Subscribe
Notify of
guest

278 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim

Great looking ships and not a bit too soon, would be even better given the MK41 VLS funding.

Random Commentator

Not a bit too soon? The ships they are replacing have already gone! These ships are 4 years late – time to gap some MP’s salaries instead!

Hugo

How can they be 4 years late. You really can’t expect a non existent shipyard to go from signing contract to 1st ship in the water by 2021

leh

He means that they should have been ordered earlier.

Hugo

Certainly, whole frigate fleet may cease to function before anything new shows up

Cripes

I don’t think that “late’ comment was aimed at Babcock, rather it is a valid view on how long RN, MOD and HMG faffed around with defining the staff target and budget, before eventually pushing the.go button.

There did not appear to be much sense of urgency to replace the T23s, though no doubt the accountants slowed down the process to fit the budget.

Jim

Exactly, that was my point.

Mark P

HMS Lancaster and HMS Iron Duke are both GP frigates and are still serving in the fleet so you’re only half right. And yes I know Lancaster will be decommissioned before Ventura is in active service so she can’t come to soon is fairly accurate

Steve

The fleet is already well down on the 13 frigates that was meant to be maintained as the new ones replaced old. Instead we are already several down and more due to go out of service.

Hopefully in around 10 years the RN will be back to 19 escorts.

Mark P

Yes I appreciate that it’s a very bad and a unnecessary situation with only eight frigates left in the fleet but this article is about the type 31 ie. GP frigates and I was just pointing out that the RN still have two GP frigates in service. The fact that the RN have selected two types of replacement frigates then fingers crossed things can turn a corner in the next five years, by that I mean numbers not decreasing further but yes you’re right it will take ten years until we see numbers get back to where they should be as a minimum. Just need to encourage new sailors and retain the current ones

KevinR

Glad progress is being made but not happy about no VLS.

ATH

At the moment the Run has no weapons compatible with VLS.

KevinR

can’t they quad pack Seaceptor?

Duker

Already has its own specific launch system. The MK41 needs additional insert , at extra cost, for Sea ceptor

ATH

There is a design for a quad packable version of the Sea Ceptor. I don’t think it’s yet in production.

D J

There is the ExLS stand alone system in addition to the ExLS drop in system for mk41. It is quad packable & is in a 3x cell configuration utilising mk41 armoured hatches at the deck level. There has been some suggestion that RNZN may look at swapping out the mushroom type cells on their Anzac frigates for stand alone ExLS as it increases CAMM loadout from 20 to 48.

ATH

I know that all exists on paper or prototype. My point is non is yet definitely on order for the RN. One of the big questions that will hopefully answered in or shortly after the defence review is what the RN plans to put in all the Mk41 cells it will likely have in 10 years time. Will they all be used for the Anglo-French anti ship/land attack missile or are other missiles going to be brought/developed and when will these plans happen.

Duker

Didnt they remove the Mk41 for Sea Sparrow they had previously
The upgrade will have to see them till out of service

D J

They removed the mk41 (only 1 fitted but space for 2) & fitted 20 CAMM mushrooms utilising all the mk41 space. Stand alone ExLS did not exist at the time NZ started on the upgrade & top weight made them decide to remove the heavy mk41 rather than add drop in ExLS (even though that meant a drop from 32 to 20 missiles). NZ Def Min is belatedly recognising NZ is lacking leathality (publicly). It appears they expect these frigates to last till around 2035. Changing from mushrooms to stand alone lightweight ExLS would boost CAMM numbers from 20 to 48 in the same space. I have seen it suggested as being a relatively low cost option. RAN Anzacs carry 32 ESSM. With NZ, nobody knows – especially NZ government.

Duker

It cant have been a ‘drop in missiles’ . There was an 8 cell VLS for Sea sparrow replaced by 20 VLS for ceptor

The Mk41 comes in ‘mod’ versions as well as ‘lengths’
Anzacs used the 1990s Mod 5 version. Its certain it couldnt be changed to a quad pack without upgrade ( or replacement) and of course buying ESSM instead of Sea Sparrow. the older Sea Sparrow couldn’t be quad packed.

The USN Burkes class early builds used Mod 2 the later ones Mod 15

Last edited 6 days ago by Duker
D J

RAN Anzacs have the same mk41 version & they changed from SSM single to ESSM quad packed (8 ships). There is no record of RAN buying new mk41 for this. The idea with systems like mk41 is that any mods must maintain backward compatibility as far as the missile is concerned, otherwise USN would have a nightmare reloading Burkes with anywhere from mod 2 to mod 15 in use. ESSM was purposely designed for mk41 & will fit in all 3 mk41 lengths. You do have to buy the container the missile(s) have to go in, but that is true of any missile in a multi missile compatible general purpose vls.

