Type 45 Destroyers to complete power plant repairs by ‘mid-2020s’

Hi Steve am I missing something here. In my view having just 6 crippled (if only slightly) and potentially under-armed destroyers would justify working night and day to resolve in months not years. The suppliers should be helpful as it is partial their problem as well. The UK should not order anything more until we can get what we have working!

Well, the missiles would help with the “under-armed” part by giving them some offensive punch.

Yes, they should be worked on to fix the problem asap. They could be done in months rather than years if we brought them all in to be worked on at once but 1) would leave us with no destroyers at all and 2) I dont know if we have the capacity to do all at once.

The interim missile is due to enter service by 2023 (out of service date for Harpoon). If some of our destroyers are waiting to be fixed in that time, or those that have already been fixed, might as well add the new missile to them while we’re at work on them.

Then there is also the frigates, which don’t have these problems. The issues with the Type 45s don’t interfere with those.

Seems dreadfully slow work. A year per ship? Could fit the Mk 41s in that time as well. If there are 6 T45 and 2 are laid up surely you could double the rate and get it done in half the time.
We used to work under the slow regimen until we suddenly went all out and business boomed! excuse the pun.

Sorry, disagree. I think the present programme is designed to spread the cost across several Defence budgets.

Well they carry 48 Aster missiles, not a small number, and we haven’t required to fire a single one at anybody. We all want the best toys, in great numbers, but let’s be realistic.

The issue with Aster, whether 15 or 30, is that they are anti aircraft so are defensive in nature. The Type 45s lack the capability to attack an enemy ship. It’s only offensive capability is a single Merlin armed with Sting Ray torpedoes that have a range of up to 11k. Chances are the Merlin will be shot down far before it gets in range.

In a ship vs ship fight the Type 45 will very likely come last. Something like the NSM which has a range of 100-300 miles would mean that the Type 45 could do more than just defend itself or the QEC, it could fight back and win.

The fact is that with only 19 surface escort ships, we need them all to be armed both defensively and offensively.

Why are they underarmed?
Compare them to what they replaced.

They carry more AA missiles than a T42 did. Some have ASuW Harpoon that is more than a T42 did.
Phalanx is fitted
2x 30mms which is more than the 2 or occasionally 4 x 20mm a T42 had.
T42 had Stws fitted for torpedoes but it was not supported for many years and was a joke to load and use.
Both have good Helos although in this case a T42 lynx did have Skua. A T45 deck can take a far bigger helo and can operate drones if required.
A T45 defensive soft kill is far better than a T 42

So no they are not underarmed when compared to their predecessors.

They’re not under armed compared to their predecessors, but they are compared to their contemporaries.

Each Type 45 has 48 VLS cells, each capable of taking either: 1x short range Aster 15 – 30km
1x medium range Aster 30 – 120km
(The standard mix is 32 Aster 30 and 16 Aster 15)

Now compare that to an Arleigh Burke class with 96 VLS cells, each capable of taking:
4x short range RIM-162 – 50km
1x medium range RIM-66 – 160km
1x long range/anti-ballistic missile RIM-174 – 240km
1x anti-ballistic missile RIM-161 – 2500km
1x RGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile – 1700km
1x long range anti-shipping missile – 560km
1x anti-submarine rocket – 22km

The differences are rather stark. It’s not just the Americans either. The Dutch De Zeven Provincien class have 40 Mk41 cells which usually carry 32 quad-packed RIM-162s and 32 RIM-66s which is more firepower than a Type 45. The new Australian Hobart class is the similar, except with 48 cells and the addition of the RIM-174 missiles to give them an area-denial and terminal ABM capability. As time goes on, the Type 45s get outgunned more and more by countries with far smaller budgets than us. The RN reliance on European weapons and systems might be good for keeping jobs, but does very little to properly equip these ships for the money we pay.

Arleigh Burkes are not a good comparison. The AA missile system is very dated and requires additional tracking radars to engage targets. T45 does not. The USN fire 2 missiles at a target as ASTER only requires one to achieve the same hit percentage. Only now is the USN catching up with SPY 6 radars that do a similar job to Sampson.

Unless you have evolved sea sparrow which is only now coming in to service, the existing sea sparrow is again a semi active homer and requires tracking radars.

T45 is light on ASuW missiles but it has never been an RN thing for AA Destroyers to get anti Ship Missiles. Same goes for Land attack.

Regarding the enemy you have , exactly who is that. Russia? China?
Russia’s capabilities are well over blown. They would be lucky to get 10 nuc subs at sea , two of which would be boomers and maybe a dozen surface ships. The much vaunted Northern fleet is a shell along with its maritime aviation units. The former Red Banner Fleet is going to stay in the Barents Sea ensuring it maintains a Bastion for SLBMs . It is not a capable or true blue water navy.

China- Lot of ships and new ones coming on line all the time but again they are staying for the most part in their own back yard . The South China Sea and near Pacific are their interests.

