BAE Systems will produce and deliver Bofors 40 Mk4 and Bofors 57 Mk3 naval guns for the Type 31 general purpose frigate programme.
The agreement, through a contract with Babcock International, will supply the Royal Navy with a set of advanced, multi-purpose gun systems for its fleet of five ships, with the first ship expected to go into service in 2027.
The contract includes five Bofors 57 Mk3 medium calibre guns and 10 Bofors 40 Mk4 small calibre guns.
“We will be providing the most cutting edge gun system technology available which can adapt to different levels of conflict, including peacekeeping missions, local coastguard operations, and military operations,” said Lena Gillström, managing director for BAE Systems Bofors.
“This contract increases the number of European nations deploying our advanced, flexible weapon systems.”
BAE Systems’ scope of work for the Type 31 programme also includes services, tools, spares, documentation and support. Both naval gun systems will be manufactured at BAE Systems’ facility in Karlskoga, Sweden, with deliveries expected to take place in 2023 and 2024.
BAE say that the Bofors 57 Mk3 naval gun is installed on various ship types around the world and is in use with the allied navies and coast guards of eight nations, including Canada, Finland, Germany, and Sweden, as well as the United States, where it is known as the Mk110 naval gun.
BAE Systems has built and delivered more than 100 Bofors 57 Mk3 naval guns to customers around the world. The Bofors 40 Mk4
Quite surprised they have opted for this gun system, would of thought they would of recycled the Type 26’s gun system to cut costs. Just hope they don’t skimp on other armaments.
yes, would an option not have been 4.5″ up front, 57mm in 2nd position, and a 40mm to the rear? That means supporting 3 gun and ammo types I guess.
You mean like skimping on sea-ceptor by reducing the missiles from 24 to 12? They’ve already been doing it unfortunately.
There really ain’t much left to take off the T31 weapons wise (assuming that’s what you were referring to specifically)
I think the original plan was to refurbish stuff from the outgoing T23s but after reading the updates on T31 over the last year, it doesn’t look like much will be migrating across at all. Completely new weapons fit and CMS for the RN I believe… happy to be corrected though!
Cheers
M@
My guess is it comes down to the dreaded ‘e’, export. The Royal Navy ships are being used as show homes, to sell the ships to other nations.
Hi Matt, No you are correct, pretty much nothing is being transfered across to the T31. Having just read, ‘The Royal Navy’s Future Frigates’ article I get the impression that the NS110 radar that is being fitted to the T31 is potentially better than the ARTISAN that is being fitted to the T26. I read somewhere recently that BAES is not developing the ARTISAN any further as it is not an Actively Electronically Scanned Array radar – which is pretty much the direction of travel for modern radars. The 4.5″ gun is also getting pretty long in the tooth as… Read more »
I wonder if this might be a better option for both?
“The AESA-based sensor system provides high quality weapon support while maintaining fully automated detection and tracking of all naval threats.
NS200 is the larger version of the NS100 and uses newer and more powerful Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology.”
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/press-release/thales-introduces-ns200-multi-mission-radar-naval-forces
Hi Nigel, I think you are right, but NS200 using the latest technology would be significantly more expensive. Think in terms of laptops, buying an established processor based machine can be a fraction of the cost of the latest all powerfull gaming laptop! So the NS100 is probably the more cost effective choice for that programme. Also, I think the NS200 is a little late on the market for the T26 as design decisions regarding the radar could have been made 10 years ago, I should think!!! Perhaps something like the NS200 would make an effective upgrade for both classes,… Read more »
It’s not ‘would of’ Monty…it’s ‘would have’!
Taking the shore bombardment role aside, both the 40 and 57mm guns put a great weight of warheads in the air than the larger gun due to a much higher rate of fire. This makes then a more effective CIWS and also a very useful weapon for taking on high speed, small, boats
No systems to support training are mentioned. Is all the maintainer and operator training to be virtual, or will it be done outside the UK?
I’m still waiting hopeful that they surprise us with an uplift in tubes for seaceptor, or even better, 12 tactical VLS.
