The Thales TACTICOS Combat Management System (CMS) will be a critical aspect of the Type 31 programme. In this article, we look at the project to develop and integrate the fighting heart of the frigate.
As mission systems integrator for Type 31, Thales will supply the CMS, the communications, navigation and bridge systems for the ship. From an RN perspective, TACTICOS has been seen as something of an outsider, with BAES supplying the CMS throughout the fleet until now. This dominance was recently eroded when Thales won the Oceanographic Reconnaissance Combat Architecture (ORCA) contract to fit its TACTICOS-based M-Cube command & control system on the Hunt & Sandown class minehunters.
Made in Britain
Although a French-owned multi-national, Thales operates in 68 countries with a large footprint in Britain, having acquired many UK defence technology manufacturers over the years. Their communications and sensor systems are widely used throughout the fleet but the selection of TACTICOS is a source of particular satisfaction for one of the RN’s largest suppliers. Around 6,500 people are employed by Thales in the UK, and in line with their involvement in Type 31, are moving their TACTICOS development from the Netherlands to their sites at Crawley and Bristol. This will create a significant number of new high-tech jobs in Britain and in the wider supply chain.
Thales have invested in a new Naval Combat Management Centre in Crawley that will be used to refine the system for Type 31 and other users around the world. This includes a mock-up operations room used to test new software, conduct simulations and allow customers and end-users to give feedback. Effectively the UK has acquired a sovereign capability within the TACTICOS product line that can directly support the RN and potential Type 31 exports. An important aspect of the arrangement is that within the open architecture of TACTICOS, sensitive elements of the code that are RN-specific can be restricted in their release. (Incidentally, until reconfigured for its new role, the facility at the Crawley site housed a complete replica of the Thales-supplied QEC aircraft carrier communications system for testing and development purposes, prior to installation.)
Thales involvement has recently led to some absurd claims that the Type 31 was being “built by the French”. Like nearly all UK defence projects, the supply chain will involve companies in Europe and beyond but the vast majority of expenditure and people employed on Type 31 will be in Britain. Type 31 is directly contributing to the ‘prosperity agenda’, with companies all over the UK involved in the project. TACTICOS may have begun life in the Netherlands but is now a global product with many nations participating in its development. (The word “TACTICOS” sounds particularly pleasing when pronounced with a Dutch accent.)
Speaking recently at Thales’ Crawley facility, Rear Admiral Paul Marshal, SRO Type 31, said: “TACTICOS offers an opportunity to think differently about fighting the ship… The RN is delighted with the result of the Type 31 competition but it is now up to industry to build, integrate and deliver on schedule”
A global ecosystem
The RN is the 27th navy to adopt TACTICOS which is now fitted to around 200 warships worldwide. Buying into such an established ecosystem has the benefits of accumulated experience of integrating the CMS with a very wide range of naval weapons and sensors. Essentially some of the costs and technical hurdles have already been surmounted by overseas navies, saving time and money. The RN can also decide to share costs with others or request bespoke integration for new systems. There will also be some potential new interoperability benefits with allies and TACTICOS can, of course, share data with any other RN or NATO platform through standard protocols. Some years ago Thales changed their development cycle from project-driven to product-driven. Instead of tailoring the CMS for each warship, the core product is continuously updated on a 6-monthly basis with customers free to install the latest software release as frequently as they wish.
Through-life support of equipment is not included as part of the Type 31 contract Babcock has with the MoD and will be subject to a separate arrangement. However, Thales will supply a single TACTICOS reference set to the RN for land-based use. Negotiations for equipment and plans for the cross-training of warfare personnel on TACTICOS, presumably at HMS Collingwood, have yet to be concluded.
Type-31-Ops-Room-1
The Type 31 Operations room has been designed in outline and continues to be developed with input from the MoD and RN warfare specialists. TACTICOS for the RN is currently in the initial functional design phase, detailed design, production development and manufacturing will follow.
In the ‘gloom room’
The TACTICOS consoles fitted in the operations room do not appear especially futuristic but consist of standard screen, keyboard and trackball mouse. Each console is multi-purpose and can be configured for anyone to use. This allows for flexible positioning of personnel in the space so specialists may be moved around depending on the task. For example, the gun controller may be seated next to the Principle Warfare Officer (PWO) for a particular mission while on another mission he might be replaced by the Electronic Warfare operator. A series of individual consoles are supplemented by much larger screens on the bulkheads that may be used to present a general tactical picture for the command team.