Iran? Well the RN has been dealing with the IRG for a long time. The Iranian Navy as opposed to the IRG is a regular navy with proffesional and experienced mariners who play the game. The ones that dont are the IRG who have small boats and are the real threat. But again having a VLS isnt goint to stop that. Its down to guns and gunfire and speed that will defeat swarm attacks.

Once again, the voice of reason and experience on these threads Gunbuster. Top man ???

The RIM-162 ESSMs have been in service since the early 2000s, replacing the older Sea Sparrows, and it is true that both they and the RIM-66s primarily rely on illumination by one of three SPG-62 FCRs on the Arleigh Burkes, each of which can simultaneously guide 8 missiles. However, the missiles require terminal illumination only, allowing you to have more than that in the air behind the first wave ready to receive direction from the radar as soon as a FC channel becomes free. That being said, the latest block 2 ESSMs being tested now have their own radar seeker, same as Aster, and the latest RIM-66s have backup IR seekers for terminal guidance should a fire control channel not be available. The RIM-174s on the other hand have always had their own active seeker, has double the range of Aster 30, a proven terminal ABM capability, and are CEC-capable when used in conjunction with an E-2D Hawkeye aircraft.

I can’t really understand why you seem to be excusing the Type 45s being unable to carry TLAM or an equivalent and being dangerously light on ASuW weaponry. Having Mk41 VLS cells and American weaponry would take nothing away from the ships capabilities and add a massive amount of flexibility and firepower should you need it. As for dealing with swarm attacks by the IRGC and such, Type 45s have a 4.5 inch gun, 2 30mm guns, 2 20mm gatling guns, GPMGs, Miniguns, helicopter-mounted HMGs, and soon a choice of 2 helicopter-launched ASuW missiles so I’d say that threat has been adequately addressed.

Each Type 45 costs just over £1 billion, and their only real capability is in short/medium range air defence, which they excel at despite their rather poor weapons load. Their ASuW weaponry is lacking at the best of times, they’re very poor ASW platforms, being almost entirely reliant on it’s helicopter or another ship thanks to its lack of weapons and own noise, and don’t as of yet possess any ABM or land-attack capability.

Compare this to an Arleigh Burke, which cost about £1.5 billion each, and they blow the Type 45 out of the water in terms of flexibility and firepower. They may not match the Type 45 in short/medium range air defence in a 1:1 comparison, but they’re catching up and can carry many more missiles which more than makes up for it. On top of that they also carry long range air defence missiles and anti ballistic missiles in the air defence role. They are also excellent ASW platforms, possessing a much more extensive sonar suite than a Type 45 and carrying both tube launched and VL standoff ASW weapons. They’re also sufficiently quiet enough to actually hunt for advanced sub surface threats which we know the Type 45s aren’t. Their TLAM capability is almost legendary, with each ship being able to carry dozens of cruise missiles, and once the VL LRASM enters service, they’ll also possess one of the most potent ASuW weapons mounted on a ship. They can carry whatever combination of these weapons they like within their 96 VLS cells.

The Type 45 is a very expensive one-trick pony as it stands. It does one thing very well, but is sub-par at everything else. The Arleigh Burke can do just about any role you could ask of a warship better than anyone else, and thanks to it’s impressive missile capacity and choice of weaponry, you could either specialise in one role in particular depending on the situation, or do all of them simultaneously just as well as a purpose built ship could. Seeing as we have so few ships, would it not make more sense to make the ones we do have as flexible and capable as possible so that they can meet any threat? If you desperately need an air defence ship but all that available is a Type 23, or an ASW platform but all you have is a Type 45, then you’re in for a rough time. With an Arleigh Burke, all you gotta do is load the right weapons for the job and she’ll be whatever you need her to be with enough munitions to stay in the fight.

I would love a T45 with additional weapons but it’s not going to happen. The time required to buy, qualify and set up the shore and ship support is not there and from experience would take at least 5 years to get it in place.

For example so that you can appreciate how things take time on a warship. In 2009 I proposed an increase in the size to the vehicle Mezz deck on Bulwark. It would help in moving ammunition to the Landing Craft and it would make ammo ship much easier. It would also allow the removal of obsolete overhead crane rails and allow the movement of ORCs directly from the vehicle deck into the well Dock when it’s flooded. The work happened on both ships but it took a good 18 months to implement on Bulwark. Luckily we had a 12 month refit to do so it was straight forward. Work. That was a straight forward structural steel addition. No wiring( except for installing some lights) no weapon system integration, software mods, magazine or explosive safety assessments, mutual interference trials, Harbour acceptance trial, sea trials, weapon acceptance trials,. No support put in place in the ammo depot. No new handling equipment, equipment books, training of maintainers and operators, Sops…. Need I go on…???

By the way I didnt even get a Herbert Lott award or a book token!!! Cheapskates!

