The Royal Navy is seeking to increase the number of ships fitted with Mk 41 vertical launch systems.
The Mk 41 Vertical Launching System is an American modular, below deck sited, missile launcher system that makes use of silos to launch and store missiles. The UK intends to use it on the Type 26 Frigate.
The Type 45s currently use a Sylver launcher for their Aster missiles, the Mk41 launcher would complement these.
On the 14th of December 2021 the Defense Committee published a report titled ‘We’re going to need a bigger Navy’. The Government’s response has been published below.
The following section makes mention of Mk41 being fitted.
“Work is ongoing to explore a range of options to meet the RN’s Future Offensive Surface
Weapon (FOSuW) requirement to replace Harpoon which goes out of service in 2023.
This includes the potential fitting of Mk 41 launchers beyond those already planned
for the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide
commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory
of maritime offensive capabilities.”
Additionally, their response also states:
“We are seeking to increase the number of ships fitted with Mk 41 launchers beyond the Type 26, including Type 31 and potential retrofit to existing classes, to provide commonality with partner nations, improve interoperability and simplify the inventory of maritime offensive capabilities.”
The only “existing class” able to host the Mk41 is the Type 45 Destroyer, we covered Type 31 here.
Royal Navy looking to ‘increase lethality’ of Type 31 Frigates
Back in 2017, discussion was ‘intensifying’ regarding equipping the Type 45 Destroyer fleet with the MK41 Vertical Launch System. Back in that year, we spoke to Andy Rhodes, then Raytheon UK business development executive, who told us that discussions were intensifying about equipping the Royal Navy’s Type 45 Destroyer fleet with the MK41 Vertical Launch Systems, allowing the vessels to carry ballistic missile defence weaponry. Although, this idea stalled and was buried until recently.
Type 45 is getting an upgrade before then. Last year, MBDA UK was awarded an 11-year contract to integrate the Common Anti-Air Modular Missile, often referred to as Sea Ceptor, into the Type 45 destroyers’ Sea Viper weapon systems.
MBDA also say on their website:
“The work will see CAMM (Sea Ceptor) paired with an upgraded Sea Viper command and control (C2) system for the first time. CAMM offers both world-leading close-in and local-area air defence, and will complement Aster 30, strengthening the anti-air defence capability of the Royal Navy. Fitting CAMM onto the Type 45s will give the destroyers a 50% increase in the number of its air defence missiles.
Installation will be via 24 additional launcher cells, and the Sea Viper C2 will get a technology upgrade, giving it a major increase in processing power. The existing 48 Sylver cells on the Type 45 will now be solely for the longer-range Aster 30 missile, which is also subject to a recently announced mid-life refresh. This will see the missile remain in service throughout the life of the Type 45s.”
Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin was quoted here as saying:
“Enhancing our destroyer capabilities, this investment reaffirms our commitment to equip the Royal Navy with the most advanced and powerful defensive systems. This upgrade ensures the Type 45 remains hugely respected by naval fleets across the globe and secures highly-skilled jobs and investment.”
The MoD add that currently, the Type 45 destroyers use a combination of short-range Aster 15 and long-range Aster 30 anti-air missiles to engage and destroy enemy threats. To facilitate the introduction of Sea Ceptor (CAMM), a new 24-missile silo will be added in front of the current 48-missile Aster 30 silos, therefore increasing the overall missile capacity of the vessels by 50 per cent.
This will result in a total capacity of 72 anti-air missiles per destroyer.
Bravo!! much better plan than iSSGW, although we may need both now.
To me this is a no-brainer. Wouldn’t the cost of the iSSGW cover the fitting of MK41 VLS to all 6 Type 45s? I understand the iSSGW cost was touted as 250m and the cost of Mk41 VLS is 25m each (of course, depending on the number of launch tubes).
Also, can’t Sea Ceptor be quad-packed into Mk41? The flexibility offered by Mk41 more than justifies the cost in my opinion.
Mk41 cells cost $500 k each and T45 would fit 16. That’s not including integration cost.
500k?
Minimum on FMS is 8mil Dollars for an 8 cell launcher…so you can probably say 12m bought fitted and integrated.
Why spend 25 mil on a strike length (8m long) VLS to put 3m long missiles in it?
Its a waste of money an capability.
On a T23 the square peg (Ceptor cannister) in a round hole 9 Old Sea Wolf Canister) fit was to keep costs down and to make Sea Ceptor installation quick and easy. No need to cut out decks , rework stowage’s, redesign magazines or safety systems etc..
There is no reason on a new build install that a square peg in a square hole cannot be built from the start.
I’ve been wondering about this. Why does quad packing need an expensive VLS in the first place? Why doesn’t MBDA come up with a dumb 96 hole grid that can slot into a similar space as the 24 or 32 CAMM silos? You could hook up fewer than 96 below, then increase active slots later along with upgraded launch managers.
And why not a cheap 12 slot grid for the same market as ExLS?
Or is there something about proximity that requires a VLS?
VLS like ExLS (or mk41 etc) can also fire other missiles. A CAMM only launcher can only fire CAMM. A CAMM only launcher only makes sense if it is significantly cheaper than a normal VLS. Most canister launchers are also one missile designs, but are again relatively cheap & easy to remove or add. The idea behind the more expensive VLS are the ability to fire different missiles & make it hard for potential enemies to know what in fact you are carrying (if anything). Quite often you know what a smaller ship is carrying anyway, but how many Aster… Read more »
I agree, a dedicated CAMM silo only makes sense if it’s cheap. I want to know why wouldn’t a close-packed dedicated grid for CAMM canisters be cheap?
As far as I can tell from an online search, the clever (aka expensive) stuff is in the canisters themsleves, the launch managers, and the command and control systems. None of it is the holes the canisters slot into.