NZ knew that SSM had to go (missile timeout & no longer manufactured), but decided on cheaper CAMM rather than the more expensive ESSM as part of a major upgrade refit. The upside is they kept their speed & handling the same – downside being far less missiles & a much shorter missile range.

Russ

The mushroom cells are specific to teh Type 23 as they used the existing VL Seawolf launcher tubes to minimise disruption/additional costs. The standard Sea Ceptor launchers should resemble ‘normal’ VL silo’s on the Type 26 and Type 31.

D J

These are the original single cell individual silo version, not the 6 cell pack as going on T26.

Quentin D63

Makes you wonder about the 57mm and 40mm systems too. Hopefully they’ll magically appear soon.

Duker
Cripes

Nice looking ship. A pity that it doesn’t have any real ASW capability, which might be thought to be essential for a solo warship in foreign waters.

A little nitpicking –

‘Taught” means you may have learned something from.a mentor,
‘Taut’ means tight, which is what I think the author means!

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Cripes

If this delivery schedule for the T31 fleet – which is a dschedule many years long – is Taut

(whichever way it is spelt!)

then I franky dread to think what a “slack”, “slow” or “steady” delivery schedule would look like!

——————-

Frankly I smell the dead hand of the MOD PR spin doctors in this annoucement

because, over the past week alone, we have had the following big media annoucement about the usually silent service…

  1. GRU spy ship faced down by a usually invisible RN submarine
  2. RN submarine renamed – nicely illustrated by very-rushed PR photos (PS ….really – to avoid offending the French?? Pull the other leg….)
  3. Rolls Royce gets £9B very scarce quids – which is a very big wheelbarrow load of dosh from Rachel in the Accounts Department – to build a few nuclear powered steam kettles
  4. H&W gets new menus – i.e. Paella for lunch – in their Belfast canteen
  5. New RN T31 frigate to be launched “sometime soon”

Anybody would think that MOD’s PR department was trying to keep Navy Lookouts Editor busy working flat out..

…and thus take his eye off the ball..

However = still no annoucement about consequences the fire at BAE Barrow…..

Accordingly= there is definitely a rat – called Sir Humphery – running through the corridors of power in Whitehall……. probably shouting “FIRE”!

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Supportive Bloke

As Jim Hacker once put it “could we start a war?”

Minister!

Hacker, “A small war?”

Whale Island Zookeeper

The RN wouldn’t send a ship without an air-search radar to sea

Hugo

While this should have Sonar, air threats are a lot more prevalent.

Though the RFA get sent solo a lot of places and their air search is usually meh or non existent

Whale Island Zookeeper

Oh………………….

Jim

RFA Ships are not Warships though.

Hugo

They’re not, but they’re being used like they are

Jim

Well yes but then again, we are not at war.

Personally I would like to see all our Grey Ships built with adequate defensive aids if not offensive capabilities, It’s only fair to those brave crews really.

Just been watching a few 1950’s Youtube films of Spithead reviews. My word just how low have we gone.

Supportive Bloke

That is a very fair point.

A lesson hard learned in ‘82.

Although with the missile systems [ASTER + CEPTOR] we now have HTK% is very high and they are proper systems when combined with DAS, Phalanx/30/40/57mm and EW.

The bigger problem is having proper containerised systems to fit to RFAs so that they can defend themselves.

A GPMG bolted to the railings is going to be of limited use against an incoming missile. If you asked I suspect the answer would be an umbrella concept around sheepherding T31 which is OKish but breaks down if an RFA has to detach and go to another group to RAS or whatever RFA activities they need to do.

Jim

I think the T31’s will be lone wolfs for much of their lives seeing as they are to be forward based to the Med, Far east and Bahrain maybe they will spend a lot of time in company with allies.

D J

Med – yes. Far East – maybe. Bahrain – I wouldn’t. Wrong gun & no ASW. SCS is crawling with submarines. Yes they can fit 32 mk41, but poor radar (options for better), if expecting AAW to give it a reason to operate there. Indonesia is currently building their version of A140. T31 it definitely isn’t.

Jim

They will be there, especially as no threats are current, just like the R2’s and what’s left of our Mine Hunters. If an aggressive move was made towards them, it would basically be ether an act of war or some rogue state sponsored aggression. In either case a response would be given according to the nature of the aggression.

AlexS

Well you know the Houthis…

Jim

OK, I did reply earlier but it was held for approval.

Jist of it was they will be in all those areas because that’s what showing a presence is, right up until things get a bit too hot.

Esteban

Yeah where exactly is that on the planet right now? Maybe go to the US East Coast. Maybe the Caribbean?

