Citing the Russian threat in the Baltic Sea and the vulnerability of subsea infrastructure, the Danish government has announced a major new naval investment programme, with dozens of new vessels and systems to be delivered in the short and longer term.
The Danish government has announced plans to dramatically strengthen the Royal Danish Navy in response to increased strategic risks posed by Russia and the growing importance of maritime security in the Baltic region. With a budget commitment of 4 billion Danish kroner (around £460 million) for the near term and more to follow, the investment focuses on speed of delivery and enhancing sovereign capability across a broad range of maritime tasks.
Danish defence spending will rise to 3% of GDP. While the Starmer government has committed to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2027 with a vague ambition to achieve 3% sometime in the future, smaller European nations are rising to the challenge of Russia with an urgency and realism that is sadly lacking in Westminster.
CUI and littoral focus
A notable feature of the announcement is a new emphasis on protecting Critical Underwater infrastructure. Denmark’s seabed is laced with a dense web of pipelines and data cables that carry electricity, natural gas, and information across Northern Europe. Following the UK’s lead, Denmark will acquire a new seaborne surveillance vessel designed specifically to protect CUI.
There is also a dedicated programme to trial and integrate other autonomous maritime systems, which are increasingly seen as key enablers in modern naval operations. These include UUVs for mine countermeasures, as well as surface and aerial drones to extend situational awareness.
Four new multi-role vessels will form the core of Denmark’s marine environment emergency response but will also contribute to mine warfare, underwater surveillance, and personnel training. These ships will be capable of chemical and oil spill response while also offering utility in more traditional military roles, including the laying of sea mines and monitoring maritime activity.
Additionally, the Danish Marine Home Guard, which supports naval operations in surveillance, port security, and rescue tasks, is to be equipped with 21 new vessels to replace ageing boats currently in service. These modern platforms are expected to improve operational readiness and resilience, particularly in littoral and harbour areas where they operate closely alongside regular navy units.
Long-term ambitions
While the focus of the near-term funding package is on speed and capability in the littoral environment, this is just the beginning of a longer-term transformation. The agreement outlines an intention to strengthen Denmark’s ability to contribute to NATO-led operations and improve its high-end naval combat power. Central to this ambition is the replacement and modernisation of the three Iver Huitfeldt-class air defence frigates that entered service in 2011. These remain some of the most capable warships in Northern Europe, with advanced sensor and missile systems that support NATO’s ballistic missile defence architecture. However, upgrades and potentially new ships will be needed to keep pace with evolving threats.
In March 2024, HDMS Iver Huitfeldt suffered significant weapon system failures during an engagement with Houthi drones in the Red Sea. In April 2024, HDMS Niels Juel suffered a malfunction of the Harpoon missile system during routine tests while alongside in Korsor, forcing the closure of nearby airspace and shipping lanes, although fortunately, the missile did not launch. These issues highlighted readiness concerns that are now being addressed.
The Danish MoD has indicated that the next stage of investment will focus on air defence and strike capabilities, potentially through a successor class of frigates or a major life-extension and systems upgrade programme for the current fleet. This aligns with wider NATO concerns about missile saturation attacks, hypersonic weapons, and the need for integrated air and missile defence (IAMD) across Northern European waters. Domestic Danish naval construction capability is limited but the intention is to build and develop these high-end warships using local yards and suppliers if possible.
Denmark’s naval force has traditionally focused on peacetime tasks, environmental protection, and participation in international coalitions. The deteriorating security situation in the Baltic is forcing a reassessment of roles and priorities. The new investment marks a significant strategic shift towards maritime defence and deterrence closer to home and a pragmatic approach by a small nation facing complex challenges with limited resources.
Implications for regional partners
With Finland now a full NATO member and Sweden expected to follow imminently, the Baltic is set to become a more integrated and heavily defended space. Denmark’s geography, straddling the entrance to the Baltic Sea and controlling key chokepoints such as the Danish Straits, gives its navy a pivotal role in any future alliance operations in the region.
The enhancements to seabed surveillance, maritime domain awareness, and uncrewed systems will also feed into NATO’s broader efforts to improve infrastructure protection across the North Atlantic and European High North. There is increasing recognition that grey zone tactics are likely to characterise the next phase of competition with Russia, and NATO navies must be equipped to respond accordingly.
While the Royal Navy wants to maintain its global posture, Denmark’s latest initiative is a reminder of the importance of credible forces in home waters. Denmark’s naval investment is very welcome and complements UK interests by reinforcing NATO’s northern flank and Baltic presence with modern, scalable platforms.
Issue withthe IH frigates is the radar system, compatible SM2 missiles are no longer in production, same goes for Germany and the Netherlands
None of which is a deal breaker. Alternative radars already exist. Alternative CMS’s already exist. Alternative missiles already exist. Multiple fixes exist. The problem for Denmark is everyone except the political class already knew that, but it’s the political class that did not want to listen that hold the purse strings.
Also the guns, not mentioned in this article is that A and B turrets have been upgraded from the old rounded 76mm to the more angular modern mounts as a direct response to the failings in the Red Sea.
Looks really weird on the IHs.
A and B turrets — hopefully a trend that we might want to follow.
C turret with a Vulcan Phalanx would be the icing on the cake.
We can but dream for the T83.
Yahoos will up their game — volume attack will need layered defence.
The Red Sea failings with the 2 76mm were the ammunition, not the change of weather shield over the gun
It’s not just a change in weather shield, it’s the latest model of the 76mm
It is still “just” a Super Rapid though, ie not compatible with the Vulcano and Dart guided munitions( but is able to fire the programmable 4AP rounds ). The lates 76mm model is the Sovraponte.
The latest is the Strales system with integrated radar guidance, the Sovraponte is a flush deck mount.
Either way, they do not have the latest system, or ammunition.
Sovraponte is also Strales capable.
Not so. No one changes the whole gun and mount like that for a warship halfway through its life
The RN has also just changed the weather shields on its 4.5 in gun mounts, probably only a recondition of the existing gun and mechanism as well.
The guns on the IH were from their previous class of ships.
Yes their guns were from 80’s Kortenaer´s. So probably about 40 years old.
Leonardo do have an upgrade for 76mm compact that boosts rof to 100 rpm & includes fuse setter for Volcano & 4AP programable ammunition. Doesn’t include Strales compatibility or the super rapids 120 rpm.
You need to learn the difference between the Dutch and the Danish navies. The guns on the Huitfeldts were taken from the Flyvefisken class missile boats ( 89′ to 96′ )
The upgrade program of the 76mm guns started way back when i was still in the navy, ie it predates the red sea deployment by at least 7-8 years. Also the problems encountered during the engagement was due to faulty/ obsolete ammunition and not related to the actual guns and mounts , all of which worked flawlessly.
Thanks for the clarification.
A lot of the news around the gun change implied the two were connected and it was somehow a crash upgrade programme.
I assume you were Danish navy?
Yes i was, and incidentally also a gun technician on the 76mm. They were introduced in 1985 and were long overdue a MLU or replacement years ago. So not related to the Red Sea issues
Nice to have you around, then!
I gather they changed from 76mm compact to super rapid? Or did they just go with the compact upgrade that Leonardo offers?
Nope.. they were already the Super Rapid model. The previous Compact, called M/71 in danish service(year of introduction) was phased out around 2009.
I think the new Super Rapid in IH fits more with the angled design of the ship.