Yes, I’ve wondered why they can easily squeeze 2×6 or 2×4 on the back of MANN trucks and yet it takes so much room with these x6 mushroom silos. And are they reloadable at sea?
The only thing I can find is information like this “The solution selected for the new UK Type 26 and Type 31 frigates’ MLS is based on a multiple of new six-cell (2×3) modules characterized by a reduced footprint allowing for more missiles to be accommodated in the same space of the Type 23 solution.” The “Type 23 solution” was terrible from a space point of view, just reusing the Sea Wolf cells, and these six-cell modules don’t seem that much better. I’d guess them to be a lazy adaptation of GWS 35 rather than a from-scratch design. MoD saving… Read more »
Hi Jon, i thought I read somewhere that CAMM silos are not strictly vertical, so can’t simply be put into MK41s. The banks of 6×4 ExLS on the RCAN T26s are slightly angled off the vertical. Also on the newer Italian DDX what looks like CAMM-ER silos they also look angled and bespoke. As already said CAMM would be a waste for MK41, and these should be left for the more heavy duty missiles.
No mention here of an Asroc-type for the RN?
It is not just about cost, but also size and weight. Investing more money and room can absolutely be worth it, but that leads to an other question; would and should you do it?
I would say most times the answer is NO.
You do not want to reduce the number of essential close in missiles.
There is a reason why Canada actually combines mk41 with dedicated CAMM launchers.
Actually Canada is not using dedicated CAMM launchers. They intend to use the lightweight 3 cell stand alone ExLS VLS, that can be quad packed with CAMM. These can also fire a range of other missiles, including lightweight hot launch missiles such as tri packed RAM.
That is news to me, did this change recently? Anyway it reads like they still are going for smaller and lighter than the Mk41 we where talking about and that makes sense.
It is interesting that RAM missiles can be used also. While I think CAMM is the better close in missile, RAM does have its advantages.
No, that was always the case, at least once they decided to use CAMM rather than RAM, as was their original intention. If you look at where they are putting them (right next to a number of satellite comms), it’s not a good place for hot launch. If you want to use RAM in a ExLS, where you can fit 4 CAMM, you can only fit 3 RAM, as you need to use the the space where the 4th missile would go for the exhaust gas extraction module. ExLS is definitely lighter than mk41, but can only handle light missiles… Read more »
Traditional VLS also have their own electronics in addition to any missile specific electronics (if required). The closer you pack missiles or the bigger the missile, the more armouring etc you need, including the hatch & the cells themselves. If something goes wrong or you take a hit, you don’t want to loose the lot & possibly your ship. Even if you can stop the missile payload from exploding, they also include a considerable amount of rocket fuel. A quad packed cell has 4 times the explosives & 4 times the fuel & if you loose just one cell, you… Read more »
Yes, you could mount Sea Ceptor cannisters in very close proximity to each other. That’s the beauty of the cold launch system. The ones that filled the Sea Wolf holes on the T23 had to be separated, as the VL Sea Wolf was hot launched. The cannister holders can be very simple compared to MK41 or ExLS, just look at the Sky Sabre set up.
The cold launch system can lob the heavier 160kg CAMM-ER missile with no problem. So a Spear-3 that weighs around 110kg along with a booster will be no problem. Which raises some possibilities.
If they go for the 2 x MK41 VLS behind the forward gun it looks like they could still put 4×6 or even 6×6 CAMM between the Asters and the bridge if it’s safe and the silos are angled away from the bridge. 36 CAMM is mightier than 24! Happy to be wrong on this. Also I don’t see why side silos can be used too if they have to rework the exterior shell of the Aster silos. I think to bolster the RNs AAW CAMM-ER could be added onto the T31/T32s, even the T26s, to give them all “T45… Read more »
Agreed but perhaps our initial focus should be manufacturing new land based weapons to supply our most exposed NATO allies.
Now this is more like it. See how things go.
Exactly.
But could we just get on and order them please?
Worry about what to put in them later as there is plenty of good stuff to put in a Mk41 VLS.
George I think you have invented a new VLS call the Mk4 in the headline…… I assume there is a digit missing?
I expect a lot of more of this ‘oven ready but budget line short’ stuff to be announced in the next few days. Can’t think why that would be: can you?
Yes, isn’t it amazing how someone else’s (Ukraine) unfortunate situation suddenly focus the mind of those in charge, as too what should have been fitted from build!
Will wait to see if actions actually follow the rhetoric.
Surely, this crisis will open up a wider debate about defence spending, not just at home but across NATO. We won the Cold War because we basically out spent the USSR. Now if the West wishes to remain the dominant political global police man, and not play 2nd fiddle to China in 10 years time, then we might have to get our wallets out again. We should aim for at least 3% of GDP.
Totally agree with you mate, we the West have let ourselves slip/slide into this situation after we won the cold war. As @GB posted on another thread, the bear didn’t leave, it was hibernating. Well it’s wide awake now and we are on our heels! Not sure how much it will cost to put things right, lots I imagine, if it’s 3% fine, if it’s more-say 4% then fine also, but we need to start sorting it out sooner. It will need someone with a bit of vision and drive to sort it, not sure if we have anyone of… Read more »
Well at last it seems we are waking up belatedly. Fact is we risk a situation where Russian ships could parade around our shores and massively outgun our own ships. Hell even land based aircraft or carrier aircraft have limited capability against them, only the Astutes form a serious countermeasure, hardly encouraging. Last thing we need is the Russians taking the Micky knowing they are immune in the immediate circumstance re an RN ship. That is still going to be a problem shorter term.
Hi Spyinthesky,
I recently watched Channel 5’s Warship and was struck by the difference in ship to ship capability between Russian ships being monitored and the T23 HMS Northumberland frigate doing the monitoring.