Hugo

It’s going to the Bahrain station, that’s basically the one certainty we do have about the class

Esteban

That’s just embarrassing…

D J

In RCN, RAN & RNZN they are considered as such. Just look at the Bay class sold to RAN. Full naval crew & they even changed the radar to high end CEA (no idea why as no missile systems were added). CWIS is standard rather than optional.

Jim

I seem to be waiting for approval by the site owners at the moment.

Mark

Technically the Type 31 is a low intensity threat design, so it isn’t meant to be solo except in low threat environments..

Paul42

So plan to fit Mk41 vls has yet to be funded? That means they will not have even been ordered yet…….so god knows if and when they’ll ever be fitted? I would suggest fitting NSM to these vessels in the short term and hope and pray they put in 24 x Sea Ceptor unless they want our brand new vessels to be sitting ducks…..

Mark Franks

I simply do not understand, I though funding had been agreed for the mk41 VLS.
We had gone from ‘fitted but not with’.
I have a feeling we are now at nice to have.

Robert

There may be talk in UK, but I have not heard any Congress approval for foreign military sales to Backcock or MOD for the MK41’s

Paul T

Could they have been incorperated/added to the Order for the T26 MK41 sale ?.

Quentin D63

And add some more mk41s (6×2) for the T45s too! If 4 x mk41s are too expensive for the T31 why not do a 50/50, 2 mk41s and a 24xCAMM farm? Or remove the forward 40mm and put 2 mk41s there, and put the spare 40mm on the carriers?

Last edited 7 days ago by Quentin D63
Hugo

We don’t have any Mk41 AAW missiles, in fact we have no missiles for Mk41 so no point in replacing Slyver on the T45

Quentin D63

Have to disagree on this. The 24 CAMM farm on the T45 is an underutilisation of the space available. Even a 2 x ExLS x 24 would have given 48 CAMM. With the T26 rolling off the production line someone must be thinking of the shopping list for FC/ASW and or TLAM, Asroc or its equivalent, even the option for SM3/6, or 2 pack CAMM-MR to put in them?

Hugo

Except we’re not using EXLS on anything, and the 2×3 CAMm cells are far cheaper.
T26 won’t get SM6, we don’t have CEC and they don’t have a good enough radar

Quentin D63

ExLS is still an option but yes maybe an unnecessary one, too costly and heavy. The 6 CAMM silos also seem to be in a 4 silo as on the RNZN Anzac frigates so they should be able to more fully utilise any given space and even mount them in a 20’/40’container. With the T45 upgrades maybe there is something that would allow for SM3/6 and Asroc if mk41s wherever chosen and the same for the T26 that could potentially get upgrades to their Artisan’s than what was on the T23s. And the same for what’s going into the T31s mk41s. The RN must be wanting to maximise its opportunities across all its the mk41s.

Supportive Bloke

Exactly.

RN / MoD are not stupid there will be a Mk41 missile shopping list being created.

It is a lot easier to buy a missile and integrate the software than it is to cut up a ship and add VLS.

So I’m please that adding the VLS is on the plan.

The Anglo-French missile will almost certainly be Mk41 compatible as well as SYLVER compatible. Which I’ve previously suggested means that T45 will take some in its existing VLS. Maybe just 4 – to give it some high end capability in that domain coupled with NSM for medium level threats.

Supportive Bloke

I’ve suggested before that the Mk41’s for T26 could be diverted to T31 and more purchased down the line.

I’m not sure that would show in the FMS paperwork as RN is the same end user.

Quentin D63

And thats an option too. Like the thinking. Also if they could get any savings by bulk buying more mk41s…buy 10 get 2 free or 50% off. But i don’t think things work like this. LOL.

Duker

Congress doesn’t approve unless they are paying. It’s State Dept weapons export office. Only takes 1 month for tier one partner like UK for something like like VLS.

N-a-B

The original programme had the first ship “in the water” in 2023, which was always a stretch. In fact they’re going to be 18 months or so behind that to the surprise of no-one. At least they’re making some sort of progress.

I do wonder what the barge is costing MoD / Babcock. If it’s been in Rosyth since Sept 2024, its not earning. Malin won’t be providing it for free……

Jonathan

The big question really is can the RN keep a T23 running more than 6-7 years after its lifex, they have not managed it yet as all the T23s hitting 6-7 years have been scrapped as beyond economic to refit..essentially if that keeps happening the RN will be down to 5-6 frigates before the first T31 will hit IOC.

Supportive Bloke

“I do wonder what the barge is costing MoD / Babcock. If it’s been in Rosyth since Sept 2024, its not earning. Malin won’t be providing it for free……”

Maybe Malin are storing it there between jobs?

If it is specifically outfitted for dunking T31 and T26 in the drink then it won’t be terribly useful for much else.

Or it is sitting there because Malin were contracted for the original T31 build schedule which is choreographed with dunking T26’s?

There will be a very good reason ‘why’ of that I am sure.

