eclipse

Dont you believe it. When I worked with the Authority files were constantly being deleted. Senior folk used to openly take work home on the bus. Hundreds of MoD laptops go missing each year and the encryption they use is obsolete.

Knight7572
Knight7572
3 months ago

Perseus should be the missile name

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago
Reply to  Knight7572

It’s going to knicknamed “Percy” just wait… Why not something more like “Pursuit”?
Nice news for the T26 and Typhoons, anything news of anything for the T23/45/31/32s and F35s?
A couple of side notes:
Update on the Ashes… Looks like a poorly prepared and lead 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 team down here in 🇦🇺 They’re getting demolished.
All the best for the NY to you all in the 🇬🇧. We’re starting to get some big increases in Covid cases lately in here Sydney with the ceding of restrictions and will just have to learn to live with it.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Quite like Pursuit missile, like England’s cricket team there seems to be no escape. Actually the mediocrity of the England set up in the red ball game has been disguised for many a year and I don’t see it hanging with the deluded folks at the ECB who as we have seen of late can’t see even the obvious hit disrupting their innate complacency. Bit like the MOD tbh.

Nick C
Nick C
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

They should have been given access to the T45 missile system, which can hit a cricket ball at Mach 3. Which is more than they can catch at rather less than that!

Fuzzy
Fuzzy
3 months ago
Reply to  Knight7572

Perseus was a concept years ago, it is not this missile.

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago

Excuse my ignorance, 5 inch main Gun ,calibres gone up half an inch from the usual standard 4.5 inch bit more weight in both Shell and cordite .But if correct and its fixed 5 I ch muntion gunbay and mag crews had better of had their Wheaties

Sean
Sean
3 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

The RN decided awhile ago to move up to the 5” for the main-gun, the T45s were supposed to have their 4.5” guns replaced with 5” too. The 5” is the standard for the USN except for their new Constitution class frigates which will carry the 56mm, the same as our T31s.

So it it appears that we’re standardising on the USN calibres, either to benefit from the manufacturing volume for ammunition, or to benefit from their research $$$s into smart and guided munitions for these, or both.

Knight7572
Knight7572
3 months ago
Reply to  Sean

Do you mean Constellation Class? and was this to be done during the mid-life refits?

Sean
Sean
3 months ago
Reply to  Knight7572

Yes the new Constellation class…
it’s Boxing Day 🤷‍♂️😆

They’re also fitting the 57mm to their latest coastguard cutters too.

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Sean

Wouldn’t like having too do Emergency resupply carrying those Tanked rds 4.5 Tanked rds weighed 84lb wacking them on your Shoulder was a pain especially during BOST and COST but Emergency resupply had too be tested and passed Good luck too this generation of Gunners

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
3 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

5 inch gun has split rounds and charges. No humping all in one shells will be required. In addition the RN has opted for the latest optional extras that has an automated deep mag.

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Ain’t they the Lucky Buggers , are well still have too test Emergency resupply for Bost or if everything wrapped in Cotton wool nowadays hee hèe

Meirion x
Meirion x
3 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

The 5″ gun can fire depth charge rounds, I think?

Last edited 3 months ago by Meirion x
Goldilocks
Goldilocks
3 months ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Yes, the BAE Kingfisher I think it’s called, although that is still a concept

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Meirion x

Max elevation rather than minus 10 degrees of depression otherwise you’d be right over the Target hee hee

Steve R
Steve R
3 months ago

Brilliant! Also pleased that Typhoon will be armed with them.

I still think we should integrate them with the F35s so we can fight enemy vessels from air, surface and below the waves, but this is an excellent start!

