Construction has begun on the 57th segment of the 8,000-tonne HMS Glasgow, the first of eight Type 26 Frigates to be built on the Clyde.
The Royal Navy say that it’s almost two years to the day that work on Glasgow began in the yard on the Clyde, with many of the completed sections pieced together in one of BAE’s assembly halls.
“Work began on this last section of ship as another £100m of contracts were placed with the vast supply chain needed to build the world’s most advanced submarine hunter. Firms in Glasgow, Hartlepool, Nottingham and Dorset will provide a range of services and assistance with the construction of the class, including painting, cabling and insulation – work all essential to the outfitting of the ships – and the eventual float off when a barge lowers the frigates in the Clyde.”
The eight ships will replace the eight dedicated anti-submarine Type 23 frigates which will reach the end of their active lives by the mid 2030s. In addition five Type 31 general purpose frigates are intended to replace the general-duty Type 23s currently in service and also coming towards the end of their long careers.
Never fails to surprise me when an 8000 ton ship is described as a frigate.
Yes. But what new nomenclature should we have?
The Type 26 frigate’s primary role is anti-submarine warfare, so these types of vessels have traditionally been frigates in the past
True, but frigates in the Napoleon wars didn’t have that role, obviously.
Errrrmmmmm………..now you’re being daft.
Why ?
With a small number of ships quite often acting alone the ships really need to be multi-role and perhaps we could then call them “a necessity”. I suspect these submarine destroyers were originally something else and were quickly adapted to meet the new threat.
Originally they were torpedo boat destroyers.
Destroyers where originally “Torpedo Boat Destroyers”
Torpedo boats where small steam powered boats armed with 1-2 torpedos that could meneace battleships, the TBD was meant to engage them well away from the Battleship and keep them from launching their torpedos. So they where slightly larger since they had to sail around the world with the fleet, rather than sit in a cove and wait for a few ships to sail past they could ambush, and had to be better armed than the TB since… well they had to win after they engaged them.
the Torpedo Boat’s small size and limited range meant that it was effectively replaced in it’s role by the Torpedo Boat Destroyer (aka from then on Destroyers) once someone realised you could use the Destroyer in a fleet engagement to harrass the enemy with it’s own torpedos. This all predates Submarines.
Once Submarines did start to appear the role of protecting the fleet from Submarines (effectively operating in the TB role, just underwater), naturally fell to the Destroyers, since they where relatively small, fast, and already had the role of protecting the fleet from asymetric threats (though several other methods where tried as well and it should be noted that HMS Dreadnoughts only kill was made by Ramming a German Submarine, the destroyer role “stuck”).
However this kind of created a rift in Destroyer designs between and during the wars, you ended up with big, gun-heavy, many torpedo tubed, destroyers (like the USN’s Fletchers and RN Tribals) that where geared to defending their fleet from enemy Destroyers and meanecing the enemy battle line, and then there where smaller, slower, but more agile destroyers that focused on ASW. Eventually the difference became so pronounced that the USN and RN found that they needed to differentiate between ASW focused destroyers and Surface Warfare Destroyers.
In RN service the terms Corvette and Frigate where used (Corvette almost exclusively for the emergency build Flower Class IIRC) for ASW focused destroyers, while in the US Navy the term “Destroyer Escort”
was used.
For Comparison:
RN River class Frigate:
1,300t displacement, 20 knots top speed, 2×4′ guns, 11 depth charge launchers of various types (150 charges).
RN Tribal Class Destroyer:
1,800t displacement, 36knots top speed, 8×4′ guns, 4×21′ torpedo tubes, 3 depth charge launchers (20 charges).
USN Evarts Class Destroyer Escort:
1,300t displacement, 19knots top speed, 3×3′ guns, 6 depth charge launchers of various types (160 charges)
USN Fletcher Class Destroyer:
2,000t displacement, 36.5 knots, 5×5′ guns, 10×21′ torpedo tubes, 8 depth charge launchers (28 charges carried)
and I realised I used ‘ instead of ” to denote inches just after I hit post…. that’ll teach me for posting in Imperial when my brain usually works in Metric. Of course all the gun and torpedo calibers are in inches not feet.
Succinct summary.
Interesting history. Thanks for posting.
I read here that even our B2s would have been destroyer sized in ww2.
Sound familiar? ?
“The Weapon-class destroyers was a class of destroyers built for the Royal Navy towards the end of World War II. They were the smaller counterpart to the Battle class (which followed them) and were the first new destroyer designs for the Royal Navy since the Second World War Emergency Programme. 20 ships were planned, of which only 13 were laid down and 7 were launched, but the cessation of hostilities resulted in only 4 being completed for service.”
I don’t think you are being fair. The war was over, hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded and millions were about to be demobbed. Thousands of planes and tanks and vehicles were on the point to be scrapped. Thousands of houses were bombed out.
The cuts then were due to the end of the war, after we had built up a vast fleet for a world war. So what ever we want to discuss about our future forces I don’t think it’s fair to compare with the end of ww2.
There are other confusions also to be fair. The capability of an aircraft, a tank, a ship are enhanced now, including their costs and complexities. We also have the inefficiencies of procuring these modern weapons.
My initial reply was tongue in cheek which I wrongly assumed people would understand!
The Battles were starting to be deployed in the Pacific in 1945. They preceded the Weapons which preceded the magnificent Darings. Even then people asked why the Darings weren’t called Cruisers with their 10 TTs and 6×4.5″ and bofors 40mm, A/S mortars etc. Fitted For and With.
Depending on what you class as a WW2 destroyer River B1’s are larger than many of them. Evarts Class DE = 1300t displacement, River B1= 1700t
Even a B1? Oh. Thanks. Not an area I have much knowledge on.
awwww my little history of the Destroyer seems to have been deleted 🙁
I do think we need to reclass our ships and roles!
If T31 is a (GP) Frigate,
Then surely the larger T26 should be a Destroyer ;P
The RN did reclass the type 26
It was originally known as the global combat ship before T26 I believe.
For me we should have the following classes
Global Combat Ship (T26 in all its flavours)
Global Mission Ship (T31 in all its variants)
Multi Mission Ship (replacement vessel for MCMV’s and rivers)
For mr the last category is critical, as it is essentially a corvette. The navy could order 25 of these to replace the hunts, sandowns, rivers and echos’ and standardise on a platform such as the visby class which is composite hull, or something like the c-sword 90 both would be game changers for the RN and give it a more potent force.
They don’t need long legs, they need to be armed to the teeth and around the 80-100m size. We need to start planning this now.
The future Surface fleet could then standardise around 4 type
C1 Global Combat Ship -13 all with enhanced radars to replace T45
C2 Global Mission Ship – 13
C3 Multi Mission Ship – 25
This is a slight increase in numbers of escorts but that is inline with the requirement, we align with the drumbeat requirement of the NSS and hav a 2 ships per year launch cycle for 25 years costing the MOD £1bn per year max out of the £17b equipment fund… it’s a portfolio smoothing exercise aligned to a clear strategy..
Too late now but it is exactly the ship classes you list – Hunt, Sandown, River (B1, Clyde & B2) and Echo – that I wish could be consolidated into a single class. Surely the streamlining of training, logistics and maintenance would have yielded significant savings from consolidating 6 separate classes (counting the Rivers as 3 classes) down to a single class?
To me the missed opportunity was the forced-on-us River B2 builds due to the T26 delay and not having time (I assume) to select much other than an off-the-shelf design. I do realise that it is only a paper concept design with cost, range, crew requirements and speed unknown (to me, I assume BMT has a better handle on most of that) but I am left with the nagging doubt as to whether building the OPVs on something based on BMT’s Venari 85 (V85) concept could have put us on a path to a suitable vessel.
The V85 is primarily designed for an MCM role using the mothership/drone model so looks very interesting as a candidate for Hunt/Sandown replacement but also looks flexible enough, at least on paper and from BMT claims, to cover OPV roles and due to signature reductions in the design BMT explicitly references survey work (so great for Echo replacement). With the rear working deck and a garage immediately next to and connected to that working deck (housed under the flight deck) BMT even talk about the ability to host a towed sonar which would be useful for UK waters (e.g. SSBN protection). It also has an integrated UAV hanger so with something like one or more Schiebel S-100 Camcopters embarked it would be very effective in constabulary roles (with a possible caveat re speed).
A modest stretch, essentially a Venari 90 making it about the same size as a River B2, would even have given enough space behind the main gun for a FFBNW receiver for a modular 24x or 36x CAMM soft-launch silo which, if the CAMM silos for T31 and T26 were also implemented via such a modular silo, could have given significant utilisation efficiency across all 3 classes of vessels (C1/C2/C3 in your parlance) since any C1 or C2 vessel in maintenance could have its CAMM silo (or two silos in the case of T26) lifted out and redeployed elsewhere.
The big snag would have been cost I suspect, just how much would something like V85 or V90 with that signature reduction cost if the design was worked through to manufacture? It is however one what-if that I wish there had been a bit more time and will to explore before we rushed into that very expensive build of the first 3 River B2s because it could have given a big uplift in capability across all of the classes being replaced and probably savings in ongoing annual costs.
Had we been able to go the Venari route it would also have avoided any additional MCM mother ship design cost and mitigated a massive amount of the risk on the MCM replacement program since by the time Hunt/Sandown replacement came due the vessels to be used as the mother ship would have already had at least the first, second, third, fourth and fifth of class in the water in OPV roles (since 5 River B2s are now built or being built) so an existing V85/V90 production line could simply have been run on to give extra vessels.
Oh well, if wishes were fishes ….
Actually Julian its not too late as we need to be planning now for the replacement f every ship. The navy should have a planning horizon of 25 years which literally means that when a new vessel is launched its replacement is scheduled into the build cycle.
I know you have a commercial background and this all makes sense to you but it doesn’t seem to for HMG and the MOD.
In NSS parlance this is grip and drumbeat. It also stabilises budgets and gives some confidence to industry who in turn must perform better.
Using this process the uk could build 75 major surface ships across it whole set of needs, 13-16 subs and 2.5 – 5k smaller vessels
What it really needs is some planning, commitment and ruthlessness in driving it all through.
This needs £4bn per year to make it happen, the majority of which goes on T26 and the subs.
Well, we’re definitely on the same page. I’d say that what it would also need where it to ever happen though is the “QEC defence”.
I’m not sure if I would be giving the Government of the time too much credit for deliberately structuring the contract in such a way that, when a subsequent Government was looking at cancelling the second carrier it turned out that contractually that would have been more expensive that completing the build, but as the stories go that might just have been what saved the second carrier.
