The Type 31 Frigate fit out could potentially include an anti-ship missile system, is one really required though?
Kevan Jones, MP for Durham, asked via a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the Type 31 will possess an anti-ship-missile capability.”
Jeremy Quin, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, replied:
“Flexible by design, the Type 31 frigates will be adaptable to a range of capabilities, which may include an anti-ship missile system.”
The British government released a Request for information detailing the desired characteristics of the Type 31e, this included a Medium Calibre Gun ≥ 57mm, a point defence anti-air missile system and the optional ability to launch and recover unmanned aerial vehicles. Notably the RFI does not include anti-ship missile systems.
Will this be a problem? Probably not, the ships aren’t likely to be tasked to do anything that requires them.
Be under no illusion, this is primarily a result of funding.
Type 26 will cover the high end tasks and Type 31 will generally cover low end constabulary work.
During a 2016 Defence Select Committee hearing, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Philip Jones described the vessel that would become Type 31e as “to be a much less high-end ship. It is still a complex warship, and it is still able to protect and defend and to exert influence around the world, but it is deliberately shaped with lessons from wider industry and off-the-shelf technology to make it more appealing to operate at a slightly lower end of Royal Navy operations”.
IHS Janes described it as a “credible frigate” that will cover “maritime security, maritime counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, escort duties, and naval fire support sitting between the high-end capability delivered by the Type 26 and Type 45, and the constabulary-oriented outputs to be delivered by the five planned River-class Batch 2 OPVs”.
So there we have it, they could be fitted but they probably aren’t needed.
Just when you think there’s light at the end of the tunnel, the MoD come straight back at you with yet more stunning incompetence
Incompetent, sadly, putting it rather mildly.
Sticking an anti ship missile on the side of a frigate is a piece of piss in comparison to integrating Sea Ceptor. The RN and almost every other navy has never fired such a weapon in anger, primarily because the lynx that will be on the frigate carry’s a much more deployable anti ship missile.
Better to get the ship in numbers with a medium capability fit like sea Ceptor and main gun with space to add items like ASM in the future if required and the ability to embark a Lynx or Merlin which are significantly more useful platforms for killing other ships and submarines.
Also the ship will be coming with space fitted for 8 or more mk41 VLS which will allow for land Attack, Anti Surface Anti Air Anti Balaistic Missile and Anti Submarine weaponry if the threat environment ever increases.
Fitting Mk41 into a ship that is already set up to take it is also a piece of piss and could be done in days under war time conditions.
The main thing is to have a combat management system that’s can handle it and get as many hulls in the water as possible as you can’t upgrade a ship that does not exist.
I’m noticing my comments about Mr Allison have me black balled in this site now. And here was me thinking there was no moderation on UK defence Journal comments section.
I miss think defence. TD ran a tight ship before he gave up and was replaced by this lot and would never allow the amount of racist xenophobic comments written in the comments site of UK defence journal.
Hi Martin,
First of all, we didn’t replace Think Defence. He has his own website and has never been anything to do with this one.
Secondly, we get 400 comments a day and we’re volunteers doing this in our free time, that’s why we have a report function that allows people in the comments to flag users posting nasty stuff. We can’t act if we don’t see anything.
Thirdly, what did you expect to happen when hurling your own abuse at someone? Is your form of abuse better than the other forms of abuse you’re highlighting? Should yours be left alone? I do this in my free time, I’m not paid so you can imagine how unwilling I am to deal with accusations like yours.
If you want to help, by all means help. We would welcome an extra person helping sort out the comments.
George
Dear George, Thank you for finally engaging on here. Firstly I would like to apologies for some of my harsher comments which were designed purely to see if it was even possible to generate a response from a moderator on this website, apparently the mention of you name is sufficient to generate such a response. The reason for my disdain at this site is the combination of your quite literally weekly article on anything that slightly mentions Scotland and or ships and the flood of bigoted racists xenophobic anti Scottish rhetoric that it invokes in the comments section. As a Scot interested in defence ans someone who has previously served and someone who has previously heavily engaged in the defence blogging world I have had to put up with everything from lengthy discussions on invasion and occupation of an independent Scotland to the racial inferiority of Scottish people and everything else in between (with never a single action or comment from a moderator) and much of this has been justified by other commentators who say UK Defence Journal can’t be anti Scottish because one of the authors is Scottish.
In the last two years the comments on this website have turned me very much from a soft no on Scottish independence to a big yes primarily because I had no idea about the level of hatred of Scottish people by a significant minority of English people and I am sure many if any other Scots reading this would feel much the same. I am not sure if that was your intentions but its certainly the result.
To illustrate my point if you google Scotland and Ship building your are the number two listed website on the planet which is an immense achievement for a UK Defence website given the length of time Scotland has been building ships.
While I am sure the flood of views and comments on the weekly anything that’s Scottish article helps pay the bills at UK Defence journal I would ask you to stop and think for a minute and perhaps ask your self is this really worth writing and also perhaps have a moderator pay some more attention to the comments it inevitably generates.
George the chip on his shoulder is heavy, and I can only imagine how hard it is going through life with an unbalanced outlook.
No, your pathetic rants about racists probably have got you “lack balled”, which interestingly is terminology that is no longer acceptable in the workplace, oh dear.
Martin, to drop in a MK41 is not quite as easy as it sounds. You need command and control targeting information cabling, electrical cabling, water plumbing for cooling, fire supression systems, some form of ‘armoured’ box for passive protection, curcuit breakers the list goes on. Unless these are installed at the very begining then it would take several weeks to install a Mk41. Yes I agree that the T31 has the space for 2-4 Mk41 blocks but unless they have the fittings for them installed then its not quite so easy. It is also where the major cost is, the Mk41 itself is relitivly ‘cheap’, the fitting not so.
It often makes me wonder in what people mean when they say Fitted For But Not With, do they mean there is the space for it or do they mean plumbed up and ready to go.
Doesn’t Sea Captor have an anti surface capability ? Albeit a limited one.
It’s capable if the MOD funded that option initially. I gather they’ve simmed it in exercises but not heard a definitive. Still, with so few to be fitted that would seem to limit your options to the primary function in most cases either way. Personally puzzled why design would not just opt for even a few of the mk 41 silos in that case to leave flexiblity for whatever your needs (think there is an adaptor that would quad Ceptor in this silo).
It can, but it’s an option the RN hasn’t taken up. I imagine they realised using your main defensive system to sink boats was a poor strategy
I take your point but then if you use them to sink boats one presumes that you do so only because you have little other option than to wait to be sunk yourself which makes their use in an anti air role pretty moot. So probably better to at least have that option so that you might be in a position to do other jobs even if only after a re-supply. Otherwise there will be very few places potentially where you can safely operate to do anything useful outside of disaster relief.
Valid argument. It’s worth considering the situation that would require using an air defence weapon on a surface target. At the sort of ranges where you’re detecting and engaging small craft, guided munitions from the 57mm or maybe even the 40mm would be more effective and cheaper. Adding a surface attack feature to Sea Ceptor would be an unnecessary extra expense that would give you the option of using it as an expensive alternative to a guided shell.