Me too but I eain’t holding me breath 🙁
Cheers CR
No surprise but a real disappointment. Our major surface warships will now have 3 different gun systems, 2 of them foreign designed and built. There appears to be no industrial strategy nor meaningful naval strategy. Type 31 looks to have little more combat utility than an opv.The fact that we have ordered such minimally equipped vessels suggests that we don’t really need them at all. Their only real purpose is to protect ministers from accusations of running down fleet numbers.
It is a platform, and in times of strive… perhaps they will survive long enough to be up-gunned / missiled.
Very political decision and with no money behind it but on the other hand, IF it had any chance to be a successful export design, perhaps more could be bought COTS with a better displacement as regards systems.
Their strategy is clear, standardize and reduce costs.
This gun looks pretty meaty. How big would a opposing ship have to be to withstand a hit from this? I’m sure a hit is going to ruin the day of anything short of a main US aircraft carrier and even that won’t exactly just shrug it off without a fair few brown trouser moments.
Not really. 57mm (even 76mm) is just for defense against small crafts and air. It will do almost nothing to medium and large ships like corvettes, frigates or destroyers.
To give you an idea, an anti ship missile is not even a guarantee of sinking large ships, but hopefully will cause enough damage to take it out of combat. The best anti ship weapons are still heavy torpedoes which detonate below the ship creating a cavity which can split a hull in two
But don’t forget it has a rate of fire of 220 rounds/minute so the chances are a target’ll be hit by multiple rounds. Any surface combatant’ll have it’s day ruined after being hit by a burst. And ships don’t have to be sunk to be finished. Sheffield wasn’t sunk by the Exocet that hit it, but she was done for.
Lets say the gun is somewhat accurate, any hit on a bridge of a ship with this is going to be rather disconcearting at best and the shockwave of the hit will be a real downer for the people on that bridge.
Yes, it may not come close to sinking or even causing major structural damage but it’s going to at least slow down the reaction time of the ship.
Yep, and a 10 second burst = 36 rounds of HE fragmentation. Put that into the hanger of a frigate or destroyer & the ships helicopter is shredded (if it’s on board) & aviation fuel’s being sprayed all over the place.
And that is before you start on the sensors which are not protected like the hull. Won’t sink it, but take down capability of retaliation. Also the 57mm gun can change type of munition during firing. It is actually a very impressive gun that will be more than proficient for where the T31 is to be deployed. We can’t keep fitting sea battle guns to ships that won’t be involved, but will support. A thought though. The 4.5 inch gun is rarely fired and offers land support, but this means a £1 billion plus ship has to sit close to… Read more »
Should have read on. My thoughts have already been discussed.
Yeh, I have wondered that myself – muddled thinking?! I suspect that the role selected to the T31 i.e. Straits of Hormuz, etc. where selected to justify the fit out for the ship, not the other way round which is the correct way way to do it.
Having said that the RN is at least getting a large hull that is capable of being developed into a very capable surface combatant – if future funding allows.
Cheers CR
Problem is this gun does not have range or punch. Effective firing range is less than 10km. This means you would need to get uncomfortably close to enemy assets, well within detection and striking range of more potent weapons (FYI over the horizon is about 20km depending on the boats). You are not going to play battleship with a 57mm. As i said these are not designed for offensive warfare, but rather as short range point defense.
True, but the point I was making is that the idea that a 57mm gun would do “almost nothing” to a frigate or destroyer is simply not true. One shell wouldn’t, but you’d actually fire lots of shells.
I don’t think you will find any example of a modern warship that was hit by an ASM being anything other than at least a mission kill. So there is not really anything hopeful about. it if they hit they do the job, to be honest kinetic energy alone is very significant even without the warhead. it does not take a lot to mission kill modern ships, classic example when a us fighter managed to accidentally mission kill a8000 ton Leahy class cruiser with a pair of shrikes. The 57mm gun is perfect as a general purpose navel gun. The… Read more »
It could mission kill anything if you can get in range.
Well to cut through the doom posts, I’m delighted. I read that these gun systems are useful vs swarm attacks and air attack, and obviously longer ranged than Phalanx. They can also take smart munitions. To call for Mk 41 VLS defeats the point of these ships. If we are arming everything we have to the teeth we will end up with even less ships than now. Are they not the T21s of their day? The RN cannot be all T26s just like in the Cold War it was not all T22/42s. I think a varied tier level of T26/45,… Read more »
Absolutely agree Daniele!