Any UK government that were to commit to such a bold, joined up long term strategy can be pretty confident that it won’t be in power for long enough to see even the build run for a particular class through from first order placed to next evolution of the class so protections would need to be in place to both prevent meddling by subsequent incoming governments simply intent on stamping their own agenda and priorities onto national spending plans but at the same time still provide some sort of flexibility (probably not quite Force Majeure but sort of in that direction) to be able to change plans if the world really did change drastically in some way such that something became so inappropriate as to be a waste of money to continue. That’s a tricky balance (he says having negotiated many complex high-value contracts in my career).
Julian, its the stop/start of our defence policy that’s possibly the most frustrating. Its just a massive pissing competition between the two parties and as defence is generally seen as a bit of a sideline there seems to be a lack of accountability/scrutiny. I know the MOD have been taken to task over recent projects (Good ! About bloody time) but we still don’t seem to be able to move away from short termism.
While we wouldn’t need the numbers of the Arleigh Burkes, the idea of turning out the one platform that covers a number of bases (even if we did make sub specialised units) seems to make a lot of sense, especially for a smaller navy like ours. Sadly, I doubt anything will change, we’ll get a new government or PM at some point who will want to stamp THEIR authority on things, there will be new Brass who will want to stamp THEIR authority on things…. rinse and repeat unfortunately.
What drives this scatter brain approach is the election results, every 4-5 years someone new gets into number 10 and they have their own ideas. In my opinion, the M.O.D should be left alone and to follow their own path after cross party agreements.
Those in power should agree on a 10-20 year strategy and bloody well stick to it regardless of who wears the trousers. If we did that it should start settling things down and create a more stable department.
There’s a lot of sense in what you say but I can’t see any party going with it, especially just with defence, it might set alarm bells ringing about an unchecked military. They’re unlikely to do it with the NHS etc either as if all the departments were running themselves they’d be out of a job. I guess what we have is the downside of democracy.
https://www.bmt.org/news/2017/bmt-introduces-venari-85-a-revolutionary-mcm-concept-design/ Bit like this?
That’s the one Steve. There’s a lot more detail in this PDF document where about the first half of the document is a general discussion of mine warfare, USVs etc which is pretty interesting in itself …
http://dsei.bmt.org/media/6889878/BMT-VENARI-85-Technical-Brief.pdf
I am most definitely not an expert, I’m just someone who can see the attraction and benefits in terms of simplicity, flexibility and commonality of skills/training/maintenance procedures etc were it possible to consolidate multiple classes into one common class. I threw out my V85 observations for comment and challenge rather than as a “the MoD should have done this” statement that I felt able to defend. There are very possibly compelling reasons why, once such a design meets the military realities involved in performing MCM/OPV/survey roles with a single class, the whole idea falls apart due to impracticality or cost but maybe in this case that wouldn’t be so. As I say, that’s beyond my expertise but I’m sort of bracing myself for someone who is actually expert in the military aspects to come and point out such impracticalities which would be a shame because where practical streamlining and commonality can drive down ongoing running costs which must be a good thing in terms of the fleet size that can be supported with a given annual defence budget.
I understand exactly what you mean but the M.O.D and the Royal Navy like to do things their own way, even if it’s at odds with everyone else in NATO.
Pacman27 – If a Corvette is required surely the MOD could just jump on the EPC (European Patrol Corvette) programme and hope it bares fruit.
I do have preferences on how to do this as most of us do, but ultimately the point is how can we get into a situation where we build ships to fill a gap in the schedule and for those ships to be the wrong type at the wrong cost.
Ultimately I want the RN to get a grip on this and make sure this never happens again. I would be much happier if the 1FSL was given £10bn per year and told to get on with it. Same for the other services give them the budget and let them stand or fall by their decisions
When Nick Carter was given the top job that was a poor decision as he was the lead on FRES so where is the accountability. Should have been fired not promoted
Nick Carter is your archetype senior officer of recent years and having listened to him being questioned by the Defence Select Committee I came to the conclusion he was selected by the politicians as CDS because he is ideal for them. How he got to the top of the UK military establishment is nothing short of amazing and a joke.
The RN had by far the best candidate but then most UK politicians struggle to get passed the ‘Battleship’ level of understanding.
I’ve never liked him to be honest, he’s a typical “yes man”…….unlike people like Lord Dannant and Mike Jackson. Because Dannant was openly critical of certain things the crappy Labour Party and their yes men were doing, they didn’t like it.
They treated Dannant like crap and Jock Stirrup even blocked him from being CGS because of things he’d said……even though everything Dannant said was 100% correct.
IIRC they never where classified as “Global Combat Ships.”
GCS was just a name for the Project, until the names “Type 26” and “City Class” where chosen. They where always going to be classed as Frigates.
Not sure what a C3 “armed to the teeth” translates to but if it means something similar to a light frigates armaments and sensors, along with the additional headcount of specialised personnel to support that capability, then I’d just standardise on the C2/T31 frigate platform for probably not much higher purchase and operating cost. The long legs and operating economy of the T31, combined with the higher sea state stability of the larger platform and number of potential roles given its mission bays and storage, seems far more suited to UK aspirations for increased global deployment and forward positioning. The T31 platform provides much greater flexibility both in operation and ability to scale up and down the capabilities of a vessel. All that and more space for better crew quarters plus troop carrying.
For C1 capability and given our CSG requirements, I would stick with 14 hulls, i.e. 6x T45 replacements + 8x T26. If we are going down the path of every C1 being an AAW platform then that’s going to get pricey, since that will also mean ABM capability too in order to be relevant. Maybe that’s going to be table stakes in tomorrow’s world for this class of vessel.
You didn’t provide a rationale for the C2 and C3 numbers, so what is driving these large numbers, especially for C3? Future MCM doesn’t require dedicated platforms, the USV/UUV solutions can operate from a shore base, commercial vessels, T31 or RFA vessels such as the Bays. So why lock down so many RN hulls for primarily MCMV and OPV role.
Also long sea legs and maximum sea days per year are two things that the RN really needs from it’s OPV’s. Replacing the Rivers with something that is “armed to the teeth, and doesn’t have long sea legs” is the exact opposite of what is needed from that class of ship.
Similar for MCMV, why do you need it to be armed to the teeth if all it is is a tug to deploy USVs and UUVs off? Wouldn’t it be better to fold that role into some sort of mothership like a LPD/MCMV-mothership hybrid?
Personally my ideal view for “end state” of MCMV in the RN would be an ISO/TEUT containerised command center, and several unmaned vessels. This could then be loaded onto a Type 31’s mission bay, a LPD, or even onto a River B2’s wings to augment that ship.
Op Kipion in my view illustrates the challenge with our current fleet. We have nearly a third of our MCMV fleet on this one mission, plus a Bay and periodically a tanker. But currently we also have a T45 and T23 because the MCMV aren’t fast enough or adequately armed to provide safe deterrence as escorts in the current political climate and can’t carry a Wildcat.
In future we might have a Bay, or even a Wave, operate as a mothership for the MCM mission, with 2x T31 for the escort role or additional host MCM capability if conditions allow. There will be much more demand for the high end capability of T45 with CSG deployments than has historically been the case. So Gulf deployments aren’t a priority in that context IMO.
There is no T45 on Kipion.
There is however 2 x T23 at present along with 4 x MCMV and a Bay. i know this because i have been working on 4 of the 7 ships!
Thanks, I should have checked or just generically noted that deploying a T45 for this role has been relatively common in the past. The point as you noted is needing to have two escorts in addition to the MCMV and Bay.
Sounds to me like you have just justified the UK having a visiby class corvette, albeit with some slight modifications.
this would allow the escorts to move to other tasking.
Its fast, made of composite materials, well armed (or can be) and has a relatively small crew.
this design is capable of doing the MCM role and so much more.
Not trying to pick an argument Pacman but not sure how you arrived at my justifying a Visby class solution, its much too small and short ranged/short endurance for RN use beyond niche applications that would then limit broader RN flexibility. It also doesn’t have adequate air defence or hangar. That platform would also be likely to drive an increase in RFA logistics support to keep at sea if used beyond the local littoral domain it was designed for.
If you address most of those issues then you end up with something more like the new Finnish Pohjanmaa class corvette, a much larger vessel, at which point you’re also looking at close to the cost of a T31. The Finns call it a corvette but its basically a light frigate.
I feel I’m not getting my point across about why the T31 should be the lowest end RN escort platform and why corvettes shouldn’t be part of the fleet. Range is important to the RN, especially for Indian and Pacific ocean ops and ideally without extensive logistics support being necessary. To be able to do so at speed is also desirable. The T31 is likely to replicate the Iver Huitfeldt performance, which has a range of 9,300 NM at 18 kn. Pardon the pun but that’s a sea change in performance versus other platforms. Its approaching 4x the Visby’s range with 3 kn speed advantage. Add to that the T31’s size, including a ~2x beam vs Visby. This allows the launch and recovery of air, surface and sub-surface assets in higher sea states, which is why its such a suitable platform for helicopters and the mission module based UAV/USV/UUV solutions.
I guess if that doesn’t persuade you, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Small Vessels like the Visiby will be disadvantage in the future, with the coming of the age of laser warpons! They will Not have the capacity to meet the energy demands of high powered laser warpons and rail guns.
How would they defend themselves?
The USN have plans to produce a 600KW laser warpon.
Maybe so. There is always something else but unless a laser can take out 30 attack craft at once or in short order I do see the value in having a mixed fleet
Lasers need power and I am sure they nines will continue to increase the efficiency of that is the case then a visit could have a laser
You may well be right. But all I am doing ultimately looking for is a clear strategy for the surface fleet and funding aligned to this over 25years
With 1bn pa we could order 13 T26 and 25 T31 and get both drumbeat and great kit into our people’s hands
Can a Visby take out 30 attack craft all at once? A laser armed T45X fitted with Sampson would see them coming in good time, and launching longer range missiles first, and finishing off with both rail gun and laser.
Love to see this kind of show!
I read somewhere the RN has plans to fit a laser to the Type 26 frigate, above the hanger door, in the future.
I think the key to this discussion is that it isn’t a set of large numbers, the numbers are more or less the same as we have now, when taken across the fleet.
My rationale for a corvette sized asset is that we need a set of assets and capabilities that allow for progression of command, whilst also offering cost effective solutions to low end tasking activities. It is with this in mind as well as the ability to maintain a key strategic capability that is driving the volumes.
