The Ministry of Defence says work is ongoing to scope the integration of the Mk41 vertical launch system on Royal Navy Type 31 frigates, declining to provide details on how the capability will be incorporated across the class while procurement discussions continue.
In written parliamentary answers to Liberal Democrat MP James MacCleary, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the government intends to fit the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates with the American-designed Mk41 launch system but would not provide details on the planned timeline.
MacCleary had asked how many ships in the five-vessel class would have the system installed during construction and before launch, and how many would instead receive it during the later Capability Insertion Period.
Pollard answered, “We intend to fit the Type 31 frigate with the Mark 41 vertical launch system,” the minister said. “Working closely with the US Navy, we are progressing the next steps of the Mk41 procurement, including assessment of all installation and integration options.”
He added that further information could not be released while discussions and procurement work were ongoing.
“At this stage, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand, it would be inappropriate to provide any further information whilst this commercially sensitive work is ongoing,” Pollard said.
The Mk41 vertical launch system is widely used across NATO navies and can fire a range of missile types, including Tomahawk land-attack missiles, Standard air defence missiles and anti-submarine weapons depending on configuration.
The Type 31 frigates, known as the Inspiration class, are being built by Babcock at Rosyth in Scotland. Five ships are planned for the Royal Navy: HMS Venturer, Active, Formidable, Bulldog and Campbeltown. Although the design includes space for the Mk41 system, the vessels are expected to receive additional capabilities later through planned upgrade an capability insertion periods.
Confirmation of good news delivered in a nothing-burger.
If he’d been pushed further he’d have said wait for DIP.
What he announced is nothing more than a BW era announcement – 3.5yrs of inaction.
See I was waiting for some confirmation like this. If we haven’t ordered Mk41 now for them it may not be installed on the first 2 or first 3 ships for years to come. Could get pushed to a MLU
They are just the usual meaningless sentences assembled to produce a nothing release.
I don’t think anything can be read into that TBH.
There’s enough to read into that I can say we won’t see mk41 sets even delivered for 2 years at least.
Reread it carefully.
Why does it say working closely with USN? That is an odd statement as it would normally be with manufacturers.
Could it be that we are acquiring the VLS from the Cancellation Class frigates that USN had already bought?
I’d say that’s reading into desperation.
When the reality is they have the most expierience with the system, and they have plenty of other hulls that need Mk41
And we already have Mk41 ordered for T26….
For the first batch, not the second.
Budget was committed for long lead time items under Rishi.
We can see when Mk41 system are ordered on the American end, IIRC. I don’t believe we’ve seen the Mk41 for the second batch by procured yet?
We could buy a job lot of nearly new refurbed ones from those cruisers the USN is scrapping. Wait for a dark night when nobody is looking and sneak them aboard. Or flog the whole class to the USN for a profit and build ourselves new ones.
Given how carefully these answers are drafted I am surprised about the reference to USN.
It wasn’t in there by accident that is for sure.
As you say it could be a conversation about refurbished to new condition units of current specs. Given how cheap MoD are being that wouldn’t surprise me. Also wouldn’t surprise me that USN were trying to help out as they need assets and T26 are more than useful assets to the Atlantic defence enterprise which is inevitably shared.
Yes, Its sad Srarmer is so credulous he doesnt do more to perhaps offer these two designs for the right price or royalty to the USN and help them out of a corner. No one in labour has ever worked in a business let alone run one. We were able to get hold of some useful Frigate from the US in WW2. Diesel Electric propulsion no less!
It’s probably a lot worse than that, used MK41s from the scrapping of the old Ticos.
Could there then be a mix of tactical and strike length mk41s purchased then? Would the RN put the classic CAMM in strike length, seems a waste of use of space, or even Exls or keep them to the 6 farm silo? Is there any news of the CAMM-ER/MR on the horizon for the RN?
It isn’t a “release” it is an answer to a parliamentary question.
Splitting hairs it is publicly announced/available information.
Which with the present form of the Ministry of Defence Cuts subtracts from the sum of previous knowledge – truly the nothing burger. In fact it is probably the black hole bagel…..