Otterman

I think 2023 was the original planned float-off – the plan gets revised, and revised again:
https://www.navylookout.com/steel-cut-for-first-type-31-frigate-hms-venturer/

It’d be great if they’re discovering efficiencies, but seems a bit surprising (especially as you’d presumably know this before the program started?), and if Venturer is benefiting from more time in the shed, then is she delaying ship 3 from taking a shed-slot?

The Mk. 41 VLS doesn’t just need a CIP and work to install, it needs to be ordered in advance and built, shipped to the UK. The Mk. 41 for the first 3 Type 26’s was ordered way back in 2018. I’m not sure exactly when it was needed to build into Glasgow, but I imagine 4+ years later – there are no visible VLS hatches in the barge-off of Glasgow in Nov 2022. Doesn’t mean the VLS weren’t available, but suggestive.

By delaying Mk 41 we avoid costly mid-build changes, but will presumably have to pay for Sea Ceptor, pay to have it removed and scrapped, and then pay for the Mk 41. Or never bother with Sea Ceptor launchers and accept a missile-less frigate for a couple of years. Neither ideal.

Hugo

Theyre fitting VLS and weapons to Glasgow in dry dock rather than on the hard standing

Quentin D63

Why not some containerised CAMM set up as an interim? Mk41 can take paired CAMM-MRs but isn’t the mk41s a bit of a waste for quad classic CAMM when the Exls quad CAMM silos already exist? Why not get these, admittedly the strike length mk41s arebmore useful? Hopefully the T31s will get 2×4 NSM, Ancilia and maybe even Dragonfire?

Last edited 7 days ago by Quentin D63
ATH

I very much doubt they will have anything beyond 57mm/40mm/Sea Ceptor on commissioning. The later ones may see Mk41 during build if that plan survives the defence review. As to missiles for the Mk41 I suspect that will be a longer term plan.

Quentin D63

I (think i) remember seeing the A140/T31 being offered to Greece for their light frigate option and it had 6×6 CAMM for 36. So even basic up-arming like this can be done without mk41. I think they could’ve gone for 2x mk41s or 2x ExLS in the T45s or just more CAMM with additional side silos.

Darryl2164

Cant come soon enough , the t26 are at the end of their lives and need replacing urgently. Would be nice if HMG ordered another batch to keep the production lines rolling and increase fleet numbers . The RN need a steady flow of new ships not the stop start nature of recent years . 1 or 2 ships ordered per year isnt beyond reason , whatever the class , and it would stop the working till they are scrapped culture we have at the moment , and it would mean we always have a modern fleet .

Paul T

I think you mean T23 unless Time Travel is now a thing.

Tpee

Given the quite not so rapid pace or apparent urgency of getting these things into service. I would say that Darryl2164 isn’t actually that far off tbh .

Whale Island Zookeeper

Six would be nice.

ASW is essential.

Good base if money ever became available to up arm them which I doubt.

The (global) patrol frigate we would need if we had a properly sized and equipped navy which we don’t.

Jonathan

Indeed, if the Italians can arm all its GP frigates and even AAW Destroyer with a reasonable ASW fit I’m not sure why they RN cannot…personally I think the RN needs 10 GP frigates and 20 ASW frigates

Hugo

We’re never gonna get that many ships again, but the fact we can’t afford the bare minimum of equipment only exassurbates this

Supportive Bloke

They do need that many IRL but first I’d like to see a plan for 18 frigates…..to get the surface fleet back to 24 combatants.

Whale Island Zookeeper

You can have a GP frigate unless it is armed. And Daring is the only example of a major class going to sea without a real ASW capability.

All RN escorts are GP ships since Leander ran down the slip. Even the abortive specialist frigates had weapons to engage targets in all spheres.

How is a T31 with no sonar GP? How is a ultra-quiet T23 without TAS not an ASW when compared to a noisy Burke? How is a T23 with a TAS also not a GP warship if it can do everything a T23 without TAS can do?

What the RN should have done was use the fitment of a TAS as the delineating characteristic not the nonsensical ‘general purpose’.

Annoys the rhubarb out of one.

How do you settle on 10 or 20 hulls? What about normal rotation cycles: deployed, working up/ maintenance / rest, deep refit? Or are you intending to have spare ships? Or haven’t you factored any of that in?

Jonathan

Numbers wise it was a typo it’s should have read 10 GP and 10 ASW frigates.. that number comes from the plans around the 1997/98 defence review.. it was what the RN decided it needed for peacetime before the number got cut to 17 then 13 frigates.

David MacDonald

Why oh why are RN ships so often constructed “for but not with” major parts of the weapons fit?

Jim

In this particular case the MK41 was added late in the design. You have to remember that requirements change as technology and threats evolve.