I would have thought (in an ideal world), NGS would have been the job of the T31, going in close support with an Amphibious group, operating right into the littoral zone. For this I support the very capable Bofos 40 guns, but think the 5″ main gun and at least 24 Sea Ceptors should be base line. While remaining under the main T45 air defence umbrella, further out with the main task group, its quite possible they might get first shot at a terrain masking airborne threat before the T45 can react, for this reason, they need a good number… Read more »
I kind of agree John, this kind of vessel will be more likely to be forward deployed ‘in area’ so would benefit from a serious NGS ability. Even taking the 4.5’s off the older vessels would have been useful. I’ve nothing against the Bofors 57mil or 40 mil and would have no problem with either (If the RN was going to employ a 40 mil then it could be fitted to minor war vessels as an upgrade to the 30 mils) but as others have said, it brings yet another weapons system ‘online’ although I guess the 4.5 is on… Read more »
Yes my logic says the Gun Fit of the Type 31 and Type 26 should be swapped – 5” MK45 for the T31 ( NGS) and 57mm + 40mm for the T26 (Carrier Protection.)
T21, floating coffins? The RN couldn’t wait to see the back of them. Obviously the guns on the T26 and T31 should be swapped.
Their record in 82 did back that thought up.
Yes, but they were standing picket in San Carlos with Sea Cat and no CIWS whatsoever. Would things have been different if they had Sea Wolf and the RN had more effective air cover and AEW?
To be fair, I also recall Gunbuster mentioning something about their construction? Aluminium?
Completely agree Daniele, I was very much against a two tier set of escorts at first. Being as I remember feeling as a child when me and my friends watched our dads have to serve on ships in 82 that were not shall we say the best in class, with some being sunk. But I came around ( and I really am of the view as a nation we have a duty to give those that serve the best tools we can to keep them as safe as we possibly can) and I think these ships will serve their purpose… Read more »
My suspicion is that in the event of, say, Gulf War 3, what you’ll find is a surge of high end RN ships (Albion/Bulwark, QE/POW, Type 26/45, and astute) to the area, while the Type 31’s scatter to the 4 corners of the seven sea’s to take over the jobs that everything else was doing.
Morning Dern. Yes, I agree. And I see no problem with this. It happened in 82.
Oh I agree Daniele, I don’t see any problem with it, my point is perhaps putting 4.5’s on Type 31 for NGFS might not actually be that good a call if, when the balloon goes up, we end up sending them everywhere except for where there will be heavy fighting and a call for NGFS if that makes sense?
Yes, it’s a good point. Rather negates my NGS comment too.
I might be full of shit of course, I’m just thinking out loud lol. I’m army not waterboatmen.
I don’t argue that we need to have two teirs dan, but I do think the difference in capability between them is too great. In an ideal world, I would ideally like 8 T26 for high end, the current T31 for low end, and a further order of 3-5 proper general purpose T31 with a modest AAW and ASW fit and focus on land attack.
I’d agree with that T.S. It is the ASW element on T31 I’d like to see improved.
I also assume they will receive whatever ASM the RN chooses in due course.
Hi Daniele, Whilst I agree that the lack of ASW is an issue and as a minimum they should be fitted with a hull mounted sonar (not sure if they will or not at this stage) their engine fit definately limits them to a supporting role as far as ASW is concerned. I like the idea of fitted them out with a good Surface Warfare fit as their current fit out gives them a reasonable defensive capability. If coupled to a capable stand off SSM capability, say a mix of SPEAR 3 and SPEAR 5, they could fill a significant… Read more »
Like the Type 21, the 31 has been designed to a limited budget. But, even though the Falklands War exposed the weaknesses of type 21 air defence ( in common with most of our surface ships!), the class had a decent weapons fit: 4.5 inch gun anti submarine torpedoes and later of course Exocet ashm. The problem with type 31 is that beyond short range self defence it has no capacity to inflict damage on an enemy. The 57 mm shell has a 2.7 kg warhead(slightly less than the ww2 6 pounder).This cannot be expected to disable a similar size… Read more »
Hear hear hear!