Quentin Drury
Quentin Drury
3 months ago
Reply to  Steve R

They could put them on the P-8s too. I wonder what the dollar comparison would be with LSRAM? Could be a very expensive bit of kit.

eclipse
eclipse
3 months ago
Reply to  Quentin Drury

I mean… Radakin wants it to have a range of 1000km+. I’m not certain if it’s FC/ASW that he wants to have this range or a different hypersonic weapon but he said this. Additionally, it will be stealthy and, likely, hypersonic. I’m going to say probably more expensive than LRASM, though it is also possible than FC/ASW will split into two projects. Perhaps a smaller missile to be carried by jets, stealthier and a replacement for Storm Shadow; and a larger VLS carried hypersonic missile geared more towards ASuW with a LA capability.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago
Reply to  eclipse

I like the idea of two variants. A long range standoff ASuW and LA for a range of aircraft is all very useful. I wonder if a sub launched version might happen too? It looks like there’s a lot happin the pipeline. I think we would all wish that it would come a bit sooner than later.

eclipse
eclipse
3 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Hopefully SSNR comes with VLS, and the Type 83 destroyer too. It’s absolutely necessary to change the stereotype that RN warships are underarmed, for the world is becoming more and more tense. I assume FC/ASW is further along than we know, since otherwise even the MoD could not expect an in service date of six years. If we have credible anti ship missiles on our frigates and destroyers, and Astutes with their Spearfish, we will be able to take out any enemy warship.

Lord Gudgeon of Trent.
Lord Gudgeon of Trent.
3 months ago

Glad they have included Crew Quarters, be a bigger if they forget that.

Sean
Sean
3 months ago

Well they might decide to deliberately omit them in future builds to create the worlds largest most powerfully armed drone ship 😉

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago

We slept at our Action stations Gunbay deep mags wherever we could even Frosty washing lines at a 45 degree angle 😉 😄

donald_of_tokyo
donald_of_tokyo
3 months ago

the development and production phase in the 2024 timeframe”.

How can a brand new missile be operational only 3 years after “development” starts? Even just production will need 2-3 years?

Even if 2027 IOC was met (on which I am very skeptical), number of missiles built then will be only a handful. “Replacing Harpoons” must mean procuring the same number of units/systems. In this meaning, replacing will be done only on late 2030s or even 2040s?

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
3 months ago

Hi donald_of_tokyo,

Work on this weapon system as been going on for a lot longer than of official programme, hence the very short formal timescales. Nevertheless the timescales are still very tight but if any company can do it, it is MBDA if they are allowed to get on with it…

Cheers CR

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 months ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

It might be that the missile is a bit more ready and is more like at production and batch testing rather than prototype?

Don’t know but otherwise the stated timescales hard to reconcile.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago

Last I heard MBDA are proposing to base this on a modified exiting airframe, with I suspect plenty of existing carry over from other projects too. Can’t see any other way a pre 2030 date is anywhere near possible it’s tight even for the above judging by other programmes. That said as it’s such a high priority they will pull their finger out as much as possible to reduce the gestation period and yes MBDA are pretty skilled in such missiles.

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky
Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

These days with CAD and 3D printing as well as ‘get on with it’ things can be done pretty fast.

The days of hand soldering loads of different boards to test them are gone.

All the intelligent stuff is computer on chip so it is in the software layer.

James Fennell
James Fennell
3 months ago

They have been designed and under development for some time by MBDA, also in the spirit of ‘Complex Weapons’ they are evolved from earier weapons – the ASMP nuclear missile and various concepts for a Storm Shadow replacement. They will no doubt incorporate seeker and other technologies from the latest Exocet variants too.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
3 months ago

Yes, we know. Get on and build it.

Jon
Jon
3 months ago

Well that’s clever. Six months ago the planning assumption for the service entry on the Type 26s was announced (also by Mr Quin) to be 2028, a date over which many here have expressed scepticism. Since then the AUKUS row delayed a key meeting in September where France and the UK were to discuss and agree progress. The reporting suggested that a new meeting would have to be scheduled before the detail design phase could begin. If that replacement meeting has taken place, I missed it. If the design phase started, I missed that too. Have the French said anything?… Read more »

Last edited 3 months ago by Jon
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  Jon

I reckon that will be at best initial test phase versions rather than full in service production level examples but maybe I’m being too sceptical. Fact is mind the French need this almost as much as we do so I doubt, as this will inevitably be for the most part a French based missile technologically, that any significant delay has taken place. More like French posturing for public consumption with a little snubbing or delays of a few arranged ostensibly political oversight meetings to tick box things. My main concern however is unless, as others have claimed this has truly… Read more »

Mike
Mike
3 months ago

Yes, of course it will be in the design specification. Right up until the financial branch get involved and downgrade essential to desirable because of increasing development costs. Been there, done that, got tired of arguing.