But I digress… an AB has 96 silos. Fit them with Tomahawk, Asroc and ABM capable Standard missiles and your regular AA missile count drops down especially with a two shot kill requirement. So your 96 becomes say 64 and now you can only shoot at 32 air targets and possibly conduct 10 Asw engagements. Let’s not don’t forget that Asroc carries what is in effect a 1960s tech torpedo that will struggle against a modern sub keep up or even sink. Tomahawk is fine for land attack but Abs sti use the 8 harpoon they are fitted with for ASuW (as does the T45)

As for ABM only specific vessels with modded Ageis software can do the job and only then if they sail in a very small specific area. ABM did not do a lot of good last week in Iraq. The tech is there but remains limited in its application.

T45 Asw is a sore point and has been made even worse by the RN recently removing support for the sonar fitted to T45. It’s going into onboard mothballs. It’s nothing new. The RN did it on T23 for a time mothballing systems including the sonar that where not required for the vessels role or employment at the time.

I have spent over 3 decades working with weapon systems and even now I am still getting my hands dirty On them. I know what the practicalities and restrictions are with getting systems into service and maintaining them. I have worked onboard 5 classes of FF/DD and LPDs as a maintainer and laterly as a system engineer,and also on MCMV and Patrol craft, I have worked in Abbey Wood on equipment desks, in Naval Base Shore Support and even in an ammo depot in Hong Kong.

If the money isn’t there the RN is not going to get it and the money isn’t there nor is there a favourable time line to achieve it anytime soon.
The RN has what it has and must do what it can with the limited resources it’s given.

Right rant over… I’m off to fix some more warships

Gunbuster surely you measure them against the enemy you have to face not its predecessor! Given the scenarios a T45 currently has to face (sometimes alone) can the defences be overwhelmed and if so can something be done about it?

And who exactly has the tech to overwhelm a T45 in the real world? Jesus guys, this isn’t a Tom Clancy novel. Countries don’t just start lobbing missiles at each other for no reason. A monumental political fall out would have to happen with a foreign country before anyone starts putting other nations warships in their crosshairs. And if it did, lot’s of new toys would appear on our fleet very quickly indeed.

Robert – do you feel these ships have protection from saturation low tech & low cost attacks?

The crews will train for these events, the RN is well aware of the threats faced. The ships are fitted with numerous minigun and gpmg points around the ship in addition to the phalanx systems.

Best defence a type 45 or 23 has against these is the ds30 mount. Very effective against fast attack craft or swarming small boats armed with bombs, rpgs etc.

The problem Robert is not its defensive armament. The Type 45 will likely swat away attacking missiles or aircraft all day long. The problem is that it can only defend itself, it can’t hit back.

The best defence is attack. This seems to have been forgotten.

Don’t worry there will be tons of time, rest assured.

For a potential Adversary take the PLAN Type 052D Destroyer, which has 1 x 100mm Main Gun,2 x 32 Tube VLS Arrays for HHQ-9 SAM’s,YJ18 ASM’s and CY-5 Anti – Submarine Missiles (ASROC Equivalent) 1 x CIWS plus 1 x FL-3000N Short Range SAM System,all in all not a bad Weapons Fit for a Ship of about the same Tonnage as a Type 45.

Am I right to think T45 normally carry Wildcat as their helo?
We must be approaching the in service date for the Martlet and Sea Venom missiles. This would give T45 a pretty good defensive portfolio.

I know that Lynx/Wildcat was supposed be used for anti-surface and piracy duties etc and the Merlin is a dedicated sub-hunter. But if your only helicopter asset is Merlin, why can it not be armed for the surface mission with either Martlets or Sea Venom? With today’s threats of swarming attacks by go-fast boats and the lack of helicopters in general within the FAA. Fitting out a Merlin to use these weapons makes logical sense, does it not?

Also for a quick offensive upgrade, the T45’s DS30M Mark 2s must get the Martlet launcher modification, its a no brainer. However, I would also add Sea Venom to the mix. MBDA first did the trials from static containers, so fitting them to the ship shouldn’t be an issue, perhaps on the hangar roof, as they are quite light. The missile can be used against both ships and land targets. It uses an imaging infra-red seeker with a two data-link for selected aim point precision, so in some respects is quite stealthy. Granted it doesn’t have a very powerful warhead, but with selected aim points on a target it can still achieve a mission kill on a large ship. It is going to be an in-service weapon, so its a quick win as an additional ship’s weapon, it doesn’t need new maintenance, training or support contracts.

Failing that we could always use Spear 3, which has also been tested from static containers. Again it will be an in-servic weapon, so there shouldn’t be additional maintenance, training or support costs, except for the additional purchases. It has a lot more range than the Sea Venom, over 80 nm compared to 15nm. The Spear 3 family also comes with the electronic warfare variant. This could be a useful addition to the ship, especially attacking a coastline defending by a sophisticated radar network, but also against a peer vessel. By combining a strike package container standard Spear 3s with some EW versions would significantly increase the chances that the package will hit the target.

There are in-service options out there, come on Navy do something about it!