Excellent weapon systems, ideal compromise in regard to small boat swarm attacks and AAW. However maybe get another (I know I know little chance) 3 type 31s, fitted with 4.5″ for NGS. But bringing in another weapon system has to raise costs for through life support, servicing, training etc. But I for one think its a good compromise.
Just watch as T26 is cut to 6 and T31 increased to 8. Would not surprise me.
This is a frightening suggestion.
You know how MoD/HMG spin things. 6 T45 now, was meant to be 8, and before that 12. It would also, as things stand, increase the escort fleet to 20, giving them more spin material.
It would have been better if there were more than 12 Sea Ceptor and some anti-ship missiles as well.
Ain’t nobody getting Anti-ship missiles until a replacement for Harpoon is found, and lets be honest, intigrating Harpoon into Type 31 will be a waste of the taxpayers money.
I’m not going to disagree with you, it just seems crazy to have a frigate in the 21st century with a 57mm gun as its only real offensive weapon.
Helicopter if we had enough to equip the T31s.
Won’t harpoon be out of service before the first ship enters service?
Perhaps. Depends on how the procurement of a replacement goes.
We now have 3 different surface combatants with 3 different main gun calibres, 4.5″, 5″, 57mm and 3 different secondary calibres, 40mm, 30mm, 20mm, with no two ships featuring identical combinations of guns. Not to mention 3 different VLS systems, Sylver A50, GWS.35 canisters, and Mk 41s with no weapons in our inventory cleared for use or any in the immediate future. Then 2 different families of SAM with Type 45 carrying Aster/Sea Viper and frigates carrying Sea Ceptor/CAMM(M). Type 45/31 only able to carry canister launched ASuW missiles and the Type 26 only able to carry VL missiles meaning… Read more »
So what cut in numbers would you be willing to accept for your “little” refits? Cut down to 2 Type 45’s, 4 Type 26’s and maybe 4 Type 31s perhaps? Even that seems a little optimistic with your shopping list.
Don’t get me wrong, I know it’s not practical to refit half the fleet like that given the already paper thin budget. But these are things that should’ve been thought about in the design phase. A little long term planning and standardisation would’ve been a welcome change. None of them are outrageous suggestions by themselves, it’s mostly swapping out existing equipment for something similar. It would’ve been far better in the long run to design these ships with things like this in mind. Not saving a penny then to spend a pound now just to board up the glaring gaps… Read more »
Just re-gunning the T45 is going to cost upwards of $500 million. That’s two T31’s.
Pretty much what hte big man said, they might not seem outrageous but the cost of obtaining the extra equipment alone, never mind the fitting, intigrating, design studies etc etc, is going to kill the numbers of ships we have.
The good thing about the 57mm is it is becoming NATO standard and could be used to effect an upgun the River2 and can be deck mounted. In close combat it has massive effect.
Could usefully be fitted ( x3 ) on HMS Queen Elizabeth class.
But then the argument is why invest that money on a River that’s not intended to see anything near real combat when you could… for example… use that money to increase Sea Ceptor stocks instead. Especially since putting a 57mm will make a River more expensive to operate, therefore kind of making it worse at it’s role.
More flexible in the combined surface and air role than Mk8
I don’t particularly object to this weapon fit, but the T31 is tur into a barely able to lick itself lollipop
A few observations. For those advocating to fit the 4.5″ gun for NGS. You better hope whoever you are planning on firing at on land doesn’t buy equipment from Russia or China, because you may well be out ranged and out gunned by 155mm class artillery (fixed or mobile) and rocket artillery. We don’t have the modern ammunition options for 4.5″ to change that calculus and there is no point or justification to make any. For those advocating for a 5″ gun for NGS. Well congratulations, you just bumped up the price of the T31 light frigate by $60M+ per… Read more »
Your point raises a larger issue GHF. Let’s say a potential enemy has modern Chinese 155mm systems and let’s say they have similar advanced guided munitions. We then have an issue were SF or UAV targeting and well hidden artillery, could disable an amphibious force. Perhaps the days of the traditional Amphibious landing really are nearly at an end. Your only way of countering this (ish), is a well armed T31, able to intercept the incoming and counter battery the artillery. Even then, it’s not going to stop them all . Albion and Bulwark are looking increasingly vulnerable as increasingly… Read more »
Hi John. Its the definition of what we mean by amphibious landing that needs to be qualified IMO. The following is a bit off topic but may be food for thought. Landing against established defensive positions is not practical, creating unnecessarily high casualties, and its not required. No country can defend an entire coastline today with land troops, so there will be significant gaps. We can also fly light troops over a coastal force, but we do need to be able to re-supply them. We also need to be able to land heavy equipment and vehicles, and more troops, all… Read more »
An interesting idea and certainly food for thought on a wet Saturday….
