BAE Systems issues updated imagery of Leander Type 31e Frigate concept

I wish we could have more transparency. Let us be more upfront before decisions are cast in stone. Make public the options & the costs, so that more informed social media chatter, can help the final decision.
If you want to buy a car, you see the base price & then you can add options if you were willing to pay extra.
I would like to see, an options list published for proposed kit like this, so we, the taxpayers, know exactly how much, each extra gun, missile, towed array sonar, sensor, etc would add to the cost should it be chosen.
That way, gold plating or the other extreme of spoiling the ship for a halfpenny of tar can be avoided (hopefully).

While it’s nice to see Leander looking more like a frigate, this does seem like an odd step. The Harpoon launchers disappearing isn’t a surprise, Harpoon was almost definitely not going to be fitted (depends on if an interim SSM is selected). The loss of the CIWS is especially concerning, as Phalanx would probably have been GFO from the stockpile as required and it’s absence seems to indicate not available instead of FFBNW. Although an OTO Melara 76mm could fill a joint NGFS/CIWS role.

The biggest concern though HAS to be the lack of TAS and an ASW weapon beyond the Wildcat. It has just enough armament for peacetime GP and carrier escort picket roles, but the lack of a proper ASW outfit means it can’t free up billion-pound T26s from mundane tasks like the deterrent TAS ship and North Atlantic ASW patrols. The only hope for it would be ASW drones from the mission bay

What wasn’t mentioned is that without the fire control radar that was removed from the project, the 57mm gun (which is excellent btw), is completely useless in a CIWS role.
That (together with the decision to remove the phalanx) means that if an ASM manages to get past the CAMM the ship is gone.

To be frank, it is exactly the same situation we have with the T23 nowadays, but to keep accepting this on new built ships almost 40 years after the falklands conflict doesn’t seam reasonable.

I think people are reading too much into the lack of the CIWS and canister ASM in the images. The design is mandated to be fit to receive both. The CIWS will likely be added from the RN pool as and when needed. The ASM will likely come from the complex weapons budget at a later date when the interim ASM solution is acquired- they will need to buy mulitple sets for the T45’s and T23’s (possibly even T26’s) so buying another 5 sets for the T31 collectively then as part of the larger order makes sense. The only disappointment, though not a surprise, is the lack of a TAS

It seems to me what the RN need more than anything else in their ships going forward is mission flexibility and efficient manpower use; and this is a cornerstone for the T31 program. All the candidates seem to offer this, but IMO Arrowhead 140 has greater flexibility, due to the additional space/room for growth and higher performance, presuming all four diesels are fitted and is of course a proven low risk platform.

On flexibility for example, when the Hunt and Sandown MCMV age out we can’t IMO justify such specialised, dedicated replacements. It ties up a complete ships crew on this one mission when the RN is short on manpower and ships. If a conflict arises where mines aren’t a major threat, or are a threat half a world away from where MCMV vessels are located, then the ship and crew of a dedicated MCMV are wasted resources that cannot contribute to the conflict.

Whatever replaces the current MCMV needs to be capable of multiple roles, which will be possible by taking the ships out of the mine field and using channel standoff mine detection and disposal from UUV and USV. This is relevant to the T31 program in my view because the T31 should be capable of supporting the MCMV mission through embarkation of specialised mission modules, that can be embarked in the UK or flown around the world to be embarked, where and when needed, on an already on-station T31. Note in this use model that the specialised, skilled, manpower for MCM travel with the modules, they are not a permanent part of a ship’s crew. One way for the UK to increase its frigate force, perhaps significantly, is to replace the Hunt’s and Sandown’s with T31’s.

Mission modules seem to have a bit of a bad name because of the USN LCS program. However, the main problem with the LCS was the focus on >40 knots speed requirement (compromising other aspects) and that EVERYTHING became a mission module package. No new warship IMV should lack something like Sea Ceptor or ESSM, these are no longer optional, especially if said vessel is expected to operate off a hostile coast within ASM range doing MCM, littoral ASW or simply patrolling/escorting.

Given the above, I am less concerned with what a T31 commissions with in terms of armament as long as it has Sea Ceptor in addition to other basic armament such as 57mm, 30mm, chain guns, GPMGs for close in defense along with good radar/sensors and decoys. T31 with ISO based MCM and/or littoral ASW mission modules would be a very useful platform. All the better if the ASW is complemented by dipping sonar and torpedoes on Wildcat.

It would be nice to have Mk41 VLS, even just a x8 unit, but to be practical the RN currently has nothing qualified for it. So until the RN has qualified Mk41 VLS based solutions, which will take some time and will eventuate with Type 26, probably with Aster initially, then there is no need to fit Mk41 VLS, but T31 should be designed to take at least 8x cells in FFBNW for future flexibility and options. If nothing else, FFBNW MK41 VLS makes it harder for adversaries to gauge future RN strength and capabilities; first and foremost the RN exists for deterrence and this contributes to it without costing much.

Finally canister ASM seems an infatuation for many, despite virtually no one having used ship based ASM against another ship. Probably worth considering why the RN would chose to engage in a mano-a-mano engagement of major warships when it may (and probably should) have far better options, such as calling on air launched attack from land- or sea-based fixed- or rotary-wing aircraft. If it can’t call on that capability from UK or allied forces then perhaps it shouldn’t be in the situation it is? Also worth considering how a T31 would actually know where to target an over the horizon ASM in the absence of external air assets? A Wildcat could be pretty vulnerable to a peer warship’s SAM. So maybe the AEW UAV is the horse before the heavy ASM cart, until UAVs are qualified for the role with acceptable risk of loss. Wildcat launched Sea Venom, Martlet (air or ship launched) or perhaps even a cold launched SPEAR 3 from a Sea Ceptor cell would seem to address the requirement for non-peer FIAC?

This is just an attempt to broaden the debate rather than just demanding moar ships, moar and bigger guns and moar missiles along with moar of everything else until we end up spec’ing out a cruiser.

A question for anyone with knowledge of seaceptor. Wilst getting the beautifully smooth launch to work must have been an immense technical challenge, the launch tubes themselves appear to be incredibly simple and hopefully quite cheap,so why would a ship designer stop adding them before they had run out of real estate?
Also is there any reason why the tubes can’t be used for other missiles?I imagine that the warhead on the seaceptor itself is a bit too small, could it be increased?The US has experimented with an anti speedboat mode for the sidewinder and seacat had height cushion mode.