We must have the ability to absorb losses and our current fleet does not allow for this. I personally believe an augmented visby class would be ideal for this class (8 CAMM and 2 schneibel UAV’s) would be very useful.
Standardisation and clear direction is the key, I don’t think we have an issue with tasking as the defence select committee has On a number of occasions pointed out that the uk does not have enough assets to meet its commitments and this is going to worsen with the introduction of carrier Strike. By having more smaller craft we release the high end assets for high end activities.
Maybe I’m overlooking something but our fleet incl current plans seems to be 6x T45, 8x T26, 5x T31, 5x B2, 3x B1, 6x Hunt, 7x Sandown and 2x Echo, totaling 42x hulls. Your proposal of 13x C1 + 13x C2 + 25x C3 totals 51 hulls, which is significantly more hulls.
I agree that our ambitions seem to either need more capable ships (not necessarily more ships) or we need to rein in those ambitions. Assuming the former though, doesn’t in my view drive the number of hulls, or the mix that you’re proposing.
Say we replaced the 13x MCMV and 2x Echo with “just” 10x T31. Perhaps uparming some of the T31 with more CAMM cells plus some level of ASM and with the entire T31 fleet capable of MCM and/or ASW ops using mission modules.
Thus 6x T45, 8x T26, 15x T31, 5x B2, 3x B1, i.e. 37 hulls. If short term B1 fisheries protection requirement goes way then 34 hulls. That would provide a much more flexible and capable fleet, despite having fewer hulls, and might actually be supportable with the level of experienced manpower we are likely to have in the pipeline. We could ultimately decide to also replace River class with T31, but leaving aside the BAES subsidy, the B2s are looking to be very good vessels for their OPV role, with excellent utilisation, so not a compelling reason to replace with T31 IMV. If our ambitions require more hulls then add T31’s but we should define the need before just adding numbers.
Rather than more hulls, we might look to CEC, fleet ABM capability and additional Wildcats (perhaps as a txfr from AAC per my other posts) to leverage overall greater capability from this fleet.
If the world goes to hell, then those T31 platforms could be significantly upgraded in terms of sensor and weapons fit.
all fair comments and you can cut it differently if you wish to
13 of each class = 39 ships (a saving of 3 hulls)
or we could go for
8 T26 (upgraded to AAW to replace the T45) cost £1.2bn each
13 T31 (to replace the T23 like for like) cost £400m each
25 corvettes cost £200m each.
Total cost of each set up is as follows
3 x 13 = £23.4bn
8+13+25 = £18bn
Now this is an increase in hulls (which is good) but a decrease in overall cost, which is also good. (assumption being T45 replacements will cost same as T26 = £1.2bn as we should use the same hull to save on design costs).
If we get the corvette design right, then that leaves the 21 Escorts to do Carrier and High end work
8 fully loaded T26 (inc AAW) would be split into 2 carrier groups and be solely used for that purpose in my org.
The remainder would be tasked accordingly with the corvettes split between ASW and MCM cor capabilities (which by the time they are built will all be remote).
take your choice from the above, or any other combination – but really the RN should have done this already and have it all scheduled and have secured the funding which is relatively modest at around £1bn per year even with the 3 x 13 model.
I’ll spare you another long answer, but it seems in this proposal that you are giving up the T26 high end ASW capability for everything except CSG escort. Defaulting to T31 ASW for the rest, including North Atlantic doesn’t seem wise.
I don’t disagree with MoD in general using multi-year spending commitments and budgets to get away from in-year budget balancing driving up the cost and reducing numbers/capabilities. However, I am guessing that the MoD might be hoping/expecting to see a reduction in T26 costs for the last 5 hulls, based on the increase in WW numbers helping to reduce costs on many components.
I don’t have an issue with anything you are proposing GHF at least you are thinking about it.
ultimately I have always been a massive supporter of the absalon and hutfieldt classes. Ultimately the difference between us is that I believe in a class around the 80-100m length in part for cost and in part to allow captains to gain experience as they move up the ladder. You also believe in long range for all assets and I don’t (but I do for T31 and T26)
I suspect the RN could get something that meets both our requirements if they put their minds to it and if the MOD allocated £25bn over 25 years to the combat surface fleet that the RN could indeed get 50 very good vessels for this money.
Fair enough. For me, as you may have gathered, flexibility is a key attribute for our GP platforms, both operationally and from an ability to scale a platforms capabilities up or down and that drives the T31 preference.
don’t get me wrong I really do think the T31 is amazing, but its a big step up from a P2000 to a T31 if we have nothing in between, and that is one of my concerns.
A C-Sword 90 or Visby are not only good platforms they do offer that step up and can do an awful lot of tasking.
I do veer between this and a T31/T26 only fleet, but it is that jump in capability and the cost differential that keeps bringing me back to a corvette.
I understand the “graduation” through smaller classes position because I’ve had similar thoughts in the past. But we already accept the absence of that with our nuclear submarine platforms, as do the USN and French submarine fleets, since none of us operate SSKs. If it was simply a case of seamanship of smaller versus larger surface ships, then the commercial world seems to handle that, since displacements of even large escorts are relatively small versus commercial vessels, and with far greater maneuverability.
So I wonder if the maturing of personnel into larger more capable ships isn’t just a function of it being a more practical/possible proposition, rather than really a need. And in practice we actually do have a migration in the future RN surface fleet, as the T31 is the entry level with T45/T26 being the higher value and more capable assets.
On cost, do we know what Visby and especially C-Sword 90 or similar would cost today? The only source I’ve seen for Visby is the BBC 2004 article, which is hardly definitive, but at £100m ($184m) was hardly cheap at the time, if accurate. C-Sword 90 seems to be a fishing exercise by CMN to see if anyone bites. Doesn’t seem anyone has yet since 2014 launch.
The French and Italians seem to be going down the PESCO European Patrol Corvette project path, which presumably fits in below their PTI and PPA programs respectively. But if I look at the limited draft specs available on the Naval News site then I wonder if the EPC won’t end up being pretty similar in cost to T31.
Sorry another long winded post.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/05/spain-joins-pescos-european-patrol-corvette-epc-project/
I’ve heard the Norwegian-built Skjold class Corvette is at the top of the best 😛
To be honest, if there is as you say a gap in the types then maybe a corvette like above may help and boost numbers.
A future B1 type vessel without a heli pad could have a extra gen to meet the demand of one light laser gun.
A future replacement of the T45, will need to be even bigger then a Type 26 frigate, to accommodate the energy generation and storage requirements of future high powered lasers and ‘rail guns’. The USN is already testing high powered lasers, and has plans to deploy them in the future.
Paceman points were fair enough untill you raised yours. But how big then do they (T45X) become? They are already touching 10,000 tonnes. How big does an ‘escort’ become before it becomes a capital ship? Is there a logic in putting a AA missile ship and a laser weapon on the same platform … assuming laser means are effective. There still seems to be a point for upgrading T26 to an AA role however.
I would say there is logic of having the AA missiles on the same platform as laser guns, if you already have a high powered rader system a successor to Sampson on the vessel.
It looks like a T45X will be approaching 15K tonnes to accommodate 2 MT 30 type gas gens + 6 Diesel gens, or even maybr powered by Hydrogen.
Well!! 15,000 tonnes? If we have to go that big then why not go for broke and build a 20,000 tonnes flat top of some sort that is flexible and could carry various types of helicopters? Such a ship is likely to be dedicated to a carrier group so surely it makes sense to be able to carry helos… even if in extremist.
A flattop would be un-suitable as a destoryer armed with lasers, the helo ops will most likely get in the way. And less space for missiles as well, I think.
You mean rerun the Invincible project?
Been there done that too many compromises.
Also we do have two state of the art flat tops.
What we need are 2 x Ocean specialist replacements…..which I suspect will eventually be merged with the Albion replacements……
Why bigger?
The current T45 is not just having 2 new DG sets to replace the current ones but having a third DG set put into a machinery space that was never designed to have one. They can do that because they built them with lots of space. That Machinery space is big and pretty much empty. You could have put a squash court in it!
Power generation is not the issue. Cooling systems for lasers are the issue ( they need a shed load of cooling) along with power storage be that flywheel or capacitor banks.
Anyway, dont get hung up on lasers. As I have said before the US has shown great pictures of slow flying drones a relativly short ranges being shot down at White Sands. However you tend to not find ships operating at an altitude of 3000 + ft in dry clear desert air.
For a respectable laser to engage targets that are currently engaged by missile systems (70= miles range) the technology doesn’t exist in a usable form.
Thanks for that info GB!
Could a T45 take another MT 30 Gas turbine? To give it another 35MW?
It look like in Hynes manual of T45, it was stuffed full!
If laser AAW systems develop to the point when they are viable (and hopefully in many aspects superior) all-weather alternatives to missiles at non-trivial ranges, or even just viable alternatives to CIWS but that must be at sufficient range for a missile disabled by the laser to not still have sufficient momentum to hit the ship carrying enough kinetic energy to do considerable damage, then I definitely agree that the power generation requirements and energy storage requirements will throw the whole shape and size of AAW vessels up in the air and may well end up with whatever generation of AAW ends up fielding such laser-based systems looking more like a Tide than a T45.
That first word of my post however – “if” – is a pretty big if. I suppose that as a total techno-nerd and fan of all things science I should be optimistic and say “when” rather than “if” but just how far off that “when” will be is anyone’s guess. It wouldn’t surprise me if at least one more generation of more conventional missile-based T45 successors ends up being the state of the art before any big paradigm shift to genuinely usable energy-based weapons happens but that’s just a guess.
I suspect that if we ever get to usable directed-energy (DE) weapons it will be energy storage that will be the bigger space issue since high capacity will be essential in allowing any sort of reasonable burst rate of fire over a reasonable number of shots.
On the power generation in the timescales I suspect we are talking about there might also be some interesting small modular fission reactor designs available in that time frame with pretty interesting/useful safety characteristics (e.g. no pressurised systems with possible venting of radiactive gas & self-limiting reactions to make meltdown impossible) that might help with the power generation side of the equation and improve recharge rates. For the technology and science enthusiasts here (I suspect you know who you are!) one that I think could be particularly interesting s Moltex Energy Ltd’s Stable Salt Reactor (SSR). Info here – https://www.moltexenergy.com/ . The best quick intro is to view the two videos at the bottom of that home page. As the icing on the cake (for us Brits) re Moltex is that it’s a UK company with offices in UK & Canada. Moltex is on my list of exciting stuff (along with Skylon and Oneweb to name 2 others) that I wish the UK government would fund more aggressively since if the SSR technology works out it could be another game changer. Moltex talks about the smallest configuration being able to “fit on the back of a truck” although admittedly they don’t specify the size of the truck.