The Danish Navy bought OTO 76/62 Super-Rapids when the IH were built!
The gun version has been around since the 1980s
Clearly they just got a new weather shield for lower radar reflections.
It is actually a pretty comprehensive upgrade, not just cosmetic. First all wearable parts have been replaced, the feed system modified and the entire gun control system have been replaced with a new digitized version (Gun Captain) including a new round programming system for smart ammunition.
The SM2-IIICU wat adapted to the APAR block 2 will be available after 2030.
The Germans have already selected the aegis system for the F127 (they have now second thoughts, for some reason).
The Dutch will not deviate from the APAR, they are now in process of selecting a missile system for the FuAD. They have already purchased Barak MX for the low manned ships.
APAR on the FuAD will at best be a secondary system. With active missiles you dont need dedicated FC or illumination radar so frankly it seems a bit pointless. Integrating APAR with SM-2 block IIIC also doesnt make a lot of sense , as the S-band SM400 would be far better suited.
The APAR is beter in communication and mid flight cours corrections than the SM400. If the Dutch go for the Aster for the FuAD it will also be linkt to the APAR.
That i doubt very much. Being X-band APAR is slightly more accurate but at the cost of significantly less range. As it is limited to the sub-carrier instead of the carrier waveform itself , the datarate is an order of magnitude lower than that available to the original S-band AEGIS versions. Also having only uplink and INS instead of true 2 way command guidance is another drawback of APAR guided missiles.
SM400 modified with a missile up & downlink would have none of those limitations. There is a reason why almost everyone today is using S-band for (active) missile guidance.
AN/SPG-62 Is X band
The FuAD can put his whole missile inventory in the air and APAR2 can handel that.
Sweden formally joined NATO more than a year ago (7th March 2024). How are they not a ‘full member’?
From memory that nice Mr Erdogan refused to accept their application because they were harbouring some Kurdish organisations. Believe that was eventually resolved but delayed full membership ratification.
EU should heavily sanction Turkiye for its invasion and occupation of 1/3 of the island of Commonwealth and EU member Cyprus.
But its OK when Nato members do the invading
Perhaps these new Danish frigates will switch from the Standard missiles to a European alternative, given that Denmark have been on the receiving end of particularly vitriolic American rhetoric. Whilst Trump will be long gone by the time the IH-replacements or new frigates hit the water, the damage done might open the door to CAMM or Aster-30?
European alternatives specifically VLS isn’t particularly good.
Slyver cells only launch Asters, lacking compact missiles like ESSM.
Not sure what the Turkish offering is
It depends when these new frigates are constructed. Post 2030, the A-70NG should be available, and will be a European UVLS.
Till then, however, you’re right. It would worth considering systems like Albatross NG or GWS.35 for smaller MSC, as these upcoming Arctic warfare frigates will be.
The choice of VLS hardware – Sylver or MK41 is irrelevant to the type of missiles bought
If they got Aster and Camm, both types could be fired from Mk41 , or a cheaper European launchers.
Denmark installed the special to ESSM Mk56 plus the Mk41 for the SM-2
Camm so far does not go in slyver
Do’s that matter? Most Navys only use the Mk41 for the SM2 or ESSM anyway.
16 Aster15 and 16 Aster30 have the same punch 32 SM2 and 32 ESSM
You’re saying 32 missiles have the same ability as 64 missiles…..
Yes do the differents in the firing protocols. With the SM2 and the ESSM you fire 2 missiles per target and with the Aster you fire 1 missile per target.
SM2-IIIA and the ESSM dont have active radar, that is why you fire 2 missiles per target . SM2-IIIC(u) will have active radar but it’s too early to tell if the firing protocol will chance.
There are 2 other differences in the missile families. SM2 and ESSM can also be used for surface to surface. Aster 30 is also anti ballistic, you need the SM6 for that.
First, I imagine they do not fire 2 missiles at every target, especially drones,
2nd, if we go off most frigate design they have nominally 32 vls, with Slyver that means either 32 asters or in most cases only 16 if you want to actually have any strike weapons.
Mk41 gives the option to vary loadouts as per the mission
No, with the current US missile systems you fire 2 missiles per target.
If the first hit you self destruct the second. It doesn’t matter if it is SM or a patriot missile, with US is het better safe than sorry. So 32 missiles are 16 targets.
Mk41 is not a plug and play systeem. If you chance the wapens layout of a warship you need to retrofit the VLS for it. The VLS needs to able to talk to missile, you have different hardware for different types missiles. For that reason the layout almost never change.
The Dutch are gone ad 8 tomahawk cruismissles to the LCF, they will lose 8 SM2 for it. Without retrofit they can not chance it back to SM2. It is not something you do on a regular basis.
I know it has to be programmed for certain missiles.
However that’s more options you have than Slyver which literally can’t take other missiles
If we go off a few European frigates. Fremms on average have 16 Asters. While far more capable, with 16 mk41 cells I could have up to 40 or even 64 missiles instead. It’s just a better system
The LCF retrofit for the tomahawk need to be done in the US, it’s not like a windows update.
The ESSM is not the equivalent to the Aster 30.
The ESSM is excellent for self defence but not for escort, the Aster 30 have double the range over the ESSM and is anti ballistic.
The Dutch ASWF and the German F126 are the only 2 European warships how are gone get 64 ESSM`s, the SM2-IICu will not be ready for the APAR before 2035.
I never said ESSM is equivalent to Aster, but at least you won’t run out of missiles 5 mins in. Are you seriously telling me 16 missiles it enough.
Norway used ESSM as well. And so do the Netherlands.
But you did and you did it again, probably without realizing it.
Most FREMMs carry 16 Aster30`s, ESSM is not equivalent to a Aster30. SM2 and SM6 are equivalent to Aster30.
16 Aster15 =16 targets (16 VLS cells) FREMM Aquitiana 4of6 ASW and the AAW versions
16 Aster30 =16 targets (16 VLS cells) FREMM Aquitaine 2of6
ASW and AAW, FREMM Bergamini, PPA
(48 Aster = 48 targets (48 VLS cells) Type 45, Horizon)
32 SM2/6 =16 targets (32 VLS cells) LCF, F124, Iver Huitfeldt
32 ESSM =16 targets ( 8 VLS cells) LCF, F124, Fridtjof Nansen,
64 ESSM =32 targets ( 16 VLS cells) F100, F110, F126, ASWF
(I forgot about the Spanish)
You’re assuming Aster is infallible we’re talking about ship self defense not wider defence Rn. And having half or even less missiles does not put you in a good position.
Also ESSM block 2 doesn’t rely on designators
Noting is infallible that is why there is also a CIWS. With the exception of the French ships, they are protected by ego 😉
The 2 missile per target is USN doctrine, to ensure as high pK as possible. Its something they can do with their much larger VLS capacity and missile stocks. To my knowledge no other SM-2/ESSM user has the same doctrine.
So far I know the other users follow the same doctrine.
I think a huge amount will depend on Trump’s replacement. If the U.S. elects a Trump clone then the defence relationship between the U.S. and Europe may fracture. If they go for a more “conventional” choice, of either flavour, then I think the damage to the relationship will quickly pass.
There’s not really any European equivalents of Mk41
How is there not?
Sylver, in A35, A43, A50 and A70 lengths compatible with Aster 15 and 30, MdCN (French navy’s “Euro-Tomahawk), MicaVL and CrotaleVL (quad packed).