These ships most deadly weapons haven’t even been invented yet, the unmanned air, surface and underwater combat drones they will deploy, not to mention the containerized weapon systems.
These guns are fantastic though.
So the T31 will be totally incapable of providing NGS for land-based operations. Fantastic. The T31 takes another step towards cheap and nastiness…
Whilst a big bore NGS gun would be advantageous on a T31 the requirement for it is disappearing. With the re-role of RM to a raiding semi-SF force the need for shore bombardment is not as great as it was. A 4.5 with base bleed rounds will reach out to say 20 miles. You dont need to be close in to see a target. That’s what ground spotters do when calling for fire. That said HMS Marlborough in GW2 got in so close to the Al Faw peninsular that she was sat on a sandbank for some of her time… Read more »
Hi Gunbuster, HMS Marlborough wasn’t the first RN vessel to get in really close to provide NGFS. HMS Ramilles came close to grounding during the D-Day campaign. She was using her 15″ guns to hold up a Panzer division trying to out flank the British / Candian breakout. She was dropping her shells ‘onto’ the only bridge capable to taking the Panzers. Effectively mission killed an entire division! I also agree with the rest of your post. I have sugested above that a potentially more useful future enhancement for the T31 would be to equip them with a mix of… Read more »
I do however think that if the RM are re-rolling to a raiding posture/boat guards, then the Army should look into having one of it’s Light Infantry Brigades develop an Amphibious capability.
Recover our Artillery, CS, and CSS form 3 CMDO, have some Royals come over to instruct the All Arms Amphibious Assault course, and get 7th or 4th Infantry Brigade into a position where it knows how to establish at least a beachhead in a undefended location, and hold it until heavier forces can follow on.
Now that is more like it. I suggested as such for Arctic ops too.
We discussed 1 ( UK ) Div at length some months back and its large number of Infantry Battalions. They, and other formations, have been allocated lead in various world regions. Well, give them amphibious and arctic roles.
The days of warships engaging each other with guns has gone. Before 2 warships get within gun range of each other they would have to have survived submarine, aircraft and missile attack – highly unlikely. So why fit guns? Well they still have utility in aircraft / missile defence, anti swarm gun boat attack & naval gunfire support to troops ashore. It is the latter that concerns me most. T31 is precisely the low tech ship that commanders would want to place ‘at risk’ close inshore rather than a T26 or T45. Consequently, although the 40mm Bofors are great, the… Read more »
The other reason to fit guns is that should major war break out then after 3 months or so, that’s all you will have left. Missiles & high tech aircraft are slow to manufacture. Gun ammunition can be knocked out by the thousands & in many cases, more than one compatible manufacturer exists.
Are there available gun placements to include the Mk38 MGS?
Given the type of missions the Type 31 has been designed for, I thought it might make sense to include a couple of these as well?
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/mk-38-machine-gun-system
Why bother? It’s a 25mm gun. The standard remote CRW is 30mm in the RN so it can reach out and touch people at a greater range than the 25mm which is what you want.
The only advantage on a MK38 is everything is on mount. THIM, laser range finder gun and stabilisation. The disadvantage is it has no man in the seat secondary mode.
Why bother? As a further close in weapons support system if the first two fail.
Just a thought!
And when do you call it a day? Lets get a fourth system in case the first three fail, and then a fifth.
Do we really need another caliber light weapon when we already have plenty floating around?
Float around where exactly? We have the space I believe for a third in two positions opposite each other.
Description
The MK 38 is a 25 mm machine gun system (MGS) installed for ship self-defense to counter Fast Attack Crafts and Fast Inshore Attack Crafts.