@DaveyB
If we assume that Type 31 and the River 2s take care of constabulary, humanitarian, presence and anti piracy duties the question would be what do we want Type 45 to do or be; given also that we are not going to re-enact the battle of Jutland against the Russian or Chinese fleet?
This sort of discussion is really above my pay grade but here goes…
Type 45 is already best in class AAW for the carrier strike group. When the propulsion reliability issues are fixed ( and coincidentally more electrical power is available) the priority should be ABM capability for this primary role; either A50 VLS for Aster 30 Block 1 NT or ideally investment in A70 for Aster 30 Block II (or perhaps Mk41 if MBDA commit to making this missile compatible). We have to assume nations like Iran and North Korea will in the future acquire the ability to aim an intermediate range ballistic missile at a QE carrier beyond unrefuelled F-35B pre-emptive strike range.
Wildcat with Martlet plus DS30 and mini-guns give T45 good self defence against fast attack craft. Wildcat and Sea Venom enable T45 to detect and disable a corvette, light frigate or missile patrol boat over the horizon strike. Agree adding Martlet to the DS30s would be a nice to have as would something like NSM, a big stick. Also agree adding Sea Venom to Merlin would make sense. T45 might benefit from the improved ASW self protection a Merlin could provide; I would defer to an expert on that.

Unfortunately, due to the small number of ships, we do not have the luxury of keeping the T45s as purely guard-ships for the two carriers. They must also do general purpose duties, be that patrolling the Straights of Hormuz, shepherding ships past Yemen, looking for pirates off the coast of Somalia or the Malacca Straights.

The combination of Sampson and Aster puts it in a different league compared to the T26’s Artisan/SeaCeptor or T31’s NS200/SeaCeptor combinations. The high fidelity and clutter rejection that Sampson has in detecting moving targets masked against landmasses, means it will detect threats much earlier, thus allowing them to be dealt with more swiftly. Therefore, we have established that a T45 would be very beneficial to have in supporting an amphibious operation in protecting the task group against attack from aircraft or missiles.

But now that we have put a T45 on the gun line, should it not also be capable of being used offensively? These are some of the reasons behind why I think fitting Martlet to the DS30 is a no brainer, It means there’s a better countermeasure against fast boat attacks especially a swarm. But also by using Sea Venom or Spear 3 from the ship it could also provide support for the troops landing on the ground. Plus they’ll still have the 4.5 as an added bonus. But the other possible or likely scenario of where the a T45 is shepherding ships past Yemen. If it or a ship they’re guarding comes under attack. What does the T45 do? Yes, it can shoot down the in-coming missile/s, but what about firing back. It could use its 4.5 if its close enough, or if its equipped with a Lynx it could send that. However, if the Lynx isn’t already prepped it takes time to arm up, then send, where the firing unit may have moved on. It would be better if the ship had an instant response such as a ship launched Sea Venom or Spear 3. Thereby making sure the firing unit is engaged before it hides away somewhere.

The other bonus is that Sea Venom or Spear 3 are significantly cheaper than NSM or Tomahawk, so perhaps more could be carried. But also the ship does not have to be installed with the V41 VLS, again saving money.

I understand what you say. I am questioning the assumption that Type 45 will continue to be deployed as a singleton or close to the shoreline in an offensive role. I see the development strategy for Type 45 as remaining focussed on AAW carrier group escort; enhancing capabilities to BMD through Aster NT block 1 and eventually Block 2 and laser weapons.
I do agree your point on fleet numbers of RN vessels. There are not enough. But I see Type 31 as performing the close in shore and singleton roles you describe and would like these to be heavily armed both defensively and offensively, with Mk41 VLS and a 5in gun ( which Type 26 does not really need in my view). We should have 10 Type 31, reducing Type 26 numbers to 6 to pay for them if necessary.

Agree Mark. HMG should ask for 7 of their Aegis cruisers for a 1 year loan and bung all the type 45s into a crash programme, get the bloody things fixed and whilst your at it, fit the strike length Mk41s these ships (and our navy) desperately need.

Presumably we will be taking money from the suppliers of this kit that hasn’t worked out. Wont be buying any more from them. So they cant help with the schedule at all

I am sure the kit is paid for and I’m not sure where any blame resides. Government might have the risk so just get on with fixing it!

This is just used for show. If it was a real war situation, the salvo would come from subs, since they can get much closer and launch much more safely without being tracked.

The anti-ship salvo may come from subs but we only have 7.

1 is escorting the Vanguard class SSBN. So 6 effectively. Likely any fleet we send will have max 2 submarines with it. They can only be in 2 places at once and subs move relatively slow.

I would much rather we be able to attack from underwater, from surface ships and from aircraft to give us more options.

Balance that with the tiny number of missiles we brought and 2 is more than enough.

It would be good to have options, but fitting tubes to the destroyers comes at a cost and then there is additional cost in buying more missiles (no longer made) and then additional cost in maintenance etc, this money is just better spent else where currently.

The focus needs to be on ensure they can take out ballistic missiles, since anti-ship missiles are heading that way and on ensuring the t31 are battle ready and not just bigger opv’s.