The French navy will want its version of MBDA FC/ASW, which would be the “hypersonic” (?) version I think, to be launched from A70.
According to MBDA marketing CAMM and CAMM-ER can be integrated, and there are graphics showing quad pack – yep, I know this is not “real” as in it has not been test fired like LM ExLS quad pack has, but if current US behavior is not the impetus to fund this, then I don’t know what is……
The line up is currently missing a VL ASW torpedo carrying missile.
So how is this not an equivalent of the Lockheed Martin Mark 41 VLS?
It’s a single role vls, A70 only takes MDCN
Jed, its impossible to reason with the ‘Lockheed salesman’, no matter how good your reasons- which you did
Lockheed salesman? The fact that Mk41 is so popular and Slyver isn’t should say something
VLS is commodity — all you need in that environment is a good salesforce and customer laziness.
Airbags my dear man — airbags show you the way.
Have you any idea how much testing is required to certify a missile for actual use. Never mind verifying it for a particular launcher or the cost of it?
The days you could say, with a cloths leg on you nose, “hush, hush old chap, we know what we are doing”….make a few craters in the ground…”that don’t go so well, old chap”……”hopefully next time”…..and go down the pub are, thankfully, long gone.
These missile things are designed to take out ships – if it goes badly wrong the launch ship is on the receiving end of the problem. People get hurt or killed.
This isn’t like a car on a test track when you can do a 20mph run with little risk and then incrementally increase.
Once the Big Red Button [metaphorical] is pushed there is no going back on a launch – the missile is coming out. Sure you can destroy it or run it into the sea.
If the MOD / RN mindset and their acolytes wants to wrap themselves up in a blanket and shout “but were special” at the top of their voices then we will continue to fail or at best be second rate.
VLS as in missile stuff — all the hard work has already been done.
The missile will want to go somewhere it can do what it has to do.
VLS is just the system to get it up into the air and moving forward under its own steam — to repeat it is not that difficult.
The issue — to me as an outsider — is getting it fired up and pointing in the right direction while being under control.
Stuff at the sharp end — 25 / 50 / 100 miles away — is down to the missile and nothing to do with the VLS system.
Hot VLS — ground missile ignition.
Cold VLS — airborne missile ignition.
UK PLC has managed to do cold VLS with smaller missiles.
Cold VLS with larger stuff — might be worth some real research.
Testing — start simple / safe and work your way up.
Learn from the testing and get better — that is what testing does.
Rinse and repeat until you have a stable system.
Stable system then work on making it cheaper.
More testing but worth it.
300% gap to close.
What level of testing is required?
How many partial tests / how many full tests?
What numbers are we working to — 4 / 5 / 6 sigma?
Current military build processes are cottage industry.
Artisan engineering by a self ordained priesthood.
Organised theft from the working class would be another way of looking at it.
Not good.
“ The issue — to me as an outsider — is getting it fired up and pointing in the right direction while being under control.”
The issues are
– safely launch the missile – that is so huge you can’t underestimate it. You cannot have a situation where
– a launch starts a burn and then gets stuck – you can denucleate the burn but it is still hot.
– a situation where a missile tips back towards the superstructure.
Controlling a missile with very little velocity and accelerating hard is really really hard – it only takes a tiny thrust imbalance for it to rotate when you don’t want it to.
It needs to clear;
– without damage to ship
– without damage to the *missile* – harder than you might think
– then the controlled rotation rotation
– comms continuity – harder then you might think
– now ability to hand off control to a 3rd platform
If it was easy everyone would do it. They don’t.
The sad thing is that UK was at the very front of missile development at the dawn of the missile age. Some absolutely stupid decisions were made not to carry on developing – such as Sea Dart – in particular. We then had to refind our edge on a shoestring and now we have some of the best if not the best systems in the world that savvy customers are crying out to buy.
Look at the rubbish the Iranians are making as a guide to how a country tries really hard, uses loads of resources and still produces low grade 1980’s weapons. As well, of course, some incredible fibreglass and papier-mâché mockups.
Cold launch is used a lot by the Russians and the Chinese for their larger missiles, notably the S400 and Tor families. It’s generally safer for ground launch as you don’t have to shield the launch vehicle’s electronics so much.
No reason why even Aster couldn’t be cold launched, aside from the reduced reaction speed from the ‘hang time’ while waiting for the main booster to ignite above the ship.
Turnover pack a la CAMM probably reduces acceleration, as well, which is why the S400s don’t use one and Tor uses the same nose thrusters as for terminal control.
We cold launch our new short to short/medium missile.
We cold launch from second hand space on T23.
We seemingly will cold launch — dense packed — from Mk41.
Mk41 being a hot launch system that we are bodging to suit.
Do we cold launch from Sylver in any way / shape / form?
Did we cold launch Vertical Sea Wolf?
Trainable six pack — that was a horizontal hot launch?
Or was it a cold push then a missile burn?
Short range — we accept the hang time of a cold launch.
Might be that a slow cold launch means the missile can get on target quicker than a hot launch where the missile main burn is in from the start and heading upwards and all the time gaining momentum that will need to be managed to bring the missile onto its mission path.
As for the shroud waving above — Bob Marley tells us how it is done.
No movement no burn …
Cold launch exit strategy — 85 degree exit angle to the side.
No missile burn and it is a big splash.
Six sigma means that it is a very rare event.
I’m sure this is all shelf data in the big bad world of VLS.
Getting a missile up into the air is not the challenge it once was.
Finding the target — that is where the effort is needed.
Who owned SeaWolf?
Had the name / the reputation / the service history and it all dribbled into the sand.
UK PLC — good at ideas.
Crap at development / improvements / next gen stuff.
Savvy customers — that is fan bhoy wishful thinking.
From the way your comment is written, it comes across as though you’re suggesting that each Sylver variant can fire each missile (I suspect you’re actually listing launchable missiles respectively). For the benefit of those who may not be knowledgeable in this area, that’s not the case. A35 Sylver is not compatible with the Aster-15. It’s too short, only 3.5 metres long. A43 cannot fire Aster-30, for the same reasons. A70 can only fire the MdCN, due to it essentially being a separate development to the other Sylver variants. MBDA’s claim of Aster compatibility is purely based off the suitable dimensions of the Aster.
The Mk41 will also be able to launch FC/ASW, so it’s not an advantage for A70 in this regard. Additionally, the RJ-10, the only ship-launched anti-ship missile of the FC/ASW programme will not be hypersonic, but instead supersonic.
CAMM can be quad-packed into Sylver, but CAMM-ER was found to be limited to dual-packing during Italian testing. This is due to the size constraints and shape of the Sylver cell. It would also require modifications in the vein of the American ExLS to support cold launch.
As you mention, there is no VL-ASROC equivalent, though MILAS is an option for surface launch from European ships.
Furthermore unmentioned advantages for the Mk41 are the plethora of ABM-capable missiles integrated into the system, whilst the Sylver currently has just one. Aster-30 Block 1NT is coming, but not available yet, and Aquila is at least a decade away. Aster-30 Block 2 is essentially dead at this point.
So, Sylver lacks the multirole capability of the Mk41 VLS. That’s not to say it’s bad – Sylver has one notable advantage of the Mk41. It launches the Aster far faster than the Mk41 can launch the Standard. This is expected, given that that is what Sylver was initially designed for. It was never intended to be a multirole VLS, and therefore shouldn’t be critiqued for not being one.