There’s also the wider strategic picture. A ship can only stay on station while it can defend itself; in a combined arms attack, it’s likely that the surface attack would either precede, follow, or occur simultaneously to missile attack from a coastal battery. Cheap fast attack craft would be an excellent way of reducing a ship’s missile defences before more expensive AShMs are fired. Even if no follow up attack occurs, the moment the ship is low or out of interceptors, it can’t stay on station and it has to retreat to a base where it can rearm (which given the state of our logistics, I find it unlikely we have arsenals of modern missiles at every base abroad).
Especially if the amount of silos has been reduced from 24 to 12…
In fairness, the original specs were to be able to have provision for anti-ship missiles but not fitted with, hence not in any pictures of the type 31
Which makes a lot more sense than having even less hulls to play with if an immediate commitment to fit them from the off was taken. No potential to fit them would however be mad and probably the worst of the three options. I guess its grappling with matters of this nature that gets the MOD so much criticism when it is perhaps forced to simply make the best ‘bad option’ so often offered to it from above. You can argue your corner as much as you like but in the end others are holding the strings for the most part so unless you can read the runes errors are going to be inevitable, its whether you made the best decisions to try to avoid them that is really to be judged.
Do you think because it’s highly unlikely that we will use the likes of an anti ship missile is the reason they are penny pinching?. We don’t even have enough for our current fleet, and because our current fleet hasn’t had to use them hardly atall is the reason the type 31 might not receive anti ship missiles.
I guess its a good job that they didn’t make that judgement in the 30s or we would have had battleships without guns (though the PoW was pretty much close to that when confronting the Bismarck due to problems with its 4 gun turrets) and aircraft carriers without strike planes (though that wasn’t far from the case too when you consider the Swordfish). Not advisable.
Actually the PoW guns still managed to land a mission kill shots on the Brismarck.
And the swordfish did manage to disable the Brismarck, sink the italian fleet at taranto, preformed highly effective anti submarine patrols and actually sunk more enemy shipping than any other allied plane in the in ww2 .
As per my previous, Cam, I fail to see why we’d not have installed even a few of the mk41 in a class that is designed to take them from scratch, providing the forward mission bay allows. You don’t have to fill them all with missiles all the time but could both load suitable new missiles or swap in and out of your other units depending upon the mission envisaged and the risk level in the area you intend to patrol, thus extending the type’s championed flexibility. That would in fact make the article headline totally apposite! Good deterrent factor in there also, since others likely unsure of what you’re packing.
Outside of this issue, I like these vessels.
The RN are looking for an interim ASM with a Land attack option. My guess is that they may buy half a dozen sets and fit them as and when required across the fleet for ‘high threat’ deployments – ie patrols in Straits of Hormuz or SCS islands – so a trip to the Caribbean, for example, would not need a set fitted. This seems be the way that RN mange their assets vs budgets.
Just arm them properly and get on with it. Tell that bunch at Abbey Wood to JFDI and stop having endless meetings and colouring charts.
Although a technicality, the Wildcat it will surely embark will by then have Martlet capability. I’m also crossing my fingers that they get a 30mm cannon or two which as we’ve seen recently, can possibly also be upgraded with Martlet.
This is a very important point, the Wildcat is the main RN anti-ship capability. The current version of Harpoon on the T23 and some T45 is outdated and probably wouldn’t be risked, unless in the middle of the Atlantic with no other vessels bar the target around. Certainly wouldn’t be risked in the Gulf. A Wildcat with Sea Venom, Stingray and Martlet would be the offensive tool of choice. T31 Is designed to be an oversized OPV, any more capability and you can wave goodbye to eight T26. If to be used as a GP Frigate it really needs Tomahawk rather than an ASW i.e. a Mk41 VLS
We do need to remember that a Wildcat would have to get pretty close (8 km) to a target to launch Martlet, so it’s really only useful against smaller craft/those that don’t have any real dedicated AA capabilities.
Sea Venom 20km range, due in service 2021…..or so.
I completely forgot about Sea Venom!
Same issue. Within 20km of major escorts is a suicide zone.
Yes plus all your eggs on one helicopter that has other jobs too is hardly ideal. I wonder what the service availability for a Wildcat is whilst onboard a ship.
The only time we ever missed a programmed sortie with a lynx was after a castrophic failure grounded it. That happened 3 times in the 15 years I was a back end. One of those times we where carrying 2 Helos anyway so didn’t lose the capability.
Keep the maintenance in date and they are pretty good. Even with battle damage they just keep on going.
I suspect MBDA are sandbagging on the range, perhaps by as much as 2x, similar to previous observations on CAMM. The types and capabilities of AAW missiles carried by corvettes, one of the stated targets, isn’t a secret. Making the claim that Sea Venom enables “Safe standoff – aircraft can turn away from the target post launch to remain outside surface to air missile range” tends to imply that a helicopter can pop up over the radar horizon, launch and runaway to fight another day.
During the Falklands War the Argentine tug ARA Alférez Sobral was hit by several Sea Skua and lived to fight another day bruised but not out.
Throwing the equivalent of 4.5in shell at something isn’t going to do much. Small patrol boats will be hurt, but once you get up to something over 500 tons it will take a lucky hit somewhere vital. Then you have to consider something shooting back at the helicopter.
Smart munitions fired from the main gun would be better option. The Italians have an interesing promo cartoon showing heat seeking 76mm round barrelling down towards a target’s uptake. And this is out to 40km. That’s one of the features tar makes the Italian version of Horizon so interesting. 3 76mm covering practically the whole ship’s perimeter acting as CIWS, AAW, medium pop gun for constabulary jobs, NGS, and even AShM. A decent secondary capability to the missiles.
I can’t believe we brought Merlin into service without a large AShM from the get go. But it is the MoD. You need something Harpoon sized to give somebody a really bad day. One of the reasons why T26 should have built around the easy operation of 2 to 4 large (properly equipped) helicopters.
The Italians have theirs with AShMs. Why must we constantly seek to remove essential warfighting gear from our few ships when all our likely enemies are fully kitted out? Maybe a sense of urgency & responsability is something HMG/MOD is fitted for but not equipped with.
I don’t know. After discussing these matters and asking questions over a decade all I can say it seems that the RN is very clever and the MoD always knows best and every peer country else doing something else is due to them having different defence needs; even though it seems all their needs seem to be somewhat similar. We are where we are.
Helicopters can be shot down, busy conducting ASW or simply be unservicable. Then what? No ASMs & a tiny 57mm pea shooter if enemy ships would be so kind as to come within a few miles without blowing our ships out of the water with the ASMs or decent sized medium guns they’ll not be lacking?
These are GP warships, not OPVs.
If they can only scrape together enough pennies for a measly 12 Sea Ceptor rounds, you can bet the house that they won’t bother with ASMs.
It’s not a lot different to how the Type 21’s were originally delivered before they got Exocet and STWS – a capability that can be added when the money allows but keeps them within budget during build and trials.
Yep,id agree with that,i just hope that once in service they don’t get the ‘FFBNW’ Class moniker !.
We can but hope!! 🙂 I served on HMS Amazon in 87/88 and they were good GP frigates when they were upgraded – but a few more Sea Ceptors and maybe a MK41 VLS would really add to their capabilities. Maybe by then the Navy will have decided what replaces Harpoon. Fingers crossed.