Given the sorry state that the RN combatant fleet finds itself in the least that could be done to rebuild confidence is have some firm plans to get the ones in build to sea properly equipped.
It’s not splitting hairs, a question was asked in parliament and an answer had to be given. Noone is making this any sort of official release of information, yes it’s published but you are behaving as though this is done sort of active spin and propaganda exercise, to be honest if George hadn’t reported it here none of us would ever haven known about it, this is routine procedure nothing more and nothing less.
… but what would you put in them? I suppose one of the reasons they haven’t rushed the order is that the missiles intended for these silos aren’t ready yet.
In early 2026, the MoD awarded a contract to MBDA to study putting the Aster 30 missile, currently on Type 45 destroyers, into the Mk41, and FC/ASW is also a few years away.
The Royal Navy is essentially playing a long game of strategic timing to ensure the Type 31 frigates don’t end up with “legacy” weapons. By building the ships now with the structural foundations for the Mk41 launchers but waiting until the early 2030s for the actual “Capability Insertion Period,” the Navy ensures that the software integration for the Aster 30, the study for which only just began in February 2026, will be fully mature by the time the hardware is bolted in. This approach avoids the cost of installing launchers that would sit empty or require immediate, expensive patches to talk to British missiles, instead allowing the ships to enter service first as high-tech patrol vessels for current drone and piracy threats before “levelling up” into heavyweight strike frigates just as the latest Block 1NT missiles and future cruise weapons are ready to be loaded.
They will still have 12x Vertical Launch cells for Sea Ceptor (CAMM), NSM, and a unique ‘three-gun’ configuration designed specifically to shred the kinds of threats seen in the Red Sea and Gulf, drones and fast attack boats, consisting of a Main Gun, a 57mm Bofors Mk3. that fires 4 rounds per second and uses ‘3P’ programmable ammunition that can explode in the air to take out swarms of drones or missiles. Plus the two secondary guns, 2 x 40mm Bofors Mk4s. These are essentially ‘mini’ main guns. One is at the front and one is at the back, giving the ship 360-degree coverage against surface and air threats.
That is beautifully expressed MoD logic that enables and decisions involving ££££ to be pushed back indefinitely awaiting either the tech refresh of the missiles or the launcher and even the ships systems.
A perfectly endless spiral argument for doing nothing!
Joking apart it is likely true that the controlled cabinets would need to be upgraded to deal with ASTER or the various other flavours of missile that will be introduced in the next decades.
The problem is that if RN don’t get going with fitting the physical part of the system to the ships the ultra slow and dockyard work queues it could take years to have the ships physically fitted with the launcher cells….and it is then a cycle of a lot of years to get them fitted to the whole class.
So I would do a partial and fit the physical tubes but leave the controller cabinets and their integration or a future CIP on the ASTER etc interfaces have been debugged.
So your are suggesting FFBNW, have to say, that’s not always a popular choice with the commentariat.😱
Critics of your comment might argue that fitting the tubes without the software integration is dangerous because it gives the illusion of capability without providing the actual weapon system, potentially misleading commanders about what the ship can do in a crisis. Modern command teams fight through the Combat Management System and that is designed to provide a Common Operational Picture (COP). If an empty Mk41 launcher is physically installed, the system might have a ‘placeholder’ for it.
If the system ‘thinks’ a weapon exists because the launcher is physically present, the system will offer up that weapon as an option. When you are fighting an automated, high-speed threat, you don’t have time to second-guess the CMS. If the CMS presents a solution using an empty cell, it is ‘misleading’ the command team by injecting confusion into the most critical part of the engagement process.
By law and by nature the RN is risk adverse.
The MoD’s reluctance to fit empty Mk41 cells is a choice between two bad options.
1/ If they fit empty Mk41s now, they would have to take a ship out of service for a “shell fit,” only to take it out again later for the actual software/electrical integration. This is double-handling, and the Royal Navy currently lacks enough operational destroyers to afford that much downtime.