Thanks for that very useful information
No worries 🙂
Cheers for the info! It’s a bit strange MDBA never developed a folding fin MICA/MICA-NG that could be quad-packed, or dual-packed, in Sylver launchers. It’d be a great marketing selling point, especially given their rival Mk 41 allows quad-packed ESSMs in even its shortest form. If you’re limited with 8 to 16 cells for fairly small ships, you can still have 32 to 64 ESSMs in the shortest self-defense configuration…or only 8 to 16 MICAs.
A big sales strategy used is “VL MICA is far cheaper than our Aster missiles if you don’t need, or can’t afford, the Aster capabilities, and you’re not tied to the American Mk 41 system”, so a dual-packed/quad-packed MICA would complement that nicely. Plus given the relatively limited VLS cell count of ships that use Sylver & smaller navies having a majorly limited missile re-arming capability, you’d think MBDA would want to maximise the capacity of MICA when competing against Mk41/ESSM!
There’s a few corvettes & frigates with only 8 or 16 cells that use MICA, like the new Philippine Navy corvette for example. I know the Asters have their PIF-PAF thrusters in the fins, so they can’t be folded, but surely the far simpler MICA can have folding fins for a naval optimised version? Granted a selling point of MICA is that it’s the “same” missile for air-to-air or surface-to-air, but you then still need to put a MICA in a canister to fit Sylver anyway. Besides, the aerial AIM-7 Sparrow had fixed fins but the older naval RIM-7F & RIM-7H had folding fins, and the world didn’t end.
My thoughts on this are that the majority of customers for VL-MICA NG are simply not interested in investing in a large-scale, hot-launch VLS such as Sylver. Even if the cell-count is kept to the minimum eight, space must still be allocated for the exhaust escape systems, which can be quite bulky.
On the other hand, the cells used by VL-MICA NG are essentially, for lack of a better phrase, ‘plug-and-play’. They’re single-piece modules inserted directly into the deck without requiring the heavy framework and equipment needed for Sylver. This makes them cheaper, less complex and easier to maintain, which are all qualities sought by smaller nations such as the Philippines.
Ah, that makes more sense, I didn’t realise the VL-MICA NG cells were that simple, design & support equipment wise. I had thought it was merely one of the shorter Sylver launchers, just armed with MICAs instead of Asters.
Still, I do wonder if they could make a dual-packed VL-MICA NG missile that fits their simpler modules (maybe just make the MICA modules a bit wider?), or whether it’d need expensive re-designs, hence not worth the effort.
Widening the standard VL-MICA cell would probably be possible for MBDA, but for smaller navies, it’s not seen as a necessary capability and therefore isn’t funded. The question has to asked, whether, once the cells have been widened, the money was worth spending to perhaps only receive a few extra missiles overall.
A lot of the vitriol seems focused on higher up political grandstanding. While things are crazy, and wild and inappropriate statements come out weekly or daily, a lot of military to military cooperation is continuing, business as usual.
I attended the recent Sea Air Space expo in the DC area and didn’t know what to expect this year, but there were plenty of Danish officers present, and a whole lot of RCN officers as well. The head of the RCN, Vice Admiral Topshee was even on a panel discussion. Military procurement operates on longer timelines than politics.
We’ll see what happens in the long run of course, but I’d be surprised if anyone ditched the MK41 due to current politics.
Paul
I agree. Behind the scenes, US military cooperation with its allies is “very normal”
(and, it also has to be added, also with the US’s “outlying allies” (such as Ukraine))
Those political commentators who have severely criticised President Trump’s recent comments – for example about the US wanting Pamana to reducing China’s involvement in the operation of the Panama Canal – should remember what happened back in 1956
Soon after Egypt’s Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal: the UK and France jointly invaded the Suez Canal zone
That “little war” caused a far greater diplomatic “fallings-out” – between the UK / France on one hand – and with the USA on the other……
……than anything Mr Trump has said or done “to date”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Peter, UK was allied with France AND Israel to invade the canal zone and find a “good” solution to the “Nasser issue”.
Little Froogy
Not quite right…
Yes, The UK and France did conspire with Isereal to attck Egypt in 1956
However it was only the UK and France forces which enteered the Suez canal zone.
The Israelites stayed in the Sinia – so did not enter the Canal Zone itself
Peter (irate Taxpayer)
PS So the FA Pools Panel has just declared a score draw: one all!
Peter, you’re right of course, Israelis didn’t go in the canal zone.
Little Froggy
👍
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Hi Peter,
I’m just relating what I saw at the expo, If things were as bad as they seem in the media, I don’t think Admiral Topshee would have attended the conference in the belly of the beast, so to speak.
President Eisenhower did indeed throw a wrench in the Suez operation.
As to the War of 1812, it was a confused affair with plenty of embarrassments on both sides. It’s amazing that the infant USN came off about equally with the RN in frigate duels, and was triumphant at Lake Erie and Lake Champlain. It was equally surprising that some of the best British troops from the Peninsular war were thwarted by some green US Army troops, Caribbean pirates, and a few Marines at New Orleans.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/war-1812/battles/new-orleans
Like the whole of the War of 1812, the Battle of New Orleans never should have happened, as the treaty had already been signed. A shame the RN offered a pretext to the war by it’s policy of forced impressment of sailors.
Admiral Topshee has to attend to at least figure out who among his top peers is being replaced by Trump loyalists, what the feeling is within the US DOD / Navy, who he can still talk to, etc. The head of the RCN is in effect a political post as much as a military one, and he has his part to play in diplomacy. Carney has already poured cold water on F35, whether considered right or wrong, he has set his the tone for his governments relationship with the US, and should he win the election I don’t see that changing. However, F35 has always been contentious, and I doubt he has been briefed on the millions of dollars worth of US components that make up the River class, largely because RCN has been waiting a looooong time for this ships, and cannot see past doing anything that might delay them.
Dont blame the British or RN for the war – they wanted to prevent the US supplying Napoleonic France.
Everyone forgets that the new republics “First war” was with its previous ally France, also over maritime issues and not paying war loans back
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War
In 1812 US wanted to invade and claim Upper Canada ( Ontario) and Nova Scotia as war aims. They were beaten and after they burnt the whole town of Toronto, the RN retaliated with a landing and burning of public buildings only of Washington
If it wasn’t for the French our American friends would be playing cricket.
And be a much more sophisticated society for it.
US — full of the descendants of 17th / 18th century poundland aristocrats.
Now it is Dubai then it was Virginia.
US did play cricket widely as it was as popular as baseball up to the civil war era , but baseball replaced in in the armies as they moved around a lot more than had time for multi day game
Crickets first ‘international’ was 1844 between a NY City club and Canada , in NY
Please don’t waste a good rant with facts.
Cricket points to some level of civilisation.
Rounders is just a playground game with some rules.
The US is not a country it is a 248 year search for simplicity.
There is nothing they won’t dumb down.
Or at least try to dumb down.
Small minds in a big space — the East Anglian vibe is strong out there.
New Orleans was a disaster for the British from the off. A frontal assault against prepared positions was never a good plan.Wellington’s sieges in Spain although eventually successful were bloody affairs and wisely the French never attempted the Lines of Torres Vedras. I think I’m right no one had ever tried it against the French, the previous owners of New Orleans either.
The silly thing is, Vance recently said that the US was wrong to intervene on Suez as that series of events directly led to the current European dependence on the US.