Yes hopefully that decision is why we have heard so little about such a capability be it at launch or later in their service. Costs and capabilities of that decision will play an important role in any decision. If they buy a temporary solution till the main one is in operation in the thirties then I wonder if whatever intermediate they buy could be transferred to these ships. Would be ridiculous to have an expensive missile system for just ten years or so and then get rid. Indeed if that were their plan then you can bet due to that factor, it would do the job in nothing but name, with the relative capability to hurt the enemy of a catapult.
The displacement goes up and the punch goes down………. A Leander Class frigate (Late batch circa 3,500 Tons displacement) was equipped with 4Exocet, 1×6 Sea Wolf launcher+required radar, 2 x 20mm, Ships Torpedo Weapons Systems (Stringray) and a towed array Sonar. Not forgetting it could carry (and hanger) a Lynx capable of using Sea Skua or Stingray. The threat these ships had to deal with then is the same now, have I missed something?
Towed array leaders had sea cat and exocet
Sea wolf leaders had exocet but no array and they where no where near as capable as say a T22 They where a stop gap measure. Steam turbines low range and a big crew for there size.
And the accom on board was awful… You would never get away with the living conditions now.
The only plus point for Leander over T22 was the former was quieter underwater. It was criminal HMG didn’t cough up for rafting in T22.
The difference in range was only 500nm or so in an era where there were more oilers in service.
Living in a ‘zoo’ would put most youngsters of these days.
Tabbing in the mess square, you and your kit stinking of fags, fold up bunks in the square and the sprogs couldnt get there heads down until everyone had finished their “3 tins”, Cockies in the lagging, asbestos everywhere, the dobie putting creases down the front of your jeans…. nope I don’t miss it and most people today would scream in horror at what we put up with.
The difference between the (off watch) life of the ratings and the Wardroom was not so long ago too great.
I abhor smoking too. Thinking back to the days when it was a common practice makes heave even today. Living in it day in day, no. The though of being in a mess deck on 3 or even lower in a big ship closed up………yuk.
Before everyone gets outraged about the lack of an anti-ship missile, remember that no future AShM has actually even been chosen for the RN yet. Perseus is a decade away, and the interim weapon system still hasn’t been chosen. Likewise the RN doesn’t have any Mk41 weapons for the T26 (apart from Aster, which can theoretically use Mk41 but hasn’t been qualified for it).
The MoD has years to make the decision, they’re almost certainly waited for the SDSR to conclude. There’s a solid chance they’re trying the same tactic the USN did a few years back when they drew up plans to retire a carrier earlier: use the outrage caused by a glaring capability gap to leverage increased funding to cover filling said gap. It’s a tactic that wouldn’t have worked in previous UK governments, but might work now
This story is a little unfair in the T31.
The T26 is in the same position as the T31, and if you discount the obsolete Harpoon, the T45 and T23 are already without an anti-ship missile. Hopefully the RN will get an interim solution sooner rather than later to cover the capability gap until Perseus.
My concern is in allowing the capability-gap to open in the first place. It gives the bean counters the argument that if the RN survived X years without a particular capability, does it need it at all?
That doesn’t seem to be too likely. Especially this decade, we’ve seen a lot of capabilities gapped that are now being brought back. Carriers and MPAs are the big ones
Madness! …or wilful neglect?
T31 as general purpose patrol ships not with the fleet i.e.not protecting the carrier, they are capable vessels but lightly armed. I suppose AShM are considered offensive weapons but war is not predictable and air cover is not always guaranteed by Merlin, Lynx/Wildcats and F-35B . In fact I am not sure that the F-35B has a dedicated AShM planned for service. I guess the SPEAR and Brimstone could be used.
The MOD/Govt should copy the USA and buy the Naval strike Missile/Joint Strike Missiel or planes (Inc P8A and Typhoons) and for Frigates, and Destroyers. If the Marines and LCS have them so should we.
Surely the Falklands conflict proved you don’t rely on few specialists on a unpredictable landscape. The threats faced by the RN are everywhere and could happen at anytime.
That would be my suggestion. Put a couple of NSM box launchers on the T31 like the USN is doing with the LCS. They’re cheap and plug and play. 8 ASMs would be quite a OTH punch for the class for little invested…
Cheers
If the ships are fitted ‘for, not with’ anti-ship missiles then the capability can be added further down the line if the threat warrants it, but ultimately, the lack of anti-ship missiles only denotes ‘incompetence’ if the operating concept necessitates anti-ship missiles. I doubt that the navy envisages much in the way of direct ship-to-ship engagements between major surface combatants given that this way of fighting has been arguably obsolete since WWII.
In-service date 2027, plenty of time to look at what’s available in the near future.
The Gungnir Mk 4 is due to enter service in 2020 as an example, no doubt there will be others by 2027 to consider for both the Types 31 and 26.
The real question is, what’s the best option for the Types 23 and 45 between now and 2027?
The first deployment of the QE in 2021.
“The Russian Navy’s (VMF’s) Northern Fleet is set to receive six surface combatants, submarines, and other vessels in 2020, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu told a meeting of his ministry’s board on 28 February.
“The [Project 955A] strategic [ballistic missile] submarine (SSBN) Knyaz Vladimir and the [Project 22350] frigate Admiral Kasatonov, which have successfully completed state sea trials in the White Sea and the Barents Sea, will be commissioned soon,” said Shoigu. The Northern Fleet is also scheduled to receive more than 180 weapon systems modified for use in the Arctic before the end of 2020.”
https://www.janes.com/article/94660/russian-northern-fleet-to-receive-six-naval-platforms-in-2020
Just came across this post albeit air-launched.
28 February 2020
Japan confirms development of new air-launched anti-ship missile.
Japan is developing a new air-launched anti-ship missile (ASM) to arm the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force’s (JMSDF’s) P-1 maritime patrol aircraft.
https://www.janes.com/article/94593/japan-confirms-development-of-new-air-launched-anti-ship-missile
It always makes me laugh when they label the 57mm gun as medium calibre! The twelve 6″ gun main armament of the Belfast was considered medium calibre back in the day.
The problem as highlighted by the recent Warship program (part 2) with HMS Duncan, shows that the ship can be used for any task, besides its main one of protecting a task group or carriers. Therefore, the ship must be able to fight with what she has to hand. Being swarmed by fast attack craft armed with multi-barrel rocket launchers etc requires a quick and decisive response if attacked. The upgrade of the DS30 mounts with the Martlet seems a quick and easy choice. It shouldn’t cost an enormous amount, as the trials have now be done on a T23. It would give any ship the capability to quickly deal with swarming attacks, besides using its auto-cannons.
The main issue is dealing with isolated land based threats, such as when you pass hot spots like Yemen. You need a weapon that can be targeted against a camouflaged target with little collateral damage. Due to the rules of engagement, i.e. you can’t fire on someone unless fired on and you can only fire on the threat if identified. Therefore, it must have a two way data link, so the operator can see the target, but also have the capability of redirecting the missile or terminating it before it hits. This precludes a surface to surface missile with an active/passive radar seeker, leaving you with either a direct camera feed or imaging infra red controlled missile. The obvious choices are the MBDA Sea Venom and Kongsburg Naval Strike Missile/Joint Strike Missile (NSM/JSM). Both have two way data links and imaging infra red seekers.