Paul42

Yes, but in this case, the space etc is already there ready for the fitting of the system The Ivor Hundfelts have mk41 fitted at build.

Jim

It’s not what I meant though. They (RN Versions) were originally not going to have the MK41, this requirement came later on in the design/build.

Steve

It was not a change they were never added, the iver huidfeld always had 32 mk41, the RN choose not to fit to keep the cost down. I would not be surprised to see them fitted with 16 silos so 2 off mk41 and a bank of 24 sea ceptors in front of them.

Jim

Yes but the RN requirement changed and now we expect them to be fitted.

Jim

The Original RN version was to be fitted with a 24 cell CAMM mushroom farm and so many people thought it was inadequate so the 32 VLS MK41 option was offered with an additional 16 cells possibly being fitted where the smaller gun was located.
Personally I just like to think that these ships have vast potential in the future and I think choosing this design is a great thing.

Whale Island Zookeeper

comment image

I don’t understand why the ‘bathtub’ as the Danes call it is plated in on the T31.

Last edited 8 days ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
Jim

Haven’t a clue either but I do remember the RN version was not the same as the Danish one in a few respects.

I’m going from memory, not Internet sources though. Most of my comments are from memory and at no time do I ever resort to copy and posting stuff, so If I’m wrong sometimes, I’m happy to be corrected, It’s nice to learn from others who might know better.

Sailorboy

Well, NL did that article on crew features for T31 that showed how much the damage control equipment had been expanded relative to the IH class.
There’s also the extra diesel sets, which has removed one of the options for boat bays.

Hugo

For the extra boat bays?

Whale Island Zookeeper

On the roof? Really?

Jim

Flying Boats !!!!!

Actually, from memory I seem to recall you were a bit of a fan of Flying Boats, I too believe they are being ignored when actually they give another level of capabilities.

ATH

Because the tender process for the T31 set a fixed maximum budget. The biders were left to pick the best mix of ship size, systems and armaments to meet or exceed the minimum specifications whilst staying within the budget.

Whale Island Zookeeper

That’s rhubarb too isn’t? Why not leave the space open then? Do you understand what you are looking at in that picture I posted? They plated in an open area designed for weapons module because they wanted an open design…………….

CompetentGoogler

I believe it’s been raised to fit an additional boat bay starboard. Some of the other A140 versions allow for a through deck bay midships, which means the whole height of this deck has to be higher.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Oh right. An additional boat bay on the roof……..right.

Hugo

How about looking beyond the roof to the side of the ships. The existing boar bay is the height of the superstructure, so to put it in line with the VLS area the module pit has to be raised

Whale Island Zookeeper

Some utterly bizarre comments in reply to this post. All I did was post a picture of where the IH’s MK41 is located and wondered why the area where Mk56 and Mk141 launchers are shown in that picture have been plated over………..

So somebody said boat bays. I have just said the area was plated over and the area is right at the top of superstructure.

Somebody said it is plated over because the designers wanted a flexible weapons fit. So they plated over an area where the Danes fit their StanFlex modules.

Somebody said additional generate sets for damage control up on top of the superstructure?

Here is the space plated in………….

comment image

Perhaps I should have posted that image too? Perhaps I forgot I have actually stood in IH’s ‘bathtub’ (as the Danes call it) and you lot haven’t?

I have never known a place generate so much utter guff from throwaway filler statements as this place does.

Ex_Service

…Now you have put the cat amongst the pigeons adding the early T31 picture where the Sea Ceptor VLS takes the place of the Mk-41 VLS (before it was re-added in scope…but not funded 🤔🙃).

Hugo

There’s a boat bay door in that picture. You can see exactly why the module area has been removed

Whale Island Zookeeper

I am talking about the plating.

Hugo

Yes. They had to raise the height of the internal space to fit the boat bay next to the VLS (the boat bay is behind the door which is visible in the picture) so they raised and removed the Stanflex area

Last edited 7 days ago by Hugo
Mark P

Am I just wishful thinking or did I hear a while back that they might receive a bow sonar in the future?

Jim

Not seen that personally but It’s entirely possible I guess.

All RN Ships get improved as the years go by, just look at the T23’s.

Robert

Arrowhead 140 is claimed to be adaptable to ASW by fitting a towed array sonar. Not seen any claims about hull sonar.

Mark P

To be fair it might just be me thinking about the Polish T31’s. Probable no reason to have the towed array sonar like the Polish if they are forward deployed but the bow sonar would at least give it some ASW capability

D J

Babcock definitely lists a hull sonar as a standard option (most frigates have one, including IH frigate). If you want the towed array, then rafting the machinery (also an option), is a good idea (good in general but it’s not free).