So he isn’t a complete muppet.
Eisenhower also ended the Korean war soon after taking office. The South Koreans wanted the war to continue until ‘re unification was complete’, but ignored in the peace talks.
Dont agree with your claim Suez invasion and aftermath led to reliance on US. That only happened after the end of the Warsaw pact
Vance was specifically talking about the Middle East as an area that Europe had previously “managed”.
It’s unlikely the whole Houthi Iran stuff would have happened in the same way if we were still in control of Suez. Not saying nothing of the sort might happen, of course, but we wouldn’t be in the current situation.
Not quite.
Oil got the US interested.
1930’s and they were sniffing around.
1956 was just the reality of 1945 for slow learners.
Yes. Oil and the US dependence on ME oil from the 60s-70s was the reason. Britain withdrew from the Gulf and Aden around that time for defence economy reasons.
Its bizarre to think that Britain and France were going to ‘police the ME’ in the way the US needed to keep the oil flowing.
The rise of radical islam was a direct result of the US/Infidels stationing of considerable troops in the region, ISIS was the same because of the Invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Hillbilly Vance has no idea on foreign policy history from Lawrence of Arabia onwards – the indian side of the FO which ran post WW1 policy in the gulf sheikdoms won out over the cairo based FO policy which supported Lawrence and the Hussein’s . Hence the central-eastern based strict Wahabis Saudis were supported to capture all of the Arabian emirates and leave the british gulf protectorates alone.
Trying to work out all that stuff at the moment — tough going.
I think the UK got a bit greedy with the oil income stream.
The US were happy with 50-50 and we were pushing for 60-40.
Post war and we were skint and the Treasury was in its pennywise pound foolish mode as it always is.
Big fail all round for us
Radical Islam — number of drivers.
Conservative pushback against modernity?
Political flag to fly in the face of Western supported dynasties?
It is all the Saudis have / it was a cheap lever to pushback on the Nasser vibe in the 60’s and 70’s.
It was alive in Afghanistan in the 60’s and 70’s and had a CIA influenced boom after the Soviets invaded.
Anyway — the Arabia angle / complex place — the Yemenis are the local brains trust and the Omanis are the outward lookers plus you had the Hashemites for the tourism angle now long gone and the Trucial States mob who worked every angle they could in the Gulf and are still hard at it.
The rest are just tough people from a tough environment with now too much money to spend.
Not sure how stable it all is.
Arabia vs Persia vs Ottomans — plus Greater Judea in the background.
Could get messy.
Saudi Aramco Oil was never part owned by british companies
Standard Oil of California ( SoCal) was the original holder of the exploration concession in 1920s, then Texaco bought 50% of their concession in 1930s.
In 1944 name became Arabian-American Oil ( Aramco). And other US oil companies bought in to make it the 7 Sisters ownership.
OK — not quite sure where to start …
SA — I think we agree.
It was a US only gig when it came to oil.
Above I was talking in general terms about ME oil.
SA — they offered 50/50 postwar.
Iran — we offered 60/40 to us postwar.
They took the hump and we got creative.
Not sure about the split in other areas.
As in Kuwait / South Iraq / North Iraq / Trucial States.
Pre 73 — oil was not the moneymaker it would become.
The US had Texas.
We had coal.
Took a while to work out what was possible.
The problem is these “politics” are unprecedented. The military top brass don’t seem to have a good grasp on the changes in the US. RCN is desperate for Rivers, but as a Canadian tax payer I don’t want any public money spent in the economy off / with the industry of, an ex-ally that threatened to annex us on a daily basis (allegedly only shut down to help the Cons in the upcoming Federal Election). I understand delaying the Rivers for a redesign would be a disaster from an RCN scheduling and timeline perspective, but there are solutions, like buying an off the shelf design for the Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette programme to take the pressure of the Halifax class, and accepting maybe a first batch of 9 ASW focused Rivers much closer to the RN T26, and a later more AAW focused variant similar to that marketed to Australia, with extra VLS (and a better radar suite) in place of the multi-mission bay.
Trump is not applying pressure to do deals, look at Project 2025 and the rest of his cabinet, and his attitude towards Russia. The sooner people realize this is not going back to the “old normal” when he dies, looses control of the house in the mid-terms, or gets replaced in 4 years, the better.
Danemark. Another “freeloader” as would say Peter, a “cavalier libre” (free rider) in French.
Large cuts in defense spendings since 1991 with a very selfish conception of NATO.
And now his US godfather is asking the price for its protection (Groenland), like in Hollywood movies.
So it’s a big panic.
Perhaps Denmark would build 2 t31! Or t32
They’re not gonna buy their own ship design from us
The t31 is modified version and no ones sure what will become of the t32
T31 far more complex in terms of DC than they want or will pay for. It’s also far worse in AAW.
T32 is dead
No reason why AH140 (not T31) couldn’t have the same or better AAW than Denmark’s current frigates.
You could have what Poland have on theirs, plus a volume search radar aft. And damage control is also variable, there isn’t much that couldn’t be designed out of the ship that isn’t just structural improvements.
DC spec — what type of gold plating are we putting on the T31?
Why do we think we need it when others with a better record at naval ship innovation think that it is unnecessary?
T31 — crew planning by Excel level of detailed design and delivery.
As in needs to do much better as in 50% better.
The poles seem to have Babcock silver plate the ‘brass T31’ design very nicely.
Would do very fine for Denmark too. The Danes have gotten used to the IH class ramp and deck for vehicles and probably want to retain that
IH has no vehicle deck
Based on the available budget and internal navy rumors, i think we are looking for a somewhat bigger frigate and with a more high end (tier 1) AAW system. We are IMO also unlikely to go for dutch radars again any time soon.
Buy the German F127, then?
Might be a bit big, but the only future AAW frigate around.
The IH are Denmarks existing FFG high end frigate and only at half life stage ( built around 2011)
The planned new build is more to replace the older Absalom ( 2001) and multirole. This is spelt out the actual government statement
Incorrect. While its true that the Absalon class is older and would normally be first in line for replacement, the government and the navy have specifically stated that the new frigates will be AAW combatants to replace the IHs in that role. The IH will subsequently be “downgraded” to GP frigates but kept in service. ( i agree though that the Absalons SHOULD have been replaced with a pair of proper ASW frigates first)
Too big, too expensive and too German. The Dutch Future air Defender frigate could be an alternative, but all signs point to us designing our own AAW frigate instead.
Does Denmark have the ability to design high end warships?
Surfing through Google has found no shipyard offering any concepts close to a major surface combatant, with one of the largest (OSK) proudly boasting of having designed the air conditioning on the QE carriers.
OMT might be able to assemble hull blocks, but it doesn’t look from their (admittedly confusing) website like they can do the whole job.
Perhaps Denmark could work with the UK on this? After all, we have BMT, one of the biggest European ship designers, and in AH140 a very adaptable AAW frigate with Danish heritage.
Are they that bad?
Big fail for Euro Defence PLC.
Thales is European multinational not ‘dutch’
The recent US coveting Greenland and other military tribulations, plus the massive EU fund for buying EU made equipment means that Thales is a shoe in for Denmark’s next frigate radar, like its existing radars. Even MBDA missiles have a good chance.