The cheapest option would be a containerised version of Sea Venom. Purely because it will already be in use for the Wildcat, so maintenance and supply wont be a problem. Also, if the ship has a Wildcat + Sea Venom the explosive storage of Sea Venom would have already been underwritten. The missile has already been fired from containers as part of its testing. So along with a small warhead (30kg) it can provide defined targeting against land targets. However, it has a relatively short range of around 20km i.e. just over the horizon. Compared with the NSM’s published range on a low level profile of 185km that delivers a 125kg warhead. The NSM provides all the same features as the Sea Venom, but at greater cost and capability.
Personally, I would say the Martlet fit to the DS30 mount should be fitted fleet wide, as it gives a massive capability boost for little cost. Secondly I also think, that for the cost and today’s rules of engagement, a containerised package of Sea Venom should be fitted to our surface combatants i.e. T23 and T45. This will give the ship a relatively cheap multi-purpose surface to surface missile capability that is operable 24/7, unlike the ship’s helicopter. The Sea Venom will allow the ship the option of both attacking land or surface targets within its field of vision, thereby complying to the rules of engagement. Once T26 and T31 are in-service they should also be armed with Sea Venom.
However, a ship must be able to fight another peer, regardless of how it leaves port. Admittedly the last time we fired an anti-ship missile was during the Gulf War and was Sea Skua fired from Lynx not the ship. In today’s austere climate, you cannot just have a dedicated anti-ship missile. The missile must be multi-purpose and comply with the rules of conflict. To my mind the only missile that meets this criteria is the NSM. If a conflict started, at least during the first week there will be a plethora of neutral shipping nearby. Therefore, it’s absolutely critical that only hostile ships are targeted. With a radar guided anti-ship missile, there is always the chance that it will target a neutral ship, especially if a warship fires off decoys, steering the missile away. Most anti-ship missiles have very limited cognitive ability, so their programming will try to lock on to the biggest reflection i.e. target. Unless they are being directed by a two way data link, once the missile is fired its on its own.
The NSM uses an imaging infra red sensor. This means it looks for its target by matching what it sees to a library image. It’s not just looking for a hot spot like the ship’s exhaust, but an outline shape. Therefore, even decoy flares will struggle to veer of course. These means the less chance of the missile locking on to the wrong target. So the interim missile should be the NSM, as it’s more flexible than a radar guided missile and has a better chance of hitting the designated target.
By taking up all three options, any ship would then have a multi-layered option. NSM for over the horizon targets, Sea Venom within visual range and Martlet for close in swarming attacks. Any ship so armed would be a force to be reckoned with.
Couple of things.
Imaging IR is not infallible. It has a number of performance limitations in poor weather, rain and mist. It can be thrown off by flares or a dazzler blinding the homing sensor.
You only have say 8 ASMs on board where as with a 4.5 you have over 200 Shells. 4.5 is accurate. Very accurate. It has proven its self in a number of conflicts where it has defeated and demoralised the enemy.
Dat links are jamable. Radar homes are not ideal. As a former maintainer I know what harpoon and
Skua can do and as you said Harpoon is really an open ocean weapon not for use in a crowded seaway.
I still don’t think NSM is the answer to the RNs asm quandary we shall have to see what they decide on. My guess is LRASM when the USN replaces harpoon as well.
Have you been sitting in the sun again? Totally agree with the 4.5″, but is the T31 going to get it? It would be great if it did, then place the 57mm in either the B position or on the hangar roof. The option of a multi-purpose surface to surface missile is that it gives the ship more flexibility to respond to a threat or to act offensively.
The imaging infra-red (IIR) sensors used by Sea Venom and NSM are the latest generation multi-spectrum type incorporating near infra-red, medium and long wave infra-red wavelengths. They are based on a pixel thermopile array, so basically similar to the CCD sensor in a digital SLR camera. However, because of their very wide spectrum coverage they have an intrinsic thermal imaging capability. It is this capability along with moving target processing and image comparison that makes it nearly impossible for the sensor to be decoyed by a flare. As it uses a broad spectrum sensor it is also less effected by atmospherics and moisture.
The only method apart from a hard kill would be as you mentioned the directed infra red countermeasures (DIRCM). DIRCM has come a long way in the last ten years, mostly in packaging and the use of a laser instead of a massive light source. They have predominantly been used on large transport and ISR aircraft. However, due to the reduced packaging they are being seen on more helicopters, such as the Merlin. Even the Russian Su57 now has DIRCM. However, the system is not infallible. Missiles like Iris-T and ASRAAM can home on a laser dazzler. So the best option would be a hard kill laser to permanently blind the sensor. The issue for a ship is that it would probably only have a DIRCM fitted either either side. To blind the NSM it would have to be permanently covering the nose of the missile as it approaches. So if there is more than one missile approaching, you’re stuffed.
You are correct the data link can be jammed. However, the targeted ship would have to know the missile was on the way and the jammer would have to be very powerful as the NSM’s data link antenna points backwards. The benefit of using the IIR is that it is entirely passive. So that targeted “ship” would have to be active to detect it. The NSM is quite a stealthy missile, so it would probably get very close before its detected, leaving very little time to defeat it.
I do think that a combination of Martlet and Sea Venom is the best short term solution and the cheapest course for the fleet to get a surface to surface missile capability. But, I also think our F35s will “probably” get NSM/JSM, due to Australia and Japan funding the integration, it would make logistical sense to also fit our ships with it, if we do go down that path, rather than follow the Yanks with the more expensive LRASM.
The LRASM is the gold plated solution. If it lives up to the publicity and hype, it will be a very formidable weapon system. It also uses a IIR sensor, but also includes electronic surveillance sensors. So it can also home in on active radars and jammers. Plus it has a 1000kg warhead which is pretty much guaranteed to knock out any ship.
LRASM is an option but adopting it would almost certainly kill the FC/ASW program. LRASM is Storm Shadow/SCALP class while NSM/JSM is at least a class below in terms of overall mass and warhead size; arguably a complementary solution for either a supersonic or stealthy FC/ASW.
The problem with Perseus is that it is at least ten years away and LRASM is available now. It has been integrated with the F35 and Poseidon, so that’s something we don’t have to fund. The Aussies are also purchasing the LRASM for their Poseidon aircraft, they are also purchasing the NSM/JSM for their F35As to be carried internally. Japan have asked Kongsburg to see if the NSM/JSM can be modified to fit the internal bay of the F35B. They have said if it can’t, then they will develop their own ASM.
I guess it comes down to how urgently we view the need for an ASM and land attack missile and whether we need both a heavy and medium weight option immediately. I’d also break it down into air launched and ship launched needs, even though the same missile is likely to do both.
I view air launched as the priority because I struggle to come up with realistic scenarios for ship-to-ship engagements, especially if we have air launched options, and especially between peers.
In this context, similar to yourself I believe, I see NSM/JSM as the ideal interim/long term lower end, more affordable capability, with others paying for the integration. Especially if a F35B weapons bay option is possible.
FC/ASW is worth pursuing from my perspective because we may well end up with better solutions than LRASM. Meteor and SPEAR3 are demonstrating the value of this approach IMV.
sorry miss read the 57mm and went full auto about 4.5…its been a long week !