So the fitting of Mk41 VLS to RN ships is very good news.
As you say only the Astutue class have any real anti-ship capability but even that is limited to torpedoes, I would like to see the deployment of submarine launched anti-ship missiles to give the Astutues more tactical options.
Cheers CR
One more Astute squuezed in would be even more good news too, plus some diesel subs for more local/regional patrol.
Aircraft and subs sink warships. Ship launched AshM’s have a very poor record
Yes as a priority we do need an air launched heavyweight anti ship missile. That’s probably the first priority.
Bravo. Nice to have if money flows then by all means put on ships.
Priority must be an air launched ASM for fast jets.
👍
Yes, definitely, mate. 👍
And I’d add also for the P-8s. Plus external hard points to take additional torpedoes if needed and BVRAAM for some selfdefence.
If there’s no friendly aircraft or one of our handful of Astutes around what are you going to do? Send a lethal IOU?!
I think you need to look a little more about how Naval Warfare works. And remember, the RN is part of a much larger machine. NATO. That’s why we take part in so many multi national exercises.
Not sure how this is so hard for you to figure out. There are maybe a couple of astute class submarines to deploy over the entire planet. And anything the UK deploys that is airborne has at best the most rudimentary anti-surface ship capabilities….
2 or 3 Astutes would give any enemy fleet serious headaches. They have overwhelming capabilities. And Naval Warfare is hugely complicated. Warships don’t just sit about waiting to be fired at. History and experience has demonstrated AshM launched from ships have a very poor record of success. The RN has just introduced to service the Martlet (lightweight multi role missile)and the heavy Sea Venom missile. Sea Ceptor has a secondary AshM capability against small craft. And I’m sure you have seen the recent articles about SPEAR 3. I think there are stories circulating about Russian AshM hitting civilian targets in… Read more »
It’s not the launch platform that sinks the ships …it’s the missile. We have been very fortunate to have not been involved in a peer naval conflict since WWII. The Falklands war involved missiles with a range of no more that 60km. Neither the Russian navy nor the Chinese would be as shy as the Argentinian navy was and you cannot buddy up 10 escorts spread across the high seas with 2 Astutes. Martlet is for small speed boats or ribs. SEA VENOM is for FAC or Corvettes and is only integrated on Wildcat. It is not ‘Heavy’. It us… Read more »
Is the UOR an urgent operational requirement or the Union of Othodox Rabbis? Because unlike the latter, the former hasn’t got a prayer.
🤣🤣 very good. I know your probably right…simply expressing what I believe may be viable and effective near term…made ne smile
With you on this Pete, you can’t keep looking back at AShMs poor history and saying we don’t need it to only find out the hard way that we do. Today is today, tech has moved on, if your peer adversaries have such armament, and they do, then it would be prudent to have it also. The RN has too few ships, too few subs, others have a lot more, maybe not to the same as spec but quantity is quantity. The RN 4.5″/57/40mm gunnery all should be complemented by some appropriate AShM/LA ability plus of course a decent level… Read more »
*pick… pinch
Come out and enjoy the Mk41 launcher; you know it makes sense.
Agreed, also considering the size of the Russian submarine force, I for one would like to see the UK acquire some diesel electric subs to increase our numbers and improve our coastal defence options. Common thought on here I appreciate. I understand why we haven’t got them yet, no manufacturing space, reluctance to buy abroad, fear of them eating into/ replacing nuclear subs and a general lack of funding for uk defensive military assets. However, seeing the ease with which one country has invaded another, and understanding that, whilst everyone is fretting about Russia, China is significantly more deadly, I… Read more »
I’ll second that. It takes sooo long to build an SSN and we are being out built. We need our own Conventional Sub in the ‘O’ submarine size and class. In other words able to operate in the Med and Atlantic. Maybe 2000 ton class.
Its a non committal holding statement
Exactky, and at present we have nothing to put in them unless somebody has woken up to the fact we cannot wait another 8 years for an anti-ship missile…..
Block V TLAM has an anti-ship capability I believe
It does, and would be a good buy, but we’re stuck in this contract with the French……
Just cancel the contract just like the Aussies did with their sub. lol
I don’t think that developing these weapons with the French excludes us from purchasing other ASM systems contractually if we so choose.
The MOD just needs to decide if and what system it would want. Currently that doesn’t appear to be the case, however, given recent events that might yet change.
The problem is, if you purchase a decent system now, or two like LRASM & Tomahawk Block V, questions will then get asked about whether we should really be spending g money on the joint fFrench project which is not currently planning to create a Hypersomic version….
Yes, agree it has the potential to cause angst within the treasury et al, but, we could have two new ships in the water by 2027 (26 & 31) still waiting for a offensive capability.
We are clearly going down the FC/ASM route and the timescale involved, which to my mind only leaves one other solution, which is to fit some form of ISSGW in canister form. Having said that, I believe that any ASM should go to fast air first, including hanging something off of our P-8s.
Could go down the common stockpile route as with the P8 in the interim?
At least if you have a Mk41 VLS
a) the enemy has to guess that is in it; and
b) you can put something in it pretty quickly.
And only about $1million a pop… bargain. A possible interim staring you in the face even Tobias Ellwood says this in a recent defence committee meeting with the 1SL and others) interoperability with the USN, soon to be RAN and possibly RCAN. Hope the FC/ASW doesn’t slip and there’s a major outbreak anytime soon. Maybe more TLAMs for our existing subs, of stocks are considered low, or at least all upgraded to the latest v5 standard.