TACTICOS can be easily tailored to suit the requirement and warfare doctrine of any Navy. A great deal of investment has gone into making the Human Machine Interface (HMI) as simple and user-friendly as possible. Many of the principles and functions are common to other CMS and an operator experienced on other platforms should be able to understand TACTICOS without difficulty. An operator can pre-set a series of rules that will allow the system to monitor potentially hundreds of contacts simultaneously but will only alert him to threats within certain range, aspect or speed parameters or if something departs from usual behaviour. In complex environments such as the Gulf where friend or foe may be hard to distinguish and threats may materialise rapidly, to an increasing degree, the code and data processing software that underpin the CMS are as important as the weapon systems. The quality of the people is still the biggest single factor in success but equipping them with the tools to make rapid decisions may be the difference between life and death.
In lean-manned warships, it is exhausting and difficult to keep the crew closed up at high readiness at extended periods. Greater automation and instant readiness weapons offer a way of reducing the personnel needed in the operations room and new models for manning and operating the ship are under consideration. Like BAE Systems’ CMS development teams, Thales is looking at ways to counter swarm attack by unmanned aircraft or small craft and how autonomy and artificial intelligence may be harnessed. There is a big difference between automated systems that retain a human decision-maker in the loop and entirely autonomous systems. Hypersonic missiles, swarm or saturation attacks present the kind of scenario where a human can not react or decide on a solution in time and further automation is a certainty for the future. TACTICOS provides many autonomous capabilities, but human authorisation is still required to open fire from the CO who retains master weapon release control on his console.
The relatively light (initial) armament of Type 31 has led to criticism that they are just “glorified OPVs”. The capability of a warship should never be judged purely on its weapons. Besides the basic platform design, the sensor, electronic warfare and communication fit is just as critical. The primary sensor will be the NS110, a highly capable AESA radar which offers especially good situational awareness in littoral environments and in many aspects is superior to the Artisan radar that will equip the Type 26 frigate. The two MIRADOR Mk2 Electro-Optical mounts are also key observation systems for distant optical investigation, as well as providing laser-range finding and gunnery fire control. Collating and managing the ever-increasing volume of data and intelligence received by the ship is a vital part of its effectiveness. At its heart, Type 31 will be equipped with a first-class frigate-grade operations room, providing the decision making tools and controls needed to operate a modern warship.
I wonder if Thales will be used on the Batch 2 Type 26 or if the RN opt for the Australian seafar option. I can’t see Artisan being installed on all 8 Frigates.
It would add a lot to the cost to “retool” the design to integrate TACTICOS. It would need to be proved much better at ASW an the BAe system for this to happen.
CEAFAR isn’t a combat system, it’s “just” a radar, the combat system on the Australian ships is an AGEIS derivative (presumably deleting things like the the ABM and long range AAW modules) and SAAB consoles (mainly because the RAN already uses 9VL).
I can’t see the RN installing a third combat system, but retiring Artisan in favour of either CEAFAR or the NS series could happen. The latter could be adopted if sanity prevails and they simplify the logistics and training burdens of operating multiple systems. Alternatively trade policy may well wind up outweighing naval policy in a post Brexit world and the RN could get told they are buying CEAFAR in order to land a FTA.
The RAN ships use AEGIS, not a derivative. The SAAB tactical interface is a means of integrating all the non US sensors & weapons in use (or planned) on the RAN ships (some are already tightly integrated into 9LV – such as CEAFAR radars). AEGIS was originally written & designed around USN crusiers & destroyers, with little thought about anyone else. Norway does something similar, with their frigates having a Konsberg interface.
NS200 would be a step up from Artisan & is probably what they should be fitting now. If however, they start to fit AAW missiles into the mk41’s other than CAMM or CAMM-ER, than a step up again to CEAFAR2 would probably be a good idea. It will be an interesting comparison when all three T26 nations get their first T26’s in operation. I am sure STRN will do an article.