Paul T

These Ships are not designed and built to take a Bow Sonar, the only option might be to put a VDS Insert in like the French are doing with some of their La Fayette class Frigates,as unlikely as that will be.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Now that is interesting. Are you saying the builders went to all the trouble (and COST) of redesigning the bow of an the shelf design to disable the fitting of essential equipment? Gosh I didn’t know that. Well I have heard sillier things……..

The base design IH comes with Atlas ASO 94 medium frequency set and even has 2 tube B515 STWS for MU90 impact torpedoes.

comment image

Paul T

The IH Frigates do have Sonar – but as I understand it they are Hull Mounted not Bow Sonars.

D J

Same thing.

D J

Hull mounted means fixed to the hull rather than towed behind. The bow is part of the hull.

Paul T
D J

Yes, I have seen that graphic before. Both are hull mounted sonars. The IH frigate uses Atlas ASO 94 hull mounted sonar which is designed to be fitted in the bow (which is where IH has it). It’s also where Babcock graphics show it on A140. Have a look at the arrowhead140 website, click on configure your ship & see the various design options they have (GP lite, GP, AAW, ASW etc). They all show “hull” mounted sonar at the bow (click on the various yellow symbols on the graphics for a description of what goes where). Of course these are design options, customer decides (within reason).

Whale Island Zookeeper

Do you have the internet? Why not look up Atlas ASO 94?

PeterS

The Arrowhead140 website shows the ability to include a hull mounted sonar at the bow, just like the original IH design.

Hugo

If we’re being honest it’s never going to get a sonar. So the Navy saved themselves some cash and didn’t bother leaving a flooded space that would need maintained in the design

Supportive Bloke

We don’t really know any of this.

We do know some design changes were made as a result of the renegotiation. That much was announced. What those changes are is unknown at this point in time.

When T31 rolls out in the spring we will be able to see, via George at UKDJ, if a sonar is fitted and maybe roughly what kind.

We might even get to know how many Sea Ceptor tubes are fitted!

All of this is the speculation accelerator at work – as MoD has said nothing and Babcock wouldn’t allow photos of certain areas of the build last time there was a press day visit to the shed.

TBH that approach suggests to me that there is a surprise in store.

Hugo

You’re being rather optimistic, there has been no talk of Adding Sonar and it won’t be in the bow. If it were to be added it would have to be after in a dry dock

Supportive Bloke

If T31 was totally vanilla, as announced, why bother limiting photography?

Do we actually know the number of Sea Ceptor launchers – no announcement.

Do we actually know the status of the Mk41 project – no announcement.

Do we actually know the sonar status – there never was any comment on this from the get go.

All we have is a load of speculation based on the models and a few CGIs that have been released.

So I’m maintaining an open mind!

Paul T

That is correct,if the customer is prepared to pay for it,which the RN is not in a position to do.

rmj

The Bacchante class – batch 2!

magenta

UK Announces Plans To Fit Strike Capability To Future Frigates.
… First Sea Lord’s Sea Power Conference, which is taking place at Lancaster House, London on 14-15 May. In the conference’s keynote address, UK Secretary of State for Defence Grant Shapps said:

“Today, I can announce that in the future we will be equipping our Type 26 and Type 31 frigates with land strike capability.”

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/05/uk-announces-plans-to-fit-strike-capability-to-future-frigates/

Robert

First Sea Lord also previously said the Navy *intends* to fit Mk 41. But not the Navy *will* fit Mk41, or that the ships will be built with Mk41. Now this statement refers to land strike capability without any specific detail of the systems involved or the timescales.

It reminds me of listening to a politician who knows exactly which words to pick to promise nothing whilst leaving the listener with a faulty assumption about what was said.

Joe16

If anything, that’s likely to mean NSM in canister- and I’m OK with that.
We should remember that the primary purpose of Mk41 on US ships is for their AAW missiles like SM-2 and -3; until recently with the addition of SM-6, they didn’t have an AShM that was qualified for Mk41, and relied upon cannister-launched Harpoon.
Aside from quad-packing CAMM into Mk41, I’m honestly not sure what else we’re planning on putting in there for T31…

Hugo

Well Fcasw when it eventually comes into service, but I doubt it will be in time for T26 or 31

Joe16

Fair point. But that hadn’t even been announced as Mk41 compatible when most people were bemoaning the lack of the VLS silos on T31.
You’re right, there’s not a lot of clarity on when it’ll be in service, and whether it’s one or two munitions in different categories. At this point in time, we’re not even sure it’ll fit in the tactical or strike length cells, and I’m willing to bet there’s only space allowed below deck for the tactical size on the T31.
But again, why we’d put the relatively very expensive Mk41 right now, for a missile we don’t yet have in service, is beyond me- when we can put NSM cannisters and CAMM silos all day long.

Smithy

I think that settles how many CAMM silos it will have 🙂 What a waste of money – should have got two (probably three if we’d negotiated upfront) T26s.