I’ve tried twice now to post two youtube links, but each time it disappears so presume it is the spam filter.
There are two short, but informative videos from Curious Driod that explain both Directed Energy Weapons and Rail Guns. It explains some of the physics that make these technologies a long way off and in some case probably not the solution for the future.
Rather than post the links again simply search: Will Directed Energy Weapons be the Future?
And
Electromagnetic Railguns – The U.S Military’s future Superguns – 200 mile range Mach 7 projectiles
Hi The Big Man…
“There are two … videos”
That might be your problem. I’ve found that if I put more than one link (to anything, not just to videos) in a comment it gets flagged for moderation and that can take a while such that sometimes I don’t even realise it has been approved and posted a day or two later. Now if I want to put in more than 1 link I do one in my main comment then immediately reply to my own comment with the second link.
Thanks for the pointer re the videos.
No, because in modern comenclature ‘Destroyer’ = AAW. As indicated here, size is no longer the arbiter. For instance, 18-19th Cen Frigates were essentially Cruisers, a complete turnaround to what we came to regard as such. Furthermore, previous naval generations would probably think we build nothing but Cruisers as major combatants nowadays. So, as long as the function is understood, probably best to go with the current flow.
Regards
Does it really matter? Call it a tug boat for all I care, what’s important is it’s role and capabilities.
You have a point – many European countries call their destroyer sized ships frigates. When in reality they are destroyers. I think a lot of this is political as they avoid using the ‘D’ word with their politicians and treasuries. Rather like us calling the Invincible class a ‘through-deck cruiser’.
We should call T26 Destroyers and T31 Frigates. The T26 is closer to a USN destroyer then a T23 given the big gun, mk41 vls.
A T26 frigate is still short of a USN destoryer with 96 Mk. 41 vls!
Yes it has a bigger gun, at least!
No John, the Royal Navy like to do things their own way. Look at the Type 45 as an example, it is huge for a Destroyer and is only focused on one thing really, air defence. Most other Navies have a destroyer that can multitask and are smaller than the Type 45, the US Navy Arleigh Burke as an example.
Why do the Royal Navy do this? I have absolutely no idea mate. They purposely design warships for one main role, it is at odds with almost everyone else but they do it regardless.
i think they were labelled a frigate to enable their construction, if they had been called destroyers they would never have been approved since we already have 6 destroyers, a bit of high level hoodwinking for the pen pushers
In ‘old money’ its a cruiser. Nothing wrong with that but maybe it says something about the warships ‘return on investment’. I think we will be looking at ‘loyal wingmen’ en masse screening the escorts.
What would the ‘loyal wingmen’ use as warpons?
In the same context of laser armed warships?
Good point, they will at least have some additional range to carry out a strike capability from carriers in future.
First sight of buddy store on MQ-25A unmanned refueller
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/first-sight-of-buddy-store-on-mq-25a-unmanned-refueller
It is a frigate, what else is it….a cruiser, destroyer?
The Royal Navy have been using Frigates in the ASW role for decades and as they’ve specifically designed the 26 as an upgrade on the ASW Type 23, it is……Ta Da!! ….FRIGATE.
Yes it is a larger than normal design, so it can multitask, but it is an exceptionally capable ASW frigate.
While frigates vary greatly in terms of size, many of the top frigates such as Russia’s Admiral Gorshkov class and Germany’s Sachsen class are smaller than destroyers, measuring in at around 130m-150m in length. They are roughly the same width as destroyer vessels.
“The key distinction between frigates and destroyers is the size and, by extension, function,” says Dr Sidharth Kaushal, a research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.
“By virtue of being larger, destroyers can more easily carry and generate the power for more powerful high-resolution radar and a larger number of vertical launch cells. They can thus provide theatre wide air and missile defence for forces such as a carrier battle group and typically serve this function.
This is true, but originally a “destroyer” was a torpedo boat destroyer… a quite small ship. I’ve been on HMS Cavalier, a 1940s destroyer, which is a bit over 2000t. It looked quite big to be at the time.
The size of these modern ships are as large as cruisers. The modern role of these ships are anti aircraft detection and defence, anti submarine search and destroy and general purpose ‘cruising’.
There also seem to be a plethora of names and acronyms for ‘amphibious’ flat tops. I suggest we bring back the “rating” system.
Agreed. We should not name the type by 70 year-old standards. An 8000 ton is a by-damn cruiser.
I don’t care what we call them. A real commitment would be take the number of 31’s up to at least eight and preferably ten. Job creation retention alone would make it worthwhile.
Me neither. What I care about is that just one Russian ‘frigate’ has enough bang on it to sink half our fleet. Reliability issues aside, they have a knack for squeezing weapons into every available space.
Then there’s China who have more long range anti ship missiles than we have credible counter missile defences.
What do these new ships have? A long gun that isn’t really effective for anything, a handful of medium range defence missiles and a will they won’t they 40 year old anti ship missile. Oh, and some 7.62 belt fed. Sweet.
Oh well at least they look prettier than the ship’s they will replace. Apparently that’s the priority across the pond these days.
Disagree with that Reaper , going by I what think Gunbuster said is that the Russian radar and weapon systems censors are inferior to NATO ships hence the fact Russian navy ships are jammed pack with weapons for a saturation attack.
There are No plans to fit the 40 year old Harpoon on the Type 26 frigate.
They will be fitted with Mk 41 VLS and Sea Ceptor.
It has not be decided what to arm the Mk 41 with yet.
The Russians stuff their warships with weapons knowing not all will reach their targets!
And that most of them don’t and therefore won’t work.
And that those that do work are so old hat that they are easy meat for ECM.
The Russian do a whole different style of FFBNW…….
And in the Falklands war we had just the same issues: Temperamental mark 8 4.5″guns, obsolete sea cats, salt encrusted jammed sea dart doors, no CIWS guns which were standard on Soviet ships, too few light AA guns(rectified after the war & then forgotten again-the 30mm we now use have barely any AA capability unless enemy aircraft hover nice & still). Plenty of our super duper, high tech kit failed at times or throughout. Even sea wolf was countered by weaving attackers. I doubt modern Russian or Chinese systems are that far behind ours & some probably exceed them. We have zero supersonic/hypersonic AShMs yet they do.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully support our boys but we mustn’t underestimate our enemies, become complacent or allow our ships to be disarmed of major capabilities or fitted with obsolete or ineffective kit. That’s the way to lose ships & crew. We also need more ships. If we can’t cover our peacetime commitments, disaster awaits in a war as we’ve nothing to counter attrition & a tiny shipbuilding base left to build replacements.
I did not serve during Falklands, but did have access to files on missile performance beforehand (just about safe to mention now, I reckon). The outcome for the escorts at that time did not come as a total surprise, regrettably; but,conversely, I had confidence in the Carriers.
Still have, you may have noted.
Regards
The Falklands was a huge lessons learnt for the RN. All of the above points where rectified shortly thereafter. As I have said before I was on a T22 a few months after the end of the conflict testing the software mods that stopped weaving targets ámongst other things breaking lock …we also shot down an exocet on the same trial along with a large number of low level height keeper rushton targets simulating missile targets and the ubiquitous 4.5 inch shells fired at us.
30 mm guns are , to put it bluntly arse at AA. 4.5 Guns are arse at AA. Thats why the capability is not used. CIWS is fine and we now have plenty of those about with more coming in on T26.
Hypersonic weapons? Dont believe the media hype. Its a systems game. You need the targeting information and the capability to move the data around between targeter’s and shooters. If using aircraft you need tanker support and mid course guidance and all the Command and Control to manage that.
NATO navies have been targeted by near (Mach + 4.5) hypersonic weapons since the 1960s. The weapons that are much trumpeted as game changers have serious technical issues to overcome which funnily enough haven’t been mentioned. Things like the method of homing, radome or optical window material erosion, control surface actuation at Mach +5 speeds and its effects on missile course control, friction and heating effects on the missile and its internals.
I agree with hypersonic ASMs and you can also add anti-ship ballistic missiles. You need all your ducks to line up in a row to ensure the missile hits the target.
Take Iran for instance they have stated that they have a ASBM capability! How will they target a CSG in the Arabian Sea? They have recently put a satellite up in to LEO which is equivalent in size to a Cubesat. If it has any surveillance capabilities, its resolution will be very poor, but its a start. They have had a series of launch failures prior to this one and are clearly learning from their mistakes. However, even with a decent surveillance satellite in a geosynchronous orbit fixed above Iran. There are measures you can take to neutralise its capabilities, laser dazzling its optics being one of them. They would then have to rely on other means of locating the CSG by aircraft or shipping. If we are talking a QE based CSG, then they will have the Merlin fitted with Crowsnest aloft 24/7. Even with the limited range compared to E2D. The Merlin will spot any of Iran’s aircraft trying to approach, with the E2D you can treble the detection range. The Searchwater is renowned at finding small stealthy objects, so even a small “innocent looking” dhow will easily be spotted. So even if they did something pre-emptively gleaned from a dhow geo-locating the CSG, it would be a serious mistake on their part. If we are now talking a US CSG, then gloves would come off big time.
GB, I agree with your threat assessment of hypersonic weapons today, including maneuvering ballistic missiles; specifically the lack of adequate support systems to locate and target with low latency. The issue is what that threat looks like from perhaps 2030 onwards, when its possible that Russia and/or China may have the kill chain necessary; especially the latter which is able to afford to throw resources and money at the problem. Our defensive sensors, weapons and doctrine will have to address that threat.
Russia and China would only need to implement low cost rocket launch capability (desirable but not necessary) in order to launch a large network of LEO surveillance and communications satellites (non optional IMO) to provide location, targeting and low latency comms and make the threat credible.
That said, it still doesn’t make it easy to successfully hit a target. Even conventional ballistic missiles against fixed land targets still have a CEP issue and a static carrier is a small and narrow target to a missile coming in close to vertical at hypersonic speeds, let alone a moving carrier. But we shouldn’t be complacent as a near miss with the associated energy levels is likely to be significantly damaging. It may only take one hit or near miss for a carrier mission kill if not ship kill.