As for detecting missiles most RN vessels carry a passive missile detection sensor . Other navies also have something similar.
Clearly the issue is lack of money to currently purchase new AShM in the Type 31. I suggest the current Harpoon system, though obsolete with regards to peer opponents, will do as an interim weapon especially with regards to likely opponents of a lone Type 31 on patrol. Here I am thinking of an adversary such as Iran, North Korea, and lesser nations. I suggest the existing Harpoon Block 1 be refurbished and fitted to the Type 31 until 2030 when Persus is available.
Things change. in ww2 Belfast was a cruiser, now its smaller than many Frigates. Back then a 16 inch gun was not unusual, now try to point at anything in service that has a 6inch gun.
You could not write this story as fiction…..could you? What a mess this whole Type31 debacle has been, with more dithering than a learner driver doing a three-point turn! To save money, the ship’s safety company will be compromised. The current Warship doc series on Channel 5 clearly demonstrates, the requirement, to threaten a ship to ship missile exchange if necessary. Without a ship to ship capability, one has to question the wisdom of the brains at the MOD?
The MoD is Predominantly, A civilian Organisation!
I would guess a lot will depend on the decision of the interim ASM contract (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/mod-further-details-future-anti-ship-missile-contract/). If they go for the NSM or RBS15, it would be relatively easy to add them to the Type 31. If they go for the LRASM, then more difficult as no Mk41 VLS. With MBDA offering surface launched versions of both Brimstone and Sea Venom, it would not be surprising for the Type 31 to be equipped with one of these (probably the latter) if the LRASM is added to the Type 26. they Type 45 could go either way.
LRASM was successfully test fired from a ‘Topside Cannister’ on 26/07/2019 at White Sands. Lockheed Martin are aware of the requirement to be able to fit LRASM to vessels without Mk41 vls. There are question mark’s hanging over the future of the Perseus deal….and whether the UK will actually continue on with it. The project is too far away from even deciding on key aspects of the design.
We need a top of the range system in the here and now and LRASM fits the bill, combined with Tomahawk Block IV……
Upgrade on the way.
https://www.janes.com/article/94619/raytheon-funded-to-develop-jmews-warhead-for-tomahawk
Thank you Paul
Yes, LRASM will require Mk. 41, the strike version, to be launched. It looks like a Storm Shadow!
It has already been successfully test fired from a cannister – 26th Juky 2019 – White Sands.
Update, LRASM was successfully test fired at an angle from a ‘Topside Cannister’ validating its ability to be launched from Mk41 vls and Non-Mk41 on 26/07/2017 at White Sands missile test range. The Cannister mounting is along similar lines to the angled Harpoon Cannister and will enable bolt on deck mounting on Warships without Mk41 vls.
It must be quite A heavy weight cannister? Looking at the thickness of the missile!
I’m sure size and weight have been taken into consideration for a production unit suitable for fitting to surface units. On the Type 23 and Tyoe 45 in the absence of Mk41 vls, the canisters would sit where the Harpoon tubes currently are sitting at approx the same angle.
I expect nothing and yet some how continue to be disappointed.
1: T31 will have a Wildcat with up to 4 SeaVenom. I think that is “good enough”. Of course, having ASuM, such as NSM will be very nice to have. No objection.
But, I will prefer “12 more CAMM to make it 24” than adding 4-8 ASuM. I understand adding 12-more CAMM to the existing 12 is cheaper than adding a completely new weapon system, ASuM.
If RN gets 11 sets of NSM (or alike), then T45 and eventually T31 will carry them.
2: By the way, “But the vessels look potentially very lightly armed for their size.” (by Senior Fellow) is surprising to hear. Never forget T31 as required is a 3500-4000t vessel. The ~6000t hull is the bonus (far exceeding the requirement = “gold-plating”). I still see T31 as “a 4000t FLD light frigate with 2000t large hull added”.
Of course, these light frigates in many cases carry ASuM (the only good counterpart will be RNZN ANZAC frigates, with not ASuM). So, hoping for ASuM itself is natural.
3: Anyway, NAO report of “6B GBP shortfall of equipment budget within 5 years, even with 4.5B GBP efficiency savinng” is “clear and present danger”. Any “additional hope in T31” will directly result in “cutting other assets”, such as MCMV, T26, LPD, and FSSS. Big big risk there is.
Strongly suggest a couple of 8 cell sea spear or spear 3 would greatly enhance Type31 with UK kit
Defend other veessels at range from swarm fast attack craft (gulf scenario)
Allows t31 to launch saturation attack aginst enemy corvette or frigate at range
Allow T31 to hit coastal defence sites. Radars missiles etc
Allow t31 to support special forces ashore if enemy vehicles closing in.
Small price for significant capability and 100km range if Spear 3.
P
They should put harpoon missiles on just in case, I’m pretty sure you would want to be over armed than under armed, but have the infrastructure ready for the Perseus missile in development.
How are you going to pay for it, within the big shortfall of budget?
By cutting a T26? Of course not.
It is just, no money.
Donald…….the foreign aid budget has lots to waste!! ….Dave and George attacked the defence budget time to give some back…
HS2, North channel bridge, Billion pound bungs to the DUP etc. So it’s not lack of money but the refusal to spend it on basic essentials. A escort warship with no decent medium gun or AshMs just doen’t cut the mustard deterring other warships & is a liability to the fleet & its own crew.
Before you can spec the weapons fit you need a clear mission.
Well the problem with that is that the range of actors prepared to take potshots and make odd choices has proliferated.
If you go back to Cold War then things were done by both sides according to doctrine.
Now you have asymmetric activity and the plain mad cap.
So you walk softly with a big stick hence why 8 VLS tubes even with nothing in them is actually a bluff that someone has to be prepared to call.
And if the 31 does have VLS fitted then then UORs to put munitions into the VLS are a lot quicker than starting to but steel up all over the place. There are plenty of decent munitions integrated into TACTICOS so that is a realistic way to proceed.
I am ready to stand corrected, but I don’t think a naked 8 cell VLS is actually that expensive?
I think that the 57mms & two 40mm guns using the FUZE 3P programmable ammunition is arguably a lot more important than asm for the Type 31’s.
In a perfect World I’d agree.
Uncertainty creates a breadth of scenarios and threats that there is an obligation to protect the team onboard the T31 from.
If there is something big heavy and ugly that can be chucked in an aggressors direction then it gives pause for thought and acts as a damper for stupidity.
I’d also agree with other comments that a naval to naval set piece engagement is very very unlikely.
Not for attacking or defending against other warships or sinking enemy merchant ships. By the time you’re within range of the 57mm, the enemy would’ve bklown you out of the water with their Ashms & already landed hits from their own medium guns. Also they’re way too light & short ranged for shore bombardment, which something more expendable like the T31s should be 1st choice for.
As secondary guns & AAA/anti-missile/anti fast boat weapons they’re excellent. But you can’t expect a vespa to do the job of a pick-up truck.
The Royal Navy today:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/–fl8P0O-9Tw/Xl-s1wGP6hI/AAAAAAAALGM/zgAV6l4HfRsVItKucHeRPPZqcLHNaUk9ACLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/ss3.jpg
It’s the height of stupidity to have a frigate so underarmed. It’s essentially a stretched OPV.