2/ If they wait, as they are, they bundle the physical launcher fit into the same period as the complex software upgrade CIP. This is meant to be more efficient, but it means the ships have to wait in a queue for the software to mature.
The Navy is desperate to keep these ships operational because they are the only ones capable of high-end area air defence. They are stuck in a cycle where they cannot afford to have too many ships out of action at once, which dictates the pace of the upgrades, regardless of how much money is in the bank.
… rock – hard place.
Set the munition status flag to
Training Round = Y; or
Tube Loaded = N
That way in a real live warshot those tubes will be ignored.
If there is no controller cabinet attached to the CMS how will the CMS know the VLS is there?
You are right … “If there is no controller cabinet attached to the CMS how will the CMS know the VLS is there?”
We can say nothing other than they are still planning to put MK41 silos on them.. any statement about cannot or time or numbers essentially all speculation and preference of the commentator..
Personally I think they will probably use the silos ordered for the last batch 1 T26 then re-order for the last batch 1 T26.. the batch 2 26s and last 3 type 31s to be fitted all at the same time.. I would bet each 31 gets 12 Mk41 silos.. for up to 48 CAMM.. or 24 CAMM and 6 strike missiles.. because I think they will also get the 8 NSMs as deck launches as well..
You cannot order 12 mk41 cells
My mistake 16…
Wouldn’t they just cross deck NSM from the retiring Type 23’s? Granted, there aren’t 5 Type 23s that have NSM currently….. nothing on the Type 45s either – 4yrs after the announcement was first made to acquire NSM for 11 escorts!!
Mk41 is a very expensive Hot launch system, so they’ll not be used for the Cold launch Camm / Sea Ceptre. I think the Labour minister is filibustering. Until they put more money into the rather important matter of Defence instead of their Pet project Welfare, there is little chance of Mk41 on the Type 31.
You can however quad pack CAMM on them allowing for a much greater density of missiles than the current cold launcher.
A good in-between in ELxS. A cold launch MK.41 as such. Comes in triple cells arrangements. It’s what Sweden is sticking on the Visby. We could say purchase 6 cells for 24 CAMM and keep the rest of the arrangement (or as close as possible with cell combinations) as Mk.41 if we know we’ll always want at least 24 CAMM.
Not sure that will happen as BAe ordered the Mk41 for the type 26 and is part of their specification list. Where the alleged MK41 the MOD is ordering for type 31’s where additional to the original £1.25 billion contract and they would be responsible for that order.
The fact the the MOD guy paid £185,000 cannot answer the question without giving very vague information saying it all.
Remember the mk41 going to be add to the type 45 and space was built in for, that never happening, we are now putting in CAMMS sea ceptor instead 12 years after Defender launch.
Are you talking classic CAMM out of the mk41s? If they’re keeping with CAMM why don’t they go Exls for that and mk41 for everything else?
With the forward 57mm is the 40mm behind actually needed? If not there’s room there for vls as shown on the Babcock’s MRNP variant.
Question, will there be quad CAMM from just the mk41s or ExLS or from CAMM farm as on T26, or a mix of the first two or mk41s and CAMM farm? Launching classic CAMM from a mk41s is a bit wasteful height wise but a CAMM-MR/ER mix would be useful.
With the CIP upgrade will this lead to a stronger radar upgrade?
If these ships are going to be potentially operating in Red Sea- Persian Gulf areas will they look at giving them a hull sonar fix? Something that could be upgraded on the T45s too.
The “CIP” is not installing Mk41, or a better radar, or anything else significant, it is just a post sea trials repair and refit session.
It can take over 2 years from order for a Mk41 delivery.
That’s not my understanding of the “CIP” but happy to be proved wrong and wait to see. Without the “inserts” there won’t be much vls missile capability in place or it will be very limited. And NSM will need to be ordered. Two years delivery time for mk41s? Hopefully they starter that process two years ago! Still its good seeing these ships come into being and quite rapidly now.
That’s two years from an order being placed. We haven’t placed an order, as we would’ve seen it in American/British financial reports.
