The MoD has awarded Babcock a £65 million five-ship contract to deliver the Capability Insertion Period (CIP) for the Type 31 frigates. This covers equipment to be fitted, over and above what was specified in the original fixed-price contract.
Details of what is covered by the CIP are not specified in the announcement made today but it will add further capabilities that will support the ships throughout their life. The single biggest item is likely the cost of fitting Mk41 VLS cells, which was agreed in 2023, long after the original design was contracted for in 2019. The VLS cells will probably be purchased separately from Raytheon and delivered to Babcock as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). Additionally a pair of Ancilia trainable decoy launcher and Electronic Warfare equipment delivered under the RN’s MEWSIC project will also be added.
It is quite normal for warships to have a CIP soon after delivery to account for developments in technology and new threats that have emerged between the design phase and construction phase.
The CIP work will take place in Rosyth after the ships have undertaken Contractor’s Sea Trials (CST) and been accepted by the RN. The length of time between acceptance and the CIP may also vary between different ships in the programme. Ship one, HMS Venturer is now being painted and is progressing towards launch day. The exact date is not yet decided but expected to be soon, probably in May.
I’m still not entirely sure we’ll see a full mk41 fit out. As that would involve getting the modules and integration for CAMM in Mk41. But we’ll see
From Wikipedia:
“ On 17 May 2023, the First Sea Lord Ben Key stated that Type 31 frigates would in fact be fitted with the 32-cell Mark 41 Strike-Length complex. The exact missile mix for the Type 31 with the Mark-41 has yet to be confirmed but will likely eventually consist of at least 32x Sea Ceptor missiles quad-packed into one of the four 8-cell launch modules”
I wouldn’t take wiki at its word. The quote from the NL article
Doesn’t say 32, trying to find the original quote
The FSL said ‘we also need to advance our ability to deliver lethal long-range offensive fires against our adversaries. Hence the decision to ensure the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo is fitted to the Type 26 and, I am delighted to say, we intend to fit it also to our Type 31 frigates. This will enable potential use of a large variety of current and future anti-air, anti-surface, ballistic missile defence and strike missiles’ – there’s no mention of 32, so it could be as few as 8.
‘we also need to advance our ability to deliver lethal long-range offensive fires against our adversaries. Hence the decision to ensure the Mark 41 Vertical Launch Silo is fitted to the Type 26 and, I am delighted to say, we intend to fit it also to our Type 31 frigates. This will enable potential use of a large variety of current and future anti-air, anti-surface, ballistic missile defence and strike missiles’
That’s the quote – no mention of 32 cells specifically. A minimum of 8 is ensured, as that’s the smallest available module.
https://www.arrowhead140.com/modular-system-specific-roles/
Thats true. But the source used in Wikipedia is a ‘direct quote’ from the 1SL
We don’t actually have any other missiles that fit in the Mk.41 right now do we so why wouldn’t they all be CAMM?
Precisely.
Aster 15s and 30s will fit in a MK41 will they not? The MK 41 is physically larger. I am sure it would require an adapter of sorts but every missile does. The reason is very simple – same issues the US navy is having – not enough missiles. USN uses SM2, SM3, SM6, ESSM, Tomahawk, even a torpedo that can be launched from the MK 41. But, the USN is eying Patriot missiles in part because the USN does not have that many of the various standard missiles, Industry is only making so many each year. 600 Patriots are produced each year (way more than standard missiles) and many more are stockpiled by the army. If the navy gets in a shooting war (basically has been in the Red Sea) and runs low on missiles they can’t do that much unless they start using the army missiles. Problem with CAMM launchers is they only fire CAMM. If a NATO shooting war breaks out Europe will run out of naval missiles quite rapidly. Only place to get more fast would be the US. Trump is term limited.
No.
All this talk about MK41 for CAMM, ExLS or whatever is called etc, are not ready for production, need to be build and tested first.
That takes time so these ideas of MK41 for everything maybe not even in this decade unless you buy American or redesign your missiles.
It’d be interesting to see what type launcher Saudi Arabia has for their jv CAMM with MBDA on their MMP ships which have a mini Aegis system i believe.
Don’t conflate the cut down versions of AEGIS with the full fat versions.
Those ships don’t have the sensors to drive the full fat version
Yes.The name Aegis is used from the USN LCS ships to the Arleigh Burkes ( even those have different versions, so that SM-6 is compatible with DDG-100 onwards, unless major modernisation)
Aegis in the smaller ships refers to the software libraries, which work with a whole range of radar types and weapons systems. Very different capability to AB
The Saudis have JV with Navantia and Fincantieri as well. Its all talk and no new hardware yet.
Saudis current build is Freedom class from US and recent in service 5 Navantia corvette/frigate (2500 t)
The MMP vessel is only a Navantia MOU , but likely to be more ‘corvettes’
Not all AEGIS systems are the same.
Even the core is cut down so the interfaces for the more sensitive bits are not there for the ‘less trusted’ export customers.
It isn’t just which modules and libraries are loaded.
Thats what libraries means. The customer merely gets the ship software load tailored for their particular ships hardware.
They never would get the entire Aegis libraries code.
Yes – Aster-30 Block 1NT can physically fit into the Mk41. However, the French might be adverse to allowing the integration work, given that it would impact the sale of their Sylver VLS significantly. This is partly why I’m skeptical that Aster-30 will be retained. The RN is undeniably undergoing a shift towards the Mk41 VLS system. If Aster-30 is not integrated into that system, what will replace it? The Standard Missile-series is a poor replacement for Aster-30 against air breathing threats, but offers significantly improved BMD capability through the SM-3. Perhaps an indigenous development of CAMM-MR might be considered? Or perhaps the Type 83 will utilise a mixture of Sylver A70-NG and Mk41.
Aster-30 and Aster-15 do physically fit into the dimensions of the Mk41 VLS, yes. However, the question must also be asked as to whether France would allow that to take place. By integrating Aster with the Mk41, there would be few practical reasons to take Sylver A50 over the Mk41. This is part of the reason I believe that Aster being retained onto the Type 83 is not as certain as some on both Navy Lookout and UKDJ believe. If the RN moves fully to Mk41, as it is already doing, it might necessitate a shift to the Standard-series, or more likely, a further development or redesign of the upcoming CAMM-MR.
Aster-30 and Aster-15 do physically fit into the dimensions of the Mk41 VLS, yes. However, the question must also be asked as to whether France would allow that to take place. By integrating Aster with the Mk41, there would be few practical reasons to take Sylver A50 over the Mk41. This is part of the reason I believe that Aster being retained onto the Type 83 is not as certain as some on both Navy Lookout and UKDJ believe. If the RN moves fully to Mk41, as it is already doing, it might necessitate a shift to the Standard-series, or more likely, a further development or redesign of the upcoming CAMM-MR.
Yes – Aster-30 Block 1NT can physically fit into the Mk41. However, the French might be adverse to allowing the integration work, given that it would impact the sale of their Sylver VLS significantly. This is partly why I’m skeptical that Aster-30 will be retained. The RN is undeniably undergoing a shift towards the Mk41 VLS system. If Aster-30 is not integrated into that system, what will replace it? The Standard Missile-series is a poor replacement for Aster-30 against air breathing threats, but offers significantly improved BMD capability through the SM-3. Perhaps an indigenous development of CAMM-MR might be considered? Or perhaps the Type 83 will utilise a mixture of Sylver A70-NG and Mk41.
Yes – Aster-30 Block 1NT can physically fit into the Mk41. However, the French might be adverse to allowing the integration work, given that it would impact the sale of their Sylver VLS significantly. This is partly why I’m skeptical that Aster-30 will be retained. The RN is undeniably undergoing a shift towards the Mk41 VLS system. If Aster-30 is not integrated into that system, what will replace it?
We have converted all our Aster 15’s to Aster 30’s. Its all CAMM for ‘short range’ stuff. Standard or ER or a mix of both, I cant be sure.
Hi Hugo seaceptor already specified for use as as quad packed in each cell a few years ago as some MK41 customers are buying the CAMM from MBDa
Does requires a cell packaging for that, when we can on the cheap do it will dedicated CAMm cells, not that they’re any good.
Maybe we’ll get lucky, I’m just assuming the middle ground.
If you look at the renderings that have been released over the years you will see the mushroom farm occupied the place of the full length MK41 silos amidships.
So installing the MK41 means the mushroom farm has to go.