I would rather not lay all my offensive eggs into the Astute basket. What if one or both are sank, god forbid, or lured away, or simply cannot get into torpedo range before a ship fires on our fleet?

The cost can be minimised; NSM doesnt need expensive MK41 VLS tubes; it can be fitted into quad canister launchers that can be simply bolted onto the ship, much like the Harpoons our Type 23s currently have. The NSM is one of the candidates for our interim missile.

I agree re: Type 31s; these need to be combat capable and not just a large OPV. I’d recommend the gun, 24 VLS tubes for Sea Ceptor and a pair of quad canister launchers with NSM. Relatively cheap, yet effective armament that gives it an offensive punch.

I don’t like the idea of any of our destroyers being purely defensive with no ability to fight back. Backwards thinking by MoD, the only thought by them regarding it being to save money, not performance.

You’re not alone james, I and some others have felt the same way about the OPV batch 2s.

And yes, “With our numbers and current world order there might/will be a situation where an OPV will have to fight in a scenario where it’s under gunned. I hope not.” Me too!

I am regularly on USN PCs and MCMVs (2MCMVs and a PC today along with 2 UK MCMVS, an LSA and a T23) . The PC has a couple of 25mm cannons and a small short range missile good for killing speed boats. The MCMVs don’t even rate a cannon, unlike the equivalent RN vessels

So your comment on all USN vessels being armed to fight is not accurate.

The last thing you need is sub-committees if you want anything done anytime soon. The Government’s problem is that it has allocated money to Schools and Hospitals because those are the peoples priorities. That said if a conflict broke out the people would not be happy if there is insufficient capacity in an emergency. Need to quietly bring the Frigates and Destroyers up to spec. by borrowing a little money maybe to spread the cost.

Sorry Mark, perhaps I failed to explain it properly. The US Senate sub-committees have teeth, whereas in the UK parliamentary sub-committees seem to have little influence.

Ah I see what you mean. In theory in the UK the current Government control parliament and are pro defence. It needs a push from the RN to demand a maximum of say 2 or 3 ships out of commission at any one point in time and a push to get every ship fighting fit ASAP. Its a small amount of cash – support will be needed from our allies but they may need support from our carriers at some point so is in their interests as well.

Hi Mark: Sorry, I’m not that convinced by the present government’s commitment to Defence. I have always believed that the Falklands war was a result of John Nott’s attitude to the RN, encouraged by MT. And let’s look at David Cameron’s treatment of the armed forces (and other public services) post his election.

My view of the Thatcher Government pre 1982 was that it’s actions sent a message to the world that we were withdrawing as a military power and would probably not intervene in a Falklands like conflict. Any Government deters conflict if at all times it can demonstrate the capability and will to stand up to aggression. The current Government is as yet an unknown quantity especially on defence. A well armed and well maintained military ready to do battle does deter. There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking nowadays. Boris is a person who looks at the big picture rather than detail so hopefully he will set the military on the relatively simple path to fighting effectiveness with an eye on providing the best kit for an affordable cost quickly and effectively in the future. We mist all evolve or die.

From memory the reason for John Notts proposed cull of the Royal Navy wasn’t anything to do with policy as such,the main point of concern at the time was the European Theatre,he was made aware that in a full conflict the Ammunition Stocks for the BAOR would only last an estimated 6 days,the only solution he came up with was trimming the RN Fleet to divert funding to build more Ammunition Reserves.

John Nott’s not unreasonable theory was that the Soviets were the likely adversary. That is probably due to de-colonisation and a much more aggressive US President. Nott was attempting to focus the RN principally on anti-submarine activity in the Atlantic which was I believe their NATO role. It is perhaps ironic that the UK narrowly escaped conflict with the USSR but got caught up in a complication of de-colonisation.

How is this government pro-defence?

Since 2010 they have slashed defence to the bone, removing all our carriers, all Harriers, selling off or early retiring a number of ships plus cutting Tornado squadrons and making redundant around 20,000 troops.

Since 2016 they have been focused solely on a single objective: Brexit, all but ignoring pretty much everything else.

The last few years have seen a slight rise in defence spending but this has been to stave off further cuts rather than actual investment. What is needed, but Boris’s government won’t likely commit to, is an increase significant enough to plug the black hole in defence budget and to invest in increasing numbers and capabilities.

Unlikely to happen however. Especially if the economy does shrink by any amount post Brexit, as is predicted.

The Conservatives bang the drums about defence and are the armed forces champion when they are in opposition. While in power though, its budget slashing as in everything else.

Not that Labour would be any better. Corbyn made no secret that defence was the bottom of his priorities and would have cut our ability to project any power. How it would be under the likes of Kier Starmer, I have no idea.

Unfortunately defence is not seen as a vote winner so it isnt the priority of any party.

Rob, in the past both parties have taken a similar position on defence until just recently. There has also been a considerable amount of distraction. The Tories will undermine their position if they mess up the economy or are caught on the hop Militarily. We will see and can judge their actions in the coming months. I hope we are pleasantly surprised.