A LEO satellite network is non-optional IMO because conventional air, surface and sub-surface targeting is likely to be held at distance and thus ineffective. Conventional higher orbit satellites in low numbers are too easily targeted. Russia has already shadowed a KH-11 US spy satellite with its own satellite, I’d be surprised if the US couldn’t do likewise. There are a number of ways to disable a satellite without creating space debris, the latter being something all major powers are likely to want to avoid in their own self interest. Harder to do non-destructively to a network of 100’s or 1000’s of LEO satellites which are also much easier to quickly replace.
2 F35s could sink your frigate and they would not see them coming. Its airpower what we need and its appropriate missiles
Think you will find they would see them coming, just may not be able to target them.
It will also depend on the tactics the F35s are using? For example, I won’t expect a F35 to overfly a ship and drop a LGB Paveway let alone a dumb bomb on an operational warship. There will be a point where any radar will see the F35, but for a ship’s X band tracking radar, it will be significantly well within visual range. By which time the F35 will have already fired its weapons and bugged out.
Added to which one “clean” F35 with no external armaments can do all the sensing/targeting at higher altitude while a second F35 below the ship’s radar horizon can launch ASM, either from weapons bay or under wing stations.
Reliability issues aside….?
Think where they have to transit from – some of the worst weather conditions on the planet.
No wonder they want Tartus! Then there’s just the Med gauntlet to run…..
The all singing all dancing new frigate has a range of around 4500miles…thats HALF the range of a T23. The Russian navy is seriously lacking in suitable tanker and stores ship support. If you think the RFA is in a bad way look at Russia.
That said they do pack a lot of systems on ships. The new corvette/patrol craft have VLS systems for Cruise missiles. In effect these vessels have become mobile strategic systems capable of using Russia’s river systems to stay mobile and out of harms way.
I’m with you Geoffrey, no point getting bogged down in nomenclature, especially over the size of them. There has been a steady increase in size of vessels fulfilling a task over the years as we try and cram more stuff into them, it is what it is.
I agree on that as according to the RUSI papers… Dated November 2019, Requirements for the UK’s Amphibious Forces in the Future Operating Environment
It states
“Given that the LSG would likely deploy to regions where the Royal Navy retains a sustained presence, it may be assumed that a Type 23 or Type 31E frigate would already be on station and would therefore not excite much comment by appearing near the area of operations.
However, by attaching the frigate to the LSG it would become possible to provide the force with some protection against attack by surface combatants or air attack.
It also provides options for helicopter extraction or for emergency naval gunfire support in the event that reconnaissance teams run into unanticipated enemies.”
Therefore surely 5 T31 is not enough to fully contribute to all ongoing operations\task plus separate LSG, ASG or the JSG (POW, QE Carrier)
A stockpile of 250 equates to $750,000,000 at 3M £586,326,825. Cost of 1x Type 26, £1Billion.
Fitted to Typhoon, P-8 and Types 26 and 31, we could have a very useful deterrent!
I’m sure the US would give us a good deal?
AGM-158C LRASM
“In service 2018 to present[1]
Used by United States Navy
United States Air Force
Royal Australian Air Force
Production history
Designer DARPA
Manufacturer Lockheed Martin
Unit cost US$3,960,000[2] (FY 2021) $3 million[3]
Specifications
Mass 2,500 lb (1,100 kg) (air-launch)[4]
4,400 lb (2,000 kg) (w/ booster)[5]
Warhead 1,000 lb (450 kg) blast-fragmentation penetrator[6]
Maximum speed High-subsonic
Launch platform
F/A-18E/F Super HornetB-1B Lancer
Mark 41 Vertical Launching System
F-35 Lightning II
Boeing P-8 Poseidon”
Mk41 VLS is around $51-54 million per ship set (twelve modules). For hardware alone, the cost drops to $33-36 million per ship set.
Type 23’s in the offing for an AShM upgrade by 2023?
“The latest version of the Saab RBS15 Mk 4 ‘Gungnir’ (Odin’s Spear) looks closest to hitting the RN’s ‘sweet spot’ for price, size and punch.
Given that the I-SSGW must be fitted to Type 23 frigates (without massive modifications) and have terrain-following land attack capability, the possible candidates are being narrowed down to three likely options. All three of these potential candidates are subsonic, optimised for use in cluttered littoral environments, can follow complex attack profiles, use stealthy composite materials and are resistant to electronic countermeasures.”
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-emerge-about-plan-to-replace-royal-navy-harpoon-anti-ship-missile/
Of the three, I still favour the Kongsberg NSM/JSM. Some of the reasons are that it will have the software integration to fit internally on the F35A and C, but also externally on the Bs. Japan, Australia and I believe Norway are stumping up the integration costs. The integration software is rolled out to the whole F35 community. Therefore, for our F35Bs the main integration hurdle will already be done, so our costs should be much lower with just the weapon’s purchase, training and maintenance.
The second reason is the issue concerning the rules of engagement (ROE), which currently states that a threat has to be positively identified before being fired upon. Both Harpoon and the RBS-15 are really full-on war weapons, where you know there’s no other neutral shipping around. Both systems use a relatively basic radar as their primary sensor. These are are relatively easy to detect and are vulnerable to spoofing or jamming. The Gungir has been designed by Saab to operate in the littorals and can have a data-link as an optional extra. It will need to have a two way data-link for our ROE, so the operator can see what the missile sees and if necessary retarget it. However, the missile’s radar does not have a synthetic aperture capability, so all the operator will see is a fuzzy representation of the target. So unless they have a means of cleaning up the picture, it will be really hard to tell what the missile is actually targeting. The Harpoon will be no different.
The NSM/JSM uses a passive imaging infra-red (IIR) as its primary means of detecting targets. The IIR will give a near picture quality of a target that is compared with a loaded library of images. It comes with a two way data-link so the operator can clearly see what the missile is targeting. The IIR sensor also makes it less vulnerable to countermeasures or being detected due to its emissions. The only real downside to the missile is the smaller warhead size compared to the other two. Both the Harpoon and Gungir have a warheads containing over 200Kg of explosive, whilst the NSM is only 125Kg. However, it can target specific parts of a ship, to make it more effective.
I think the NSM would be a good stop-gap, until we get the mooted Perseus system (if ever), that can be used by both our F35s and ships.
Cost of fitted for but not with equal 0 and i suspect that will be the purchase.
I fear as details of the new missiles are not beginning to come out, indicates that there is no plan.
I read this,
RBS 15 Gungnir missile guidance and navigation
The J-band active radar target seeker on-board the Gungnir is integrated with a highly accurate inertial navigation system (INS). The state-of-the-art target seeker offers all-weather operational capability. It provides a greater degree of precision while discriminating targets and engaging them even in the most adverse conditions.
“A new data link installed in the missile system enables the operators to retarget the missile during the flight. The missile is also equipped with an anti-jam global positioning system (GPS) and other advanced autonomous technologies that enhance its survivability.”
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rbs-15-gungnir-next-generation-anti-ship-missile/
“The surface launch version of RBS15 Gungnir uses the all-new RBS15 Mk4 Surface missile. This provides greater range, enhanced defence penetration and electronic protection as well as a more advanced target seeker, allowing it to engage any target, in all conditions.
The RBS15 Mk4 Surface missile is used in both the sea system and the land system of RBS15 Gungnir. It is designed to provide commonality through easy integration on both land- and sea-based platforms of almost any size. The system is fully backwards compatible, so an investment in Mk3 today opens a smooth path to transition into Gungnir tomorrow.”
https://saabgroup.com/media/news-press/news/2018-10/saab-unveils-surface-launch-rbs15-gungnir-at-euronaval/
The issue is still the “basic” radar it uses as a primary seeker. If you look at the LRASM it uses two sensors to home in on the target. It uses passive imaging infra-red (IIR) as its primary sensor, but is backed up with a passive radar surveillance sensor. It also has a two way data-link so the operator can see what the missile sees. The IIR sensor will look at the image and compare it with a stored library image (same as NSM). The RF homer can lock -on to either a ship’s radar or its radio broadcasts. The missile can use either or a combination of both sensors to lock on to the target. The beauty of this missile is that it operates entirely passively, so the first time you ‘ll see it, is if the radar sees it, or you have a very keen lookout. It’s possible a ships IR/thermal camera may spot it, but that is a big “if”!
The Gungir uses a J (Ku) band (10 to 20GHz) pulse doppler mechanically steered radar. The wavelength is between 3 and 1.5cm. For radars which operate at these wavelengths, their effective isotropic radiated power EIRP) is very low, i.e. there range vs output power is inversely proportionally linked to its transmitter frequency. Coupled with the need to package the radar in Gungir’s 50 cm diameter body along with the engine, fuel, warhead and flight control systems. There isn’t a lot of space for amplifier cooling. Without serious amplification the range is going to be low, probably between 10 and 20km. The missile will therefore need constant updates on the targets location via the data-link, so if launched from an aircraft, means it has to hang around in range for not only the data-link but also so the aircraft can see the ship. Once the missile gets within range it will go active. As soon as it does, the ship’s electronic surveillance systems will detect the missile’s radar.
The radar, as I’ve mentioned is pretty basic, it does not have a synthetic aperture (SAR) mode. So it has to rely on the primary pulse return signature to determine what and where the target is. Unlike against an aircraft, where you can use the doppler shift of its rotating jet engine to identify the aircraft. The radar will be getting a mixture of large and small returns from the sweep over the ship’s structure. If the radar had a SAR mode it could use this to build up a picture of the target. The missile hasn’t the space for the processing or memory to make this possible. So it must rely on the the signal processing of the sweep to identify the target. This is one of the reasons why missiles such as Exocet are susceptible to jamming, but more significantly passive countermeasures such as chaff or inflatable decoys.
One of the counter-countermeasures that Saab say Gungir has, is probably a form of moving target indication (MTI). The missile’s radar will measure the relative velocity of the targets (reflections) it sees. If there’s one that is very large but moving very slowly, yet can see another that has just made a sharp turn and is accelerating at 20+knots. It can be programmed to ignore the large target and go for the faster one. This is nothing new and can easily be countered. For example Typhoon has just the device, a towed RF decoy. It reels out a RF repeater on the end of 200m worth of cable. So the active decoy is moving in the same direction and at the same relative speed as the Typhoon. You could do the same with a ship, reel out an inflatable decoy and tow it behind the ship.
In short, you get what you pay for hence the reason for potentially opting for the RBS15 Gungnir Mk4 as the article on STRN tends to imply!