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Mike

Then they’ll be available Via Argos

Challenger
Challenger
3 months ago

If the plan comes to fruition T26 with 48 Sea Ceptor and 24 FC/ASW will be one of the best equipped escort vessels the Royal Navy has had for decades.

If the French drag their heels and play silly games then I believe Italy may be interested in a modern anti-ship cruise missile around the same time-frame, or it may be worth exploring options with Australia through AUKUS!

John N
John N
3 months ago
Reply to  Challenger

The Government here in Oz announced procurement of both Tomahawk and JASSM-ER at the time of the AUKUS announcement a few months back.

Previously it was also announced that LRASM would be procured too.

That’s not to say we won’t get involved with future UK weapons, but most likely we’ll stick with US long range weapons.

They are our major defence partner, especially in our part of the world, so it usually makes sense to have common weapons and weapon systems too.

Cheers,

Paul42
Paul42
3 months ago
Reply to  John N

If the UK had any sense they would be buying the same and kitting out Type 23/31 with LRASM and Type 26 with the very latest Tomahawks……but, that would make too much sense……

Last edited 3 months ago by Paul42
Steve M
Steve M
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul42

yep, but there are politicians involved so sense is never applied only ego

Last edited 3 months ago by Steve M
Paul42
Paul42
3 months ago
Reply to  Steve M

Nail on the head there!!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul42

Yes I think this was a political more than sensible decision to try to keep at least nominally the French onside and cooperation active, considering other developments. However it now simply looks something of an outlier as other cooperation on projects have pretty much gone missing in non action. Not sure what we are contributing to it tbh so maybe it’s an attempt to keep or even enhance a finger hold on such technology and keep things smooth within MBDA who knows.

James Fennell
James Fennell
3 months ago
Reply to  John N

Some Block V Tomahawk may be bought, the RN has been operating TLAM for many decades and has regularly upgraded – they still have plenty of Block IV. As far as LRASM goes its subsonic only, and the RAAF/RAN weapons are going to be built by Boeing in Aus, whereas the UK has a large missile industry in the form of MBDA and will want a UK and hypersonic product to replace Storm Shadow and equip Type 26 long term.

Last edited 3 months ago by James Fennell
Paul42
Paul42
3 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

Hypersomic is not the answer. A hypersonic missile has yet to hit a moving target, and its unlikely it ever will – in the case of a maritime ASM hypersonic speed is a major handicap not an advantage. LRASM and Tomahawk are sure bets. No.point in wasting time and money on this when the kit we need is readily available off the shelf…..

Pete
Pete
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul42

Assume there is a middle ground on ashm. High end supersonic should be possible in anti ship role. If the highly manouverable ASRAAM or meteor can hit a highly manouverable jet while travelling at Mach 3 to 4 and the target jet at Mach 2 …then don’t see any reason why an anti ship missile can’t travel at Mach 3 to Mach 4 speed. What’s the threshold for plasma problems ?

Hermes
Hermes
3 months ago
Reply to  Pete

Big difference between high supersonic and hypersonic, you dont have the same effect.
This is the reason why hypersonic missile was not developped except from ICBM/SLBM.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  John N

Absolutely and simple fact is either this programme with France goes ahead or Britain will go the same way and procure similar existing or soon to be weapons in its place. No time to find new partners and develop an alternative esp as Britain has little expertise in such missiles in reality having acquired foreign examples instead which is why we are doing it with the French in the first place.

Ron
Ron
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Thats not quite true. The Uk was developing back in the late 1950s early 1960s a Mach 3 missile in the anti air/ anti ship role. It was under the project name Blue Envoy. The project got cancelled just as the first production models were ready.