Excellent news, now get on with it. August 26, 2013 Type 45 Destroyer, Time to Fit The Strike Launchers? The main advantage of opting for the Mk 41 is that it would allow us to use the same TLAM we currently use for our SSN’s. It would also give the T45 access to the full family of USN missiles from SM 3 to LRASM as well as any future missiles developed by the US navy. It will also provide commonality with the Type 26 frigate which is expected to carry the Mk41 as well. In addition to this LM recently… Read more »
Even a single 8x MK41 cell, would allow Standard SM6, that can be used as attack or ballistic missile defence.
Any news on the rumours Sea Ceptor is to be renamed Permanently Alongside Ceptor?
Certainly leaves Portsmouth well defended but isn’t it time we used the T45’s for SinkEx and bought something that could put to sea? It is becoming an embarrassment
Honestly, what’s the point of posting this?
Trying to avoid saying better late than never as its a bit cliche’…oh nevermind.
Adding Mk41 VLS to Type 31 would increase their utility by degrees. Their current projected weapons fit makes them suitable for patrolling the Straits of Hormuz, but not for peer-on-peer engagements. The big tactucal advantage of Mk41 is that an opponent doesn’t know what types of missile are being carried. It forces the opponent to assume the presence of land attack, anti-ship, anti-sub, and long-range anti-aircraft missiles. Its presence changes the tactical equation. If it can also be fitted to Type 45, that’s a huge plus. I just don’t know where the silo would go, assuming that Sea Ceptor silos… Read more »
Ceptor is relatively short and light so there are many more places it could be put.
As in T31 it could go relatively high up without messing up the metacentric.
Mk41 can only go in one place – in the gym: as that is the only assigned place that has full depth.
Other possibilities are limited by hull curvature.
I thought I read somewhere that the Mk41 bath tub was being left in the T31 design to save money…
this doesn’t seem to come across in the designs seen – but would be easy to implement as the design is already there for the absalon and huitfeldt classes that T31 is based upon
Yes, the space was supposed to left for it and just plated over as in the T45.
The cost of fitting Mk41 VLS wouldn’t be a lot as it is integrated into the CMS for others.
Given the investment in the PiP – it seems churlish not to make these the ships they were designed to be.
I also believe that we can buy the BMD update which would enhance their capabilities further
I think the mood music is changing fast.
We are going to overwhelmed with press releases in coming days and weeks about projects that are already costed being green light.
The RN are going to be the big winner here I think. They have been very thorough in delivering their strategy and have also been very good on the PR side of things
Also just goes to show how much CASD protects us
Having costed and derided options and deliverables helps.
Spend £500m and get Mk41 VLS on the whole fleet with RN.
Spend £500m with Army and get some scrap.
I can see RAF getting some T4 Typhoon as well + A400 + P8. These are also costed options. The latter two will be fully anointed soon as exercising contract option. T4 was always in the plan just in the back, back, back burner….
i would go with a single year £40bn set of equipment orders that could spread payments over 10 years.
that will fix the gap and allow for a major capability upgrade.
what we really need to do is stop the inefficient and expensive mid life upgrades, they sim0ly just cost too much.
P8 and F35B’s could be increased fairly quickly as could JTLV but other items would need a lead time and are multi year.
HMS Glasgow could and should be prioritised and in the fleet within the year, it’s certainly doable and would be great for morale.
I don’t think you could spend £40bn well quickly
RN could spend £6-10bn well
RAF could do the same
Army ???
Most would plug the current funding gap, and speed up the glacial pace of some of the other current orders. I can spend it tomorrow 400 jaguars 6000 JTLVs 6000 Polaris ATVs 8000 HX4’s 1000 boxers. All uparmed with CTA40 and ATW’s 1000 merkava tanks 2000 CV 90 all uparmed 2000 precision fires 200 ripsaw M2 tanks 1000 arctic armoured vehicles (bronco ATV) 400 RJ 21 blackjack UAV’s 144 F35b 168 tempest 100 Apache 400 Black hawks 32 Chinooks 32 A400m 100 protectors 8 P8s 200 Schiebel 3 more Astutes 10 more T26 with improved AAW capabilities 10 more T31/2… Read more »
The UK doesn’t need Black Hawk as they need something more modern
I am really getting tired of people thinking the Black Hawk is best, seriously people need to stop drinking the American military propaganda kool-aid and face the facts
The UH-60 Black Hawk is a relic, the UK in all probability will buy the AW149
I don’t think it’s the best. I think it’s good and cheap to buy and run Having the best means we end up with 40 instead I will take something that does what we need it to and get the mass we need Ideally I would go for the valor and/or V22 osprey but I would rather have something we can get quickly before the politicians cancel. So have gone with items that have current production lines or availability wherever possible Having said that the list above is just me putting a wish list out there feel free to select… Read more »
You forgot several boxes of people to man it all!!😂
that would be nice, but actually the kit above is to give what we’ve got the right stuff in the right volumes think the RAF in particular need a 40% increase – especially if we are keen on Space which is expensive and will need quite a lot of people. RN should also get a 20% uplift as the force that is deployed the most for long periods of time to bring them into the harmonisation guidelines as the other forces. which leaves us with the Army – I think its about right where it is today, just don’t cut… Read more »
Agree manpower is the problem, most of our kit is the newest and some of the best in the world. Look at our average aircraft life compared to US. We have filled in most of the gaps like carrier strike and CSAR. We are still missing theatre level air defence and ABM and the army needs to get a move on with long range precision strike. Beyond that it’s maybe air and land based ASM however that’s easily rectified with off the shelf purchase. However it’s highly unlikely the army could recruit up to 100,000 again outside of war time.… Read more »
As for the Army 250 jaguar and 1000 JTLV for £500m would be better than what they have
or 125 jaguars and 500 Griffon would also be better than current plans. You have to admire the French, they have a larger force, better kit and more of it most areas and also support their manufacturing industries, all whilst spending less than the UK.