Navy Lookout’s extreme optimism has led to much confusion, I feel.
I do think the ‘collaborating with the USN’ part hints at something aside from a usual order-procurement going on. How many mk41 were ordered for the cancelled Constellations?
My point exactly.
There will be USN officers who knew RN when it was in its ASW pomp who will be seriously upset at the state that it is in now and wanting to help out. Partly from self interest as having more useful ships in the Atlantic takes pressure off their fleet as well.
No it’s not the standard post trials remedial period… the government does not put out a specific contract for that.
“The CIP adds crucial capabilities that will support the ships throughout their life and includes the insertion, testing and enhancement of a number of upgrades that will enhance the Type 31’s military capability.” Directly from Babcock.
The official tender notice says its for the insertion, enhancement and testing of new military capability into the T31.. we don’t know what that is but it’s not standard rectification.
Wrong. It is for the inserion of new systems and capabilities not included in the original contract. You really should do a bit of easy research before commenting.
That is not correct.
CIP is Capability Insertion Period which is quite separate from any remedial periods after manufacturer’s or acceptance etc.
It is literally for the insertion of additional capabilities.
really poor response here from the minister
we all know the original design has ability for 32 Mk41 in the midsection and that this has been retained or can be inserted in with little work.
so the only question is – are they getting 32 cells or not?
Will this Government actually answer a question directly at any point?
Well we now know we are not getting them anytime soon, when we get an actual order start a 2-3 year clock.
The Babcock MRNP variant of the AH140 showed that two mk41s could go into the B position so just having the rear 40mm. 2xExls could go on there too. They’re kind of spoilt for choice.
Even 32 VLS are looking lightweight compared to Indonesia’s Type 31 which will have 64 VLS
Heck, even North Korea’s new 5000 ton destroyer has 68 cells.
Has the MOD learned nothing about the current trend of attritional warfare ?
They could go hybrid 2x Exls and 4 mk41s or forward B positions CAMM Farm and 4 mk41s like T26, that’d be decent and NSM. Just hope they maximise this ship and not even bother with the mickey mouse 12 CAMM farm full-stop. Put two of those things on the T45s!
North Korea’s destroyer has no hangar in order to accommodate extra VLS, I’m not sure theirs is the example we should be following.
Plus it sank on launching!
My understanding is that the cost of re-engnineering the Mk41 strike length VLS out of the design was too much – so they left it in. Now that may be incorrect an its a long time ago. Perhaps someone from Babcock can help clear this up.
but it seems like this should be a case of buying 32 Mk41 VLS and dropping them in, given the systems and basic layout of this vessel is ready and the systems are the same as operated by our Danish cousins who actually designed this originally.
We spend far too much time and money talking, analysing etc. Time for some action on this for Ship 3 onwards at least
interestingly the huitfeldts can also take 24 ESMs from 2 Mk56 VLS’s – so we could have 32 Mk41 and 24 SeaCeptor in the midship space if we want.
Just goes to show what a good design it is
From memory it was said that the Type 31 was designed and being built with the Foundation Structures to take MK41.
ESSm vls is far more compact than CAMm
What, the mk56? That’s very similar to mushroom farms, 12 missiles in a 3.7m by 2.7m space.
We get 6 missiles in about that much space.
Depends if you actually buy the more compact option ExLs would be 2.6m x 1.3m for a very significant density compared to ESSM.. that’s why the tiny visby corvettes will have 36 CAMMs.. we can get massive density if we actually spend some money.
The Iver is a bit larger which is how they manage to squeeze in the Mk.56 but even just 32 Mk.41 would work.
Alternatively we could copy Indonesia and remove some of the midship mission bays and fit an additional 32 Mk.41
Is low capability escort ship for North Atlantic operations. Its not for the same role as the 45 or 26.
It’s not for the North Atlantic specifically though, it’s for stations like the Gulf and beyond which are threatening areas.
Once again, its not for high threat environments. You can’t your card and eat it
We’re talking about a frigate here, trying to suggest we’ll just leave these in port during a conflict?
