A contract worth over £60 million has been awarded to BAE Systems to upgrade the Sting Ray torpedo.
The Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) has tasked BAE Systems with carrying out the Sting Ray Mid-Life Upgrade (SRMLU) from Mod 1 to Mod 2, which will help make the torpedo “best in class” and improve its performance against emerging threats.
The Sting Ray has been in service with the Royal Navy since 1983, with the current Mod 1 version in service since 2001. It is designed to counter fast, deep-diving submarines as well as quieter conventional submarines operating in coastal waters.
The upgrade will also benefit the Royal Air Force (RAF), which uses the torpedo on its Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft, complementing the United States Navy’s Mk54 weapon.
The four-year upgrade contract covers the design, development, and testing of the Mod 2 version of the lightweight torpedo, including in-water trials.
The firm says that this will sustain over 100 highly skilled engineering and specialist jobs across BAE Systems’ sites in Portsmouth and Hillend, Fife, while also providing investment to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the UK’s high-tech sectors.
Cdre Steve Bolton, Senior Responsible Owner for the SRMLU programme, emphasised the importance of this upgrade: “This is great news for the Royal Navy and other Sting Ray Lightweight torpedo users. We are taking what is already a very good Anti-Submarine Warfare weapon and turning it into the best in class.”
Cdre Richard Harris, Deputy Director of the Weapons Operating Centre at DE&S, said: “This programme is an essential part of the daily mission that protects the nuclear deterrent and our undersea cables.”
BAE Systems’ Managing Director of Maritime Services, Scott Jamieson, also welcomed the contract, saying, “It’s a huge sign of confidence for the company to be entering the next phase of development and be able to demonstrate its additional capabilities. This contract is vitally important to the UK’s strategic underwater defence plans.”
The assessment phase of the project will last four years and is expected to boost the UK’s anti-submarine warfare capabilities significantly, ensuring that both the Royal Navy and RAF are better equipped to deal with future threats.
One of the stated objectives of Mod 2 was to make the torpedo lighter, which would increase the variety of vehicles it could be launched from. The torpedo drop-test from the Malloy T600 at Repmus ’23 was with a test torpedo significantly lighter than the current Mod 1, and this was when we heard about Mod 2 being lighter. It’s possible the T650 (which is still probably years away) could drop the Mod 1, but it’s marginal whether the T600 could.
I haven’t heard much about this objective since.
That’s really interesting, cheers.
Indeed I remember there was discussion on here questioning how a representative Stingray could be launched from the T-600. Didn’t realise it was a Mod 2 example which explains that apparent contradiction.
It wasn’t an actual Mod 2 as far as I know; just a lightweight inert test dummy. However, some of the press were calling it an example of Mod 2, and that triggered the whole “what’s a Mod 2?” discussion. MOD gave BEA £60m earlier this year to persue the design, so I don’t think real Mod 2 exists even now. It’s expected to take 4 years to get into operation and you have to imagine there will be lots of tweaks yet to come. Navy Lookout suggested post-REPMUS the weight of the lighter test dummy implied that Mod 2… Read more »
Hmmm… recently, wasn’t there either an RFI solicitation and/or a feasibility study contract by the RN for a next gen, lightweight, ship borne VL torpedo capability, nominally launched from Mk 41? Almost as though the lads at the Admiralty had a long term plan…🤔😉
Does this include an AROC type?
If it works it will massively increase the ability of platforms such as OPV’s to conduct ASW especially if they can deploy UUV’s with sensors.
Yes indeed. And we did trial Manta with KraitArray thin-line towed sonar. Let’s hope that’s something the T31s might take forward.
Possibly, but I think T31 got a little bit hamstrung on the bottom line, regardless of how stupid the bottom line was. So even sensible options were ignored. Denmark consider the related Absalon frigate an ASW frigate. Suggests that T31 comes up somewhat short in this department. IH frigate is NATO rated as ASW capable. Not so sure of T31. No bow mounted sonar. Did they go to the cost of raft mounting machinery (definitely a Babcock option). Piping & other isolation (extra 10%). Don’t get me started on the main gun!
Besides the RN T23s, Norwegian frigates, P8’s, Merlin’s and Wildcat’s has the Sting Ray had much export success? Hopefully with this upgrade there’ll possibly be more as the mk54 seems to be everywhere!
Well most other light anti sub torps also have the ability to attack surface vessels, but Stingray lacks this. Perhaps, that is why other countries pick other torps.
Thanks. I wasn’t aware of that. I thought if it could do one it could do the other.