AEGIS software is actually the ‘Aegis Common Source Libraries’ or CSL as well and the Australian vessel would mean the Type 26 Hunter class frigate with Aegis derivative software. The Aegis CSL will also be used in the USN proposed FFX frigate. With the specific modules it can control everything from a CIWS to a missile for BMD.
as LM say ‘”Aegis CSL can be used across a variety of platforms, ranging from multiple classes and types of ships to land-based systems.”
http://mil-embedded.com/articles/the-aegis-combat-systems-continuous-modernization/
My understanding is that AEGIS CMS has had a number of its components or submodules split out or modularised into the Aegis Common Source Libraries (just like you can source various other packaged software libraries eg encription libraries for Java). The CMS intended for the USN FFGx is called COMBATSS-21 & is regarded as an AEGIS derivitive utilising various Aegis CSL but is not AEGIS CMS itself. RAN Hobart class destroyers were Aegis Baseline 7.1 as built. They are to be upgraded to Baseline 9 (which is the version going into the newest AB destroyers). ie software libaries are just that. You still need to write all the stuff to hang it all togeather, regardless of where you get the libraries from (in fact you can use more than one source – LM Canada’s CMS330 utilised a number of SAAB 9LV libraries (may still do so?) as well as there own. Having a module that talks to a radar & another that talks to a gun won’t do much on their own. What it does allow you to do is modify just the gun library if required or write a new gun module for a new gun. If the software API has not changed, you can likely swap one in for the other.
So, from my point of view, no – AEGIS CMS is not the same as Aegis CSL’s, thou it certainly utilises them.
Agree CEAFAR would be the best solution for the T26 with the NS200 being a better solution to Artisan. With the current layout of the T26, the Artisan is needed to be used for both 3D searching and target tracking. The ship does not look like it will be equipped with something like the T45’s/QE’s S1850M radar. By placing multiple requirements on the Artisan, it will be a compromise in its ability to multi-task.
The CEAFAR radar is an active electronically scanned array system, meaning it can transmit from each of it quadrants, leaving no blind spots, unlike a mechanical rotating antenna, with its constantly sweeping blind spot. However, the CEAFAR only transmits in the S band, unlike the SPY6 dual frequency radar. S band radars are excellent for large volume searches, not so great on active target tracking, due to their longer wavelength. To counter this, the CEAFAR is paired with the CEAMOUNT radar system. This is also an active electronically scanned system, but operates in the X band.
The CEAFAR arrays can be found on the ANZACs as the diamond shaped panels. The CEAMOUNT arrays are the rectangular panels in between the diamond CEAFAR panels. On the Hunter class, the CEAMOUNT will be the smaller diamond shaped panels.
Radar is complex, I’m not an expert but as far as I know its about what it can do, and there are various ways of doing it. Doing a bit of reading, it seems the backend software is as important as the hardware.
Duel Axis Multi-beam backend capability allows a radar to track a wide range of different targets and a software defined radar allows the functionality of the radar to be upgraded as a vessel’s missions change, and in turn multi-mission capability suits complex littoral environments with multiple land, sea and air targets. Beam forming means the radar can create different different types of beam to identify and track different types of targets. Duel Axis means it can create beam that vary in both azimuth and elevation to suit different threats. Multi-beam means it can create many different beams simultaneously.
Most Dual Axis beam forming radars use a combination of analogue and digital processing (mechanical and PESA or AESA). ARTISAN is a mixed mechanical/PESA software defined 3D radar capable of dual axis multi-beam forming, which reuses about 85% of SAMPSON’s processing software. BAe say it can track up to 900 targets simultaneously. N110 is the latest version of the N100 series, which is also Duel Axis multi-beam forming and is claimed to be 4D (full doppler), using mechanical/AESA processors. Thales say it can track up to 1,000 targets simultaneously. ARTISAN’s stated range is 200km, N110 is stated as 280km.
CEAFAR is a small active phased array (fixed panel) system designed for corvettes/frigates, and has a 3D beam forming backend according to CEAA. Range-wise CEAFAR is described as .medium range’ which is the 200km zone like the other two. I can’t find any data online on its tracking capability.
N200 is the long range version of the N100 series – identical processing just bigger, heavier and more powerful – with 480km range.
It should also be noted that Sea Ceptor and the Aster family of missiles used by the RN are all active homing systems and don’t require a target illuminator like CEAMOUNT (which is needed for ESSM and other semi-active homing missiles).