It doesn’t have to cost the earth to up-gun a Type 31 frigate: 24 x Sea Ceptors, the main gun and NSM in a pair of quad canister launchers bolted onto the deck to give 8 antiship missiles.
Gives it the chance to defend itself if attacked whilst also making it somewhat useful if it were needed to join our carrier group. For an actual combat mission another pair of canister launchers could be fitted, giving each Type 31 16 missiles.
With a multi billion pound black hole in military spending, savings MUST be made.
Why do you post on this site if you hate the military so much?
Fleet of paper tigers, pathetic
I know the weapons fit has still to be officially finalised, but there was an article the other week saying the type 31 might only get 12 SAM, add that to no AshM and and biggest gun being 57mm, sounds like you are only getting a big expensive glorified corvette, not a frigate. If that’s what the navy wants then fine, just misleading calling it frigate
The contracts have been signed, the fit has been finalized.
It has? I missed that sorry. It is only 12 SAM or I remember wrong?
12, yes.
Is there a bow sonar in the finalized fit?
When & where was this made public? Can you send a link?
Most corvettes are far better equipped than these T31s. Shame on us.
Biggest exposure with the Type 31 is not lack of missiles, it is a total lack of any ability to detect underwater threats. No sonar of any description.
Best way to attack a T31 would therefore be to spread a rumour that a submarine was in the area. Exit T31.
Nail on the head
Or that any enemy warship was in the vicinity.
Yet T45’s MOAS fit out doesn’t concern you.
You are right the vector from where the navies on our side will suffer is subsurface.
Nobody here would argue that as an ASW ship T26 doesn’t need AA missiles, air search radar, and stealthy faceted upper work because the aircraft and missiles are threat. But when it comes to subsurface everybody just seems to shrug.
I blame the RN labelling tailless T23 as ‘general purpose’ when all escorts since T12(M) have been ‘general purpose’ that is able to engage threats in all spheres to some extent.
I’m not convinced by this bit in the article…
“ Will this be a problem? Probably not, the ships aren’t likely to be tasked to do anything that requires them.
Type 26 will cover the high end tasks and Type 31 will generally cover low end constabulary work.”
With 8 T26 planned and at least one carrier needing escorts at any given time then, using the 1-from-3 deployable units assumption and 2 ASW escorts per carrier required we’d better hope for either no high end tasks outside of a carrier group’s remit or that we can better the 1-from-3 rate. OK, integrating escorts from allied navies might free up an extra T26 but it’s a shame to have to pretty much rely on that to release more than 1 T26 for anything other than escort duties. That would perhaps be acceptable if T31 had more teeth but this is all looking pretty thin gruel.
I guess we have to accept that batch one T31 are simply just about hulls in the water and patrol duties only. I personally will only accept this situation (as we are told we will maintain 19 escorts, which these are not) if a 2nd batch of 5 are ordered, but with a specific mission set and armed appropriately. Therefore, it’s the 2nd batch that really replace the GP T23’s, but we get 5 extra presence and patrol hulls to spread around and train on etc.
Mission set for T31 b2 I see as follows: t45 our primary AAW platform and will be largely tied to carrier and amphibious task groups. T26 is our ASW surface platform and carrier escort. That should be armed with ASROC and a heavy ASM to protect the carrier group. Therefore I see the T31 b2 as being a GP escort with land attack capability. We simply do not have enough astutes to rely on them for TLAM, with only 2 able to deploy at a time CASD and carrier duties fill this availability. T31 B2 for me would get 8 sets of mk41 EXLS, designed specifically for cold launched seaceptor canisters to fit into to give 48 missiles in four of the sets quadpacked. The remaining cells would be quadpacked with Spear 3. This missile will be a a game changer, particularly with the EW version in contested environments. These can be used in packs to take out ships, bombard key land based installations prior to landings, and put holes along inland runways and provide EW protection to our ships and air assets whilst hunting radar sites and missile batteries.
I would then have one 8 cell full strike length mk41 for Tlam or Lsram for longer range attacks. Cost appears to be around £20 million including integration per set. The idea of using primarily Exls is it should be much cheaper as it is a lightweight cell, and savings on weapons integration are stated to be more than 50% less. On top of this, better radar, decent hull sonar and upgrade 57mm to 76mm or 127mm if funds allowed.
So load out is 48 (24 ER version when available) seaceptor, 48 spear 3, 8 Tlam/Lrasm, 2x 40mm and one 76 or 127mm main gun. I would expect this to cost -100 million extra per boat, so £1.75 billion instead of £1.25 billion for the first batch. Still cheap for that level of capability and would outgun other medium frigates costing twice as much.
Looking at the projected stats for perseus, range does not look that impressive and timeline so slow. Russia a fielding hypersonic NOW, perseus might not even be hypersonic and won’t be ready for 10 years. Scrap it, order Lrasm in quantity now and start work on a new missile that will be truly transformative down the line.
Noting what you will only personally accept, what happens if your wishes are not met? What will you do?
Cummings Types Have Been And Gone Before!
Making More Enemies Then Freinds!
Did You NOT Understand My Last Post?
I have posted it again for You below!
If You Are More Interested In Those Other Issues, Just Clear Off From Here, To Those Reverent Sites!
Why Waste You Time Here!
You Do Not Have the Intelligence to Understand that this is A Defence Forum, Not A Pacifist Forum!
What About All The Money Wasted On Gender Charge, and then they Regret it Later!! Then They Want to Change Back Again!! Hay?
What About, All The Money to Be Wasted On HS2??
Why Not Spend this On Flood Defences??
Do you have to capitalise every word? He has a point of view, agree to disagree.
As my, 26years BAOR served father said, discretion is the better part of valour – possibly something to be said about biding our time before jumping in behind America.
Ps, I served too.
I was giving emphasis to my dialogue with the troll, but by Not shouting. I see people like him trying to undermine what democracy we have got, by disarming us. I don’t agree with every thing America does, but preferably to what Russia and does.
I should add China and Iran as well.
I feel we are in a new sort of Cold War, which we mainly the western countries, including Australia and Japan, are in a struggle with authoritarian like regimes which include Russia and China and Iran.
You against Overseas Wars!! You Hypocrite!
Tell Your Russian Freinds To Stop Bombing the People of Idlib!!
I Never See Your Friends Demonstrating Outside the Russian Embassy against it??
In an ideal world the RN would be buying LRASM as a stop gap but there simply isn’t the money. Until Perseus comes online the navy will have to make do. For fleet anti-ship defence we will need to rely upon f35 delivered munitions; an off the shelf air launched missile would seem an appropriate buy. As far as T31 goes the lack of missiles is a concern but we have Sea Venom coming online and given their role this would seem adequate. Much more concerning is the downsizing of the Sea Ceptor allocation. We have already seen the Iranians use swarming drone attacks and thus it would seem sensible to stick to the original design of 24. As people have noted below, the important thing is to just get as many hulls in service as we can. Should we feel urgent need to get anti-ship missile capability back it is relatively simple to bolt on containerised weapons in short order.
If You Are More Interested In Those Other Issues, Just Clear Off From Here, To Those Reverent Sites!
Why Waste You Time Here!