James Fennell
James Fennell
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Britain built Blue Envoy, Bue Steel, Martel, Sea Eagle, Sea Skua, Sea Venom and Storm Shadow – nonsense.

Last edited 3 months ago by James Fennell
Hermes
Hermes
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

No reason to see any problem on this project.

Its a key project for France.

With all the politicals problems between UK and France/EU it doesnt have been much affected.
As we say regularly, military and politics are generally well separated, hopefully.

And its not like a fighter or a ship where you can have 100 design/needs.
Missiles doesnt differ much.

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago

Wasn’t there a discussion about different UK and French requirements being resolved by having 2 missiles; a subsonic lrasm look alike and a supersonic / hypersonic missile? Which one are we talking about?

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

Could well be two options?

The subsonic may well be more stealthy?

Hypersonic not stealthy but mostly for bragging rights?

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago

So if we are talking about the subsonic missile I could see how if that was a stealthy Mk41 derivation of scalp it might be available in time for T 26

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon
3 months ago

Difference may be no more than addition of a booster? Pick and mix depending upon immediate requirement?
No insight, just a thought.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

Was it on here that there was a debate in which it was claimed hitting a small ship would be extremely difficult with a hypersonic missile (other than nuclear tipped) at present state of technology making them more lethal for ground stationary targets. Which might be why Russian/Chinese efforts are so often being described as carrier killing weapons. Would certainly be ideal to have such flexibility to choose from when targeting however if the same basic missile could be adapted for both forms of attack and chosen prior to launch indeed combined in an attack if required. I certainly know… Read more »

James Fennell
James Fennell
3 months ago

Hypersonic is good for final attack profile to defeat manouvreing warships with CIWS. Stealthy subsonic is good for land attack and can have more range.

Last edited 3 months ago by James Fennell
Lucis1019
Lucis1019
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Only RAF wants long range subsonic missiles, both RN and French want hypersonic missile.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Also been talk of a missile and child system, a hypersonic missile to quickly close the distance that will deploy a couple of smaller stealthier cruise missiles as it approaches the target with the hypersonic mother still acting as a kinetic impactor.

Last edited 3 months ago by Watcherzero
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

I was actually contemplating some sort of missile of this type reading the various contributions and writing about it being mentioned recently the difficulty in targeting ships with a hypersonic missile. That would be an interesting concept though as many hypersonic missiles certainly ballistic rely on their initial boost stage to reach these speeds and then glide to the target. Either way unless the slow down procedure starts very early which is one presumes less than ideal some form of slowing tech would need to be introduced to gain the best of both worlds and enhancing the effectiveness of each.… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Or maybe the other way round?

A subsonic very traditional large stealthy package that births a small hypersonic kinetic?

Subsonic -> range

Hypersonic -> smash thru plate glass window?

Pete
Pete
3 months ago

Why not high supersonic…Mach 3 etc. Similar concept to meteor but with weight to take out ships.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 months ago
Reply to  Pete

The warhead is the easy bit to scale once you have the delivery mechanism.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
3 months ago

It already exists sort of in the Nato Code name Sizzler SSN 27. Subsonic flight with a M3+ dash at the end.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

That was what I was thinking of only amped up a bit.

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Just wondering about Dropping a Subsonic missile, from a Hypersonic missile will take some headscratching in the Concept ,design and testing most probably Speed , friction, if internally fitted Speed, Areodynamics if fitted eternally just a thought Watcherzero

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
3 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

Been in use by Britain since the 60’s, you jettison the nose cone then you tilt out the submunition at a 30 degree angle and let the air friction catch it and pull it out of the munition carrier.

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Cheers, Watcherzero , then I take it the Hypersonic missile ,would just be a Carrier which then goes on too be a Hypersonic Kinetic Brick (negative warhead)

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
3 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

Its one option that would particularly suit a land attack role, while the vice versa would suit a maritime swarm attack role.
For Land attack you want a minimum 1000 mile range and a fast time-to-target and so you dont want to be wasting energy at ground level and instead go high to reduce atmospheric drag. For maritime attack your ranges will be in the 100-300 range more likely so you can take a stealthier more energy costly approach flying low and subsonic.