That should say defence against 1,500km range and 3,000km range ballistic missiles, obviously 😉

Correction – the Harpoon isn’t in the running because it has no Secondary Land Attack Capability.

True, but in the intrim would it not be better to upgrade the Block 1C to II+ until Perseus or Scalp-N comes online. It would give the RN at least 10-15 years future service in the anti ship role and time to re-equip.
We have the Harpoon and launchers for every frigate in the fleet and four out of the six destroyers. As no more than half of the ships will be at sea at any one time why not just upgrade some off them in the anti ship role.
I for one would like to see Perseus put into operation, to be operational by 2030, I even think the US would be intrested. However it would mean that the T45 would need the Mk41 or Sylver A70.
So if we could make do with the Block 1C upgrade to II+ whilst we are waiting on Perseus then go for it. It must be cheaper than a complete new missile.
I do agree that the NSM for the T31s are a good fit but even here I would prefer the RBS 15 block IV. Then again I am of Fishers school of thinking, hit first and hit hard
The only real issue I have is that it would mean two SSM types in the RN, unless of course the T31 has space for a Mk41 VLS. Now that would be good.
What has got me completly confussed is the T26, as a weapons platform she will have much better capability than the T45 yet her sensors will be no better than a T23. The 24 Mk41 launchers can handle any missile that NATO has but the Artisan radar would limit what they can be used for. Unless of course the T45 radar suite will control the T26 weapons fit.

Still prefer the Kongsberg NSM/JSM. It may have a sightly smaller warhead than the Harpoon or RBS15, but it is more stealthy, so has a better chance of reaching the target. Both the Harpoon and RBS15 have an active radar that lights up and says here I am, as soon as it passes over the horizon to search for its target. If a ship has gone quiet i.e. not using its primary radar, its electronic surveillance gear will detect the incoming radar, allowing it to switch on its tracking radar and launch an anti-missile missile, jam the radar or launch decoys.

With NSM things are a little bit more sneaky. The missile body is designed to be radar and IR stealthy. It uses a passive imaging infra-red sensor as its primary tool for searching for its target. Therefore if a ship has gone dark, it will have to rely on electro-optics or the MK1 eyeball to detect the approaching NSM. The image from the IIR sensor is also fed back to launch aircraft/vessel by a two way data-link, so the operator can either re-target the missile or specify a specific spot on the ship to hit. The Gungir version of the RBS15 also has a data-link so it can be re-targeted by the operator, but it doesn’t have the target fidelity of the NSM’s IIR sensor. It can be easily jammed or spoofed as its using a relatively basic radar, whilst flares have little effect on IIR sensors. Both missiles are capable of attacking land targets, the NSM has also hit moving vehicle targets during trials. The JSM version is better still, as it has more range.

Not to mention that it can be used on F35s so gives us another Avenue of attack.

Fair point, it was a bit hyperbolic, wasn’t it? all vessels were in service by 2013, so by your 25-year estimate, we need the first of class replacement to be commissioned around about 2034 and the last around 2038. That’s only 13 years away for first in class launch, which isn’t all that much if we want to do this properly, with a decent ship building strategy and get a better option than the T45 turned out to be. I know that we’ve been able to extend the service life of the T23 and T42 before, but I think we can all agree that’s unacceptable and we shouldn’t be relying on that in the future.
Bearing in mind that it’s taking a particularly long time to push our current small force of T45s through their power pack replacement programme, and the demands for availabilty on them, I’m struggling to see how we’d get them through a Mk41 fitout programme with enough service life on the other side for it to be worthwhile.
I agree with your point on getting the Mk41s at the same time we’re getting them for the T26, but I’d still rather extend that buy to go onto the later T45 replacement than find extra money early for a T45 refit. It fits in better with the way in which the defence budget is assigned on an annual basis too.

I think that is indeed what I was referring to, thank you!

I still have some severe misgivings about using the T26 hull for T4X. The production benefits would be nice, but looking at the numbers I can’t see it working too well.

The hull itself is just not big enough. The narrower beam in particular limits the ability to place a SAMPSON style radar high up, even with newer composite materials being lighter (and that high up radar is one of the T45s great benefits, it can spot sea skimmers several kilometres further away than other vessels). There’s also the issue of armament: 32 Mk41 and the 24-cell Sea Ceptor farm amidships vs 48 (+16 potential) tubes on the T45. Given the proliferation of threats from ballistic and hypersonic missiles to drone swarms, I think it’s naive to give our future principal air defence platform anything less than 96 VLS just for air defence.

We’re looking at something more like the Chinese T055 or the Russian Lifer concept than we are a T26.

Callum – for comparisons sake the T45 Hulls Beam is 21.2m vs 20.8m for the T26,in my unqualified opinion that is not a lot of difference.

Probably one for a naval engineer. The profile of the hull would make a big difference. Centre of buoyancy relative to centre of gravity. Americas cup versus cruising yacht kind of thing.