CEAFAR Radar, would Only be of use to the RN, If the CEAMOUNT panels were stripped Out. Otherwise it will be just be Added top weight and energy needed to cool it.
That would be A Big Redesign Job!
It depends really, on the RN need for a X-band rader with the warpons types used.
You mean missiles like Sea Ceptor and Aster don’t need a target illuminating radar, just one that can track the target and transmit it’s position until the missiles own seeker takes over?
Yes that is correct! ARTISAN uses the E and F bands. The X band is Not needed.
NS110 is S-band only.
Frequency is another issue. Low frequency radars (L -band and S-band) are good at seeing through muck like rain and thunderstorms and are better at long ranges. High volume search radars often use these bands like the Thales Smart L family (type 45 and the QE carriers have one). These can also be PESA or AESA, mechanical or fixed arrays, muti-beam forming and 2d, 3D or 4D! Smart L is mechanical AESA, multi-beam forming and 3D as well as L band (1-2 Ghz band). Low frequency radars need large antenna but have long range .X-band is very high frequency and thus need smaller arrays, but is very short ranged – mostly used for navigation radars. ARTISAN is S band (1.5-5.2 GHz) and N100 is S-band (1.5-5.2 Ghz). CEAFAR is very flexible and can be built in S, X, L or C, depending on the customer’s needs. For example SAMPSON is S-band and has 400km + range. Smart L has 2,000km range! Range however is relative to the horizon for surface and sea skimming targets, so even a long range radar benefits from being mounted high up to see fast moving targets at sea-level. That’s the compromise with fixed arrays – generally they have to be sited lower down for stability reasons, reducing the range and reaction times against sea skimmers. But they are getting smaller and lighter. Offset against this is the lag with mechanically scanned arrays as they rotate – around 1-2 seconds between updates. SAMPSON deals with this by having two panels back to back rotating very quickly (reducing updates to 0.5 seconds) and software does the rest.
Indeed you need to take into account the height of the radar. Adding a few metres increases the distance at which you can detect a sea skimmer by quite a lot.
http://totally-cuckoo.com/distance_visible_to_the_horizon.htm
In the one second, say for an Artisan rotating radar to scan the horizon a sea skimmer might travel roughly 330m ( schoolboy speed of sound) . But add just a metre or two to the mounting height and your detection distance increases by one or two km.
I suspect the decision to go with N110 for T31 has more to do with the cost of the radar itself, the simplicity and cost of the lower mast and the cost of integration with the Thales CMS.
T31 is a ‘commodity’ frigate.
General purpose or ASW frigates don’t really need a 480km range search and tracking radar, given the range of anti-air weapons like Sea Ceptor or ESSM. NS110 is good enough. A multi-role export version of T 31 with Aster or SM2 area defence weapons would benefit from an NS200 and a Smart-L.
ARTISAN uses the E and F bands, see below.
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/07.naval/karte020.en.html
E and F band and S band are the same – E and F band are the old NATO band designations now replaced by the IEEE scale. S band (IEEE) = E/F band (NATO). That’s why BAe call it E/F band as S band crosses two of the old band designations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_spectrum
Smart-L uses D-band.
https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/07.naval/karte006.en.html
Again its the old NATO band designation. Smart-L is L band (the clue is in the name). D-band is the old NATO equivalent.
Yeah I think everyone in NATO has agreed to standardise on the US IEEE system now.
My apologies, E and F band radar in Europe, are classed as S-band in the US. Another example of differing Standards!
A few diffrent issues which I hope have been taking into account, the main one is frequency, can the NS 110 and ARTISAN work in the same airspace without causing interferance? Can the NS 110 be upgrades to the 200 series without changes to the CIC?
The idea of having two types of radar in a squadron will make like more difficult for a enemy trying to block a signal. If they block ARTISAN the NS110 will get through or the other way around. It is really time that the RN can have the ability to pass radar screens from one ship to another so that every ship can see what the others have on there screens. I now that when I am working with my collegues I can give them information and they can see waht I am doing in real time.
Ron; sharing the data on Link 16/Link 22 will (or at should) be part of the overall plan for all NATO units. The ability to share the picture on Link 11 has been around for a long time but, the technology has improved.