Anti Ship missiles are rarely fired in anger, but they serve as a deterrent. If an enemy ship has them, but T31 does not, then there is nothing to stop the enemy ship firing its missiles at T31, knowing the T31 has no anti ship missiles to fire back. Even 4x Harpoon on T31 would be enough deterrent for most tasks.
Lets call it 8 at least to make it worth it.
Somewhere in my roaming round the internet recently, I have seen a low mount, 2x side by side Harpoon, pointing out both sides, so 4 in total. I thought, oooh , that’s good for keeping centre of gravity low. I fear that T31 will be sent somewhere dangerous, because the RN has nothing else available that minute & end up in trouble, as it is not carrying a big enough stick to deter the other side. Even a slight upgunning, say an extra cell of 6x SeaCeptor to raise from 12 to 18 + 4x Harpoon or similar, would allow T31 to go safely where angels fear to tread.
Four feels light …..but obviously its limited by space. Id like more than 4 as no point having something that needs defending. It has to be able to look after itself in reasonable scenarios.
You probably saw chaff launchers.
Mk-141 launchers can be utilised in double or quad fits. I’d put money in it being Harpoon, as some do chose to use the double option.
Four is far too light. As this is a GP frigate I’d say eight would do: enough to protect itself and fight back if it ends up in a fight against another ship, and to actually be somewhat useful if joining our fleet in a pinch.
RN antiship doctrine seems to be totally reliant on the 1-2 Astute subs that will be with any carrier fleet we sail. No good if a ship appears from the opposite direction from the Astutes. Our Type 45s seem very capable of fending off any attack but can’t hit back. Against a peer fleet that’s very dangerous.
We need to be able to strike ships from the surface and the air as well as underwater.
So I went back to May 2018 & looked at the original Arrowhead proposal for T31. Armament was mentioned as 5 inch gun, 30mm cannons, 16 cell heavy VLS for ASW/AAW weapons, ASuW canister launchers, CIWS. Plus a stern ramp for a boat or unmanned vehicle.
Industry told Gov that T31 would cost at least £350m, but Gov would not pay more than £250m, so class will be crippled for £100m per boat. The old phrase of “spoil the ship for a halfpenny of tar”.
Even in 2018, the Arrowhead 140 with such big armaments were clearly stated that “not talking about UK T31”. T31 rationale was “make it cheap to save 8 T26”. Its cost is coming from the same wallet T26 is to be built.
Already, the original budget (1.25+0.25B GBP) has inflated to 2B GBP. Now it is “more than 2 T26 and nearly 3”. If add more, the final cost will cost as much as 3 T26.
“5 T31” vs “3 T26”. The latter must have been better, in my opinion.
Type 31 is a jumped up Corvette – the tonnage says frigate, capability says Corvette/OPV – I would have thought some anti ship missile system would have been a must, being RN ships hunts in packs of one..
Unfortunately I agree. This so called defence review will be all about saving money, thus expect yet more cuts.
@Harold
The Fisheries Minister has Just Warned the EU, that RN is to be Used To Protect British Waters!
So the Gov. are going To Need More Warships Now, Aren’t They!!
@Harold
The UK as being A Major Economic and World Power, Is A member of a few International organisations, the UN, OECD, NATO and Maritime Orgs. as well. Which means the UK has International Obligations On the High Seas.
So the UK sends its Navel vessels All Over the World, Just as Other Major Countries Do!
I Hope this Info Sinks In to Your Brain??
According to your graphic In service by 2023? thought this was now delayed or have they changed it again ?
In service bu 2025. Which allows 5 years for our politicians to wake up and realise the RN needs WARSHIPs not oversized Gun Boats!
Try 2027:
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/type-31-frigate-in-service-date-slips-by-four-years/
Wishful thinking on my part! Well perhaps sometime in the next 7 years we’ll wake up………..
The MoD are true F**kwits.
They are constrained by lack of money, although they do waste a load of it on occasions…. I think you need to include our brain dead politicians in your statement….
New man here. Having just watched the tv program with HMS Duncan I feel duty bound to post. Swarming attacks have been well discussed here before, but actually seeing such a large ship surrounded by small vessels was a bit sobering. In an ideal world these small vessels would all swarm out of a hidden anchorage and try to overwhelm the defences whereupon they would be taken out by the 4.5 inch gun and so on. However the reality is that these things potter around BEFORE taking action, and in this case they are very close.
What I saw was a bunch of sailors manning an assortment of machine guns (eventually) trying to defend a million pound warship. Uncomfortable viewing. The program didn’t show the Phalanx and 30mm being manned? My insight was that the things are loaded “as necessary” and hopefully you would have them loaded in time…
If I were in a Type 31 with 2x 40mm Bofors and a 57mm gun, plus machine guns I would feel more comfortable. Having LMM would be even more comfortable, as even at 5 aside, they would deal with this sort of threat easily. Having something as agile as the 57mm and instantly available (presumably)is a big tick in my book. LMM seems to me to be a game changer in swarming littoral combat.
Such a decently sized platform gives stability and a good view of the ocean, plus the ability to absorb any RPG strikes. 12 SAM, yes not many, but that’s 12 …targets..to shoot out of the sky. Likelihood of having to shoot down that many..targets? My gripe with only 12 sea captor buckets is that it does not give you the ability to up-arm the ships later on, and something like Spear 3 (assuming they could be launched from a sea ceptor bucket) would be very useful, if not a ship killer, surely being able to launch a bunch at a large target would be a reasonable deterrent. In addition, they could target smaller and inshore items as needed.
I like the idea of the T31 and the armaments chosen represents a good balance in capability for the likely tasking.
AA
There is a line of thought that says 5 T31 frigates and 5 sets of Harpoon replacements is too much of a co-incidence. Would be good.
Worst case is that T31 will have to make do with Wildcat and Sea Venom. Assuming the RN frigate has satellite intelligence on rough whereabouts of any possible adversary, Wildcat’s Seaspray radar ought to see the adversary well before it can fire its AShM. Sea Venom has a published range of 20km. I’m guessing that is conservative. As I understand things Wildcat could approach below the radar horizon, pop up and launch Sea Venom then dip out of sight while the operator in the Wildcat steers the missile onto the target’s mast using TV image relayed to him by the missile’s seeker.
I’m sure troops on the ground will be over the moon to hear that Naval Fire Support will be provided by a 76mm Pea Shooter. These vessels will cover “maritime security, maritime counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, escort duties, and naval fire support” Less hope then then that Future Conflicts will be nothing more than a Dhow armed with a couple of .303’s or some Camel Jockeys with soe Flintlocks.
Imbicility at the top. Let’s fully equip our warships & drastically cut MPs expenses. After all we’re supposed to be all in it together.
It’s bad enough having a tiny pea shooter main gun, without removing the anti-ship missiles as well. Should we build ramming bows to make up for this gaff or just a nice set of clean white flags?
I’m not sure about ‘not having’ a Anti Ship missile, if I understand correctly the MoD are buying five sets of intrim Anti Ship Missile for the T23 GP vessels. These are to be either the RBS-15 or NSM/JSM. As the T26 will have Mk41s then it will make sense that the intrim missile will go to the T31s. So for the potential ‘Batch1’ T31s Anti Ship missiles will be available. My concern is the T26, we do not have the Mk41 in the fleet and no missile to fire from it, Aster 30 BMD is not suited to the ARTISAN Radar, so that makes no sense, the current cruise missiles are becoming obsolete, so they will not be fitted, we do not have VL-ASROC but that would be a logical fit, Perseus is not yet ready so wait and see, Aster 15 is not needed as the T26 has Sea Ceptor, Aster 30 again not suited to the ARTISAN.