APAR, SMART-L , Sea Master and NS series radar etc are produced by Thales Netherlands which de facto operates as an independant company within the wider thales conglomerate. So yes it is VERY much Dutch, for good and bad. Germany has ditched Thales NL radars for a reason and DK has had the same experience as DE, which is why we are extremely unlikely to go for dutch radars again. So no they are in fact not a shoe in.
The vehicle deck and ramp are not on the Iver Huitfeldt-class, but the Absalon-class.
We have far more expierience in taking damage than most other navies, and what innovations have they made exactly
I disagree.
The DC upgrades are essential if you are going to fight a ship.
The AAW can easily be restored by adding back the elements left out.
T32 is still rattling around and the decision about what Rosyth builds next will be interesting. I’d guess we will see that after the T31 #1 has been doing trials for a few months.
I never said the DC upgrades weren’t nessecary, but Denmark won’t pay for them.
AAW could come back but presumably Denmark might actually want some more fighting capability in terms of cells.
There is no funds for 32
You are making a series of unwarranted assumptions.
DC – Denmark learned it had gone too cheap – they now have a 3% timeline commitment – they won’t make that mistake again after a total loss.
Rosyth has to have another order – probably more T31s. For a modern and essential shipyard to be destroyed by a Labour government isn’t going to happen.
Can you imagine the hay that Fromage would make with that?
Rosyth could easily end up getting the MCM support ships or MRSS rather than new frigates
But reality is we can’t support 3 shipyards with our pipeline
MRSS will probably coalesce with T32 as these are now attack vessels in the new lingo.
I’d expect an order of 3 more T31 to be slid in there as well.
That way surface fleet of 28 is achieved with offensive and defensive capabilities.
Three big industry players including Nav seem to think so.
That pipeline will have to increase anyway.
I wish, where is the funding or crew coming from
MRSS is a real thing in the plan – can we accept that?
It has been stated that it will be fighty – can we accept that?
Eight is a sensible number for training maintenance spares and systems.
George Robertson had a fleet of ca 30 escorts in 1988 SDR – he won’t come up with a smaller number now in light of all that is going on.
Adding a three more T31 and an aspirational class of 8 x T83 with MRSS is how the numbers fudge will be done.
‘It has been stated that it will be fighty – can we accept that?’
I’d be cautious of assuming that the MRSS will have the armament of a MSC. The statement regarding the name change also made clear that the change does not reflect any change in the requirements for the vessel. The ‘strike’ element may very easily refer to the RM complement on board, rather than heavyweight land-strike missiles. CAMM is possible, given the defensive armaments comment from Eagle, but again, may simply refer to Phalanx or a 40mm.
I agree with your vision, but Hugo raises a valid point in that crewing cannot support more frigates currently. With 7 crews and 13 planned ships, it’s tough to justify further purchases.
“ I agree with your vision, but Hugo raises a valid point in that crewing cannot support more frigates currently. With 7 crews and 13 planned ships, it’s tough to justify further purchases.”
Then the challenge is to recruit and retain.
It has been very difficult to retain crew for ships doing longer and longer deployments which are then sat in the wall. Then drafted somewhere else without leave. T45s were previously classic examples of that.
When QECs came in they were a great recruiting tool. So will the new frigates be if they are used in interesting ways.
The other side of the coin is that overall numbers are not that far down and churn isn’t that high so the shortages are of very specific trades.
It is all fixable with a 3% budget and Starmer needs to set out the trajectory for that now with cross party support..
Halve the crew.
Find value in the MOD spend.
There is no real reason why we have defence costs like we have.
The only reason is that the MOD will pay them.
Detroit made WW2 affordable.
I think your conclusions are pretty sound here 👍🏻
It is called exports.
If you are good then the world will beat a path to your door.
Call it ad hoc external quality control.
Relying on the RN — in the absence of external interest — suggests that you are not considered good enough elsewhere.
Rosyth has the RN / RFA and it has the world.
They should be working up a full range of ship types based on the T31 architectures. Waiting for the MOD phone to ring is just lazy.
If only they could get the crew numbers into the real world.
Excel engineering in an AI world.
Not a good look.
T31 is a start — T21 vibe regarding the art of the possible.
Well of the pace regarding a credible weapons load.
WW2 dog boats went out with better guns.
They were 1942 cutting edge.
We are 2020 Primark spec.
Fair enough — you have to start somewhere.
But we need to find better value — the 300% gap needs closing.
Suspect SNP would have something to say aswell!
My view is we will see an order for 3 more t31,and t32 kickt down the road but not totally dismissed! Maybe 2033/34. it will give the PM something to brag to Jo Public & Trump about!
My thinking is that Babcock will offer a package deal on MRSS and three more T31.
As I say it is all about optics here.
If MRSS is reasonably heavily armed as a combatant then it is used to get to the magic Robertson SDSR1998 number of 30 surface combatants
8 T26
8 T31
6 MRSS
8 T83 – aspirational
But at least it can be said with a straight[ish] face.
T32 will still be talked about as rebuilding combatant strength to over 30 and maybe it might even happen!
There is also the issue of what to do with the MCM drone mother ships and whether they are armed combatants and I think they probably have to be.
I’m sorry but so much of that is wishful, MRSS is up to 6, not 6, and a vague promise about armament could be ffbnw or containerised CAMm and some guns.
Maybe we’ll see more T31 but we can’t even staff them, we only have about 7 Frigates crews
Halve the crews to double the ships.
Look for crews outside of Blyth.
Go places.
Portsmouth is just Coventry with a sea.
You cannot halve the crews
T23 = 190
T32 = 60 up to 90.
All this talk of RN and autonomous ships and we need to send a full engineering orchestra to sea to support a patrol frigate.
T32 is a theoretical and recent combat expierience has had for example, French frigate crews increased
This is about political optics and can kicking.
They will be FFBNW a large number of things that is for sure.
Crewing is an odd subject as overall numbers are not that bad it is more a few critical trades that are depleted by too much churn.
Really remunerations and incentives need to be fixed for crews as well as exercising in nice interesting places. That goes for RFA as well. Trouble is you can’t practice Near Arctic ASW in the Med!
I wouldnt be so sure , according to the latest rumors , the allocated budget for the new frigates is well in excess of £1B pr hull. Its true though that we will be designing our own Next Generation AAW frigates rather than selecting an OTS design.
As to DC , ofc T31 is better than IH , it is being built 15 years later and naval build standards have evolved in that period. From what i have seen of the T31 , the difference is not quite as big as some make it out to be.
A bit snidey regarding HMG’s plans to up the defence budget.
UK PLC is on its uppers at the moment as the public borrowing figures howl from the rooftops and the Donny John trade sycophancy rubs our noses in it. Fourteen years of Tory dog boiling austerity plus the little local difficulty of Brexit mean that we are having to work hard just to standstill.
More money into the defence budget is one thing.
Getting value from what we already spend is quite another.
300% gap in military efficiency and effectiveness is on show daily in the Ukraine.
Either we take notice and work to close it or we just keep polishing our golden elephants and shrink in the face of bad people wanting to run the world in their way knowing that we are fat / happy / lazy / weak.
Starmer — baby steps but at least they are real and in the right direction.
Brexit! Has turned out to be among the least of our worries,it was always assumed Europe under normal times would fly into the sunset leaving the UK behind,and it probably should have but COVID,UKRAINE,TRUMP! Has made Brexit a side show if anything we have a bit more leverage because of it at the moment!
Brexit is killing us economically.