Hugo

How does that settle it?

Also 19 is bad enough, we shouldn’t be reducing hull numbers further, also think, we’d then only be getting 3 new frigates in the 2020s, any more and we’d be waiting past 2035

Smithy

The picture has no CAMM, a flippant comment perhaps but we should ground ourselves in reality. Unless someone has more information then these ships will enter service with 12 maybe 24 CAMM. The reality is that they will have crew requirements way beyond the value they add. Should have set an order for 10 or 11 back in 2010 and we’d have them already but the anti BAE fan boys wanted to play games and now we have FFBNW light frigates for a peacetime role and production lines that are both inefficient and unaffordable.

Hugo

Nothing to do with Anti BAE, we were never gonna get 13 T26, and building any without towed arrays is a waste of money

Smithy

13 were unrealistic I agree, but 10-11 was not, and each could have had TAS and a valuable role, rather than just adding to the existing large number of mediocre NATO frigates. The likelihood is also that only 2-3 of the 5 of the T31s can be crewed.

Grinch

The Type 31 has everything to do with anti Bae.

Osborne was determined to break the Bae monopoly on frigate building because they refused to build T26 GP’s at below cost prices (the monopoly that was deliberately created by a previous idiot politician Drayson).

Osborne went to the lengths of paying for a National Shipbuilding strategy that said have Babcocks build warships so Osborne complied with the report he paid for and got his dirt cheap ships.

Duker

That’s strange because the national Shipbuilding Strategy was in 2017 and T31 and second builder all came after Osbourne was long gone. [2010- jul 2016].
The NSS never mentioned a specific builder
As Chancellor he forced the T26 program to have 5-6 wasted years looking at cheaper alternatives- which ended up the same as it was initially and £100s millions wasted on make work Rivers

OkamsRazor

Whilst I wouldn’t go as far as to say anti-BAE, it makes sense to have “competition” in the industry from both a strategic and risk management perspective. The T31 has actually turned out to be a platform with lots of potential at a very reasonable price and Babcock have potential to be internationally competitive. So on hindsight win, win.

Scott walker

I thought warships ..were for fighting other ships ? Let the subs.hit land targets . Let the carriers provide top cover . & Defend themselves with CWIS & a SHORAD that has a small footprint.Let the destroyers …Destroy other ships & protect our carriers .Let the Frigates HUNT enemy subs ! Give them the weapons needed . Denmark , Norway,Spain ,France Turkey All know how to integrate weapons ….not building a raft with a nice Radar ….then years later adding something that a Navy needs from the get go . We managed to print Sterling for face masks

Hugo

Actually for say the USA, aircraft do most the fighting, Burkes don’t really have any high end anti ship weapons.

Course these need to be better armed but even those other European countries, most only have the standard 8 anti ship canisters

Whale Island Zookeeper

Burkes don’t really have any high end anti ship weapons.

This is now seen across the Pond as a mistake. ** The US thought they would never have to fight anybody at sea ever again. Now we all know differently. This is why they are racing to field hypersonic ordnance. Some American naval thinkers advocate screwing missiles down on to the decks of everything and anything that floats.

** Goes hand in hand with the Burkes Flight 1 not having organic air.

Jason

AIM-174. SM-6. ASuw and AAM.

Jason

AIM-174 is now air to air.

AlexS

Standard have had a dual capability.

Constellations will have 16 NSM’s plus the Standard in th VLS.

Paul

Burkes don’t really have any high end anti ship weapons.

It sort of depends.

You can still see Harpoons on some Flight Is and IIs, but the Flight IIAs never got them.

USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) actually fired NSMs during RIMPAC last year, but I don’t know if NSMs will feature more heavily on Burkes in the future or not, or if they will will be more for LCS and Constellation.

SM2 and SM 6 have a secondary anti ship role. The new version of SM 6 (SM-6 Blk IB) will have a much better anti ship capability when it enters service.

The Maritime Strike Tomahawk will also be in service soon, While it’s relatively inexpensive, I’d still consider it high-end for the capability it will bring.

I think in the near future Burkes will be very potent in the anti surface role.

Jason

Harpoons are old. Even the US and Australia are into NSM. Sad there’s no plan adding them to 31s.

D J

NSM is supposed to be a temporary gap filler on RN front line ships. When the T23 ASW all go, no reason NSM won’t shift to T31. After all, they have already been bought & paid for.

Jonathan

Major surface combatants don’t generally shot at each other..infact of the Many navel battles since 1945 I don’t think there is an instance of two major surface combatants attacking each other.

gene it’s

1)small ship flight attacking surface combatants.
2)small surface combatant ( missile or torpedo boats) attacking each other or major surface combatants.
3) fixed wing aircraft attacking surface combatants
4) submarines attacking surface combatants
5) drones attacking surface combatants
6) shore based missiles attacking surface combatants

of all of these the most successful have been the RNs use of small ship flights and sea Skua missiles, the single most deadly combination in the records of modern navel combat with around 27 surface vessel kills.