It is my opinion that the RN has got somehow things backwards, the powerful SAMPSON radar suite on the T45 is being under used as it is suitable for Mk41s whilst the MK41s are being fitted to a ship with the more limited ARTISAN.
Not correct, the interim ASM is for the remaining T23 ASW’s.
The T23 GP’s will be out of service by 2028.
Thanks, I thought they were for the T23 GPs, my mistake.
ARTISAN is still S-band radar, so it is compatible with Aster 30.
Ron – would it not be possible for the Type 26 to carry some Aster 30/NT in the MK41 VLS ,and then have the Type 45 doing the Targeting and Tracking – essentially using the T26 as a surrogate force multiplier Ship ?.Obviously they would have to be sailing in the same fleet but that would be a given in most cases anyway.
Paul T, Theoreticaly it should be possible, if I remember correctly one of the concepts for the T45 was to be able to do just that. It was also one of the reasons given for the reduction in T45 numbers. However, due to cost this capability was not installed.
I agree also with Meirion X that ARTISAN can at a push be used with the ASTER family but it is really pushing the capability of the radar missile mix.
I keep asking myself if it would not be better to install the 24 Mk41s on the T45 or even 24 SYLVER A-70s even if it meant the loss of the hanger for the helicopter. It would make very good use of the SAMPSON radar.
This is frankly a load of click bait fake news. And obviously it’s worked.
It has a range of capabilities which may include anti ship missiles. It may it may not as and when and it may or may not have a myriad of other system. Possibly. Possibly not. Perhaps. It’s a 250 million frigate. Since the end of WW2 how many anti ship missiles have attacked another ship (excuding Israel?) ?
I am right in thinking that the sea ceptor vls for the t31s are being transferred over from decommissioned t23s? If so, could the proposal of just 12 cells per t31 be due to only two t23s being decommissioned by the time the 5 t31s reach a stage in constriction when the cells need to be fitted? ie we cannot fit more sea ceptor to T31 because we do not have more cells available.
I am not familiar with the t23 decommissioning schedule or at what point the cells need to be fitted to the t31s, so this hypothesis could be rubbish.
Sea Ceptor on the T23s, are using old Sea Wolf tubes modifed to launch Sea Ceptor. The tubes would be welded in tightly, It would most likely involve a lot of work to remove them and costly, requiring a Refit at end of service.
Meirion thanks for your reply.
Are you saying that t31 will not be getting the old sea wolf launchers from the t23s?
If so, do you know what launchers they will be using?
I am not sure exactly, that are the new launchers are a modified version of Sea Wolf launchers.
I would prefer quad packed ExLS VLS.
To me it would make no sense whatsoever to re-use the VLS Silos from the T23 and transfer them to the T31,surely they will use New ones specifically for Sea Ceptor as is the case for the T26.
Hi Paul, I agree with you and I have probably misunderstood what is planned. My confusion is probably caused by some drawings for t31 (and t26 I believe) showing mushroom farm cells similar to those on the t23s following sea captor being installed in the sea wolf cells.
Surely mbda have come up with something neater.
Can helicopters be fitted with SPEAR 3?
I know the budget is tight and the national finances are in a complete mess etc etc, but it baffles me that we don’t spend the small amount percentage wise to properly equip the expensive platforms. Instead we waste huge amount of money constantly pushing back decisions to buy stuff.
Whilst i don’t like Boris or his spinning everything to make him look great whilst achieving nothing, i can’t help being impressed that someone is calling out the MOD / civil servants for their poor management of expenditure. Whether it will get anywhere is a whole different topic.
The Royal Navy top brass should get smart and brand the T31 frigates as “Boris Boats”. That should ensure they get as much funding for them as they want!
Lots of Money Wasted On Other Political Correct Projects!
Those Flooded Homes Should Not have Been Built On Flood Plains!!
Building Development Plans Passed by Corrupt Councils, Including LEFT Wing Ones!
You Hypocrite!! Tell Your Friends To Keep Their Noses Out of Other Countries Then!
Sorry to say, I am also “supportive” of not spending “more” on T31.
But, this is not because I think defense is of less use. Simply, even looking from far east, increase in defense budget is not likely. At the same time, if cleverly handled, I think NO CUT in budget can happen, thanks to NATO commitement of “2%”. (The same to DfID 0.7%).
The problem is, the 1- year equipment plan is in short of money by 2.9-13B GBP. So, even with NO CUT IN BUDGET, equipment plan needs “cut” (or reform). So, even if I am talking about reduced money or “no money”, I am never meaning to cut any MONEY from MOD.
@Don
I do agree with you that the MoD equipment budget Needs reforming to keep the budget to about 2% of GDP.
But I Disagree with Your viewpoint on the T31 frigate, even though the T31 has it shortcomings.
The size of the T31 means, it will have better sea keeping abilities than a Smaller vessel would have.
Which is what A Blue Water Navy needs.
The low basic cost of £250m will allow the MoD to expand the Fleet in A future SDSR, and also to up-arm.
My apologies, I missed out your full name Donald!
This has been a known issue for sometime the RN confirmed only 5 sets of the 16 yr ‘interim’ missiles would be purchased for T23 towed array which to me is ridiculously low.
I don’t understand as to why a vessel escorting a carrier needs Ashm what’s the F35 for?
I don’t understand that if we’re short of money as to why a land attack requirement has been added as this then excludes, harpoon upgrade, Large ER, Exocet (probably all cheaper). Other than TLAM I wouldn’t want to get in to missile range from land any way?
I also cannot understand why the balance of sea ceptor is changed does T26 really need 48 if given 40 the T31 could all receive 24 sea ceptors.
If entry in to service will not happen until 2027 why can’t the Thales 2050 sonar from T23 be transferred to Thales CMS on a hull ffbnw hull mounted sonar?
A missile such as JSM is likely to be in service for sometime & could integrated underwing on F35, on Merlin and on Typhoon why not use precious resources on a new capability. The likelihood is an air launched missile will be used more than a ship based missile anyway.
am pretty certain there would be some crossover if NSM was used on vessels & JSM on aircraft
And just finally I know people have an anti T31 agenda but this is not the vessels issue. Please consider this in future articles when titling etc. More accurate article would be around general lack of anti ship missiles.
At this rate we’ll be lucky if T31e is fitted with a catapult. Our ability to build a decent sized and well engineered hull, only to scupper it’s potential by not properly kitting it out for warfighting never ceases to amaze me. No other country seems to do this.
Oh Please lets not fall into the trap of Part Capability which we did 30 years ago.
The Russians , Americans ensure their Warships are totally capable of meeting any threat wheras we in our stupidity hope for the best by part equiping our Warships.
Nothing changes ,head in the sand justification
Did You Not also Tell Your MP that You have A Mate callled Putin? And You Support His Aims to Disarm the Uk 100%??
You FFing lying Kremlin Troll!!
What Utter Tosh you Sprout!