We knew this was being done in build for the later hulls, but now based on this article it seems the first two ships will launch with MK41. That would mean quad packed Sea Ceptor in MK41 from launch.
Capablity insertion is after sea trials. In fact it may not even be immediately after. Ship one and 2 will not launch with it as they’ve been built to take sea ceptor only. That’ll be part of the modification
I wouldn’t be surprised if ship one goes through all her trials with the current equipment fit before the CIP. She could easily delay the CIP till after the first full FOST. I could easily see how the RN would like to get the current design fully worked one before messing with it.
It could also allow for future 2x CAMM-MR per cell. Maybe even a combination of mk41 and a CAMM farm? Wonder if the ExLS quad CAMM pack might be used as an insert? If the forward 40mm was removed there could be room for 2 mk41s there too? And with all this additional ability being added on i wonder if they’ll need to upgrade the Thales NS110 radar? Hope NSM is being added.
They don’t need to upgrade the radar for just CAMm, we’ve already ordered the guns too
I was thinking if other and having more missiles might warrant a stronger radar.
Just being cheeky on the 40mm. If the forward 40mm weren’t needed they could be donated to the carriers with maybe 1 spare. Anyway it’s good to see these new ships coming into service. Hope there’s plenty of ammo being ordered.
We don’t really know which of the NS family is fitted.
There are the obvious 100/200/300 etc family but also sub variants.
It is also perfectly possibly that RN decide that an upgrade to one of the other Thales systems that are already integrated to the CMS is a good idea as budgets become more realistic going forwards.
Good points SB!
ExLS insert in the Mk41 VLS MUST be used for CAAM/Sea Ceptor.
The Ceptor missile is cold launch so needs a gas generator inside the VLS box to fire it vertically. Almost all other VLS systems let the missile booster fire it out of the box
The gas generator is part of the standard CAMM launch container. The launch container remains the same whether its part of the CAMM “mushroom” farm or is quad packed within the Mk41. The gas generator design is the same for the standard CAMM, CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR.
Thanks for that
Exactly so – a surprisingly simple idea that works very well – even if it is really a borrowed idea from another industry!!
Unless you’re doing BMD, NS110 should be fine for CAMM-MR.
Possible not, NS100 has a published detection range of 280km (152 nautical miles) for airborne targets. However, Thales do not give specifics about the target, that has been detected at this range. Which could be something like a large commercial airliner. It most likely won’t be a small cruise missile.
Thales do also make the larger NS200, which uses the same transmit-receive modules as the NS100, but holds them in a larger area array. The NS200 has a published detection range of 400km for airborne targets.
Therefore logically, the NS200 should be able to detect smaller targets further away than the NS100, as it will have more transmitter power and greater receiver sensitivity.
The CAMM-MR is being classed as an over 100km range surface to air missile. So if it had a maximum effective range of 125km you will need a radar that can detect the threat over 200km away. to give the missile time to reach the target at its maximum range. If you are relying on the NS100, perhaps its ability to detect supersonic cruise missiles, is below 200km. Meaning the ship has less time to react to the threat. Whereas having the NS200, with the greater detection range, gives the ship more time to react and allows the CAMM-MR to be used at its maximum effective range.
Thanks Davey for your replies, they are fantastic in detail as always. How does the Artisan compare to the NS100? Will they be upgrading it or replacing that when on the T26?
Another silly question, could a NS100 be upgraded to NS200 standard if is it just a question of size of the array?
Question is – which flavour of ARTISAN?
100/200 or even the more recently advertised 300 series?
We’ll take the latest 300.
I hadn’t considered this, it’s a good point.
I would like to see the British frigate force standardise on a single radar – the NS200 would be a good choice, or depending on when such a standardisation would occur, miniaturised technology from BAES’s next generation naval radar.
It would allow all of the frigate to make use of the CAMM-MR.
Too late . The T26 frigate has the 997 radar , the T31 has the NS110.
Its a cost thing
There was a standardisation on SAMPSON and ARTISAN for a while.
The breaking the BAE stranglehold on escort building became important and TACTICOS took the place of the BAE CMS.
The thing is the NS series are all TACTICOS integrated so there is no developmental risk to this it is an installation and configuration task that can be done for a fixed price.
If you start integrating ARTISAN onto TACTICOS you are into an area of unknowns as I do t think it has been done before.
It is really about range of the radar & its fidelity. NS110 is much shorter range than NS200 radars. Short range ballistic missiles are being used in the Red Sea. eg Rocket artillery are basically short range ballistic missiles & there are versions coming out that will out range the NS110’s detection range. Yes it will see them (eventually) but the NS200 would see them further out, giving you more options. BMD for long range very high ballistic missiles coming in at Mach 5 is different, But short range BMD is very much a now thing.
It is not only range, a bigger antenna gives more altitude coverage too.
And there is still the issue of rotating dishes instead of fixed panels , you need fixed panels for very fast targets interception.
Fixed panels are lower down closer to main deck. Dont have a longer radar horizon that top master ‘spinners’. Simply put it sees them first
Is the NS200 suitable for BMD tracking at Mach 5? I doubt it.
T45 with 1850 and SAMPSON can do it and I suspect QEC with 1850 and ARTISAN could do it.
The thing is you need a volume search to pick it up and then something to accurately track it. NS200 isn’t a volume search radar as that needs a lot of power to scour a huge volume properly for returns.
Thales says 4 D which is volume search
‘The NS100 provides 4D surveillance capabilities (Azimuth, Elevation, Range & full Doppler) up to 280 km.’
AESA combines multi functions in the same unit…. search, scan and track
Crikey.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you understood that little about Radar.
Whilst NS110 may be competent at 4D it isn’t anywhere near, say the 1850.
Volume search is all about power and surface area.
You may have heard of the Inverse cube law – applied to radar power?
Which boils down to detection range / track range / what RCS at what range.
A tiny radar, such as the NS110, cannot possibly take the sort of transmit power a 1850 can – if it did it would melt!
There is a reason every competently designed AAD ship in the world mounts a very powerful radar…..
We have been here before and your own limited understanding was taken apart by the background evidence.
But you use the gish gallop approach where you make new claims each time as facts chase you down.
no one ever said it was equivalent to an 1850.
But you were suggesting that NS110 would be *useful* for significant volume search.
Read your own post?
Basic physics suggests otherwise.
Volume search is whole different ballgame to tracking targets that volume search has picked up. It is far more than just having a 4D statement attached to it. If you start using your limited power to beam form to hold specific tracks your volume search power degrades.
NS110 because it is reasonably high up, as it is light, will be good for cabs, naval targets and skimmers.
Thales says its volume search [4D], you made another gish gallop to add in ‘significant’
Make up your own stuff but dont then claim others said it.
Some facts for other readers about what is volume search and how its used
“The goal of the volume search is to repeatedly scan a large volume of space searching for targets. The volume search task uses a wide beam and a narrow band waveform to reduce the total search time. The detections obtained by the volume search provide only approximate target locations. These detections are passed to the cued search task. The cued search allows the MPAR to perform surveillance in an adaptive fashion by scanning a small volume around a detection produced by the volume search. It uses a narrower beam and a wider bandwidth to provide better accuracy. The detections produced by the cued search are passed to the tracking task.
of course modern electronic scanned radar types include all 3 at the same time in the same unit
Volume search, cued search, tracking
MPAR is multifunction phased array radar
Oh, my dear Duker – how kind of you to copy and paste a basic guide to volume search.
You see the problem is this.
A radar like NS110 might be a 100kW radar – let’s say it is that.
Now the nice people at Thales say that their lovely little system can track 1000 targets. But my dear old chap that will be 1000 targets distributed through the volume of a sphere possibly weighted towards the centre. Obvs it isn’t a perfect sphere but the wet bit is cut off – I’m sure you know that.
The targets closest to the centre of the sphere use the least power to track. But you know that I’m sure.
So you have the volume search function scanning away and each track you pick up takes some power for its steerable beam. With me so far?
Now the issue is that we *might* be able to tracks a supersonic cricket ball at say 50km but that required a lot of power because it is moving fast the tracking cannot be time sliced it needs to be continuous. So let’s say, generously, that uses 5kW [likely more].
As RN measures tracking performance in supersonic cricket balls – otherwise it just wouldn’t be cricket – we are using the SI metric. But I digress.
So say we have a swarm of supersonic cricket balls because the other side are not playing cricket. Say the swarm is 10 cricket balls. Now all of a sudden we are using 50kW to keep up with the cricket that isn’t being played by the rules but are left with 50kW for volume scanning.