Hi JH, not quite. The reason that most other nations pick other torpedos is that the diameter of the Stingray means that it needs its own dedicated torp tubes and handeling system. The Stingray is 330mm in diameter whilst the standard is 324mm. Against surface ships you want to use a 21in torp, due to range and hitting power. Do you really want to be within 10km of a surface ship, thats what you would be if you plan to use a light wieght torpedo. Not a good idea. FormerUSAF also reminded us that the Admiralty was looking at a… Read more »
Ron
How does something like the MU90 fare? It even has a an anti torpedo option supposedly. While a 21” can take out most surface combatants, not all combatants need such a weapon. Do you really need a hwt to take out a 2,000 – 3,500t warship?
No one know unless there is war.
” The best in class” is the usual Perfid Albion mantra to justify waking up in the morning and do anything. Not even the French reach those levels of self aggrandising.
Wikipedia says Stingray is 330mm but that is not what i saw in brochures in the past and in many reference work.
It’s an straight forward fix. The inside of modern tubes have HDPE type block formers bolted into them that you can change out for the size of weapon you use as a country. Sometimes at launch the weapon may have an issue and damage a former block. You can change them out if that happens.
The top of the tube has a number of doors to give access to various weapon arming wire, unbilicals and safety wire points on the torp. Not all torps use the same positions. Hence the number of doors.
The Swedes say they would disable an enemy warship with a missile, then safely close to sink it with a torpedo.
Sting Ray could attack a surface ship of a deep enough draft but you would not want to. During early development it was found that LWTs can, at speed, porpoise as they go shallow. They literally jump out of the water. The sonar reflects off the air/water interface giving false target readings which the control system drives the torp to attack. For this reason LWTs get a ceiling height setting that they don’t come above. A SR shaped charge warhead will punch through tens of feet of steel pressure hull, tanks, pipes and outer hull on a sub. Think a… Read more »
“The upgrade will also benefit the Royal Air Force (RAF), which uses the torpedo on its Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft, complementing the United States Navy’s Mk54 weapon”
Excuse my ignorance but, how would the Sting Ray complement the Mk54?
We already use mk54 from the P8s but are changing to Sting Ray which is better.
It was an odd choice of words in the article.
Mk 54’s are widely regarded as crap. The MoD was forced into deploying Stingray from Poseidon because of that crapness.
Widely regarded by who? What’s your evidence to back up that statement?
The evidence is Mk.54’s design….
It takes the seeker head from the Mk.50 Torpedo, which is the US real Stingray equivalent, but which was purchased in small numbers, then discontinued, due to cost. Then marries the seeker head with the propulsion unit of the Mk.46…a torpedo whose poor performance Stingray was designed to vastly exceed 40 years ago….
So the USN and all the other countries that uses MK54 regards it as crap? I think we need to temper some of these statements with a little logic sometimes. The best we can do is speculate based on open sourced info and some unverifiable claims made by posters on boards like these who have no access to the actually performance data. The USN don’t seem to be in a rush to replace this “crap” weapon and seems content in spirally upgrading it’s capabilities. One would think for something as critical to the US as hunting enemy subs, they won’t… Read more »
Hunting enemy subs isn’t exactly a USN forte. Their main sensor platforms are a noisy multi-purpose destroyer and a civilian-standard catamaran that has a TAS but no weapons and consequently has been bullied off its station when in the SCS. Neither are going to stand or fall on the quality of their torpedoes.
“Their main sensor platforms are a noisy multi-purpose destroyer and a civilian-standard catamaran that has a TAS but no weapons and consequently has been bullied off its station when in the SCS.”
The main sensor platform for the USN is a Virginia class sub.
That’s very true. I was wrong. Virginias and Mk48s.
And P-8’s.