I thought the whole point of modern combat and weapons management systems was their ambivalence to radar input, etc? Example being LandCeptor – UK use it with Giraffe but could be any number of sensors?
The myth of the superior, bottom of the range Thales NS110 radar rears its head again. These folks do write a nifty brochure.
Actually, bottom of the range is NS50. Something to look at as a B2 River upgrade? Artisan & NS110 appear to be roughly in the same class. Like many such things, there will be pluses & minuses to both. You add them up & decide if you can live with the outcome (or come up with more money if you can’t). In the littorial space, NS110 may have the edge, but at other times, it may be Artisan. If you were looking to build an AAW frigate (like IH), then you should not be looking at either of these.
“appear to be roughly in the same class”
Based on your reading of brochures???
Gimme a break.
Rather like those who don’t understand the class and limited functionality of the sonar set installed in T45……….That you would be Ron5.
Rich coming from someone who can’t tell the difference between a cruiser and a corvette…
Like computers, the capability of modern radars are delivered by their software. Comparing brochure, top trump type, hardware values means nothing.
Artisan has software derived from PAAMS and the joint US/UK radar development programs with participation from top UK & US radar companies.
Artisan is several classes beyond bargain basement NS110.
Artisan is a generation behind the NS110, wait until the performance becomes clear then make those claims again wee Ronny.
Some Scots know a lot about radar (some very fine product originate there) but unfortunately, you’re not one of them. Good luck with your top trumps.
Agree, all these -ves are a bit OTT. Artisan located a metre or two higher up the mast increases the distance to the horizon by 2-3km compared to the low positioning of the flat face radars. At the speed of sound that will buy you several seconds of extra time to react to a sea skimmer. Plus I would match the Artisan s/w against the Thales s/w.
Artisan is air cooled
NS110 is water cooled.
Artisan has significantly higher MTBF
I don’t know much about radar but it seems both systems have their advantages/disadvantages.
I could have sworn the thrust of the article was about a CMS, not radar.
I know that the following may well be unfair, but I am want to keep one – now very civilian – eye on the apparent performance of our latest COs as ultimate and necessary arbiter, at least as far as we can glean any impression from programmes like Warship. Leadership ‘aggression’, by which I mean forthrightness rather than a gung-ho attitude, seems to have been watered down by a first consideration over what lawyers will make of any decision. This factor may initially put us too much on the back foot; and we do not have enough assets to get it wrong too often. They may be something of a paria, but Russia’s willingness to get obnoxious is noticeable – they are not alone.
Anyway, please feel free to shoot me down.
Regards
These things are always relative ….. Russia is obnoxious but those people in eastern Ukraine are ethnic Russians. As for Crimea, well everyone forgets Turkey invaded its neighbour Cyprus and is still there. Cyprus is a Commonwealth country so UK stuck up for them …well no , Turkey a nato country can be very obnoxious and still does to long time UK ally Greece and more recently to Syria Turkeys neighbour, whose civil war was fueled by Turkey and other Arab countries and even the CIA supply line of weapons from Libya …which reminds me about Nato involving itself militarily into both Libya and before that Kosovo ..much like Russia and Ukraine.
As I said its all relative …but many forget recent history which shows Nato or its members acts like Russia when they feel like it.
So much propaganda in this article, it remains a Thales Netherlands product and no one in Thales should dispute this claim, the only jobs this will create within Thales UK is integrating TACTICOS with the CMS architecture, a FOI request on the intercompany trading value between TUK and TNL and the total order intake would be quite revealing.
Simply not true old boy.
Absolutely true. Thales are not shutting down their CMS development team in the Netherlands(and if it were the loss in their competence that would cause would not be in the UK’s interests!), just setting up a branch office in the UK.
I am tickled that the Type 31 needs any CMS given its ever decreasing weaponry, a trio of guns and a hand full of sams. Hardly worthy of complex management. Can’t help but think that an Atari running Space Invaders would suffice 🙂
It’s the “for” part in the “for but not with”
‘The relatively light (initial) armament of Type 31 has led to criticism that they are just “glorified OPVs”. The capability of a warship should never be judged purely on its weapons.’