The Mk3 is very capable and a useful addition for not a great deal of money compared to the cost of a Type 31.
https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2167836/mk-38-25-mm-machine-gun-system/
I don’t really care about your full bold description. The fact is it’s a new caliber of gun, filling a role for weapons systems in which we already have several other weapons systems. It’s unecessary and a waste of the RN’s money, that could be better spent in different areas. Type 31 already has 2 CIWS systems on board, of all the things that we should look at putting on a Type 31, yet another CIWS is the last thing we should be looking at. If you feel like you need it for self-defense against Fast Attack Craft… seriously? Because… Read more »
In your opinion.
Sadly, like me, your not an expert, something I accept!
Have you considered future hypersonic ASM’s in your decision making? Not that far away when you consider the inservice date for the Type 31’s or one system failing?
The bold text is a copy and paste. Sorry if it caused offence, I thought that was obvious.
*yawn* If you have nothing better to say than “in your opinion” then please save your breath.
See my above is “one system failing,” and “introducing new equipment when we have existing.”
Please do me the favour of reading (then again given your little snark I’m not surprised).
*yawn* If you have nothing better to say than “in your opinion” then please save your breath.
Please do the same.
“Moreover, some of the ships weapons were unloaded and unmanned”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/15/revealed-full-story-behind-sinking-of-falklands-warship-hms-sheffield
Unlike you I actually have a point, and can carry on a discussion, without non-sequiturs and boring kindergarten tactics.
I see you still lack any form of reply to the points I raised.
Stop throwing your toys out of the pram Dern, neither you or I decide where the money will be spent or how.
You have your opinion, I have mine.
Yawn. Another non response that amounts too pretty insults. Seems like that’s all you’re capable of. Come back when you are ready to have an adult conversation.
Yawn, Likewise Dern.
You need consider a few other things first before you start bolting systems on:- Foundations to support the mount. Not just the deck but compartments below it. Firing arcs. Wiring from the mount to the control position which will be through watertight bulkheads. Power supplies and secondary power supplies. Ready use ammunition supply at the mount for reloads. Main /Deep magazine stowage for resupply from deep. The cost of the equipment. The cost of spares The cost of training another group of maintainers and their workload undertaking Preps for Firing on another weapon system. The cost of training loaders and… Read more »
Thank you for the explanation, as you say, this could be a better alternative.
There appears to be enough room on the port and starboard sides behind the bridge or above the helie hanger as the images in this link suggest?
As I mentioned earlier, the introduction of hypersonic missiles and the potential for one system failing when required means a third would be a sensible option rather than lose a ship for relatively little overall cost.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-of-the-royal-navys-type-31-frigate-emerge/
You can never rely on a system performing exactly as it should!
“English: A live Sea Dart missile on British destroyer HMS Cardiff. … The missile launcher failed to aim towards the threat and the missile itself became unserviceable, however the closing aircraft turned back anyway.”
Sorry I get the t31 is an economy frigate to free up more capable ships and fantasy fleets aside not being a navy guy why does every other country with a navy have half decent anti ship capabilities even on patrol ships. As my friend with 20 years in navy said the biggest Royal Navy short fall seems to be its lack of hard kill capabilities
To be fair, most western Patrol boats do not have anything resembling decent anti-ship capabilities: Arafura Class (Australia): 1x 40mm gun Armidale Class (Australia): 1x 25mm gun Hvidbjørnen Class (Denmark): 1x 76mm Holland (Netherlands): 1x 76mm Kingston (Canada): 1x 40mm Samual Becket (Ireland): 1x76mm Cyclone (United States): Sea Griffin SSM, and 2x20mm Commandanti (Italy): 76mm As for why doesn’t Type 31 have a heavy Anti-Ship missile on board? That probably has to do with Harpoon being retired and a replacement sought. I’d expect once whatever new missile is selected to at least see canister launched variants appear on RN surface… Read more »
This I know and I love the Royal Navy but the plan to have all our frigates with no anti ship missles for ten years was only stopped due to lobbying and media pressure. Even if they added martlet or the old harpoons off the t23 would be enough against second tier enemies.
Just like 1930’s and 1980’s cut everything, save money no votes in defence, USA will protect us blah blah blah