As I’ve already suggested above, a stockpile of LRASM and accompanying MK41 VLS would give us a very useful deterrent/strike capability.
For ASMs available today, I’d place the LRASM at the top of the shopping list, followed by NSM, before I had to choose a radar guided version. Mainly because the LRASM and NSM observe the current ROE and have a stealthy approach to the target, thereby having the greater chance of getting past a ship’s defences.
Can NSM, or any of the other contenders for that matter, be launched vertically from a Mk41? There seems to be plenty of space on a T31 for 2 x quad canister launchers but I’m not so sure about T26 – unless we get to the point where T26 goes into service still with the MoD having procured nothing to go into the Mk41 silos in which case maybe we could just put some deck plating over the 24 x Mk41 tubes and mount canister launchers there. (That last bit was a joke – or at least I hope it turns out to be!)
Quad (4) NSMs at 35cm diameter each, will Not fit in a Mk. 41 at 53.3cm diameter.
2 NSM standing side by side will take up at least 70cm!
I wasn’t suggesting quad-packing but I can see why, when I was talking about the standard deck-mounted 45-degree canister launchers (which are quad), it might have been confusing and you thought I was asking about a VLS quad pack whereas I was actually asking whether NSM was mk41 certified at all e.g. as a 1-per Mk41 tube munition because if it’s not then I don’t see how a T26 could use them apart from my tongue-in-cheek suggestion of plating over the top of the Mk41 silo and bolting down canister launchers there.
Might be able to squeeze in canister launch NSM above the T26 mission bay, aft the second silo of CAMM missiles. But I suspect the intent would be to wait and qualify Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) for the MK41, not NSM. I can’t see anyone else qual’ing NSM for MK41 myself.
Yes Julian, I did misunderstood you! Yes the Harpoon launchers are in quads. I would thought NSM would be certified for Mk 41. The the Mk41 silos on Type 26 are very close to the Sea Ceptor silos, so I very much doubt the RN will plate them over! there is an area at the rear of ship, for box launchers forward of the hanger near rear twin masks.
The Destroyer/frigate thing differs from country to country.
In the UK its a job description so Frigates= ASW and GP work. Destroyers = AAW.
Dit on….One of the Batch 3 T22s which was a hugely up armed version of the original T22 B1 and B2, once sailed into Guzz having rolled down a canvas cover with a large C painted on it to cover up the F in front of the pennant number. Much fun and guffawing was had by all in the dockyard except the CO who was invited for a cup of coffee with a group of Admirals whilst wearing full No1 Uniform with medals and his sword.
Suffice to say the RN has Frigates and Destroyers…No cruisers.
It is an optics thing as well.
Cruisers say big and expensive – which then leads to “let’s make them smaller and cheaper”.
Frigates are “smaller“ vessels – remember T23, according to the idiot Sir John Knott, economy frigate?
Bigger is
-easier to maintain, just move around in to fix things in a hurry.
-more flexible in future rearming & up arming.
-more stable and therefore taller mast & a higher radar horizon.
-more survivable as it has more compartments.
-better living conditions on board….
Hi Supportive Bloke,
I would suggest that Cheaper to maintain as well. That was something that was finally learnt with the Astute class SSN’s and appears to have migrated to the surface fleet with the T45 and T26 classes.
Steel is cheap, space is free, so even if you don’t immediately arm them to the teeth you get lots of war potential and sheaper running costs. Not mention the improved living standards on board certainly helps with crew fatigue and might contribute to keeping some in the service longer…
Cheers CR
While I completely understand the discipline issue, the wider UK naval community, from sailors to naval historians, do seem to have an actual hatred of cruisers and battleships. Other than the occasional field-day by aircraft in WW2 (often exaggerated) leaving a historical and institutional trauma, I can’t understand why. I’ve read widely on this issue and it confuses me a bit.
I apologies, I am off topic, but I have just read in “Defence News”, that UK has signed a $630 million deal for a secure communication satellite Skynet6. More even to that, this is part of a $7.5 billion project. I do not recall this being mentioned on tv or newspaper news… yet it is an enormous project which is to replace/update Skynet5. They receive little comment.
My other point is that these satellites are vital and we forget about them, but the MoD are spending large sums on them and it involves ground stations in places like Australia.
My other thought is, do say France have something similar? I seem to remember seeing a French ship full of radar scanning arrays in Madeira once.
There’s a recent article on this site about the Skynet 6A announcement – https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-awards-skynet-6a-military-comms-satellite-contract/
I agree it’s important but the news that seems to have 100% slipped under the radar here, apart from a very few commentators including me mentioning it in off-topic comments on other articles, is the Oneweb investment. That has the potential to be one of the most significant developments in UK military comms in at least the last 50 years or so. It could all go horribly wrong of course but if it yields the results that I hope it will then it could result in the UK being the only country in the world(*) with a sovereign controlled global high bandwidth low latency comms network (Skynet is not low latency). That gives all sorts of extra military options using encrypted data channels and for unencrypted traffic gives the UK a pretty unique soft-power tool to provide access to remote areas in developing countries (and fill in some of our own UK rural not-spots). And, probably the most risky, it just might give us a path to a sovereign GPS capability with better jamming resistance and superior ground signal strength vs either the US, Russian or the EU systems. Again, that would make us unique in the world in having a sovereign LEO GPS system but getting sufficient accuracy is my big concern there.
(*) The USA has signed up as a Starlink customer but since SpaceX is a private company the USA doesn’t have full control (although I am sure it would try and probably succeed in asserting control were something it didn’t like to happen) but the UK does have a golden Oneweb share whereby we can veto and changes in ownership for the 55% we don’t control and also have right of approval for any customers wanting to become customers of the network so could for instance reserve military use for ourselves.
Hi Julian,
The golden share is interesting and supports what you suggest re the military communications etc. I would suggest that they would probably need to up their security systems if the UK was to use the network for critical secure communications (even if the signals were encoded prior to transmission).
I have also seen a number of reports quoting experts in the field suggesting that the network is too low to be effective using existing GPS architectures / systems so is a high risk option in this regard.
Cheers CR
This is interesting as post COVID/Brexit I do think we need a sovereign wealth fund to invest in and take benefit from strategic investments. We should be looking into quantum computing and other areas that derive strategic benefits.
So from my perspective a very good investment
Yes, yes, yes! i agree we desperately need a Sovereign Wealth fund. We also need an industrial strategy that recognizes the need to keep spend within the UK economy and nurture strategic tech, infrastructure, and resources. Some much defence expenditure is on stuff that fritters money away to overseas. So many of our companies are now foreign ownned. Should be a limit on ownership and take-overs. e,g, should never have sold ARM etc.
Yes ARM should of have stayed in British hands, if so will could of denied the Chinese the use of Android, and produce our own Android phones.
D. Cameron was very short sighted indeed!
Also, if the UK had control over ARM, start manufacture ARM microprocessors and rise the security strandeds to make hecking harder to do.
I think you may misunderstand ARM’s business. ARM doesn’t make or have others make processors on its behalf that it then sells. It designs processor building blocks and then licenses the IP to others to use in their own designs. Also a lot more to building the SOC for a cell phone than just the processor, Qualcomm controls a lot of that other IP.
Hi GHF – You beat me to the draw on the ARM business model clarification.
In fact ARM offers two types of licence, the first is licensing those ARM-designed processor building blocks that you spoke about but there is another licence under which it licenses the right to create a design based on the ARM instruction set so essentially it is just the permission to copy the instruction set that it is licensing.
Apple for instance has actually progressed through those two types of licence during its implementation of the ARM architecture(s). Apple’s early A series chips in its earlier iPhone (and iPad) SoCs implemented the ARM cores within those SoCs using building blocks designed by ARM. Apple licensed ARM-designed building blocks up to the A5X SoC in 2012 but from the A6 onwards the ARM cores in that and all subsequent A series SoCs have actually been designed from the ground up by in-house Apple silicon design teams without any ARM design input although the cores in those later A-series SoCs are still (I assume) subject to royalty payments under Apple’s architecture license as opposed to any processor design block license. I don’t know for sure but my guess (based on considerable experience of this type of technology licensing during my career) is that the up-front cost for an architecture license is considerable, far higher than for a processor block license, but the per-core royalty will be significantly lower to reflect the fact that the chip design is actually done by the customer rather than by ARM.
Hi Julian. I was tempted to post about the two tier licensing but a combination of laziness and lack of detailed knowledge forestalled that. I also understood the architecture license is very expensive and so is taken up by very few. Don’t quote me but I believe it also requires periodic renewal and is not just a one-off.
Hi CR.
Actually, there have been some limited-geographical-area experiments with LEO GPS and in some ways it’s better than MEO GPS since the reduced height means much better signal strength on the ground so better indoor performance, harder to jam, and also with constellations being so much bigger there tend to be more satellites within view at any one time and more redundancy. The biggest issue seems to be getting the positional accuracy as precise as the more traditional MEO systems since part of that equation is knowing the position of all the satellites very accurately at all times and in a LEO system there are many, many more satellites to track and they are all moving much faster. One of the LEO experiments I have read about (I think it was a Japanese system) used the LEO satellites as an adjunct to a traditional MEO system as opposed to a replacement where the LEO satellites actually used the MEO system to determine their accurate orbital positions and then delivered the benefits of stronger ground-level signal strength to the ground terminals accessing the LEO satellites to get position data. For us (the UK) having to resort to someone else’s MEO system to get the desired accuracy from our sovereign-controlled LEO constellation seems to miss most of the point though since the MEO would not be in our control although I suppose that if the MEO system were to be denied us then at least our LEO system might be able to degrade gracefully and continue to work with lower accuracy.
Will we be able to overcome the LEO-on-its-own accuracy issue? I’ve no idea. I have been toying with whether some extra kit on the Skynet 6 satellites might be able to help at all. Clearly even if we get 6 Skynet 6 satellites up in geostationary orbits that would never be enough to resolve a LEO satellite’s position on its own since that needs 4 satellites in view at the same time (the solution needs to not only resolve a 3-dimensional position but also the clock(time) bias) but maybe signalling transit times to whatever satellite happened to be in view combined with ground-based tracking and maybe some Doppler shift info plus perhaps inter-satellite comms to other LEO satellites that could see other Skynet satellites just might be something that could boost the accuracy of the orbital positioning calculations (although there would be an awful lot of timing considerations to consider and adjust for). Yes, it would all be monstrously complicated stuff but this is rocket science after all and there will (I hope) be some very smart people looking at what might be possible.