Which brings us back to Doh. The reason the USN is building the Constellation class based on FREMM is that they realise they are lacking in surface ASW (and maybe they can’t rely on the Royal Navy as much anymore). When they get serious about sub hunting I think Netking is right and they will look to the Virginias, which don’t use the Mk54s, and as many other assets as they have in the area. I have no idea if Mk54s aren’t all that good. But I think for the last 50 years the US has undervalued surface ASW, whereas… Read more »
No it’s crap… I was a Mk44, Mk46 and Mk 75 Sting Ray maintainer. The backed and warhead of a Mk54 is a Mk46. I know the classified speed, dive depth, range, run time of the Mk46 and Mk 75. I won’t disclose them so don’t ask. The open source performance data for Mk46 is pretty accurate for a Torp that evolved from the 1960s using a blast warhead, Oto Fuel, a combustion engine, contra props and rudders to propel it. The Sting Ray open source data is accurate in that the Sting Ray with it’s sea water battery, power… Read more »
Are you a Mk.54 maintainer? Do you have access to its performance data as a maintainer? There is an old rule that I always keep in mind when I see random people claiming specific knowledge about performance data on the internet. “The ones who know don’t talk and the ones who talk don’t know”. Unless of course you don’t mind spending significant time in prison or depending on which country you are in, possibly worse. Again, please see the latest IOT&E report publicly stating that the weapon is operationally effective. Unless you know more than the people within the US… Read more »
“I know the classified speed, dive depth, range, run time of the Mk46 and Mk 75. I won’t disclose them so don’t ask.” See I covered that bit…i suggest a good head wobble or better reading glasses… What is the back end behind the Mk54 seeker? Its a Mk46 torpedo. Blast warhead Oto fuel tank Oto fuel engine Gearing and Contra prop and rudder control system. The Mk54 conversion takes Mk46 and adds a new seeker head to the front end. It does not do anything performance wise to the back propulsion. You buy the conversion kits to mod your… Read more »
See I didn’t ask because you never maintained the Mk54 and even if you did that doesn’t necessarily mean that you know the actual performance data. The fact that you so confidently make claims about knowing classified performance characteristics of in service weapons actually says more about those claims than you realize.
Yes he is. Gunbuster is a well regarded contributor in these comments because of his expertise & profession.
The US Govts own weapon performance auditing organisation.
USN where caught a number of times fudging test runs to make the weapon past it’s performance tests.
You know how cliff divers drop a rock or similar into the water to break the surface and reduce the impact against the water for their dive? That’s what the Mk54 does for the Stingray.
I hadn’t realised that we’d moved to Stingray on our P-8As, that’s a positive step!
When the US’ Department of Operational Testing & Evaluation has stated that the latest Mk54 Mod1 is “not operationally effective”, we should probably be asking why we bought any at all. To be fair to them, that’s for proving it in acoustically cluttered environments. But we have a lot of those around our shores, so that should have been a deal breaker in my view. Hopefully we can send them back or sell them on to someone else…
We never bought them.
It was a shared stockpile with USA. It was part of the P8 deal.
Pay on expend basis.
It was a way of getting P8 into service on a fixed price contract. After MRA-4 nobody wanted any risk.
Then upgrade later in a separate contract.
Oh, even better. I’m OK with that!
“The Mod 1 Increment 1 torpedo is operationally effective and showed no degradation in torpedo effectiveness from Mod 0. However, no assessment of performance could be made for the Mod 1 Increment 1 torpedo operating in an acoustically challenging environment. A detailed assessment is in the classified IOT&E report for Mod 1 Increment 1 dated April 2023.”
I don’t think your comment is accurate. Please see above.
Apologies, I got mixed up, it was not ‘operationally suitable’ because the Mod1 experienced more regular early shutdowns, so reliability and availability is considered poor. The cluttered environment improvements remain to be proven, due to improper testing regime.
My comment was indeed not accurate, but I’d still not want them!
No worries. I do think the SR is the more capable weapon but I certainly don’t think the Mk.54 is crap as some are making it out to be.
A couple of things. Firstly, mythbusters busted the myth of chucking anything before you drop in the water as being effective. The mk54 effectivness has been commented on before by several v knowledgeable chaps. Thirdly I thought a new lightweight torpedo was being developed with an eye for possible drone use…ie lighter than Stingray, as a separate weapon. I rather think a mod2 upgrade was always on the csrds but i cant see it shedding a meaningful amount of weight. Would a surface attack option Compromise any aspect of Stingray? Surface attack from the RN preferred anti sub platform (helicopter,)… Read more »
Wildcat ASM options are severely limited, We are not talking NSM-HL here. Short ranged ASM from naval helicopters only work if the targets aren’t packing SAM’s that out range said ASM’s (& plenty of them do). Houthi are the exception, not the norm.
I understand that but my remark was focussed on using a lightweight torpedo against the SAM packing corvette (or whatever). You would have to get much closer to loose off a lightweight. A venom attack would be pop-up in any case against such a target, and guided from over the horizon.
AA
It would be nice if we actually had some subs in service to put these new torpedoes on, the dire state of the RN should be widespread national news, our tiny surface fleet of just 15 frigates & destroyers, most of which never leave port are another national disgrace.