That’s just not true, they have a decent light wheeled force, they would toil in an armoured peer threat environment. The don’t even have enough basic theatre level air lift capability much less strategic lift. What they can do on their own is very limited. not a single 5 th Gen aircraft in their arsenal nor the prospect of getting any for two decades.
I really don’t think they would struggle anymore against heavy armour than the UK. At least jaguar comes fitted with their new ATGM as standard unlike Ajax and Warrior. They are upgrading more MBTs than the UK as well.
Sounds like a plan.
Forget the may! The government need to wake up to the fact our forces need fitting with not for ASAP! If intent is not shown Ukraine will just be the start of things to come!
Common sense at last …well 15 years late.
Woken up finally, have we ???
Lets hope current events are the end of “fitted for but not with”…
Hms Diamond leaving Portsmouth let us see how far she gets before Breaking down All Six warships tied up in Portsmouth with a price tag 0f 1 Billion Pounds Bet she gets to the Med and then breaks should have fitted the Amercian General Electric engine in the first place
Except, the engine isn’t the problem. And you clearly haven’t a clue how warship availability works, or the amount of sea time the fleet had last year. Including pre, and post deployment maintenance. Russian warships spend far more time alongside, or waiting for tug availability.
Love the ‘tug availability’……
To be totally fair T23 has shown better availability rates than T45…but you could argue it is a more mature design.
I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that the Type 45 aren’t as quiet as they could be , because it was deemed at the time that the need to be silent against Russian subs was no longer needed.
To be fair, T45 is a superb vessel and hugely capable. It’s just been unfortunate with the intercooler issue, which hasn’t been as bad as it’s been made out. If the RN didn’t have confidence in the vessels, they wouldn’t have signed off a 500M weapon upgrade package. When only 6 are in service, it’s going to be more noticeable when something goes wrong. T23 will have had plenty of breakdowns over-the-years, as with all complex warships. But In this age of social media and Twitter accounts, everything is out in the public domain. We had breakdowns and had to… Read more »
I’m not disputing that T45 is the premier AAW ship in the world. SAMPSON + VIPER is an excellent system. No question. Add CEPTOR and Mk41 and you have the real deal that T45 was always meant to be. 1SL was pretty open about the issue so I don’t think I over egging it. I’m surprised that PiP is going so slowly. Once side effects of PiP may be that they actually run quieter as they might be able to run on the three rafted DG’s at ASW speeds? So they **might** be more to PiP than just making the… Read more »
You never know. Might be more to PIP than meets the eye. Plus, always lots of lessons learned from the first vessel. I’m sure the rest will be completed quicker.
Exactly.
Modern DGU’s are in enclosures by default and rafting is commercial.
So chances are the situation will improve.
Could you explain what you mean by rafting is commercial? Are you saying that these enclosures are already isolated so no rafting is needed on modern naval vessels? If so will that apply to the Type 31?
MTU and others over vibration isolation rafts.
Reducing noise and vibration in the workplace is a federal trend anyway.
So yes they usually are fitted.
Wether they are the same spec as the ones in T26 I’ve no idea.
Generally given advances in DG sets I would expect the power train to be quieter in the T31 than in the ships it is based on.
Thanks
We are talking about the UK MoD here. Yes, you can raft the engines, but as Babcock have indicated, you need to say so at the start. It’s not a FFBNW option & it’s not free.
Here is the Warship Availablility
THE UK’s six Type 45 destroyers, described as the backbone of the Royal Navy, spent 80% of last year in dock.
The ships, costing £1 billion each, need a multi-million pound refit after repeatedly breaking down in the Persian Gulf.
But the work is not due to start until 2020.
Two of the cutting-edge warships, HMS Dauntless and HMS Defender, did not go to sea at all during 2017, which was dubbed “the year of the Navy”.
Colin, I don’t think anybody here will disagree with the Gist of your post, but and a big but the veracity of your post needs to be challenged and corrected. You wrote: Here is the Warship Availablility THE UK’s six Type 45 destroyers, described as the backbone of the Royal Navy, spent 80% of last year in dock.The ships, costing £1 billion each, need a multi-million pound refit after repeatedly breaking down in the Persian Gulf. Seeing as you quote from a Sunday post article written in June 2018 (almost 4 years ago) regards the state of affairs 5 years… Read more »
Two of them spent over 7 months at sea last year. And you are completely ignoring readiness status. Educate yourself with the article below. And you will see if we need to, we can put 4 of them to sea at pretty short notice.
https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2022/02/type-45-availability-dont-believe.html
Wrong…. that is a blatant click bait statement.
A dock is something that takes a ship out of the water.
Undergoing maintenance is a better description and covers time alongside .
As I have said numerous times before …Its the delivery of Operational Capability and Platform Availability that count not time alongside.
How did the one that managed to do the entire carrier deployment in 2021 manage to make it around most the worlds sea’s without an issue pull that off?
On a personal note, I’d rather see them tied up and fitted with Mk41 now than heading off to a potential warzone without.
Nato has enough warships to make up the numbers while this work is undertaken.
A little bit more info on the reason why the Type 45’s breakdown.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/19509/royal-navy-will-retrofit-type-45-destroyers-to-keep-them-from-breaking-down
Well that’s one more warship sailing than the German navy has. lol
But all six are not in Portsmouth, I drove past one the other day at cammill laird’s.
It’s all about time. Ongoing could mean 6 months or 6 years, or never. A decision on Mk41 for
Type 31 on fit out, and simply speeding up CAMM on T45 to be installed over the next two or three years would be more useful than promising a Mk 41 on both classes in the 2030s. It would be cancelled on the T45 on the grounds of OOS date, a few months before the inevitable Lifex.
+iSSGW on T45
Need these before a 2 year time frame. Id suggest UOR and next 3-6 months. With a massive order for arnaments. Who do you think Putin will go for next? A NATO country or countries for sure. Baltic states, Poland or weakling Romania.