Out of interest, when RN ships are fitted ‘for but not with’, is anyone keeping track of how often, if ever, the missing weaponry is ever fitted? Harpoon was fitted on some T45s but as that went where there should’ve been a vls, so I don’t think that counts.
The trend of ‘fitted for not with’ really started with T45 as the costs spiraled and they made it worse by cutting the numbers. As you say they eventually got Harpoon, albeit only 4 sets and at a point where Block C is virtually obsolete. The 16 VLS never materialized and an upgrade for the main gun is now unlikely to happen in their lifetime as well.
My gloomy prediction for the T26’s is that we’ll see the 24 VLS mostly empty for lack of missile stocks and whatever CIWS they field will be shared around the active vessels.
I recall back around the Libya intervention in 2011 there were stories of frigates deploying to what was clearly a high-risk area with something like 4 out of 32 Seawolf silo’s filled because it’s virtually impossible to arm vessels with missiles outside of home port so it’s not just a case of failing to purchase systems but also having decent stockpiles of munitions for the ones we do.
The post Cold War ‘peace dividend’ attitude that we can count on western dominance and our adversaries being third rate lives on….
FFBNW started way before T45. It has been a characteristic of the RN since the end of WW1 in one way or another.
If the gun for T45 had to be purchased it would never have been. It is there really just for constabulary work. Something, if needed, to wave at somebody in a less than war situation.
Compare and contrast with its better looking Italian cousin………3 medium guns………..
I do not think Horizon is well equipped. The three 76 mm guns are primarily CIWS, for which T45 carries two Phalanx. Its NGFS capability combined is less than a single 5 inch gun T26 will carry. Note the 76 mm guns are yet to carry Volcano.
Yes, Horizon-class DDGs has AS turpedo. But that is the only difference to T45, I think.
I’m with you on claiming badness of FFBNW on RN assets. Only saying Horizon is not a good counter argument.
Well the 76mm cover more, hit at longer distance and i think they have Strales guided rounds.
That is no 20 mm Phalanx. The Italian destroyer is correctly armed for the Italian Navy fleet balance.
But the major issue is the fleet configuration. RN has no modern frigate until 2027 it seems. it has only 6 AAW destroyers and that is it.So the multitasking so to speak is much more needed.
Marina has 2 AAW destroyers, 8 FREEM´commisioned and 2 arriving (6 GP with 5″ gun 4 ASW with ASW missiles) and arriving commissioned PPA in 2021 and roughly coming 1 per year until 2026.
Just talking about modern ships.
The Italian navy can have specialized ships, RN should not. I just add the note that first RN Type 26 in service will arrive 15 years after the first FREMM.
*6 AAW destroyers + 13 Modern, though aging, Frigates, that is all. You can’t make a sweeping comparison of several navies and ignore 75% of one of them.
The Italian Navy has 4 Destroyers vs the RN’s 6, 12 Frigates vs the RN’s 13, and two very small carriers vs the RN’s QE’s. If anything the Italian navy is more in need of multitasking than the RN is.
Also 15 years after the first FREMM means 15 years of techonology advances after the first FREMM, so when the Type 26’s arrive we can stop counting the FREMM’s as part of the Italian surface fleet because they won’t be “modern” anymore right?
I did not counted Type 23 that have 30 to 20 years old. Like i did not counted 5 Maestrales and the 2 Luigi Durand destroyers.
I disagree that a ship designed in 2017 but only in service 10 years later have 15 years advance over FREMM. That is one of big issues with Type 26 schedule. Also Technology improves not only continuously but by bursts. I don’t think Type 26 will be in a different burst from FREMM.
Well you’re wrong I’m afraid on that. But as I said you arbitrarily discount type 23 from your comparison despite being throughly capable modern ships so I can discount FREMM from my comparison since they’ll be old and not in the same technological age as Type 26. See how that doesnt work?
That’s why I compared the actual italian navy to the actual RN, but you of course chose to ignore that.
Thanks LLnow-san
In 76 mm Strales guided rounds, you are right. Both hulls (as well as FREMMs) already have them (the turret is modified to carry the radar).
http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Italian-Navy/Destroyer/D-554_DAT/D554-Caio-Duilio-22.jpg
I reserve my opinion of comparing three 76mm Strales vs two Phalanx CIWS. On the other hand, lack of 127mm gun means they are not intended to carry out NGFS. But, T45’s 114 mm gun is also very much old, so not a good comparison either.