Now I need you to figure this out for me as I’m old and it is a sunny afternoon on the terrace of the lovely hotel I’m staying at. The Earl Grey is divine and Mrs SB has arrived. Can you help me out?
The question comes in two parts and is –
Now that you have only a theoretical 50kW to volume scan for anyone else not playing cricket.
1) What would the effect be on object detection RCS at maximum range on reduction from 100 -> 50kW?
2) And what would that do to the detection range of a SI supersonic cricket ball?
Thanks again for the helpful copy’n’paste.
Content rules for Navy Lookout
“Feel free to present any opinion, but make your case using facts and evidence.”
mine is evidence , and with quotes. and naturally is pasted.
Yours is just factoids, that pretend they are evidence.
No evidence, just making it up.
You even make up comments that others haven’t said at all. I get that its your ‘lifestyle’.
Even Thales claims you dispute with no evidence.
Pray tell what is your professional expertise – and how long ago ?
I have never compared to top range search radars, nor power outputs
Its just your claim for NS110 were wrong, it *can do* volume search and does it within the mission requirements set for the RN
Even the factual summary you have misinterpreted,
Duker – I suggest you get yourself a very, very basic primer on how radar works, look in the chapter on power levels?
There are a lot of good books that cover this stuff properly.
My point was T31 has a volume search radar and it seems adequate power for the stated NS110 air search max range of 150nm ( 280km) is perfectly adequate for the camm missiles it carries with 25km plus range.
Its clear your 70-80s expertise is out of date compared to a diligent modern background ‘search’…Lol.
Its baffling that you dont keep update with naval modern radars and be a reliable source for all the readers, but instead ….
SB
I wasn’t suggesting the NS200 was good for Mach 5 BMD tracking (I thought I was being clear – but obviously not). I was suggesting that sub Mach 5 balistic missiles are a real thing “now” & that as such, NS200 would be much preferred to NS110. The rather poor BM’s showing up in the Red Sea are but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Have a look at some of the rocket artillery in the works (they are generally BM by design). They are talking anti ship missiles with a 500km range fired from standard mobile HIMARS type system (eg PrSM block 2), with potential to go to 1,000km in the future. T31 has not even hit the water yet & it’s limitations are already apparent.
BTW, A140 options list has a seperate L Band radar available. However its not free. HMG needs to spend a little more money.
I agree that the NS110 isn’t the best of the best but rather something that works perfectly well and can guide Sea Ceptor effectively.
We have to be thankful that the compromises with T31 were made so that five large hulls got ordered that can be upgraded as opposed to five glorified OPVs that could not be upgraded.
Changing the NS110 to a 200 series or, as you say, adding a full fat L band volume search radar, as the design allows for, are all possibilities.
Question really is, what is the T31 for?
Others will have the view that T31 *must* have every bell and whistle with things that go bang all over the place. To which the repost is that the more you have to maintain and operate the more crew you need. What do we need more T31/2 or what we have with stupidly large crews?
I’d prefer to get more large hulls on order that can be capability improved.
The issue is where the line is drawn with GFE and where the builder’s system and integration costs are?
I do think that the choice of T31 was shaped by the increasing perceived Russian threat.
Anyway hopefully the SDSR is published soon and it reiterates the author’s previous idea on escort numbers so there will have to be quite a lot of building of things with offensive and defensive weapons systems.
Instead i bet this is to increase the number of CAMM cells.
According to Lockheed Martin & MBDA, it’s already integrated into the ExLS standalone system, & therefore integration into the ExLS host (which fits into Mk41) should be very simple – if it’s not already been done.
MBDA has released statements that the three new Polish frigates will have quad packed CAMM.
Intersting to see what we get for our £13mill per ship spend ans the amount of GFE involved.
MOD costings need more focus and detail.
Kitchen sink numbers hides a lot of gold plating and waste.
Cost 110m for 8 units+support for Denmark.
We’d need more like 20 so who knows how much that will be
8 units — would that be Mk41 / 8 tube units?
VLS would appear to be commodity now.
Where is the cost in them?
Plug numbers — £1mill per tube vs £500K per tube vs £250K per tube?
Where is the cost — tubes made out of unobtanium?
You do realise that there are quite a lot of co trail systems to the tubes and they have to be BDR so that if one missile goes the whole lot doesn’t cook off?
Small matter of directing efflux gasses and thermal management.
Then the issue of the guides and supports which are missile specific as are the data and power and sometimes gas connectors.
Somebody somewhere has to pay for the design testing and certification…..
I’m sure Bill could weld a few bits of metal together with into a vaguely square shape that might fit into the hole in the deck… I’ll leave you to do the test firings.
I take it you work in sales or are a technical support for sales?
CFD will do a lot of the hard graft.
But the Mk41 team will have already done that.
Then would come the issue of cold launch.
And all that work would be redundant.
Missile specific stuff is in the missile cannister.
Testing and certification — should be in the fully accounted price.
Ship brings the right sized hull cavity.
Material spec for the surrounding structure will be shelf data.
Mk41 VLS system fills it.
VLS is now commodity. Just look at all the systems popping up on land with their engineering on public show.
Thank heavens we didn’t have a rapacious MIC when torpedoes came on the scene — different tubes for different 21″ torpedoes.
Nope – wrong.
CAMM is very different to the other systems as the quad packer is a support system with connections. There is no need for it to be efflux resistant.
A lot of missile canisters, other than CAMM, need total strip down and rebuild after one use. It is cheaper to replace the soft bits than to make them sufficiently heat resistant.
You misunderstand the function of the cold launch *outer* tube to separate and protect the missiles.
The engineering of things that go bang is far from trivial.
Not quite as in close but missing a few bits.
As mentioned earlier VLS is very much commodity now.
Various strands of thought in play but the surprises are long gone.
Now the issue is training / process / consistency / Delivery.
VLS spec containerised missile — the price of the container will be in the cost of the missile although I sure we get a deposit back if we hand back the container in a state that the manufacturer is used to.
Cold launch — passive firing of the missile out of the container it comes in. Main missile motor fires when the missile is airborne.
Do the expulsion gases get unto the VLS space below the container when cold launch is used in the Mk41?
Hot launch — active firing using the missiles motor to get airborne with the exhaust gases getting into the VLS works / space with a need to mange their expulsion into the atmosphere.
Quite a show according to YouTube.
Rocket science is not what it used to be.
Consequently VLS is commodity now and should be costed accordingly.
Cold launch VLS is just a real estate game.
Hot launch VLS is just an exhaust gas management game.
Big Auto does quite a lot of exhaust gas management and it is so boring it rarely makes it onto YouTube.
Hot Launch gives of a Betamax vibe / HPDI vibe.
Had its moment but the wold moves on.
Cold launch has an airbag vibe — high tech that became commodity very quickly.
I had a good chuckle reading that.
It is all about energy density and packing factors and then cost. Cost is pretty important if you need deep inventory.
How would the MOD / RN brains-trust managed with airbags?
Would they be in service yet or would we be rationing them / moving them between vehicles based on what we are using today?
Cold launch is the future.
We are in the game and making it work.
Next up is scale — moving it further up the food chain.
Big plus if you spec / build for hot launch.
Cold launch will fit with no issues.
RN going forward — Sylver no more?
Everything — hot launch — has to be Mk41?
Cold Launch is a bit of a misnomer. The whole reaction is contained within the missile’s launch container. Think of the cold launch mechanism as a gas generator. A chemical is ignited to create the generation of gas, this then pushes a piston under the missile, which then pushes out the missile with quite a bit of force. As the missile breaches the environmental seal, the gases escape upwards. The amount of gas that is generated is dependent on the amount of chemicals used for the reaction. So the system is scalable depending on the weight of the missile and the required height it must reach before the rocket engine is ignited.
Please get into airbag engineering — you will start to see the links pretty quickly.
Airbag use economics is all down to low cost explosions as in gas generation events.
Sound familiar?
Might still have issues storing individual units before they get used in a vehicle.
70’s ideas generation — Merc started out with compressed air to inflate the bags.
Eventually someone took a brave pill and went with the explosive version.
Why don’t you tell us how the gas is generated to operate that cold launch piston?
Controlled gas generation event — volume and timing to suit the application.
Head bag inflation is different to side airbags and curtain airbags.
Fancy shapes in the curtain airbag have been transformational.
Multiple inflations is the next part of the puzzle.
Complex crashes generate multiple collision events and the bags dissipate the gas after the initial inflation.