Lost us friends in Europe and opened no doors elsewhere.
Second string economy on the slide adrift in a hard nosed world.
Civil service all at sea as their mindset fails at every turn.
Defence angle / Ukraine might offer some respite to this slow motion trainwreck.
The only issue is do we have the bandwidth / capabilities to make use of it?
Industrially — very limited.
Commercially — no / nation of coin clippers now.
Politically — slow going but some hope.
Civil service — 180 handbrake turn needed.
Security Establishment — still in mourning over the death of their “NATO”.
Not sure you’ve seen what’s happening on the continent,must not forget brexit is a 2way street and Europe is no longer the land of milk & honey ask the Germans & French!
We were 6% of their trade or was it 7%?
They were 43% of our trade.
They caught a cold.
We lost a lung.
Ukraine is existential to them.
Ukraine is high electricity prices to us.
Taken in the round — they still have a full scale industrial base to lose.
We are getting a bit excited over a theme park / who owns some coking coal.
Not good.
Think you’ll find most of Germanys LNG POWER was from Russia (see NORD 1+2) a major loss,as was to several EU countries,and was a significant blow to German & French industries running in the high billions ,significantly more than us, OUR media does not tell the full story on EUROPE, BUT it would be fair to say our political elite & our civil service haven’t coped well with BREXIT!
I think you will find that is what I said or was the inference of my comment.
I would just ADD our high energy prices are mainly now down to one ED MILLIBAND but that’s another story!
Not quite the full story is it — Forger’s Gazette headlines not rational fact.
FBOT
On this subject of the EU over the past decade (ie since the UK’s Brexit vote)
WHY?
Germany has always been the economic powerhouse driving the EEC (later called EU), especially after the EEC was fundamentally changed by the collapse of the Berlin Wall back in 1989 – and thus allowing the reunification of Germany the following year.
Also the Soviet Union collapsed and broke up in 1990…
Furthermore, ever since 1999, Germany’s internal monetary policy’s has always effectively determined what happens to the value of continential Europe’s one and only currency – the Euro
Thus,
——————————-
Then with regards to defence…..
the ending of the largest war in Europe since 1945, you (and indeed the EU) appear not to have noticed that the (ongoing) peace talks are being held in over the Middle East.
I can’t think of a bigger “diplomtic” slap in the face for an EU leader…..
—————-
Then lots not forget that all the EU and UK’s economies have been wreaked by huge Covid related debts: which will take us decades to pay off
———————–
Thus the really issue today is that the whole very-bureaucratic EU organisation – led by Ms Useless Von De Leyen – has simply not realised that (especially since Feb 2022) the world has radically changed all around it….
———-
And I now reckon the really big looser from the ending of the Ukrainian War will (very soon) be the EU….
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Interesting stuff — couple of interesting nuggets involved.
However in the round it is not even half the story.
On the money though with the EU — post Credit Crunch — making itself hard to love with its small country bullying and its attendant luv of DE Treasury economic orthodoxy / sado-masochism.
DE — the gap between West and East in 1990 was similar to the gap in the UK between the Home Counties and South Wales / NE England / old school Coastal towns / 6 counties / Inverclyde and Paisley plus the rough end of Glesga / ex coal mining areas.
DE has its challenges but so do we and Blair / Brown only made a start and it was then followed up by 14 years of Tory dog boiling austerity which punched the bruise / opened up the wound.
Going forward — the EU is in a better place than us.
They need to heal heal the sick.
We need to raise the dead,.
IH Class — the oil canning is off the scale.
What did they make the hull plating from — rice paper.
On a related subject — what cost saves were seemingly made to the T23 hull when the 18 year in service condition became part of the spec?
What hull plating do they use — 12mm?
I keep thinking this is a shaggy dog story.
They had an 18 year RN lifetime but second hand sale was quite big back then.
Consequently I could understand the no major refits planned so that their time with the RN would be limited but not quite sure about an 18 year lifecycle followed by scrapping.
“I keep thinking this is a shaggy dog story.
They had an 18 year RN lifetime but second hand sale was quite big back then.”
It is stated in Hansard.
Hansard vs Civil service excuse mongery mouthed by a here today gone tomorrow politician who does not know the difference in NA terms between New Year and New York.
18 year RN service life — given / all agreed.
MOD had been badly burned by the mid life upgrade boondoggle.
Huge amounts of money to put today’s weapons on yesterdays ships.
In a painting the hall through the letterbox style.
Not good.
The issue is was what changes did this new RN lifecycle plan deliver to actual hull construction standards?
Trad / 25 year plus RN life = Hull standard A at £Xmill per ship.
Mod / 18 year RN life = Hull standard B at £(X-y)mill per ship.
What changes were introduced into RN escort hull design?
Cards on the table — If it actually did happen as in a new hull standard was developed to deliver some sort of saving then I think this is all mental / cheeseparing beyond insanity.
Plus you have the counter influence of the Falklands which was driving increased vessel resilience — so what gave in the design process / spiral?
As in what issue was primary in the T23 design process?
Greater subdivision / more system duplication vs thinner plating?
Falklands vs Treasury?
You only have to look to the Hunt (1940) class to see small savings being made that halved the usefulness of the class and stymied its use in its original role.
Peacetime hope vs Wartime reality.
Also known as the Ukraine paradigm.
The American ‘Spruance’ class was interesting from a design philosophy in that it was designed with upgrade & refit in mind!
NIg e
Correct
In the 1970’s, when designing the Spruance class, the USN quite deliberately kept the same overall size hull as their previous 1950’s era cruisers. There was, initially, a lot of frsh air space internally
However, that decision was made knowing full-well that there were a lot of new weapons systems still working their way through the “USN research and development pipeliine” that would, one day, be fitted
When the Spruances wer first launched, there was huge row about their lack of weaponary. Lots of cutting newspaper aticles: and hostile questions in Congress
However things did come right for the USN a few year later: especially with Ticonderoga class. Those were first ordered in 1978.
The common spelling mistake was effectively a design for a “Spruance Batch 2 “- almost the same hull; with a much better weapons and sensor fit “topside” (note1)
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
(note 1. And some added concrete in the bottom of the hull – which was very necessary = to counteract the additional overturning moment from adding all that extra topweight.
I believe a fair amount of extra draught growth was built into the design!(7800-9200t+)
I understand there were plans to replace one of the ‘spruance’ class 5 inch guns with an 8 inch model! Is this true?and if so why?
“ As in what issue was primary in the T23 design process?”
Maintenance reduced to a level allowing for 18yr OSD.
Lack of access to some areas of the hull
Plating wasn’t much thinner or cheaper grades – all about 15mm
Spending large amounts of money to replace a ship after only 18yrs service. What were they thinking? You would have to start within 8yrs planning!
T23 were fairly cheap, idea was to keep shipyard alive with a stream of cheap frigate hulls, as the fleet was inevitably going to shrink
It was more how much MoD had their fingers burned on extortionate mid life refits to produce unsatisfactory ships.
Nig e
Nothing wrong with the 1980’s structural design of the T23 (at all).
As I pointed out a few days ago: “we were following orders” (which is what one has to do when contracting for the RN / MOD) (note 1)
Key issues with the T23 since it left the darwing baord (about four decades ago) have been as follows
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Note 1.
Note 2
Note3
Peace broke out in Europe for at least 12 months = until Yugoslavia broke up…
12-16mm , pretty much the same as any other semi-modern frigate design.