It will be deployed Ron it’s a warship.. I would lay level money they become part of a standard carrier battlegroup deployment in an area with a lot of drone risk.. because guns are good for drones and the T31s have the only decent gun based air defence capabilities in the fleet.
If you want an expensive warship you build a type 26. The whole point of the 31 is that its cheaper therefore you can have more.
It’s not. Look at the range of the ship, 9000 nmi. Most modern warships are only 7000 nmi. It’s very clearly designed for long ranged independent operations.
Once again the whole point of the 31 is that its cheaper than a 26 or 45 so you can have more of them
These are Parliamentary Questions to a Minister. They are always planted by the Ministry. It’a form of official Parliamentary response to get the government’s views into Hansard as old as the hills.
The Type 31 design was cut to the bone so as to squeeze past Treasury ‘rules’. Informed opinion in these pages suggested at that time when the design were made public that opportunities to up arm the type were being missed. This statement acknowledges they were correct.
This was an opposition question.. the MOD has zero control over opposition questions.
You misunderstand Parliamentary procedure. These are ‘placed’ so as to give Ministers the opportunity to up date Parliament on many issues. It is as old as the hills. Yu will note the M.P. posing the ‘question’ is always the same one.
Hi Barry, PMs of the party in power have the placed questions.. opposition MPs have very very limited options to ask questions and so will always ask their own.
If you study how Westminster works then just have a look at next Mondays Order of business in the commons. They start on a Monday at 14:00 and Defence are up for Oral Questions, it’s the first one since Healey announced the DIP delay in December.
We have war blazing away, U.K Defence and MOD are a laughing stock yet not one single question has been recorded ! The next day its educations turn and they have 25 already.
Now that is very odd !
So what happens when Healey stands up ? Does he just say “ta, there are no questions for defence, so everyone must be happy so I’m off for nice Mug of Yorkshire Tea and a biscuit”
Very strange indeed ….. unless…… he has actually an announcement.
Neither the present government nor its immediate predecessors want to wash their dirty linen in public. The present debacle in national defence is the result of decades of practiced neglect. How could any Tory stand up and point to failures of Starmer’s time? I detest the bloke, but fair is fair; this was the siht sandwich he inherited. Labour has turned into a activist party. Since 2010 it has become outright anti-British, against defence spending and openly sympathetic to the west’s enemies. Across all our institutions and national organisations we are led by third raters who have never had a real job. Glad to be very old.
Spookily this morning 23 questions all dropped in and most are about the DIP or will answered if he makes an announcement. Parliament runs on a schedule and rules about what they can and can’t do, so spending announcements are usually made before the next FY (next month) and no major announcements are made when they go into pre local election “Purdah” (there is a PC, woke expression but I am too old to be bothered using it). That starts 26th March !
Oh and these days you can’t use an expression named after an 18th C , warmongering, imperialist Earl.
It’s either siht Panini, Kebab or Baguette (PC).😉
No government ever does, why on earth do you think that this should change now?
No !
They will answer but not truthfully.
The ship has very little offence capability without them…. And limited longer reaching AA if only 12 camms are fitted.
Its a large OPV not a fridget and not able to work in contested waters, little use as an escort or in a Russian/Chinese conflict.
I just wish they would fit them urgently as the only thing this ship can do with the current setup is be a target and defend against drones, its camm missile bank will be empty in the fast if attacked air or by anti ship missiles.
There is no reason for this it has a good sensors/radars except no sonnar.
They cannot fit them urgently as we have not ordered them.
Surely you know that we need a few disasters before we get urgent about our military and all pull together.
Well we have had two embarrassing disasters……
The drone hitting Akritori runway
Not being able to get a ship into theatre very quickly
I think that has raised the lack of defence investment quite a lot.
I think it actually hit the U2 Hanger not the runway.
The horrible question is, how many will it take?
One or two, and raise a question in the Commons to fall on deaf ears
Or will we finally see some sensible, long-overdue decisions!