The control strategy / component resilience becomes tricky.
Bang for your buck literally.
Back in the day a small / cute car was feted for having a seventh airbag to protect the drivers knees until it became apparent that the issue was with steering column movement in a crash.
Cheaper to add the bag than re-engineer the front end of the vehicle.
Airbags had become commodity at a rate of knots.
No wonder Detroit was 50% the reason that the good guys won WW2.
Gas generation for the cold launch piston — Probably in a much more expensive way than the gas is generated in an airbag.
It is the military way seemingly.
The US auto industry only needed airbags because compulsory seat belt wearing was a no no. This was the alternative
The first production car with an airbag was Mercedes Benz.
They didnt win the war…LOL
“ Gas generation for the cold launch piston — Probably in a much more expensive way than the gas is generated in an airbag.”
Is it really?
NL stated in 2019:-
“ A very rapid chemical reaction in a gas generator in the base of the missile canister ejects the missile out of the tube via a piston with enough momentum to get about 30m above the ship.”
The gas generation can be made scalable, so that it can push missiles of different weights out of the tube or to a particular height.
The Russian S400 uses a similar system.
I know – I know how it works – I don’t think FBOT does…..
Or has joined the dots between the two things he is talking about!
The clever bit is containing the hot efflux gases so that it isn’t a locator of the firing position.
They are ‘cold’ in comparison to the missiles own rocket motor.
The MBDA cold launch method has nothing to do with airbags. It is basically a propellent in a cylinder, where once ignited, the gas expansion drives a piston. Which then forcefully pushes the missile out of the container.
Missile cold launch vs Airbag inflation …
Both involve controlled gas generation events.
Hopefully we can all agree on this.
One is a controlled expansion / gas generation event which moves a piston to push a missile out of a tube and into the air.
While the other is a controlled expansion / gas generation event which fills a textile bag to allow it to break out of its location in the trimmed interior of a vehicle and offer a softer collision to your noggin if you happen to be in a road accident.
Not sure about the cost per gram of the gas generator in an airbag but it is commodity now and has been for two decade and Big Auto margins are tighter than a Teuchter at a bar the week before pay day.
Interesting comparison to find out the cost per gram of a gram of cold launch gas generator — probably painted navy blue / olive green and very expensive.
I hate to disagree but the chemistry isn’t dissimilar. Same fundamental idea. The issue is packaging it so it is shock proof and inert.
The pressure -> ejection velocity control will be down to an array of gas generating charges that are set off electrically in a very tightly timed sequence so an accurate pressure curve is generated.
I would *guess* that there is a temperature dependency curve as well. So the results are consistent wherever the environmental conditions.
“ Do the expulsion gases get unto the VLS space below the container when cold launch is used in the Mk41?”
They don’t – they stay in the canister and are retained by the piston.
Thanks for that — wasn’t sure if there was some amount of leakage back into the guts of the Mk41 set up.
From memory when airbags go off the interior is covered in white powder / talc I think so that the occupants don’t get friction burns off the rapidly expanding airbags.
Back in the day a new version of the Fiesta went from 2 to 4 airbags in the basic car and the Finance team had a fit.
Had to be explained nicely to the team that 2 was old hat — Dacia was working there way up to 4 and Renault was about to make a song and dance about six in a Clio.
The budget was found.
Initial installation for one of these systems?
“The cost of fitting a Mk 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) can vary significantly, ranging from around $50 million for acquisition and installation of 12×8 Strike length cells to over $110 million for 8×8 Strike length cells.”
“The cost to fit a Naval Strike Missile (NSM) system on a Royal Navy ship is estimated to be around £1.75 million per missile, with a single outfit of 8 weapons for each ship potentially costing around £200 million, including other equipment and support costs.”
And suddenly the ship becomes far less budget. But it’s all nessecary these days
Yeah, it’s annoying, but I’d rather they spend the budget and keep the ship and sailors safe.
Less budget but much more fighty and a fleet wide asset.
TBH the whole purpose of buying a large ship like T31 was that it could be unarmed and evolve as needed.
The needs have rather overtaken the design.
Hopefully, no longer a Navy full of porcupines!
Possible due to a sufficiently large design. To go to the even larger hull based on a potential T32 without a completely new design would be the way to go. Bit like the Edinburgh sub class of the late ’30s Towns.
Do you want a peaceful warship? 12 CAMM, 3 guns. Well at least it makes a change and shows after 50 years RN believes in guns again. Would have saved many sailors in Falklands.
Modern guns are fully combat system controlled , even down to 40mm. The old 40mm and 30mm under manual control of Falklands era couldnt have tracked fast Argentine jets at low level
Sir Tristram had its own light guns, 4x 20mm Oerlikons plus MG
It was not radar controlled because RN choose not to since RN had a missile fetish.
The 40mm could already be radar controlled in late WW2. At time of Falklands either the Swedes and Italians had radar controlled Bofors, the Italians that i know more about had already monopulse, MTI.
There should have been court martials over that. Plus Sheffield and Coventry. I digress
HMS Belfast had radar controlled twin Bofors. 6 sets. I was complaining that nothing in the then Fleet could have touched the Belfast in 1970 because we were forgetting the surface threat.
The curse of big number costings — kitchen sink job designed to tell us nothing.
£200mill — that would get us 100 alsations for 25 years.
We need better info from the MOD — the £200mill figure is just rubbish without context.
Does anyone know if the RN tomahawks will work out of the box with the MK41 (seeing as the US has already done Tomahawk MK41 integration)?
I appreciate we have a small stockpile but having the capability to arm a Type 31with Tomahawk and not send an Astute could be a useful capability to have until future cruise weapon enters service next decade.
They’re designed for horizontal submarine canister launch, and there are less than 100 so
Probably won’t be used
I think this is unlikely – by the time the final Type 31 receives Mk41, FC/ASW will be less than half a decade away. They’ll likely wait, and pack the cells with CAMM and CAMM-MR until then.
Mk41 has to be programmed for missiles in certain cells, so they may only program one 8 pack for Camm
Sea Ceptor *must* have the ExLS insert first as its a cold launch, other missiles use their booster to exit the VLS
Correction. Its a gas powered piston inside the cannister
Some ship launched TLAMs could be a good value interim purchase while waiting for FC/ASW. I think there’s also a mk41 version of the LRASM.
What defence project would you not do to free up the money to pay for this?
Extra capital spending is on the way, the whole of europe is doing the same.
Extra spending is on the way. But to me it’s an open question how much will be left for capital spending after the needed large increases in personnel spending have been made. Without spending much much more on people there is no hope of both increasing overall numbers and sorting the shortages in the technical fields. People are U.K. defence’s biggest problem so people spending should have first call on extra money. It’s not as sexy as discussing new weapons systems but it’s much more important.
If its deemed as needed money can be found. Japan, Netherlands and Australia have just ordered TLAMs for their ships. TLAMs might be one of the cheaper purchases as an interim. Those who decided on these 4 x mk41s must be aware of their missile options and the costs otherwise they could have gone for a mk41/ CAMM farm mix. On the side, it would be good to see the T31’s Wildcats get a dipping sonar added unless they’re looking at drones for this or are the T31s getting a towed sonar?
I don’t share your optimism on money. The MoD budget is getting a significant increase, but there are already many other calls on that money. Choices will have to be made and I don’t think TLAM will make the cut.
MOD — actual management will increase efficiency.
Extra money will deliver plenty of Indians as we have all the chiefs that we need at the moment.
The MOD seems to be a hive of activity — the wrong people asking the wrong questions and generating the wrong answers.
Might be punching a bruise here but the “Crowsnest” project would appear to be a classic of its kind.
All analysis and no delivery.
Points to technically illiterate decision makers lacking confidence in their own abilities and going into erse covering mode from the off.
No ability to deal with risk — analyse / analyse / analyse then test / test / test leading to fail / fail / fail.
Like the Young Ones episode where Neil is in the exam room and by the time he has sorted out his stuff he is told to stop writing.
Comedy might be the only way to deal with this.
I start with a lot of this:
That’s based on 2023 numbers and Commodore / Brigadier / Air Commodore and above. Retire them on pension not full pay either.
TLAM is actually quite cheap in its surface launch form. It has range, but is not a stealth missile, so you need to be careful of the targets you try & hit.
Pure 100% good news. Nothing to complain about. FFBNW until the money becomes available. When it does fitted.
Plus some extra sales of the A140/T31 would be extra icing on the cake!