Moldova
Agree then Georgia 🇬🇪
Honestly think if he even suggested a NATO country he would be a dead man. The normal way these things are arranged in dictatorships is a convenient plane crash !
All of a sudden the choice of for the type 31 as a big hull with lots of space pays off. Looks like it’s going to end up a well armed surface warfare, strike type GP frigate. getting those Mark 41s on the Type 45s will be key as they will become the complete heavy combatant AAW, strike and ASuW. Now they just need to get some form of ASuW ( even if it’s spear three) on the type 23s. There needs to be some consideration on where the rivers 2s are now deployed. They were sent out for flag… Read more »
I think the River 2 need to be fitted as sloop type vessels with as you say 12 Camm and 57mm gun. That would give them a SA and modest strike capability. Ideal for Falklands or high end patrol, more than that would be wasted money.
Yes and maybe a small hanger for a wildcat.
I also think we need to be showing clearly that we would be filling up the the launchers. The west needs to move a way from an ambiguous have we haven’t we and just lay it on the table….yes we have and we will use it. Its the same with weapon systems capability, the west is aways a bit cagey and under reports capability, China and Russia brag and over report. The problem is that I think our sino-Russian ( yes I’m using the word on purpose) enemy thinks we are hiding weakness not strength and if we are to… Read more »
Dare I say commonsense has prevailed?
Type 26, 31 and 45 should be fitted for and with the MK41 VLS missile launchers.
They should buy a iSSGW in canister now to fit to T23 and T45. The NSM/JSM is cheap and must be capable if the US Navy and marines bought them.
Then replace these when the new FC/ASW when available in 10years time. The iSSGW then can be fitted to Type 31/32.
Buying 100 iSSGW for £250million is worth while now and quickly done.
The Anglo-French FC/ASW sounds great but we don’t have any prototypes flying now and to be realistic these advanced weapons programmes do have a history of slipping.
I hope this comes to fruition. Anything to increase the capability of these excellent ships is welcome.
THE UK’s six Type 45 destroyers, described as the backbone of the Royal Navy, spent 80% of last year in dock. The ships, costing £1 billion each, need a multi-million pound refit after repeatedly breaking down in the Persian Gulf. But the work is not due to start until 2020. Two of the cutting-edge warships, HMS Dauntless and HMS Defender, did not go to sea at all during 2017, which was dubbed “the year of the Navy”. All six warships, which entered service from 2008, were made with an engine system which cuts out in warm seas, leaving sailors stranded… Read more »
Why quote very old news 5 years out of date? The PIP is well under way & soon every propulsion issue will be resolved, but no- tell it like it is 2017!
Well the 2 x T45s I worked on in the Gulf one of which was deployed in the summer of 2017 didnt have any issues with warm water…No TLFs at all. That was because by 2017 the T45s being sent out on deployments had modded software for its machinery control system, and modified Inter cooler/recuperater cores fitted…but hey …what do I know…I was only working on the things and discussing the issues with the people in the know , in the mess over a pint….
And just where are they going to go as Sea Camm will be taking but the spare space once left for such a fit??????? Perhaps on the side of the Hanger which has some free space available on the Stbd fwd side!
Better fit them to the T31’s and give them more Sea Camm would be a better way forward. T45’s are not great ships, costly and never delivered that promissed.
Sea Camm isn’t taking the spare space; aka gym, set aside for a VLS system. Sea Camm replaces Aster 15s.
Sea Ceptor will replace Aster 15’s but in it’s own dedicated VLS (24) .The space left in the 48 Sylver A50 cells that Aster 15 previously used will be taken up by Aster 30 and it’s derivatives.
Ceptor is around 3m long. Its going forward, abaft the gun in a dedicated fit. Like the existing ASTER fit the top half will protrude above 1 deck and be enclosed in its own deck housing.
Aft of the ASTER silo is more space where additional VLS could be fitted. Again if needed it can protrude above the deck and have a deck house built around it.
In both cases this removes the need for taking out a massive space within the vessel for VLS silos.
Have you actually been on a T45? Sorry but there is a void just aft of the 4.5 Gun which was planned for the fit but that space has now gone to Sea Cepter which will be flush fitted leaving little spare. But if they want it for the big bangs then Sea Ceptor could be fitted into the spare space in forward hanger but you would not get both forward and of course one hit forward and you disarm the T45. Not a sensible plan really. TO be honest I don’t actually see it being fitted in the end… Read more »
Angus please scroll up and look at Gunbusters reply to Colin regarding the answer to your question about has he been on a T45. I think he was saying that the MK41s would go between the Slyver cells and the bridge structure.
Many times on a fair few T45s both whilst serving and latterly as a strawberry. . Latterly mostly running the 4 week maintenance periods for the dockyard they where berthed in on behalf of the UK MOD when they where doing 9month deployments. Now that the T23 is permanently based in the ME the T45 don’t do 9 month trips anymore. However the T23 still do 4 week maint periods and having served on those I know them and their systems in great detail. There is a space under the Harpoon area fwd of the bridge and a aft the… Read more »
A very clever and novel idea! The folks over at BAE Systems have come up with a fairly novel way to give any ship with some deck space Mark 41 vertical launch system (VLS)-like capability without having to make huge alterations to the guts of the ship, which in many cases wouldn’t even be possible. Dubbed aptly the Adaptive Deck Launcher (ADL), the system provides four cells positioned at an angle that can accommodate the same all-up missile canisters used by standard Mark 41 vertical launch systems like those found on the U.S. Navy’s cruisers and destroyers, as well as… Read more »
Only in front of the bridge has any space for this and I think that would be too small. Also T45 have little that covers the stern of the ship, needs a gun to cover that, perhaps the new Mk4 40mm on top of the hanger!