In any event, I am happy to see the UK being so ambitious in its aspirations and it will be interesting to see how this pans out.
Hi Julian. Upvote for perseverance on this topic. Much more interesting that how big the gun should be on [insert name of air, sea, ground platform of choice].
As to determining accurate location of LEO satellite. If LEO satellites implement satellite-to-satellite laser communication as planned then they will need 3-D space location data, where each satellite will need to know its own and adjacent satellite locations precisely.
I suspect that location data will come primarily from knowing precise locations for “ground stations” for at least part of each orbit, i.e. the inverse of the usual GPS mode where its the ground location that isn’t known. Ground stations in this case could include both the main upload-download pipes to the internet, but might go as far as referencing the location of any terminal, rejecting any that “move”, either because they have in fact moved, or because interference with conventional GPS services suggests they have.
However, the broader requirement to access any terminal for location data might only be required under extreme circumstances, because if every satellite knows its position relative to its neighbours, then the whole network would know its position unless large sectors were disabled.
Hi Julian,
Thanks for that comprehensive reply, very interesting.
I am also very pleased that the UK is being ambitious and hope that a coherent space programme continues to evolve going forward. The UK Space Agency appears to be increasingly effective at co-ordinating what is a rapidly growing space UK space effort at least in terms of scope. Not sure about Government funding, but there certainly seems to be considerable commercial interest in the UK space programme, which is quite an achievement for the Agency.
Cheers CR
Hi CR. Some of those experts might not be as knowledgeable as they suppose. The linked article discusses US planned use of LEO satellites for hypersonic advanced warning system and includes the following, “Agency officials envision the Navigation Layer to provide US armed forces alternative position, navigation, and timing (A-PNT) capabilities in GPS-denied environments” … and we could probably do with a hypersonic missile warning system too.
The UK’s OneWeb investment may provide multiple options for future tie ins.
1) Piggyback on current planned satellite network for military comms and as soft power benefit for comms in poorer nations.
2) Leverage the LEO satellite network knowledge for dedicated military satellite assets, either within the same network or as a separate network, per the linked article, including but not limited to GPS. E.g. far more pervasive surveillance.
3) Further develop/support the UK’s sovereign space industry including launch capability, whether using conventional rocketry or Virgin/Reaction engine based first stage replacement option
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/pentagon-solicits-proposals-for-new-hypersonic-advanced-warning-system
Hi Glass Half Full,
Your detailed post of the potential challenges for generating accurate satellite locations highlights what the experts were alluding to I think. They did say that the LEO system was a higher risk rather than impossible.
I personally do not have a problem with taking technical or indeed commercial risks provided due diligence is undertaken and everyone understands that failure is a possibility. In the technical arena its called research and development and failure is part of the learning process implicit in R&D. Of course, in politicals failure invites a good (verbal) kicking in PM questions, but that goes with the job I guess.
I also agree that the Oneweb investment could open up multiple avenues going forward, not least it has the potential to increase competition in the UK military satellite business which should help to keep you know who honest!
Cheers CR
Yes, I also think this is an appropriate level of risk especially because the consequences of failure are potentially still so good let alone the consequences of success.
If the potential GPS accuracy issue can be addressed to deliver a system that is as accurate as US/Galileo MEO systems then we would not just get our own fully-capable sovereign GPS system but would very possibly also leapfrog everyone else’s system because we’d have better signal strengths on the ground (better indoor performance and more resistant to local jamming) and with a much bigger constellation size it might well be more resilient to network-disabling attack vs fewer satellites in a MEO system. There is a significant technical risk on the GPS side of things and we might not be able to achieve the desired accuracy but even if we fail completely on the GPS element then, as long as the UK still puts in the extra money necessary to build out the constellation to at least the minimum planned 648 satellites and ideally beyond the minimum number, we still end up with a very capable sovereign-controlled communication network which very few other countries can match. That on its own is worth the investment, the GPS would be icing on the cake.
DRS already posted this in another thread (the one about Huawei being kicked out of UK 5G) so credit is due to him for discovering this extremely relevant technical paper discussing the issues with creating a LEO GPS system. Link posted again here for convenience …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308795972_Leveraging_Commercial_Broadband_LEO_Constellations_for_Navigation
Hi Julian,
Nice summing up, mate, and I totally agree.
I’ll have a read of the paper, thanks for the link.
Cheers CR
Hopefully the example of SpaceX’s success by embracing failure as an acceptable cost of rapid and low cost development will help in addressing critics.
It does seem like a number of key enablers are coming together around LEO capabilities for the UK space industry. A low cost, efficient “conventional” two stage launch vehicle from Orbex, local to the Scottish space port. The less conventional Virgin launch platform (and perhaps a future Reaction engine powered version if the technology matures) that may provide a more robust and less weather dependent horizontal runway launch capability from Cornwall, eliminating the conventional first stage. The LEO comms from OneWeb (perhaps with UK satellite manufacture at some point) and surveillance capabilities from Surrey Satellite Tech., with the latter having already produced Carbonite-2 for RAF evaluation and working on a smaller and lighter form factor with the new Deployable Space Telescope solution, plus IR and radar satellite surveillance platforms too.
Hi Glass Half Full,
I wasn’t aware of the Carbonite-2 mission I obviously need to do some reading 🙂
SSTL are an impressive organisation – wholly owned by Airbus I see. Lets hope it stays in the UK as so many of our industrial assets have been off-shored.
Cheers CR
I wonder if this was the reason which prompted the recent UK response for the alleged testing of a space weapon by Russia?
“UK and US say Russia fired a satellite weapon in space”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53518238
My guess is coincidence. This isn’t actually new. It’s the first time that Russia have done such a test but China created a similar outcry way back in 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test). The concern then, and I think now, was the space debris that such tests create. It was estimated that just that single test added 150,000 pieces of orbital debris and that stuff isn’t all trackable and can damage other satellites and manned missions. Presumably the recent Russian test also added tens or hundreds of extra chunks of orbital debris into the equation.
The nightmare scenario is that this escalates out of control with more and more tests creating more and more debris and the swarm of big and small particles becomes sufficiently dense such that satellites are getting disabled by debris collisions all the time, in some cases getting hit by bits of debris big enough to cause the impacted satellite to generate debris of its own due to the impact. It almost becomes like a slow-motion fission reaction that starts feeding itself and pretty much destroys our ability to put satellites in orbit and have them survive for any reasonable length of time. Hopefully it won’t come to that but it is the biggest reason why people get so twitchy about these sort of tests.
Clearly the smart option is to be able to disrupt communications between the ground stations and the satellites they control during a period of conflict?
No doubt all sides will be working towards this too!
Are the Russians ‘mining’ the atmosphere with debris?
SKYNET 5 was a success story. New satellites, ground stations and SCOT systems for the RN. They even rent out bandwidth to other navies to use on the system.
If SKYNET 6 follows the same way all will be fairly good. If they sort out the cost of bandwidth over the system which was costing a huge amount then it will be Very Good. Nobody quite envisioned the amount of sat time that everyone would suddenly want . Rear Link pictures, data links, voice, Video links, telephone, Intel links, 5 Eyes data, Navy Star, UMMS, Modnet and especially all the SF blokes called Nobby and Smudge sitting in a caves in Afgan ccalling out targets. As a result the best guess on what bandwidth the armed forces would need went out of the window and the RN ended up paying a lot for connectivity.
On the plus side the RN has looked again a HF systems and has gotten some very good HF data systems in place to use instead of Sat links.
Gunbuster, Satcom is generally pretty good and Command seem to favour it for most long range comms. While a lot of the ‘black art’ has been removed from HF it can still be more affected by atmospherics. Its great to have options of course but I can’t see past satcom being the preferred option for a while yet.
As Julian sort of hinted above satellites can be very vulnerable to a direct kinetic attack. The do have a reserve of fuel on board to maintain station, which can be used to change altitude, to move them further out of harms way. But this reserve is limited and once used up can’t be restocked (at present).
Beyond line of sight (BLOS) communications predominantly use HF or the lower end of the VHF bands. Both of these suffer from atmospheric degradation. However, there is another issue using these frequencies which is the lower bandwidth and the slower data handling speeds. We do still use the frequencies for data handling, but not for large chunks or video as it takes too long to upload or download.
The worry behind loosing a Skynet or other NATO satellites that we use, is one of the reasons we are investing in the Airbus Zephyr aircraft. This high altitude pseudo-satellite aircraft has a very low payload capability and has been mooted for surveillance. However, its most important role will be as a relay rebroadcasting UHF and SHF communications. Both of these bands are used for high bandwidth data handling, for example Link-16 operates between 960 and 1215 MHz in the upper UHF band. The majority of UAVs we or NATO operate use Link-16 for transmitting video back to the ground station. The Zephyr could be used as the relay between the UAV and ground station.
Another method we are actively looking at is the use of LEO cubesats. A cubsat can measure 30cm (X, Y and Z) or be even smaller. The RAF “space command” are investigating the feasibility of cubesats being launched in a swarm, to replace some of the functions of a Skynet satellite, specifically its communications, in case one is lost or damaged. The cubesats because of their small size and low weight are more cost effective option for replacing a Skynet in the short term. Especially if they could be launched from the UK.
And there’s Oneweb which potentially has huge overlap with both Zephyr and cubesats but particularly the later. In a test in July last year with the relatively few LEO sats already in orbit OneWeb demonstrated a persistent >400Mbps 32mS average latency point-to-point data stream which included seamless hand-off between satellites.
I can see Zephyr still having a place as an as-required additional deployment but with an initial constellation of 648 1m x 1m x 1.3m 150kg satellites (which is about what the Oneweb sats are) that should have a lot more capability than a typical cubesat cluster with constant 24/7 connection available from over 95% of the planet’s surface. As recently as May 27th this year OneWeb announced the aspiration to take the constellation size up to 48,000 satellites (https://www.oneweb.world/media-center/oneweb-seeks-to-increase-satellite-constellation-up-to-48000-satellites-bringing-maximum-flexibility-to-meet-future-growth-and-demand) which, if that were to ever happen (which I do accept is a huge “if” but I hope the UK government does give adequately fund this initiative), would take things to a whole new level and also the sheer number of satellites would make a network-disabling attack quite difficult.