Not sure there’s many candidate. Sounds like New Zealand is just gonna life extend their ships
NZ has bigger problems, like almost no people left in their navy.
I wouldn’t be so negative once RN have accepted #1 or start making positive noises.
The RN thumbs up is still a big thing as loads of other navies make use of FOST and its successors.
Yes, likely to do that first. Both NZ ships don’t have any cannistered ashms. Maybe not deemed necessary but that might change. NSM is being made under licence here in Australia. I thought i read somewhere recently that the NZ Defence minister mentioned wanting four ships. The A140 was promoted to NZ a while back and they’re probably watching the outcome of Australia’s light frigate program choice which is up to 11 ships.
Babcock hit the ground running with the Polish and Indonesian orders but it’s gone very quiet since. Chile and New Zealand were a big hope but they’re both looking less likely now. The market for ‘relatively’ low cost frigates is extremely competitive not just the traditional players but S.Korea and Turkey are getting a lot of interest. Babcock will need HMG backing and orders once the Type 31 programme is completed.
The big shame was that the T31 wasn’t selected as one of the 4 candidate designs for Australia’s “SEA 3000 Frigate” programme for Tier 2 frigates.
Had they done so they would have ended up with the same mix of vessels as the RN.
They got their fingers burnt with the Hunters. It’s generally acepted that the problem was on their end but it left scars.
Nothing wrong with the T26 design. The RAN just upped the range so much it became much higher displacement from the weight of the fuel.
The nuclear sub choice also changed the requirement for the ASW from a high end frigate down to a more affordable lighter frigate
The RAN is the worst customer , look at the debacle over the French designed SSK. Its a feature of their decision-making. They are like the British Army
The RAN are a puzzle. The RN ships already have a longer range than other European navies. They want to have as long legs as the USN but in fact they dont have to travel as far as the USN does to get to the Western Pacific.
They’ve tried to take an ASW optimised frigate design and squeeze an Arleigh-Burke destroyer into it. Ridiculous, but same mistake the USN are doing with the Constellation frigates 🤦🏻♂️
Shiny object syndrome.
Using an italian FREMM for Constellation was decide by Trump the First, but the USN (and some industrial lobbies) disagreed… So they did so much “optimizations” during Biden administration that the US Branch of Fincantieri has lost the deal… It will be interesting to see the future of Constellation with Trump the Second.
USN Constellations arent cancelled.
The core issue is the USN designers havent got the final upper structure/inside layout detail plans to builder.
Fincantieri bought all of Marinette Marine, a second source shipyard was to increase the build rate
Indeed.
Of course Trump wants Constellation!
And top management of USN has been fired by Trump.
There used to be some really nice drawings floating around of an AH140 with CEAFAR, but they’ve vanished from the image hosting site.
The artist’s idea was to arrange the 6 panels into two groups of 3, one on the main mast and one aft above the hangar like the SMART-L, arranged in a ‘star of David’ pattern with two triangles for even coverage.
It looked very neat and pretty, but unfortunately we will never see what an AH140 in australian service would look like.
The Polish A140s look pretty decent and well armed too. Three radar panels up front, fourth at the rear.
Babcocks concept looked nothing like that. It was a derivate of the Anzac frigate CEFAR main mast
Oh, this wasn’t anything official from Babcock, just a cool drawing by an interested person.
Have you heard of Shipbucket?
Why not find an official image . It took me 30 sec. google search has an image tab you know . or not.
Quentin D63 seems to be repeating unverified made up stuff too.
It was never intended as an actual design, just one of a series of speculative concepts for how CEAFAR could be arranged on AH140.
Incidentally I prefer it to the concept you have shown here, but that’s by the by.
Quentin is very optimistic and earnest, don’t put him off
Babcock are the only ones that understand the ship superstructure enough to have real possibilities.
The rest is just nonsense with photoshop
Babcock can’t meet the timeframes Australia wants for the first 3. Japan & Germany say they can. NZ are looking for early 2030’s (doable). Australia wants 2029 for first delivery of at least 1, if not 2 ships.
You’ve answered my question here. How about getting the Indonesian’s to build along side their 2 A140s? Or, a 2 or 3way shared build between Aus and NZ? Aren’t there other UK screaming for work that could have been utilised?
Indonesia? The place where you can buy a drivers license for something you don’t know how to drive?
Do we know why the T31 wasn’t down selected? Wonder if it’s still possible for a late inclusion as they haven’t decided on the final choice yet?
What DJ said above. The RAN want the later units built in Australia but they need to start replacing ANZACs ASAP so they want the earlier units built offshore to speed delivery. The four designs that made the shortlist could all be slotted into local production runs with minimal delay. The UK couldn’t do that, the RN’s need to replace T23 ASAP means it can’t accept delays to its production runs and there is no spare capacity that doesn’t need lead time – H&W Belfast for example is an aspirational shipyard that exists only on paper.
The RAN isn’t going to say it aloud but all Australian defence planning is done with an eye on Indonesia. The fact that there are A140s in build in Indonesia is not a selling point, it’s almost an automatic veto. The winner was due to be announced in February and I rather suspect the reason it wasn’t is that there is quiet diplomacy between Canberra and Tokyo to make sure the potential Mogami sale to Indonesia is killed that hadn’t been completed before Canberra went into caretaker mode for an election.
Thanks DJ & GWS, I wasn’t aware of the possible Mogami sale to Indonesia and even thought I heard (from someone here) that they might order some more A140?
It’s not new, dating from 2021 originally https://thediplomat.com/2021/04/japan-could-deliver-8-cutting-edge-frigates-to-indonesia/ but it is an on and off again project (not uncommon in Indonesian procurement), as of January this year it’s back on the table.
Wasnt even in the 2 finalists. So no chance
We can hope that things are still going on in the back ground. The UK needs to kerp on the case. Agree on Turkey and Korea. What’s the saying, “you’ve got to be in it to win it!” There’s also the NZ helo competition, Wildcat up against the MR60 and NH60, maybe others.
If the NZ ships can fit MR60 it’ll win easily. It’s a far better ASW helicopter than Wildcat and by way of its production volume probably significantly cheaper. After the Australian issue I doubt NH60 has much of a hope.
NZ has the NH60 (MR60?) already already so might well go for that and not seemingly having any problems with it. Seahawk will fit in with Australia’s nicely. The Taipan saga is still an ongoing inquiry and in the news here, with questions over the tech in the helmet.
NH90!
Wildcat is the best choice as its similar in size to Seasprite – which was RAN choice too, who changed their mind after failing to build the combat system wanted in their delivered choppers.
RAN is totally hopeless when it comes to procurement, they are like the British army in buying gear , but change their mind after they have bought as well
I thought i had the NH90 wrong. Thanks for the correction. Yes, the RAN purchasing of ships and subs and all the issues that come with them do get very muddled.
I would suggest the Seahawk will be the winner (MH-60R) as that is what Australia has & is buying more. Nearest major Wildcat user is Korea. NZ can’t even fully maintain their P8’s. Small numbers make things difficult when it comes to repairs, spares or loan aircraft. For NZ, Australia is the only option for such things at short notice. Even the use of CAMM on NZ frigates is a problem, as the use of CAMM only launchers (in this case) means no fall back if UK can’t supply in time & NZ war stocks are almost non existent at the best of times.
Would have liked the MOD to have orderd 3 more T31 and committed to T32 (2033ISD!) BUT maybe that’s for tomorrow!
It’s all good. Especially done before the SDR. Tomorrow will happen tomorrow. 👍
So here’s an amusing thought… 😏
T45 destroyer CMS updated to be able to control/ cooperate with that of a paired T31 frigate. With quad packing of the Mark 41s, you’re looking at a total of:
• 48 Asters
• 152 Sea Ceptors
Absolutely no reason at all why this wouldn’t work.
In fact it is pretty much inevitable that all of the a CSG’s radar are ultimately fused together to produce a single picture and that T45 or QEC could control targeting and launching remotely from other ships.
You have forgotten the NSM on T45 and T31 as well so that is another 24 missiles.
I’d be pretty clear that some of the Mk41 will have Sea Ceptor on them and others will have the Anglo French whatever-it-is-called-this-week sub/supersonic missile! So a Hi-Low mix which is what you want if you want to have a decent inventory?
I was thinking of the scenario where you need to beef up air-defences – you could quad-pack on the T31 with Sea Ceptors to essentially act as an air-defence arsenal ship for the T45 to use. (Which is why I didn’t count NSM as it’s not air-defence.)