Anyway, I think both T45 and Horizon DDGs are relatively under equipped compared to their capacities. In other words, both ship has good future growth margin.
On the frigate number issue, I felt the same with Dern-san. If you ignore the older ships, right before the FREMM, Italian navy had only two escorts = Durand de la Penne-class. I think it is not a good argument. Italian navy has/had Maestrale-class frigates and Lupos, as well.
The same to RN currently having 13 T23s.
@Donald
Any Idea what cost of a Strales?
Better to have a smaller rapid fire gun on a T45 at least 120 rounds a minute.
RN will not buy Oto Melara products even if they are thousand times better. They are BAE competitors.
By that logic the Arrowhead wouldn’t have been bought either…
Yes they are not intended, but note they have only 2 Horizon. So the decision to not have NGFS in 2 ships have much less impact than in 6 T45
Half the Italian destroyer flotilla can not perform NGFS, all the RN destroyer flotilla, which is larger and more modern on average can… maybe you should make your escorts less specialised?
Fitted for but not with is now a design driver. That is why T26 has its mission bay. Yet nobody can ever seem to tell me what will go in there……… But if you mention that here you get down voted…….
Oh look a down vote Shame who ever did that can’t make a case for the ‘mission bay’………
Multiple websites have written articles on potential uses of the mission bay, including STRN. Here’s the second part, which focuses on potential contents https://www.navylookout.com/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-2-configuration-and-contents/
Literally everyone with passing knowledge of current and future naval development could tell you what the mission bay could potentially carry, so basically everyone here. You’re probably getting downvoted for whining about a nonexistent issue on an article about a completely different system on an entirely separate class of ships.
Still playing the victim I see. Seriously if you don’t want downvotes work on your attitute, it’s rotten through and through.
(although it is NOT me who voted -1), but
I think you are unnecessarily being offensive. I also do NOT like mission bay of T26. But, T26 is there and no way to change it any more. And yes, it is NOT meaningless (although other options could be there). It can do many things, actually.
1: its 12 m length is apparently looking for Atlas-UK ARCIMS USVs to carry. I see no problem there. With this, RN can obtain
– a capability to do MCM operation even in contested waters,
– and provide shallow water ASW based on USV drones.
2: Also it is noted for use to carry RM’s offshore raiding crafts (ORCs). T26 can carry up to 5 or more there, enough the send almost all of the RM commando platoons carried in her EMF accommodation, in just a single raiding.
3: Many other options are shown in STRN website. All look reasonable. The only thing is RN need to buy these assets. Fortunately, ORCs are already there and the drones look like to be anyway bought, at least for MCM. Fingers crossed for shallow-water ASW kits.
4: What is more, T26 won the bid for RAN and Canada. It means something. At least, these two navies are convinced with the mission bay. Let’s see how it goes.
5: Also I think, the mission bay will be a good “future growth margin”. We can imagine many things to do, if RN decide to ban the mission bay in T26’s mid-life refit.
The world is going unmanned – that’s the reason. Frigates, like fast jets, will need their own suite of ‘loyal wingmen’ soon enough. We will need the mission bays. Meanwhile take a look a Rolls Royce’s mission bay handling system for T 26. Zo Cool (to be said with a German accent). https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/naval/naval-handling-systems/mission-bay-handling-system.aspx
Here are a few things that could go in there:
https://news.usni.org/2019/04/17/u-k-developing-its-own-xluuv-for-royal-navy
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/may-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6199-first-arcims-unmanned-minesweeping-system-handed-over-to-royal-navy.html
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/07/bae-systems-completes-p950-rib-usv-trials-with-msi-rws/
Two of these systems are being bought (at least a few of them) and the other is a fairly cheap add-on kit for the Pacific 24 RIB in widespread service already.
In the next budget round the batch 2 T-31s will be “fitted for combat, but not equipped for combat”,
to save even more money. HMS Unmanned, HMS Unarmed, HMS Unuseable
‘An opportunity to think differently about fighting the ship’ – that actually sounds good…..but fight it with what exactly??????? The Type 31 has No Offensive Armament, and a pitiful defensive armament, you really won’t want to get into any type of shooting war so might aswell skip this expensive system…..
helicopters – check
Sonars -check
Air defence Missiles – check
close in defence cannon – check
longer range cannon -check
All need a connection to the combat management system – note the word combat.