The reason we ordered five was that they were meant to replace the five GP T23 one for one. The irony is that whilst being a much larger hull they will have a fraction of the firepower and capability of the ships they are meant to replace. Whilst not having a towed array sonar the GP Type 23 do have a very good hull mounted sinar plus a highly effective ship born torpedo weapon system, aside from its helicopter T31 will have no ASW capability at all .GP T23s have 32 CAAM as opposed to T31 having 12. GP T3 carried 8 Harpoon ASM now replaced with 8 NSM , T31 as currently configured has none. All in all the T31 when it enters service will be an embarrassingly under armed ship and when compared to the frigate it was meant to replace prob for the first time in history have a fraction of the firepower and all round capability of it’s predecessor that entered service some thirty years before. Don’t get me wrong I don’t blame the RN for this at all. Given the money they were given they selected the very best design in the competition, a large modern hull of proven design already in service with an allied navy for whom we have a lot of respect as in the Dane’s, more importantly it was built from the start with enhancement in mind. To be honest I take a lot of encouragement from the Ministers statement . I think it the first time we have had actual confirmation that MK41 will be fitted to all five hulls . To me T31 without MK41 is in danger of making us a laughing stock a very large warship without any offensive capability and with only 12 CAAM barely capable of defending itself . With MK41 we are talking a very different ship.
Probably won’t order them until MBDA confirms that that Aster can be fired from a Mk41 VLS – for which they’ve been given a one year contract to determine.
No, it has nothing to do with that. T31 cannot effectively use Aster and was not planned to, it’s better suited for CAMm and strike weapons.
It’s just another funding delay.
So good to know the First Sea Lord is on here, just wondering why you’re using a pseudonym?
Tell me what part of T31s design screams Aster launching to you?
Don’t bother Hugo. Never feed the troll.
Someone’s clearly butt-hurt 😂
Sorry about that.
That it’s getting the Mk41 as a result of the FADS programme.
FADS has absolutely nothing to do with Type 31, that’s a decade away from any tangible results.
Might I suggest you read Navy Lookout? The idea is Type 83s will be able to give targeting data and even launch authority on ships such as the Type 31.
Personally I can see this capability being added to the Type 45s given their longevity and to sort-out the kinks before its use in the Type 83.
Which is just in reality a reaffirmation of what was affirmed a few years back and how best to initiate it, cost no doubt being the prime consideration rather than the technical ability to do so.
Like every decision for the last two years, no procurement commitment will be made pending SDR (which already needs a refresh, e.g.. over reliance on USA and excessive NATO focus) and the DIP. The only positive is that the delay and world events may result in a slightly increased UK defence budget, more emphasis on hard naval power, and a recognition that emptying the Arabian Gulf of RN warships has proved stunningly ill timed. It would be amazing if after the fiasco of recent weeks the RN isn’t thrown a few small bones – although UK governments have for decades lacked basic common sense where defence is concerned.
It certainly is becoming laughable (if manic laughable) that the Defence Review is already beginning to look a tad outdated, let alone how we finance it. While they and longer term planning may be needed overall, in the less stable and rapidly changing circumstances we have found ourselves in in recent years, I suspect a more nimble more focused review process is needed that can within an overall longer term strategy adapt and procure what is clearly needed far quicker and to a greater degree prevent being embedded into yesterdays costly outdated requirements and strategies. Of course this would mean actually spending money more regularly rather than churning out endless project names for pr purposes but if it’s too much if a culture shock the Govt could even set up a committee for that.
Or stunningly well timed, depending on your perspective. Like if someone had, without being told, a fairly good handle of what was being planned, and decided being around to get caught up in it wasn’t too clever.
MOD will spend more money on scoping than fitting
The problem with fitting later is we yet again have ships out of service for extended periods in the manner of the Type 45. It would be nice if something was done properly at the first time of asking for a change!
Working closely with US Navy….could we be looking at purchasing second hand Mk41 from decommissioned Ticos etc?