Obviously in most circumstances this would be ridiculous and a mix of land-attack missiles and Sea Ceptors would be loaded.
But say for a scenario like the Red Sea, you could keep the T45 on station longer, and just keep sending reloaded T31s out to it, rather than it having to leave the theatre for reloads. (Would tie up a minimum of two T31s, possibly more.)
Morning SB, I’m just questioning your maths…don’t you mean 8+8 each for 16 NSM? Unless you’re suggesting a 16 NSM loadout on either? Which, i just saw on the Naval News presentation of the T26 to the Norwegians. Low and behold 4×4 NSM over the hangar, double what i had seen for the RAN, RCN Hunter/River’s and none prior on the T26s. Definitely now looking even more punchy. Hope the RN gets to have this same full fit out which has got to mean more NSM to be ordered. I think NSM can be used in land attack so dual purpose?
Yeah, NSM can be used for land attack too, and function well in that capacity. It’s warhead is a little small but for high value targets it should do fine.
SeaCeptor is the system, it uses Aster missiles, short & longer range variants.
Co-operative engagement capability is whole different ball game but has been around for a couple of decades now.
SeaCeptor does not use Aster Missiles. You are thinking of Sea Viper. SeaCeptor is the CAMM missile.
We could really use some more varied names.
No, the Sea- names are awesome. Especially Sea Slug.
Ceptor is arguably the worst of the bunch.
Of course it’s an interceptor, name it something interesting like Sea Snipe or Sea Bolt!
Sea Slug – a missile much feared by the crew launching it. No threat whatsoever to the target!
Actually it was used to some effect in the Falklands by my ship for shore bombardment the Mk2 version which also had a limited anti ship capability
Sea Ceptors uses CAMM not Asters.
Fitting a warship with VLS cells shouldn’t be seen as an upgrade.
You think it’s a downgrade? 🤦🏻♂️
No. I see it as standard equipment that should have been installed as the first ships were built.
This is a replacement of the planned Sea Ceptre mushroom farm with Mk41 VLS instead. Thats an upgrade.
Your opinion doesn’t allow you to redefine the English language.
Its not a mushroom farm, thats unique to the T23 Sea Wolf conversion.
The new build Camm have its own armoured VLS units with hatches, sized for the missile
Mushroom farm is going on T26
It always had the Sea ceptor missiles type specific VLS system. This is an addition, a more adaptable VLS
Personally, I’d be getting far more excised about the following written answer slipped out on Monday.
Written questions and answers – Written questions, answers and statements – UK Parliament
Specifically, “All eight world-class Type 26 ships are scheduled to enter service commencing from 2029”
Compared to the original plan where HMS Glasgow was due to be accepted in 2025 and in-service from 2027.
Type 26 Frigates – Hansard – UK Parliament
And also “All five Type 31 ships expected to be operational by the early 2030s”
as opposed to the original plan where Venturer was supposed to be “in the water” by December 2023 (still not happened as of April 2025, although scuttlebutt suggests next month) and all five accepted off contract in 2028.
20200120_-_Meg_Hillier_T31_AOA.pdf
Worrying.
The delays must all be laid down at the door of the previous government and correctly funding yearly progress to their timetable . Surely
I think you’ll probably find its down to the shipbuilding primes being nowhere near as competent as they think they are. This isn’t about annual funding, because the contracts are all about cardinal stage payments, not annual funding.
That said, I’ll also wager the inability of DE&S to make decisions through lack of competence will also affect this
N-a-B
You are hereby awarded five golden emoji’s for your recent homework
👍👍👍👍👍
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I’d clocked the T31 comment.
Likewise with Babcock being so clear that painting was the last thing to do – the fact that they are applying paint now would suggest that a roll out is imminent.
According to a parliamentary written answer on the 4th March, Eagle stated:
“On current plans, the construction of all eight Type 26 frigates is expected to be complete by the mid-2030s. HMS Glasgow’s Initial Operating Capability date remains October 2028.”
So any change for the Glasgow officially happened over the last month. If true, it would be worrying, given the fact that Govan will be speeding up, and it makes us ask, what is delaying the ship further? It could be Scotstoun, it could be the Navy work up, or it could be a lack of sailors and waiting on something else to be taken out of service in 2028/29, Somerset perhaps. It’s only 2025, and surely something on the Navy end can be rectified within three and a half years. I’m hoping it was just a slip of the Eagle pen.
We know that the T31s have been delayed and I think nobody will know by how much until Venturer is fitted out. It’s Babcock’s first complete warship in the UK and they are still feeling their way. Babcock will know more when Venturer is closer to completion and it’s possible, like BAE, they will plan to speed up, especially if MOD orders a second batch.
“ like BAE, they will plan to speed up, especially if MOD orders a second batch.”
If they speed up without a follow on order they will either be paying people to watch daytime TV or have to close they yard and start over when a new order comes in painfully relearning skills.
The MoD confirmed to NL today the Parliamentary Answer was incorrect. HMS Glasgow remains on course to achieve Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by October 2028.
Which as I’m sure you know hides a multitude of potential sins, depending on how you define IOC….
If – for example – IOC happened to be defined as acceptance off contract with no defects post-part IV trials, that still leaves plenty of work to do (BOST and subsequent training packages) before she’s deployable.
What is undeniable – and inexplicable – is that we have got to a place where it takes over a decade from keel laying (never mind first steel cut!) to delivery in some form or other. Yes we had Covid, yes we had GB issues, yes it’s the Weegies, yes there has undoubtedly been some form of balancing both financial budget and also workforce utilisation, but FFS. These ships are not substantially more complicated than those of 30 years ago – and in some ways (modular cabin outfit, cable and pipework hanging systems) much easier.
Totally agree. 11 years to build a frigate is absurd.
Lack of competence? Loss of know-how? Obsolete industrial planification and processing?
In France, Naval Group have learned a lot through cooperation with Chantiers de l’Atlantique (civil ship builder) on Germinal “frigates” and Mistral, because CdA were better organized. And CdA will build the next carrier, under control of NG.
As Finance minister, Macron wanted to sell CdA to Fincantieri, because CdA receives some public subventions. As President, he didn’t want any longer.
May be the arrival of Navantia in UK will help modernizing some obsolete processes?
There has to be a follow-on order for at least another batch. The RN must manage the frigate force programmes to ensure continuous construction whilst keeping a fleet of no less than 19 frigates and 6 destroyers in operation. 25 should be the absolute minimum number of escort class warships Britain has available. The frankly embarrassing current situation of having only 8 available and in service type 23s and just 6 type 45s is nothing short of a national disgrace.
First find the people with the right skill/experience mix to crew them. If you went to 25 escorts at the moment (or in the next 5/8 years) some would have to be immediately laid up for lack of crew.
Compared to the capital cost of warships, considerably increasing Royal Navy sailor numbers (if done in the right way) isn’t actually that expensive…
But fixing personnel shortages is proving very hard to do. Until there is concrete evidence that the RN can recruit/retain the right number of people with the right skills and experience it’s not worth ordering ships to significantly expand the RN.
It is a vicious circle.
If you are part of a ship’s company that is on a totally knackered ship that is well past its ‘use by date’ with things falling apart in your hands that are older than you are; then expect engineering trades to keep walking.
QECs helped RN recruitment.
The fact that T45 had woeful availability didn’t help matters as that is a state-of-the-art ship.
People like working on platforms that work. The old approach of ‘give it a kick there mate, always been like that’ don’t wash anymore. In a world of iPhones that most work flawlessly – that is the expectation level.
What actually are the issues with not attracting enough people? Is it about pay and conditions, job prospects, anti-military, being away from family? The life choice mayn’t work for some but I’m amazed that a country of 70m people still can’t find enough for its ships. I know other countries are having the same problem. If the economy and finding work is tough is it too bad a choice?
I don’t know and from the fact that the problems haven’t been fixed I suspect the RN leadership doesn’t know.
I wonder if it’s the efficiency issue, where it’s more efficient to recruit in a particular manner that’s less conducive as far as the applicants are concerned. For example asking potential recruits to wait until there are slots available for their trade, or delaying ingress until GP medical reports are available, etc, rather than grabbing them first with both hands and worrying about dotting the i’s afterward. It may be cheaper per recruit to put them off, but remarkably ineffective if you don’t get the numbers in.
There could be an uptick in applications during Highmast. I hope the navy makes best use of it.