Behind the Sylver silo is enough space for 2 ADLs going by BAE systems given spec there is possibly space midship but Phalanx positions could be an issue. The ADL makes sense as you don’t have to cut the ship open & or remove Sylver. Potentially as this is not shown as an option you could fit tactical length under strike length in the launcher. The other thing ADL allows is replenishment at sea which can’t be done with a VLS. I agree with 40mm if hanger can take the weight
I wonder how quick they could be swapped in / out?
Could they for instance be dropped onto an OPC’s helipad to up-gun one in a hurry?
They could reduce the weight and add hydraulic rams, so they could raise them to circa 45 degrees when required.
I think they would be an ideal quick fit solution for us John in the near term that’s for sure.
We’ll see…
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/8991/documents/152622/default/
Go Ukraine and keep the faith.
“The stated attack, the supposed aftermath of which was widely circulated on social media along with images of damaged and burning facilities and aircraft, saw Millerovo Air Base (AB) in Russia’s Rostov region seemingly struck with multiple ballistic missiles fired from Ukraine.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/defence/latest/ukraine-reportedly-strikes-russian-airbase
The MOD was strongly advised to fit the Mk41 VLS when the T45’s weren’t yet in build by the Commons Defence Select Committee
Sea Viper will fit in the Mk41 VLS. The Mk41 is also cheaper than SYLVER, so it’s a no brainer if the cells are being upgraded mid life anyway.
Key piece of info. Thx. So T45 might have Mk41 loaded with Asters/SM3/LRASM say, plus Sea Ceptor cells.
There was space for both originally.
Viper may fit into a Mk41 but I don’t think it is certified or integrated.
I’d rather leave Viper in SYLER and put other goodies into Mk41 as that way at least the T45 has a full debugged AAW capability.
So Mk41 instead of the recently proposed Ceptor cells?
Both
that’s 88 VLS Cells
On each T45: yes
Looks great on paper, let’s get it moving!!
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is just a case of someone not knowing what they are talking about when saying existing classes and just saying it to sound clever. Where and when would it be fitted on type 45. It’s already looking like the sea ceptor wont be on ships until the last 10-15 years of the ship life. Unless there is a major life extension to the type 45s of 10-15 years and some space found to put the launcher I can’t see it happening. It could be the later model type 23 if it can be done… Read more »
Agree. Now can we just have a sense of urgency and get them fitted pronto. I mean its not like there’s a madman in charge of one of the worlds strongest militaries going around invading large democratic countries or anything like that.
HMG need to stop talking and just get on with it, this should be done when they are in refit as there is a slot already there for this (16 cells I believe)
The UK MOD need to get their act together and start scheduling work when the ships are laid up (I can’t believe one of the T45’s was laid up for 3 years and then went into a refit – that is just madness)
We also need to get these BMD capable ASAP and buy Aster NG (which is more fuel really)
It’s going to be interesting to see how they justify the next wave of cuts considering what is going on currently.
Just following their handlers orders, maybe!
In light of recent events I think it is a no brainer, it would instantly turn them from defensive porcupines into true multirole warships, that is if we go all in and arm them properly eg block2 aster missiles, cruse missles and asrocs
‘comment removed’
So are we looking at a Type 45 with 48 Sylver A50 VLS, 24 GWS.35 VLS and 24 Mark 41 VLS?
Not GWS.35, that was for the Sea Wolf and was extended with the mushroom caps on Type 23. As far as I understand, it will be a different, CAMM VLS on Type 45 without mushroom caps. Also I think it’s 16 not 24 Mk.41. So that makes for 48 AAM and likely ABM missiles (Aster 1NG or Block 2 will probably be purchased now), 24 short range AAM, and 16 ASM or LAM. If only 10 cruise missiles are loaded, the other 6 VLS could be used for 24 more CAMM.
GWS.26 was for VL-SeaWolf as the Lightweight Sea Wolf apparently is GWS.26-Mod.2
GWS.35 is the launcher for Sea Ceptor
Lightweight Sea Wolf was a weapon that really should’ve been developed, it would’ve meant SeaCat could be retired and it would’ve meant the UK in Falklands would’ve had Lightweight Sea Wolf, Sea Wolf, Sea Dart and obsolete Sea Slug but maybe a little better than having Sea Cat
Block 2 ASTER is still a powerpoint missile
I’ve lost count of the number of times we have called for the 45’s to be fitted with the MK. 41. Good to see it may be underway. All part of making the most of every single piece of equipment, whether it be a warship, ‘plane or APC.
Would be nice if at least one of these wasn’t tied up at the pier while Ukraine is being assimilated into the new U.S.S.R..
Slightly off topic.
Just seen James Heapey, Armed Force Minister, giving an interview on BBC Points West. During the interview he stated the beating Putin will be a drawn out process including economic and political isolation. He also hinted that it will take two decades to win the military competition..?
Suggests to me that the west / NATO might actually be waking up to the need to rearm after the invasion of Ukriane. Better late than never, hopefully not too late.
CR
We should levy a wealth tax. This is not rocket science. Order more Typhoons and P-8s. Speed up T26 build. Fit Mk41 to T31s. Upgrade all the Challengers. Either fix Ajax of buy something. Speed up Land Ceptor. Buy OTS artillery. Offer graduates the chance to write off their student loans in exchange for 3 years service.
I like to your thinking Paul,
I’ve pondered something similar myself.
Cheers CR
A lot of people have done very well in the last years, many out of dealings with Russian money. The problem is their idea of defending the homeland is decorating the villa in Cayman Islands.
SYLVER is an orphan system and hasn’t been fitted to any other RN ships. It promised much, delivered nothing Mk41 didn’t deliver cheaper and more flexibly.