I know your hesitation, but I’ve just had a bit of a look at the stats and the T26 actually has the same beam as an Arleigh Burke, and is only 0.5 m narrower than a T45. Length is 150 m for the T26, 153 m for the T45 and 155 for the newer Burkes. I reckon we could get the “Sampson MK2” radar system and 96 VLS on a T26-derived T4X based upon the idea of adding a hull section or two in (like they did with the Burkes from Flight I-III). It’s almost impossible to increase the beam of a vessel without significant re-design as I understand it, but I reckon an increase of a metre or so, to bring it equal to the T45 might be possible. We’d then have a much more up to date hull form (I’m assuming the T26 is better in this respect than the T45 design), that we’ve already designed most of, that we’re already building, and already exporting. A win for ship building and other sovereign industries like that specialist electric motor factory up in Rugby. I can imagine that Australia and Canada may be interested in a slightly larger replacement for their current vessels in the future, as may others.
Admittedly, we’d just be throwing a load more money at BAE, but we’d be doing that with a T45-derived replacement too. I’d like to explore the potential of other yards producing them under licence though, or they get the next 20ish years to develop the next frigate, ASW and GP, and build it.

Fair argument. It’s worth noting to things about the Burke Vs both of the RN types: first, it’s radars and a lot of other heavy equipment like the VLS itself are much lower on the ship, and it also has an extra nearly 2m of draft compared to a T45 (9.3m Vs 7.4m), which is great for stability. Can’t find a draught figure for the T26, but visually it looks less than a T45.

I do, however, think the T26 is probably large enough to host the SAMPSON. What I’m certain it isn’t big enough is to also host the S1850M or another volume search radar, and 96 VLS. Being generous, you might get 48 VLS forwards. What about the other 48? The only space is the mission bay, but if you put it there you 1. lose the mission bay, 2. put a lot of weight (and explosives) high up in the centre of the ship, and 3. occupy the space where the VSR would go (unless you use fixed arrays fitted to the main mast below SAMPSON. Shared cooling but a lot of weight high up).

Modifying an existing design can be a good place to start, but it means you have to test it exactly like a new design, because you’re changing the fundamental dimensions that hull shape and weight distribution were based on. Personally, I’d go for a brand new, optimised hull design that uses as much common equipment as the T26 as possible. Destroyers are already getting far bigger than the T26/T45 (Zumwalt, T055, the Lider concept, etc), the RN has already learnt it’s lesson that smaller hulls for economy aren’t competitive for very long (which is the rationale for the T26 in the first place).

Not nonsense at all, have you seen our defence budget? Whether the cost is in the missiles or the tubes, there’s no point in fitting tubes for missiles we don’t have money for- you disproved your own point.
We don’t have any missiles in inverntory that launch from a Mk41, amd won’t until the 2030s when we’ll have T26 for surface warfare and the T45 replacement coming along. What are you planning on putting in them for the next 10-15 years? Considering the T45’s availability to even go through its vital energy production upgrades as well as provide escort for the carriers from 2021 and their other duties, it’ll likely take that long to get the Mk41 paid for and fitted (assuming we find the money)
The Mk41 is indeed a (relatively) simple launch tube, and the T45 is FFBNW for additional strike length tubes. But the tubes are not cheap, and neither would the retrofit work surrounding fitting them, nor would the integration work with those new weapons into the T45 CMS. Remember, none of our other vessels are fitted with strike tubes nor the weapons we’re looking into fitting to them, so all the cost of first doing the integration and testing will be on the T45 force, which has a lot of strain on availability anyway.

Its all the other costs that need to be added that are never included in the brochure price. Shore maintenance support, spares, new training for maintainers.
Then you need something to go into them which is an additional expense as the RN has no missiles that are cleared for MK 41 use.

Personally putting something in that gives you Sea Ceptor would be easier but then you need to factor in
Where will the Data Link domes go.
Mutual Interference issues
Can the T45 Combat System be modded to accept Sea Ceptor engagements.
With even more missiles and explosives embarked is the Safety Case still valid for the vessel? There is a limit on how much BANG! a vessel can have embarked and be berthed with minimal risk alongside.

Ron see my comments above, the RN spaced out years ago the mk41 cells, warships ifr ran an article on it. Great read by the way.
20 million per ship including fitting out, wiring and control interface hardware. Pretty cheap. 120 million or cost of 1 F35B would resolve the fitted for but not with fiasco and once purchased why couldn’t the launch tubes be transferred across to type 45s replacement?

The ships have trialled a new intercooler that is far more reliable and to a large extent has ended the intercooler issues. i have worked on a couple of T45s where the intercooler needed changing and it was a huge job. Especially so because the intercooler was supposed to last the life of the ship and never be removed. As you can guess access to it was not easy!
New control software was trialled a while back in the Gulf and the vessel using it had ZERO electrical issues in the height of summer. They where on both engines with the load split and being managed by the control system without issue. The DGs being fitted mean that the vessel can sail using just DG power without the GT Alternators being on which the ship was never designed to do.