Around a quarter of 18 year olds leave home to go to university (far more than when I went), so I don’t believe there’s anything particular about the current generation that’s worried about leaving home.
Its a number of things.
First and foremost, additional trained strength is seen as a bad thing by the Finance managers in each service and the MoD overall. That’s because people are under the Resource budget and the Treasury hates the resource budget as its just viewed as sunk cost with no capitalised “Value”. It does not matter arguing that you can’t run the ships without people, because the response will be “find a way, use technology, the futures autonomy etc etc”, irrespective of whether its viable or not.
The you butt up against the shortage of truly competent people particularly in the engineering branches who know what they’re doing. That shortage leads to an overall lack of trust and so the branch recruiters and managers develop competency matrices for which to be deemed competent one has to have completed particular courses and/or time in a particular post. Trouble is, if there aren’t enough course places and in particular sea slots (for which you have to have the correct quals) the demand vs supply element gets even more out of kilter, which explains partially why the overall number of matelots is broadly the same, but we are allegedly short of people to crew ships.
Third one is as S-B suggests. People get tired of working with Triggers broom and/or extending deployments on a working ship to cover for one thats knackered. Vicious circle.
Thanks all for your replies. They’ll have to find ways through all these mitigating factors and hopefully the upgraded current and new new ships, subs and technology will help promote the RN service to help keep the 🇬🇧 afloat!
If the RN stopped scrapping ships without replacement they might find retention improves! It’s a downward spiral
Ships getting scrapped because there are no crews
Just curious as to why the T31 bow is showing 2 of i am assuming 3 anchors and not just 2 either side? I’ve not noticed this anchor configuration before.
2 is normal. 3 would be excessive for such a small ship.
Unsurprising regarding the (slow) timing of this CIP announcement. Another sign of the financial situation regarding how the UK military is presently funded.
.
.
Re the Mk-41 inclusion.
.
.
Strategy should govern the types of ships to be designed. Ship design, as dictated by strategy, should govern tactics. Tactics should govern the details of armaments. (Admiral Fisher quote, Warrior to Dreadnought, DK Brown).
.
.
While inclusion of Sea Ceptor into the Strike-length Mk-41 VLS, quad-packed; the planned strategy and tactics for the T31s may merit the inclusion of a separate Sea Ceptor VLS mushroom farm (i.e. like those presently in use) to allow greater flexibility with the Mk-41 load-out for ASM, ASW and (another) SAM weapon systems (the later cannot, or should not, be excluded from the weapon system design).
.
.
The original ship design includes capacity for additional Mk-41 modules to be fitted, forward of the existing modules. Addition of a separate Sea Ceptor mushroom farm may impact the NSM ASM launch tubes, if located in this location; unless the boat stowage arrangements allow for the mushrooms port and starboard of the the Mk-41 modules (potentially in a semi above deck setup, as used in the T23s.
.
.
Going back to Fisher, it all depends on how the T31 is intended to be fought and when, with whom and for how long – i.e. will this T31 GP frigate become a defacto major warship class, with (any) wartime (ship) additions being less capable, due to the necessity to build quickly? Of course some offical answers to these questions are not for the public domain.
Fisher had his moments but he was an ideas man with a predilection for hobby horses.
Might want to look for better sources to sort ourselves out of the mess we are in.
One thing for Fisher — he was very comfortable with risk.
Bit too comfortable as it turned out.
With national horizons.
We can get away with less armour because our shells are crap.
Didn’t age well.
The person behind the quotation is irrelevant, I was just completing the quote reference.
.
.
The quote itself, it quite relevant, but I appreciate, not all people may understand it.
T31 is a Level 3 / Patrol spec platform.
Bit of investment can get it up towards Level 3 / GP with all round area influence.
However it needs a bit of work — sonar stuff would appear to be a bit thin / A170 sizing would be better — to be proper GP.
The point is, that during a the peace before the war, the opportunity to ‘up-gun’ the platform may be useful, as during a war, platforms built quickly may be more austere (like the 1st-rate and 2nd rate ship class frigates after WWII).
.
.
To this end, as it stands, the T31 is 2nd rate, at best presently; though with relatively ‘modest’ expenditure – just like the T42s gaining the 2nd 909 director in design, some relatively ‘modest’ costed weapons system enhancements to the weapons and sensors would up-rate the platform significantly; which with less hulls presently in the medium to long term, would greatly add the RN (also similar to what the Dutch did with their Tromps, putting more into fewer hulls).
It was decided decade and a half back that the frigate force would be a mix of higher end (T26) and lower end ( T31) ships. Just took some time to work it all out
Given the size of most navies at the moment there isn’t going to be a lot of action on the high seas — probably some well rehearsed moves followed by a couple of bloody noses and then fleet in being for the rest of the hostilities.
If we ever get to WW2 levels of intensity it will be ex oil industry PSVs and AHTS units escorting convoys and ex ferries being butchered to mount some VLS tubes.
The RN at the moment could not fight sleep / beat Casey’s drum.
Just not a credible fighting unit at the moment.
Need to point the finger at Cameron / Osborne — the Scratchy and Sniffy of our time.
Others are / were guilty — they are certifiable.
I will disagree, the next world conflict with russia and china the most likely baddies will bring to bear the lack of naval assets in the UK.
.
.
My point with the T31s (and hopefully the T32s) is, that these platforms have a reasonable 2nd rate capability and that with a few tweaks, they could be a flotilla/squadron leaders for war additions.
.
.
Of course the lack of submarines is probably the biggest idiot move the UK made, starting in the 90s through to the 2010s… I would add major, blair and brown (lower case lack of respect intended) to your list 🙃
Ex-Service
I really don’t see why the RN needs a third type of frigate, the T32, at sea and in service
Simply adding more complexity: and thus costs
Surely the best way foward for the RN now is just to order more T31’s: especially with these latest capability enhancements (ie as above) already fitted
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
A140 was a god starting point.
A170 is where we need to be.
Parametric design / Variational geometry is your friend.
Steel is cheap / air is free.
Might get an extra knot out of it as well.
T26 would appear to be another candidate for the process.
Hunter class in Aus — what exactly were the issues.
I have taken my finger off the pulse.
Aus didn’t realise how much their modifications were increasing the price, so they got burnt when the quote came in from BAE.
They then made a decision to procure SSNs, which made gucci ASW less of a priority over getting hulls in the water.
They then made a decision to procure SSNs, which made gucci ASW less of a priority over getting hulls in the water.
Really? Gosh……….
Genuinely can’t tell what you’re trying to convey here.
Not quite getting the point you are making.
T26 would be level 1 ASW — as in tip of the spear / front rank ASW.
Gucci ASW as you note. However how does that fit in with the Aus SSN decision?
Plan A — French conventional sub / catalogue engineering in the main.
Plan B — Dog’s breakfast / rent US subs in the short term then buy brand new UK subs in the medium to very long term depending on BinF’s mood that decade.
Aus is now in ASAP mode for some second string frigates.
Not sure if they are Level 2 / well rounded GP units or Level 3 / Patrol spec with limited area influence.
By all accounts they are looking to get them ASAP.
So not sure how the sub handbrake turn drives this forward?
Renting subs will be quicker than brand new even if they are simpler / conventional units and any new subs will lessen the need for Gucci spec ASW?
OK — just about get that.
But then why the ASAP procurement of the second string units?
Desperate for hulls and with the Hunter class running late / running slow they need anything that can hoist a flag?
Difference between sea control and sea denial is lost on him.
As is the scale of the geography.
As is how surface combatants and submarines are used and their costs.
They should retain NSM for the Type 31s.
They still might be NSMs on the T31. The Polish A140 design has shown up to 4×4. Not sure if the FC/ASW of either variant, will be just for vls or also cannister and it’s still a way off.
I see Japan’s also doing a Mk41 capability insert on its Mogami class.
Japan also licence builds mk41 (I think the only country other than US).
I thought mk41 was a LM product (except for a licence built version by MHI in Japan)? ie not Raytheon
By A170 do you mean T32 (170mts long)?
Yes — nice round number.
A191 would be Mazda spec as in 626′ waterline.
Steel is cheap / air is free.
The Yanks have already workt out that it will be years before uk & Europe will have any sort of effective surface fleets the slow progress of t26/t31 won’t impress anyone in the US
And talk of us getting rid of our carriers will only make things worse!
Talk is cheap,the Yanks are watching!
So now the RN is going to have three separate types of VLS in service? Wow, that’s efficient.