Hell no, we don’t need decades old launchers
Mk 41 launchers are regularly removed from old ships, upgraded to a newer standard and re fitted to different ships in the usn. No reason why these could not be used for the type 31s. The ticos have 16 more cells than the burkes, and theyre retiring them quicker than the new ships can be built.
Yep the US will have a lot of MK41s and very few ship ( compared to what they had) to put them on
Commercial sensitivity my ass
So, tape-measure and talk.
Nothing to see here.
The MOD anthem.
We’re busy doin’ nothin’
Workin’ the whole day through
Tryin’ to find lots of things not to do
We’re busy goin’ nowhere
Isn’t it just a crime
We’d like to be unhappy, but
We never do have the time….
In other words they will piss around making out that something is happening but ultimately cancel the whole thing. Delay delay.
They just keep churning the same crap out its depressing now all this lot are good for are delaying spending money! Healey is a laughing stock that no one takes seriously bring nick Boris least he was funny!😉
We need these warships PDQ & more besides. Badenoch unbelievably hypocritical today condemning Labour for the lack of RN escort warships as it was her goverments 14 years of cuts that ran them down way too far for even minimal peacetime levels & cut funds delaying replacements causing the very situation we’re in now. Labour should’ve done more to refund & accelerate the delivery of long needed replacements, but this is overwhelmingly the deliberate result of Tory HMG funding failure.
Wargaming suggests with 12 or 16 camm the T31 is a decidedly weak link as an escort. Drone & AShM attacks rapidly deplete SAMs. When you have a tiny escort force(even if we had 19, which we won’t return to for many more years) you can’t afford to have such low SAM fit outs. MK41 VLS is an improvement in offensive armament, but we can’t afford to risk these vital warships or the task forces they are part of with 2nd rate/nominal SAM numbers.
Reassuring to hear about the wargaming. As a non expert I’m thinking that the Bofors x3 combination makes the T31 almost ‘drone proof’ in respect of Shahed type petrol engine, slow drones, without recourse to the 12 CAMM missiles, which would be kept for hopefully less numerous AShM threats. Is this too simplistic? Also, if T31 carries a Wildcat with Martlet, then it would also have a basic sort of layered defence when operating as a singleton patrol frigate. Without Mk41, perhaps not enough to qualify as a task group carrier escort, but with NSM I think it would be fair to label it a ‘credible’ frigate.
I’d say 30 sams is a minimum fit out. Yes the ciws is excellent but today there’s usually mass drones in the first wave, basic AShMs in the second, all depleting sams, then supersonic+ missiles in the main strike waves. Even the 57/40mm will be out of ammo eventully. I do by far prefer the 40mm bofors to the Phalanx for much longer range. The wargames alarmed me rather than reassured me, that how quickly SAMs wer exhausted. At least cheaper anti-drone drones & low spec SAMs are being developed. RN?HMG very slow to adopt new stuff though.
Hmmm … ummm … errr … pardon, but rumor has it that the Poles have already ordered the Miecznik Class derivative of T-31. Evidently equipped w/ 32 Mk41 VLS, CAMM MR and superior radar. Perhaps 1SL should secure an invitation to testify before Parliament, and in an appropriate Dickinsonian accent say, “Please sirs, I want some more” (better equipped T-31s). If Oliver could muster the courage to request more rations from the master, perhaps the MoD/RN could analogously request additional capabilities to protect Blighty. Really, between the Danes, the Indonesians, the Poles, you Brits, and possibly others, some economies of scale should be almost unavoidable. 🤔
We should just produce one T31 variant a year till 2040.. then suddenly we will have almost 30 escorts the number we should always have had.
please MOD, order another 5 Type 31 !
And then between 2035 and 2040 another 5.
Id be very happy with just another three making it a class of eight like the Type 26 but fitted from the outset with 32 Mk 41 and NSM. But sure I also agree a Batch 2 follow on order of another five would be ideal IMHO.
Agreed Pongolo!
So, FFBNW.
“it would be inappropriate to provide any further information whilst this commercially sensitive work is ongoing.”
The old commercially sensitive defence…the stand-to rebuttal to any inconvenient question…