T45’s will assuredly get extended, it’s a no brainer to upgrade the VLS to the RNs new standard – and open up a whole treasure chest of new weapons like SM-2, SM-3, SM-6, ASROC, TLAM, LRASM.
Remember Type 45 is a product of the Horizon CNGF program and the lessons of the Falklands War merged together I don’t think it would be practical or possible to replace the Sylver A50 VLS with Mark 41 VLS Have you been drinking the American Military Propaganda Kool-Aid? Why do the RN need SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 as RIM-67 SM-2 is comparable in era to Sea Dart and that was judged inadequate after HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry were sunk as for RIM-161 SM-3 & RIM-174 SM-6, the Aster 30 is more than sufficient to do the job the Royal Navy… Read more »
I see you have a lot of questions, and I can help to answer them. I don’t think it would be practical to replace the Sylver A50 VLS with Mark 41 VLS. Nor should they. Good that they are supplementing the incredibly low magazine of the T45’s. Even with the 24 additional CAAM Pre-Mk41 it only comes to half of a single Arleigh Burke in magazine depth. The argument about standard missiles is fallacious at best. You mention all of them. Some such as the SM-3BII/SM-6 does not have a fielded comparative Aster 30 missile yet. Block 2 BMD will… Read more »
Sylver is to Mk41 as Airbus is to Boeing; (French inspired) European competition to what would otherwise be US monopoly. Agree US stuff isn’t always better. But it is almost always cheaper and comes from a reliable source. My own take for T45 is that we should add, ‘at pace’, the Sea Ceptors, deploy Aster block 1 NT and I would give them an offensive capability: add some canister launched (intermediate) missiles: e.g. Harpoon Block II. And press on with FC/ASW and Type 83. That said I can see a case for adding a small number of Mk41 to the… Read more »
FFBNW now biting us on the backside. Too few ships & poorly armed.
A good article over on STRN
Here we take a brief overview of the current naval situation following the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
https://www.navylookout.com/situation-report-the-naval-aspects-of-the-war-in-ukraine/
A couple of merchies hit with ASMs (?) …With a minimally trained crew and minimal FF/DC systems onboard they suffered damage and fires.
If it was an RN warship the missile you would like to think would have been dropped and if it wasnt then any damage contained and mitigated allowing the vessel to continue to Fight-Move-Float ( In the old school parlance for those who know!)
“Fight-Move-Float ( In the old school parlance for those who know!)” And thanks to the internet, most people do including those who have not! A very good explanation can be found via this link. “Fight-Move-Float is generally recognised as terms that were used in time of damage control, to direct general efforts to enable the ship to “fight”, enable it to “move”, or continue the DC effort and not sink (i.e. “float”). Following an emergency, a Commanding Officer would provide priorities for the control of resources through those terms. As these morphed into the current framework of system based priorities,… Read more »
Courtesy of the MWCs Phoenix NBCD School at Excellent.
A very useful tactic Daniele!
Oh the joys of running the WE battle damage repair teams. Command priority is “xxx” You look at your defect board and your systems and on the fly try to give the operators what they need. Secondary and emergency power to systems, 115v400hz rigged with jumper cables, seawater cooling instead of chilled water, running stuff without cooling in battle override knowing that you can do it for 30mins at most before slagging it. Don’t fix sonar the threat is air so move the sonar maintainer to the radar room to assist in getting the radar back on line. However he… Read more »
If the MK41s go in front of the Aster silos where will the CAMM silos go, especially if 4×6? I wonder if they thinking of side silos or a bank of ExLS down the sides for more than 24 CAMM? The PIP and CAMM/Aster upgrade is a big commitment, good to sea the T45s muscling up a bit in brawn and brains.
Not sure on how or where the Mk41 would go. From my undertanding Sea Ceptor is meant to be installed in the space in front of the Sylver VLS that was designed for the Mk41. They cannot go where Harpoon is carried as that would be to close to the bridge. The only other thing I could think of is using the space where the T45s have the boat bays for Mk57s. If this was to be done would it not be a good idea to install Sea Ceptor and the Mk41s at the same time as undertaking the upgrades… Read more »
Hmm, a good move, but one has to question whether we have had the service we intended out of them?
Don’t get me wrong, stationed on Diamond in charge of the RM detachment in the mid 10’s, I found it a tremendous ship. Sadly, we broke down several times and had patrols limited because of the issue. I do believe the problems under the bonnet needs sorting for once and all first!
All warships should have strategic weapons like tomahawk cruise missiles to deter. If the enemy knows we can hit the enemy bases they would think twice. The type 45 has no offensive weapons . All this things the Russians and Chinese are aware of! The type 31 are a joke too them , even their attack boats are better armed . So I say yes to MK41 and tomahawks on all of them ! And anti ship missiles and air defence. Every ship should be an asset and pose a threat to an enemy , fear is the best deterrent!
Perhaps it’s time for a UOR for mk41 adaptive deck launchers and some tomahawks for T45s if we are sending them anywhere near Ukraine..
they need a bit of immediate oomph.
What we need is to rid the world of putin and his poodles then we could stop spending money on weapons and give the third world clean water and food on the money we spend on weapons
I wonder if there’s the option now of reallocating MK41s and CAMM silos from some of the T26s to the T45s so they can get the CAMM/Aster upgrade done sooner pending the PIP.
So where are these meant to go? AIUI the space earmarked for the Mk41 is being used by Sea Ceptor. Can they be put aft of the Sea Viper cells or is that too close to the bridge?
You could always reverse that. Put the mk41 where they were originally designed to go & put CAMM close to the bridge. With soft launch, you can ignore many of the old restrictions.
This would be fantastic news. The recent announcement of Sea Ceptor plus a Mk41 VLS rounds out the Type 45 as a potent destroyer. Now if we could just get those pesky engines fixed prior to 2028