Sorry! A bit cut off. Was going to say the t23 replacement planning would have to start with the current vessel less than 8yrs service!
Yes but ,,,
Only if it takes you 10 years to design a low end TAS tug frigate — hint / not good.
The trick is not to start with a clean sheet of paper with a green / fresh design team.
The next trick is to get get hip / get down with the kids — as in Big Auto.
They do design on a daily basis and can offer a way forward.
Parametric design / Variational geometry is key / will help you flex the design as you get more real world experience.
T23 at 16 similar hulls over 14 / 17 years in build was probably too many without any largescale change. The RN effectively became a one size fits all for a decade and a half as the world it was designed for disappeared completely.
Plus when change came to the escort fleet it was sore / expensive / poor quality.
However … consistency meant that the hull / basic ship system price became quite affordable or at least the public figures show that it was affordable.
What the GSE number was each of the builds we can but speculate.
That is where the real money in the programme was to be found.
Or at least the real contractor margin.
Outsider looking in — T23 should have been built in discernible batches.
We seem to have a 7 plus 3 + 3 plus 3 build cadence but not sure.
First up for the ongoing development design team should have been a new hull.
Everything else would be carryover apart from the metal bashing.
Larger / beamier / more robust hull would have been a good starting point.
If all the 18 year service life issues were as well known at the time as they are now a new more capable hull should have been first on the agenda in a low cost / cheap knock off AB type of style.
T23 made the jump to 53′ beam.
T23 Mk2 should have introduced a new CSA with a 63′ beam for better transverse sub-division and more space for system growth.
Simple — new hull as in steel is cheap and air is free.
More complex — powertrain upgrade with bigger diesel element.
Biggest issue with the T23 — nobody else wanted it.
Blame game — lazy builders vs poor design vs national pride?
Outsider looking in — not sure.
But a MEKO 2000 it was not.
That was the past — as for the future I fear we are going to have the same issues with the T26. At some point they are going to have to get ahead of the curve and understand Parametric Design / Variational Geometry instead of being brow beaten into it by our colonial cousins who think a Mazda3 is where it is at.
This ship design angle is quite interesting …
Excluding the 1st T23 ( Norfolk) because that is the slowest build being first of class, the remainder were laid down from 1987-1999.
12 years to build 15 T23 is exemplary
T23 build economics and rate were pretty good in a manufacturing engineering sort of way. However one hull design for the full RN escort fleet for two decades caused issues later on.
18 year hull — needed an NG upgrade.
Plus cheaper is not only smaller it can be simpler.
Missed a trick to do an Absalon before our Danish friends.
The T45 effort has all the hallmarks of a green design team having a nervous breakdown dealing with too much new tech and too much shareholder margin.
Rinse and repeat with the T26 design process where we start with a clean sheet of paper and trudge our way towards an acceptable solution like a drunk on the way home.
With Donny John doing it for real this time and Ukraine re-writing the book on military build economics we need to move up a few gears.
I fact we probably need a new gearbox.
Fat Bloke on Tour
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, BUT;
The T23 was ,designed in the mid 1980’s, for only one key role
Furthermore there was some very significant operational experience input from the then-very-recently won Falklands War – especially for ASW
Therefore the T23 was designed to operate, fully in conjuction with the Fort Vicky supply ships (as a mothership) and also a full squadron of the then-still-untested Merlin ASW helicoptor (then dubbed the flying frigate) and to have fitted to them the then-still-untried towed arrays – ALL only for one role
Those three coordinated big progammes – T23, Ft Vicky and Merlin helicoptors – were all designed for only one single purpose
Frankly, at the time (1986), the T23 was a dammed good design for that role
———————–
However the Berlin Wall came down in late 1989, just when the first T23 in class HMS Norfolk was “almost ready”
……and thus when the first six T23’s for the RN were all still being built
= almost all of the operational issues with the T23 “post 1990″ can thus be traced back to that one key fact = that they have all been used for very different roles from that wot they were orginally designed for…..
————-
However that is all now long- gone history:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Well splice the mainbrace and pass the pickled herring—Denmark’s gone weapons free in the Baltic! No dithering, no paper-shuffling; just hulls in the water, drones in the air, and sonar on the seabed. From seabed CUI guardians to modular mine-layers with chemical spill chops, they’re building a force that can flex harder than a Type 26’s mission bay.
21 new hulls for the Marinehjemmeværnet? That’s not recapitalisation, that’s a full-blown littoral insurgency. Add in UUVs, ISR drones, and a sniff of IAMD ambition, and you’ve got a navy thinking in sonar pings, not Whitehall pauses.
Been there on Dukey—Iron Duke—watchkeeper’s chair under my arse, SHF buzzing, and the OPS Room crackling with intent. The Danes get it: you want presence, you need kit. You want deterrence, you need steel, speed, and a hell of a lot of bandwidth.
Bravo Zulu, Copenhagen. Keep your wake frothy—we’ll try not to fall off the pace.
I think you’re over hyping them a bit. Rather than fixing the frigates they have which aren’t old by any means they’re building whole new ones to replace them.
I wonder why we didn’t go down that road?
What was the alternative route we took — 5 tied up alongside is in print.
Not sure we can be snidey at their expense.
What road? Their radar system isn’t compatible with the latest SM2s, different problem
T45 powertrain farrago — we had a total meltdown with 5 tied up alongside in Portsmouth.
We fixed it as best we could — one at a time and now we have to ration their use.
Not sure we can ever be totally confident about the powertrain and their is a feeling that it is unloved by just about everybody.
They are pushing ahead with a full replacement.
We have the T45 with its Aster / Sylver combo and this looks time limited.
T83 when it comes will tell all — hopefully we manage to move about quicker than the T26 glacial progress we have become used to.
Most countries including Denmark ( but not germany) ordered enough SM-2 Block IIA when last orders were called.
https://armyrecognition.com/news/navy-news/2018/royal-danish-navy-orders-sm-2-block-iiia-for-iver-huitfeldt-class-frigates
The Group purchase made it worthwhile for Raytheon to make a larger number
Maybe ordered enough for peace time except we’re actually having to use them now and now all of them are scrambling to replace or enhance their AAW ships
The new warships are replacing their OPV of around 1500 tons
Nope. The Knud Rasmussen class OPVs have many years of service left ( last one built in 2016 ) What is being replaced is the 35 year old Thetis class OPVs
(ca 4000t ).
What new hulls other small inshore patrol craft for Home Guard is the Danish navy getting?
The budget mentioned wouldnt even buy a single brass T31 let along the silver plate version the Poles are getting
“With a budget commitment of 4 billion Danish kroner (around £460 million) for the near term..”
We may complain about some of the perceived shortcomings of the T31 but because of its size, seaworthiness and simplicity of power plant I am hopeful we can develop the Hull. It has good prospects as we are seeing with the Polish derivation which could be almost the equal of the USN Constellation class.
The new home guard vessels are essentially just small coastal cutters or patrol craft, 100-200t and with only very light armament, so will be very cheap (<£10M per hull ). The program also includes 4 new environmental protection vessels ( with secondary minelaying capabilities) , and will likely be based on a civilian design so also not very expensive. The last ship is a dedicated sub-surface surveillance vessel to protect critical underwater infrastructure ( basically analog to RFA Proteus ) . While i do expect some cost-overruns , it should be possible to build all those boats/ ships at around £500M.