WeeWill – only the French use A70 on their Fremm Frigates.,no other customer as of yet.

No devils advocate about that! In terms of how focussed it is, the VLS are going to be used for what? Primarily ASROC? It’s tertiary role must be envisaged as ASuW and NGFS from within the CSG / amphib group. I’m torn between this making sense, and having that ability sit with the T31 and it only included in the CSG / amphib group if deemed necessary.
Even though I’d like to see all our surface combatants built around the mk41 because of how many options it would give us, the fact remains we don’t currently have anything that uses them – so what will fill the T26s’ tubes?

I take the Asroc point.
Like T45 Type 26 is an expensive specialised asset. I would only employ these ships as carrier group escorts, never as singletons or close to the shoreline in an amphibious assault. The singleton exception for Type 26 would be North Atlantic ASW if the balloon went up in Europe.
I see singleton and NGS roles being assigned to Type 31, a couple of which would be in the task group. I would equip them with Mk45 gun, extended range ammo and Mk41 for deep strike. To make sure there were enough to join the task group i would build more of them, 8-10 finding the money if necessary by reducing the spec and number of Type 26 whose original spec was conceived when it was thought we could afford 13 RN Arleigh Burke ‘Global combat ships’!
As we let the batch 1 Rivers go I would like to see a warship building program for 6 Type 26, 5 Type 31 ‘patrol’ frigates ( probable spec already in the public domain) with 57mm mcg and another 5 Type 31 with the 5 Mk45 5in guns ( already ordered for Type 26 ) and Mk41. Put a 57mm with programmable ammo on the Type 26; better self defence against FAC and leeker AShM.
I am not in favour of upgunning the River2s as this would undermine the argument for another 5 Type 31s.

p.s. For 57mm read 76mm if preferred, which could also go on the T45s. Choosing between these is above my pay grade.

I think we might see modest increase in frigate numbers. I would not be surprised to see Type 26 numbers fall from 8 to 6 while Type 31 numbers rise from 5 to 8 or 9. A small net increase, and with opv numbers going from 4 to 5 probably a better balanced fleet. I would envisage a T31 being forward based in the Gulf and Singapore, one T31 as fleet ready escort. The carrier task force might have T45 a T26 and a T31 plus say a Dutch , French or US escort if an allied initiative. All doable I think if we can get the man/woman power issue sorted.

On the bright side, we are reliant on the US to provide the jets to make the carriers viable and there is no chance they will trust us to defend them, so they will require their own escorts are part of it, so solving that issue.

I can see the merit of t26 going from 8 to 6 while type 31 goes from 5 to 9…provided t31 and 45 have a fuller weopons fit.

Fwd deployed batch 2 OPV should simply be given 76mm OM plus secondary 30mm and a small hanger for rotary UAV.

The Type 26 has to stay at 8 as its speciality is ASW,there are too many commitments to fulfil which cant be taken up with T31 or T45.

Ok, but then I think the ships need to be cheaper to make it easier to fund more Type 31. Does ASW T26 really need an expensive 5in gun and Mk41? Would it not be more sensible to put these on some or all of the T31 and have enough of these to fulfil their singleton roles and also be part of a carrier task force?

Paul P agreed. I too think T26 will fall to 6 and the fleet will be increased by T31.
We have seen it before.

Daniele, I confess I’m in two minds about this. Budget pressure rather than post Brexit foreign policy seems to driving strategy.
How many T26 do we need to do carrier escort duties and hunt Soviet subs in the North Atlantic? I would feel more comfortable with 8 rather than 6. And much would cutting numbers to 6 actually save? Would the Clyde be compensated by T31 orders?
My thoughts; in terms of what could save money without decreasing relevant capability I would suggest fitting the 5 very expensive Mk45 guns we I think have ordered onto the T31s and put the cheaper Oto 76mm or BAe 57mm on the T26 and also on the T45 at refit. They are too valuable and specialised assets to be doing NGS. If we are going to sunset the Mk8 let’s get on with it. And does T26 really need Mk41 vls? I would design T31 to take them on a FFBNW basis until we figure out what to put in them. In the meantime put 8 cannister launched NSM or equivalent on all frigates and destroyers. Bigger order better price surely? And how long does it take to decide between NSM and RB-15?. In any event we should build at least 8 T31. Some with 57mm say and some with Mk45.

I’m in agreement Paul. I don’t want the T26 order to be reduced, far from it.

But I think it will happen, like Astute and T45 numbers.

Steve – I’m more confident that the Fleet can be increased,you just have to find ways of building modern Warships cheaper,our problem has always been we design bespoke Ships and order them in too small a numbers,hopefully the T26 will correct this.With the range of Escort Ships available on the market today you can get a capable Frigate for £500 million,its just that the powers that be here seem too happy to pay much more.

Agreed completely. Don’t expect any sea change in future procurement outcomes!