And five gun calibers: 4,5 inches, 57mm, 40mm, 30mm, 20mm.
Indeed, but that’s less of a logistical load than a more complex and expensive VLS system which needs separate operating systems, reconditioning and parts replacing after every launch.
I had wondered if the RN would decide to standardise on Sylver, installing the A70 instead of Mk41. But it seems contracts were already signed and the Mk41 modules have presumably been under construction for the past two years. More of our money supporting US industry! Oh well. Never mind.
“ reconditioning and parts replacing after every launch.”
That might be news to the USN which is full steam ahead on reloading at sea
Yes. They have to replace the liner/capsule which contains the missile, which makes the evolution harder as the weight of the package is greater than just the missile, and connections have to be made inside the VLS. There are also many components of the gas efflux system that wear out very quickly, for obvious reasons. So, again, yes, and the reason the USN hasn’t cracked this yet is all of the above, plus many more.
Missile comes each time in its own new liner /capsule
A 70 only launches Scalp and cannot fit Sea ceptor
For reasons I think we’ve mentioned before Sylver A70 is not an ideal system to standardise on.
The upcoming Sylver A70-NG is expected to be a true European Mk41 equivalent, and I would prefer for that to have been used, but timelines have been against the RN.
I expect that Sylver A50 will be phased out with the Type 45. Where that would leave the RN in terms of long-range AAW is unknown. Standard series? CAMM-MR developments? Aster-30 Block 1NT integrated into Mk41?
leh, just saw your reply to the other thread.
Yes, timelines are a problem, given that if the first two T31 hulls are getting Mk41 as part of the CIP, then those modules will have been under construction for the past two years, under a very different political climate! And that, of course, is the principal concern which was not a factor when these contracts where signed. Yet, having said that, I recall looking at the early concepts for the Future Surface Combatant and noting how almost all of them assumed the presence of at least two distinct VLS types (I think one had three, which felt very Soviet) and thinking, back then, that this was a silly idea that would lead to greater expense. The logistical argument has always been there.
If we review why the RN wants Mk41, we get the following, in descending order of importance:
The ability to shop from the US inventory is very appealing. Not only do you get TLAM, outliers like ASROC and other cruise options like the Joint Strike Missile and LRASM, but you can now launch a Patriot PAC-3! And you can still use it for CAMM, if you want. All very tempting.
But there are downsides, both political and technical. For example, any money the UK gets from joining the European defence initiative will not be permitted to fund purchases from outside the EU and named third party states, such as the UK, so there will be no extra money to deepen the stocks of US-made missiles.
And it’s potentially damaging to have one of the biggest European customers, if not Europe’s biggest future customer, for naval missiles funding US industry, and tied in to US supply chains, rather than supporting European alternatives, such as the Spear 5 FC/ASW…
In fact, look at FC/ASW specifically. There will be a Sylver compatible version. We know that much. But, at present, despite repeated confirmation that Type 26 will get FC/ASW, there is no suggestion that there will be a Mk41 compatible version. So, how will Type 26 handle the Spear 5, when it gets it (supposedly around 2030)? Does that automatically mean that Type 26 needs at least one module of A70?
Agreed that A50 will likely disappear from British service with the T45. (Unless there is an AAW version of T26 at some point: the RN could find itself in a position analogous to the French and Italians vis a vie developing the AAW FREMM to quickly compensate for low numbers of Horizons. As the T45s decommission and/or T83 fails to materialise, or is delayed… but I will put away the crystal ball, now!)
A50 has a long future onboard the type of small AAW frigates that France and Italy appear to favour, and which seem to sell reasonably well, if only by dint of its smaller dimensions making it easier to accommodate.
But Type 83 will get Sylver A70 NG. I’m placing that bet, now.
I fully agree with all of this, though I think a Mk41-capable variant of the FC/ASW has been all but confirmed, given the 2028-30 timeline for the missile being in service onboard Type 26 frigates.
Indeed, the A70-NG is the most likely choice for the Type 83 at this point, given that it will fulfil the requirements for launching Aster-30 Block 1NT, FC/ASW and Aquila. This could then be supplemented by ‘mushroom farm’-launched CAMM.
However, now the precedent is set for Mk41, a small number of MK41 (perhaps 16-32) cells could also be included if the RN wants to get into the exo-atmospheric interception game, a capability only provided, or even planned to be provided, by the USN’s SM-3. These cells could also quad-pack CAMM or CAMM-ER, thus removing the need for the ‘mushroom farms’.
But that’s speculation 🙂
However, if A70-NG is procured (I think that it likely will be), then there would be the odd situation of the RN operating not only three separate VLS across its fleet. Beyond that, should the CAMM family see its expected future development and deployment, there would also be two separate families of medium-range SAMs in use with the RN. I’m excited to see where this goes.
And five gun calibers:
make that 6 as T26 has the US 5 in, even though its a ASW frigate.
All those years spent revising the design and they get it colossally wrong. Indeed the T31 should be the medium gun warship.
Right!
Why a 5 in for an ASW frigate?
57 mm should be enough?
T26 was going to be our only frigate, of course it was going to get 5 inch
T31 is cheap, 5 inch is expensive
In reality it’s insanely expensive for what it delivers.. personally I think they should have gone for a super rapid 76mm with guided dart rounds as the standard gun for all escorts.. as it’s s superb medium gun.
In trials.the 76mm was found wanting in surface to surface role(Canada).and Austrailia picked the 5 inch for land support reasons, something we must not forget..
It’s not just an ASW frigate
The T31 was designed to be a Gulf State gunboat to face off against the Iranian Republican Guard. It has, during development, experienced significant mission creep, but the reason it never got a 5″ was because you don’t need a 5″ to nail a Boghammar armed with an anti tank missile. In fact, a 5″ is suboptimal, being too big and too slow.
The 57mm is apparently a better AAW weapon as well..unless the 5inch gets a good guided round.. also the 5inch is heading a cool 100million a pop.
I really never understand why they just did not settle on the super rapid 76mm with guided dart rounds.. a profoundly good medium gun.. that essentially now fires micro AAW missiles.
20mm is retired nearly, 4.5 is a known gun and will be on the 45s till their end of life. 40mm is the most likely to become a secondary and eventually replace 30mm.
The guns being picked make sense
I honestly think they should retire the 4.5inch with the last T23 and give the T45 the 57mm.
Probably but we need the T45s working not in constant upgrades
The T31s will be very capable general purpose warships once the mk41 is fitted. Build Batch II now!
And Mk41 will tie us firmly into US supply chains for anything other than CAMM.
Slyver is a terrible VLS so not exactly any options
Sylver A50 is great at its intended role, offering rapid rates of launch for the Aster family, whilst being significantly lighter than the Mk41.
It was never intended to be a universal VLS equivalent to the Mk41, and therefore should not be compared to it.
The upcoming Sylver A70-NG is expected be a true European equivalent to the Mk41, being able to launch the Aster-30 Block 1NT, the Aster-15EC and the FC/ASW from the outset.
Sure, but we’re building the ships now, can’t wait for A70NG.
Europe really limited their upgrade options with single role VLS
I agree – I expect Mk41 to remain on both the Type 31 and Type 26.
It’s less clear as to what will equip the Type 83 and Type 32. It could be the A70-NG or the Mk41, alongside CAMM mushroom farms.
I think you will find it will be 6 gun calipers for a while in 2028 with the 5 inch gun! That’s a lot of different ammo!
They will be better of getting rid of the 4.5s as quickly as possible as it’s got no AAW us at all. Replace the 4.5inch on the T45s with 57mm so it’s gone as soon as the last T23 goes and the T45s get a gun that’s effectively a good AAW weapon out to the 5-10km mark.
What about fitting the 5 inch to the T45,wasn’t the T45 design with an upgrade to 155mm(6.1″) in mind? Should make the 5 inch easy.
In the end the cost of the 5inch is huge… the difference in the cost between 6 Five inch guns and 6 76mm guns is enough to purchase a whole type 31 frigate. So for the marginal gain around NGS vs being inferior vs AAW it’s not worth it.
All this promised equipment is great but I suspect without the funding & personal to run them doubt half will be available and the rest up for sale to Brazil/Chile within 10yrs
Looks like the Swedish Visby class will be the first to have in-service with ExLS fitted to operate CAMM.
It will be too heavy just to operate the smaller Camm. Likely the standard Camm VLS
Visbys are only 650 t covettes
The follow on Lulea will be much bigger and will be designed by Babcock