Of course the big snag with Oneweb vs Zephyr is that Zephyr can have its payload configured at short notice – payload weight, size and power restrictions permitting – to be compatible with whatever existing ground terminals it needs to talk to for a particular deployment, and maybe to a slightly lesser extent that is true with an emergency cubesat cluster launch as well, whereas Oneweb needs a Ku-band user terminal (antenna apparently about 30cm x 16cm phased array) so some adaptation/upgrade/additions would be needed for ground/sea/air systems wanting to use the Oneweb network but looking just at the comms aspect (a few of us are discussing the potential GPS aspects elsewhere in this comments section) the potential of the combination of high bandwidth and low latency is enormous. One could almost imagine someone in a facility in the UK remotely piloting an unmanned combat Tempest in a dogfight over the South China seas. Yes, that’s a slightly silly future fantasy not intended in any way to be a prediction, it’s simply intended to illustrate the point re what the combination of low latency and high bandwidth could enable (and an example which admittedly ignores completely the very significant challenge of maintaining uninterrupted satellite data lock from a violently manoeuvring aircraft!). Still, exciting times to be living in.
French have a similar system called Syracuse which is the product of a joint venture between France and Italy. They also lease spare bandwidth to third parties. I don’t know how Skynet and Syracuse compare but i would expect Skynet 6 to put us ahead of the game again. Satellites is something we do well and another very stupid move by BAE Systems to sell out of them like they did over commercial aviation.
I am a bit puzzled. These look like photos of the same sections that were shown a few weeks ago Sure they are not of the 57th section that is the subject of the article?
*Surely
I’d guess limited publicly available (and royalty free) photographs simply means that the choice is: use old pictures or use no pictures.
I think you’re right!
Not complaining, George does a terrific job and getting better with every passing year.
Off-topic I know, but some more good news for our armed forces!
“Household Cavalry Regiment receives British Army’s first Ares AFVs”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/household-cavalry-regiment-receives-british-armys-first-ares-afvs
Saw the video of them have a play about with it 😛
They do look good and would love to get up close to them and have a look
Am I right in thinking the machine gun is removed and to be fitted whenever?
Most APC’s machine guns are removed and stored in armouries (at least in the British Army) when not in use.
Think about it: Imagine the fall out if someone stole a machine gun off a APC in the vehicle park? For legal purposes you’d probably have to have someone stagging on the vehicle park 24/7.
Well yes, that would be a normal procedure but with them being shown to the camera’s and people doing write-ups I thought they might have put the guns on for a bit a show.
But we have progress and some nice shiny kit that is the future. ;P
Depends on the situation, eg here it looks like they’re being unloaded from transports after a road move. I’d have questions if someone decided to leave the weapons systems mounted for a road move on civilian roads.
That’s assuming that where-ever they’ve come from has a stocked armoury, and if the press has been invited to witness their delivery I can’t realistically picture everyone pausing, opening up the armoury, getting a bunch of guns out, fitting them to the Ares’s and then telling the press “okay you can take pictures now.”
On a semi connected topic, I’m surprised there hasnt’ been a post here on the debate going on around the British deployment to Mali. Based on what i have read and quotes from General’s etc, it seems we are deploying troops to a insurgency war again with inadequate equipment.
If reported correctly the decision has been made that we do not have any appropriately armored vehicles to travel on sand and so instead we will use the much more dangerous roads. Additionally as the decision to cut the Mastiff has been made, they will be using less armoured but faster Jackal.
Now where have i heard the story before that British tactic is to drive fast because their vehicles are less protected. How can lessons be forgot so fast.
Don’t know enought about it in terms of mission objectives etc to have a huge opinion on it tbh.
I know Light Dragoons and Anglians are usually equipped with foxhounds and Jackals so that might be a reason for it. As for Jackal being less armoured than than Mastiff yeah, but it’s still a vehicle purpose designed to deal with IED strikes, as is Foxhound so it’s not like they’re driving around in WIMIK’s (besides Mastiff is a very big heavy vehicle, so if you’re complaint is you can’t go offroad, switching to Mastiff really will not help).
My *ASSUMPTION* would be given the choice of Jackal there is an element of formation reconassaince in the mission set, something that the big, slow, heavy Mastiff is not really suited to.
As for Mastiff being sold off, that’s been the plan for ages. The Battalions on Mastiff are supposed to be getting Boxer as a replacement.
I would not want to be going into a counter insurgency warfare, where ambush and IED is the main style of combat, in a vehicle that is mainly open and providing the crew with very little side protection and one that failed to protect soldiers against IED. At least the Mostiff had proven success at keeping soldiers alive.
Both options are meant to be poorly designed to go off-road in sand, so if they are going to have to be stuck on roads either way (more predictable routes, easier to plan ambushes), then a little slower and a lot more armored makes more sense to me. Failing that what happened to the foxhound.
My guess the General’s are downplaying the risk as normal, but the fact that they have not fully downplayed it, is worrying.
I realise its likely impossible now that Covid has happened, but selling off a fairly new piece of kit that is a proven platform, makes little sense. They should be put into storage in case we have another iraq/afgan, as you can guarantee if we did we would not have enough armoured vehicles again.
Well it seems you’ve made up your mind based on very limited publicly available information, and nothing I will say will change your mind Steve. But for what it’s worth:
I will point out that Jackal was specifically designed for a counter insurgency war in which ambush and IED was predominant, and it did well enough for us to want to retain it afterwards. (Igonroing the fact that by far not all of Mali is impassible sand dunes). Again the equipment picked suggests primarily a scouting/find mission, something Mastiff is TERRIBLE for. As for Foxhound: You do understand that Foxhound is also deploying right? Even I’ve managed to catch that much.
And no, the army is unhappy with Mastiff and has been wanting to get rid of it for a while now. It’s only “proven” because there wasn’t a better alternative, there is now, so they’re being replaced. We don’t keep Chieftains in storage because “one day we might not have enough CR2’s” so why should we do so for Mastiff? The only reason they haven’t already been replaced is because they needed a stop gap solution for Strike until Boxer is available.
The Mali situation is a good topic to discuss and like our intervention long overdue!
As far as I know, UKSF is likely already there or on their way.
Says they will report on the situation there
Then we send 250 to help in a “non-combat role”
Conducting patrols in Jackal vehicles to provide situational awareness and intelligence
Not sure what other vehicles are being sent as mention think they also use Foxhound
So point at the enemy and tell the French where to shoot?
Heard conflicting stories on what they can do…
Judging by what the French have been using in both Chad and Mali. I’d say about 95% if not all of their combat vehicles are wheeled. They range from the ALTV which is a bit like a Hilux with a WIMIK kit on it, to AMX10s, Griffons (bit like a Mastiff), Sherpa light trucks, VBLs and VABs. They have even deployed their new 8×8 VCBIs.
The topography of Mali is very mixed. The country can be divided in to three parts. The majority of the country (about 2/3) in the north is desert and part of the Sahara. The remaining 1/3 can be split again, where the northern part is savannah and the remaining tropical forest where the Niger river flows through. There’s also a large mountainous region in the West bordering Senegal. This is were the majority of the county’s wealth is produced, from mining Gold and Uranium.
The northern part of the country that is the southern Sahara, is driveable using wheeled vehicles. It is made up of the Tanezrouf, an area that is amongst the driest on Earth and the Adrar des Ifoghas massif to the East. The Tanezouf is basically uninhabited, as there next to no water. The Adrar des Ifoghas massif, which is very hilly complete with hidden valleys, are where the majority of Islamic fighters hide out and operate from.
The Foxhound I had in Afghan had no issues operating off road, if anything it was better than a Landy as it had more axle clearance. Admittedly, I was operating along the main road to Kandahar, but I know a few guys who used them in the Red Desert without any major issues. The Jackels, Cayotes, Foxhounds and Mastiffs should have no major issues operating in Mali. One thing they will need is decent air con as the temperatures in the Sahara region regularly hit 50+C. In and around Gao it can be 45+C plus high humidity depending on the time of the year.
My assumption is the British forces will be targeted when they deploy, as any sensible opposition would want to get some early casualties, in to ensure there is a negative public view about deploying more troops. I would think a scouting role, is ideal for this, as the troops will be operating in less controlled territories and likely isolated from support.
I am actually pretty surprised post Iraq/Afgan that there was any political desire to send troops into another combat role (not just training soldiers in bases).
On the flip side the French casualties are pretty light so far, so it might give the British army a more positive image, post Iraq/Afgan, if they can be seen to be helping the local people without many casualties.
Initially there was not a requirement for boots on the ground. As part of a UK/French agreement we would provide helicopter support in exchange for maritime support of our ( continuously at sea deterrent (CASD). As expected, the situation on the ground has changed. I have a number of friends operating in Mali now. The British contingent are centred around Gao in the south east of the country. They are part of a multi-national force headed by France.
What was once a local Malian dispute has turned far nastier. As there has been an influx of islamist fighters who have escaped from Syria/Iraq. Unfortunately, they have joined up with the local Malian islamist groups. They have brought a wealth of hard won knowledge with them and its starting to have results.
Gao is one of the larger towns in Mali and it has suffered a number of car and truck bombs in the last two years, another aspect of the problems which is rife are kidnappings. Gao is situated on the Niger river and is southwest of the Adrar des Ifoghas massif. This rugged and hilly area are where the attacks are coming from. The Adrar des Ifoghas massif borders Algeria and Niger. The islamist attacks have spread to Burkina Faso in the south and Niger to the east. Both of these countries have agreed that the multi-national force and prosecute terrorist forces in and around their borders.
The multi-national force is partly made from the Group of Five for the Sahel (G5) countries—Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, and Niger. As part of Op Op BARKHANE which is headed by the French are also the UK and Estonia. However, Germany, Holland, Canada, Denmark and the Czech Republic have participated. Both the US and China have troops in Mali operating under a separate UN mandate.
The Estonians are operating from the same location as us, and provide a lot of the local security around the airfield. They have been successfully trialled their tracked unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) THeMIS as a platoon mule. It even did a few missions from our Chinooks.
I can see the requirement for more multi-national troops to operate in and around Mali due to the influx of seasoned islamists fleeing from Syria and Iraq. The country is bigger than France and is sparsely populated, making it ideal for small terrorist groups to operate from and hide in.
Aagghh…..A Royal Navy ship being built on the Clyde, it is yet another example of the UK London based government forgetting, ignoring, victimising, persecuting the Scottish people……or so the loony left SNP will have you believe.
Other shipyard workers from around the rest of the British Isles would saw their left arm off to have the guaranteed work like the Scots have been getting. They’ve had billions and billions worth of work and it’s going to continue by the looks of it, I’m not anti Scottish at all but this subject and the SNP seriously p@$s me off.