Their priority isnt carrying something like a purely offensive system like Tomahawk, but it certainly can attack, submarines, fast patrol boats other helicopters and fighters ( they dont have to be soley defensive)
There will be no second batch of T31. If HMT had money for that it would be better spent on plugging the gaps we have. Helicopters for starters.
You may have to swap HMT for HMC post reshuffle.
What ships would be carrying these helicopters for the RN. By the time you take out ships in refit and those on extended dockside duties what would those extra helicopters do.
No longer is the RN on rescue duties around UK and the P-8 into service means they dont need Merlins for littoral AS duties when ballistic subs leave and arrive.
Training is far more effective in the high fidelity simulators so the real flying is just a final check off before deployment to a ship actually at sea. The intial training is done using the Joint Helicopter training PFI.
To be honest I’m so thrilled I’m buzzing my tits off. Don’t get caught up in the details, cry havok! Let slip the dogs of war*.
*subject to terms and conditions
Oh I wish this was the real Archie with phrases like that.
Thank you for the brief run down; I appreciate that large parts of the details will be classified, but it would be really interesting to see a comparison between the TACTICOS system and BAE’s offering. Ultimately, how different are they and what is TACTICOS adding to the party?
It’s cheaper
It’s not Bae
It’s for show not go
Thanks, the lower price tag doesn’t surprise me, given the platform.
That said, I haven’t had a long look but I can’t find much criticism for the system. It’s very widely used across the world, in Europe and the US. What’s wrong with it?
I was being facetious, no reason to believe it’s not perfectly fine but the first two are 100%!
It may also be relevant that HDMS Iver Huitfeldt uses Tacticos AAW.
More relevant is that Thales is Babcock’s partner on the Type 31 program
Sir,
I’m French and not a sailor.
Am I allowed to believe that France (through Thales) will build about 20-30% of the T31 series?
For Thales UK, give me a break. Thales UK has 8500 employees. Thales France is about 60,000, and worldwide 85,000. Tacticos is essentially software, i.e. files that go in both directions between France and UK during the studies.
Thales France owns 30% of DCNS( Naval group). These 2 companies work together to build our aircraft carrier, frigates, attack submarines and strategic submarines. And foreign navies. A great success. I’m happy to see RN will benefit from this.
Thales under its previous name Thomson -CSF bought the UK company Racal around 1999. Racal has an interesting background , they created Vodafone before ‘spinning it off ‘as a separate business and had bought Decca back in the 1980s and Thorn in the 90s..
Thales also previously bought the dutch naval electronics company Signaal from Phillips in the 90s. Signaal was formed in the 1920s by Hazemeyer and Siemens to get around Treaty of Versailles restrictions and worked on naval fire control systems until nationalised after the war.
TACTICOS was developed in the Netherlands
As far as I know the Thales products set for T31 are the NS110 radar, Mirador EO and TACTICOS CMS, all of which originate with Thales Netherlands, and the Vigile D ESM which is made by Thales UK. Of course, like BAe products made in Sweden, Australia, Germany or the US, the parent company will benefit on the bottom line, and since Thales is a risk sharing partner with Babcock on the bid, that should include a profit share above and beyond the value of the individual products supplied. The design is originally Danish, so there will be some royalties there, and the weapons and defensive aids are mostly from BAe-Bofors (made in Sweden and the USA) and MBDA in the UK. Other radars and bridge systems come from Raytheon in Germany and Hensoldt Kevin Hughes in the UK. I think the powertrain is from Rolls-Royce MTU in Germany and David Brown in the UK. Also Thales was part of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance with Babcock and BAe and may have some ship-design and construction expertise in the mix somewhere too. Whatever it may be, we are glad to have such an excellent company on our shores too. In the UK they bought up Racal/Decca and Thorn-EMI which were primarily defence electronics businesses.
Thales Gatekeeper too.
Thank you for your answers. I should have said first that STRN is a model of information that goes to the heart of the details, without going beyond the limits of secrecy. Not to mention freedom of speech. Rare and precious.
Many thanks.