Last edited 3 months ago by Watcherzero
Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Thanks for that Watcherzero mass x speed no need for a warhead against a surface vessel the impact and engine destruction when penertrating the Hull would probably result in extensive famagusta rendering the target unable too either Move,Fight or Float

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  Tommo

What the Fxxk Auto correct just put Famagusta for some reason Fragmantation

James Fennell
James Fennell
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes I think two weapons – one subsonic very long range primariliy land attack, and one hypersonic configured for anti-shipping work.

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

So that could mean T26 might get an AShM you can launch from Mk41 that might be related technology wise to asmpa. Worth waiting for …
https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/asmpa/

a.hall
a.hall
3 months ago

Have we got the American`s Permission for these Wizz Bangs ?

Matt
Matt
3 months ago

That looks like Thunderbird 2.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  Matt

Yes though I don’t think it has any bearing on the final missile design from what’s been said esp if as I read MBDA are proposing an existing airframe as a basis for the missile.

Frank62
Frank62
3 months ago

Better than any later(IF the dates don’t slip) but still leaves our warships toothless until then for 9 years.
Meanwhile every other nation has AShMs on theirs. An interim should’ve been bought asap rather than idiotically dropped.

Pete
Pete
3 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

Especially given ongoing delays to F35 block 4 and Spear3 capability. Interim on type 23 transferable to type 31…or type 32. Got a feeling type 32 will actually become the capability replacement for the 5 x type 23 GP warfighting Frigates with the type 31s become the net upgrade in RN capability over the medium to long term.

Mark cherry
Mark cherry
3 months ago

Do we have any defence against the Russia zircon hypersonic missiles

A British tom
A British tom
3 months ago

Does anyone know if there are plans to equip the royal navy with the extended range version of CAMM?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago
Reply to  A British tom

Getting the CAMM-ER would help lift the RNs AAW capabilities another notch across fleet if put onto T26/31/32 in addition to the CAMM and Aster 30 NG upgraded T45s and all this prior to the current non-existent T83.
I can’t remember what the reasons were for the RN not going with quad pack CAMM. Was it cost, weight, maintenance, reloading, all of these?

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
3 months ago

A quick plea for the T45’S as well?

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago
Reply to  Geoff Roach

Two more T45s or just more CAMM on each ship? 24 does seem a bit lame. There should be room for 2x24xQuad CAMM.

Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
3 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I was really thinking of the CM/ASW option to give the 45’s a more rounded capability.

criss whicker
criss whicker
3 months ago

does anyone think that the R/N will get a 6inch gun back,
just asking.

Paul T
Paul T
3 months ago
Reply to  criss whicker

I doubt if there are any on the market currently.

Tommo
Tommo
3 months ago
Reply to  criss whicker

Blake, Tiger, and Lion 6in probably laying in some scrapyard up near Rosyth those were bloody big Cordites you had too eat your Wheaties moving them buggers around Criss

Mr P Harrington
Mr P Harrington
3 months ago

All good until the French tell us they want it to have a secondary anti tank capability of course 😉

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 months ago

The whole T26 thread seems to have been lifted?

Jon
Jon
3 months ago

Was there another thread about Type 26? My brain is so pickled by festive booze I honestly can’t remember. They could rewite all of history at this time of year and I’m not sure I’d notice.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 months ago
Reply to  Jon

Yes, discussing funding allocated for a second batch. I cannot find it.

Jon
Jon
3 months ago

Oh yes. I remember thinking it didn’t say anything new. Perhaps that’s the reason the article was ditched.

The money will be available for Batch 2, which we knew. It may have mentioned the long lead-time items, which was news in Q3 last year. Then it harked back to more old news on main contract timescales, “sometime in the early 2020s”.

Baroness Goldie keeps dodging that question by quoting commercial sensitivity and we’ve had nothing more. Nothing on rate of build at all.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jon
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
3 months ago
Reply to  Jon

That is what I thought! Same old repackaging of old news.

AlexS
AlexS
3 months ago

The biggest mistake naval defence in Western world made is to not to have a common VLS launcher module.