Last edited 8 days ago by Jonathan
Steve

It almost happened with the belgrano. The RN was worried it would be out ranged by it, had it not been sunk and carried on with its attack mission and their carrier hadnt been forced to return due to poor weather.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Yes. The thought of salvos of 15 6in shells doesn’t bare thinking about does it? it was brave of them to try. Shows the importance of an outer submarine screen. Underlines why our aircraft need a heavy AShM.

Jim

I always wondered if the war would never have started if we still had Ark Royal, Phantoms and Buccaneers with Sea Eagles. Not sure any Argentine Admiral would have given orders to send ships and Aircraft against that capability.

Ex_Service

The 25 de Mayo did not return to base because of poor weather. News of the sinking of the Begrano resulted in all Argie warships been recalled 3 May 1982, least they suffer the same fate. (Weather wise: there was insufficient wind for A-4 strikes 2 May and too much wind on the 3rd and irrelevant ultimately).

The Argies were right in assuming the Hunter-Killers were looking for the carrier and had it stayed out, it would have been re-acquired and sunk with a salvo of Mk-8s or sunk with the plan B, Sea Harriers doing 1000lb iron bomb strikes (those two destroyers with her would not have been ‘saved’ in Plan B I imagine).

Last edited 7 days ago by Ex_Service
Steve

The weather was material, if they had launched against the task force the war could have been very different.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Steve and Ex-Service

Firstly, I totally agree with both of you that the weather was very big factor in the Argies not launching their fully loaded A4 Skyhawk’s from their catapult equipped carrier back in 1982 (i.e no natural wind over the flightdeck)

Secondly, I always find it “very mysterous” that particular incident right at the very start of the Falklands War – ie the one and only carrier vis carrier “hot war” conducted since WW2 had ended bck in 1945 – is never ever mentioned by those who constantly claim that catapult equipped aircraft carriers are far far superior than those equipped with STOVL aircraft

(Lets see whether Jim takes the dangled bait!…… Will he bite?)

Thirdly, had RN submarine command – who were deep asleep in their bunker deep underneath Northwood – ever got their act together in 1982……..things could have been very different

because had they been directed properly, then either one of the two RN SSN submarines patrolling north of those islands should have – and quite easily could have – sunk that one Argie carrier at the very start of the war (i.e. separately to Conqueror sinking Belgrano to the south)

However throughout the Falklands War, our SSN’s were being badly directed from Northwood – and that incompetence dramatically reduced our SSN’s effectiveness

————————–

Just for the record, when an Argie Admiral was interviewed on a US TV station a few year later, he was asked by the US journalist whether it was right and proper fo us Brits to have sunk the Belgrano?.

The South American Admiralisimo, who had been on the loosing side just a few years earlier answered :

“Yes: that is exactly what I would have done had I been in their place….”

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Jason

The Harriers had no dedicated ASUW weapons only dummy bombs.

D J

I take it you meant ‘dumb’ rather than ‘dummy’?

AlexS

“is never ever mentioned by those who constantly claim that catapult equipped aircraft carriers are far far superior than those equipped with STOVL aircraft”

Do we know the status of catapults in their carrier? could they push all power for a full loaded A-4, were well maintained?

Supportive Bloke

The catapult didn’t work properly.

That is well known.

They had sent the key parts to Scotland to get them refurbed and they never got them back.

A true story!

Ex_Service

No, your opinion is incorrect in relation to the facts.

The timeline in relation to the cruiser sinking is what dictated events at sea.

Could have would have did not.

In relation to the comment below re STOVL vs CATABAR carriers, it is wildly accepted that STOVL had advantages over CATABAR in ’82 operationally, I cannot recall which one it was (Woodward or Ward) made reference to it. It has been argued also, had the UK not divested itself of Ark Royal (I would have kept Eagle myself over the Ark), then perhaps the calculus by the Argies would have come out with a different result for invading. Woodward also was not happy with the Hunter-Killer tasking by Northwood, which if I recall led to the carrier contact being lost.

Deepsixteen

In the Indian Ocean in 81 got to within six miles of a USA carrier with Woodward onboard as FOF1 (Kennedy I think but memory not what it was) just using deceptive lighting and the Navigator’s dodgy Indian accent before lighting it up with our fire control radar.
Fast forward to the Falklands and Glamorgan leading the SAG with two of the type 21’s toward the Belgrano (Glad Conq’s got it) with 12 Exocet between us and surface combat definitely on the cards.

With the Labour lot looking likely to repeat similar stupid mistakes that they oversaw in the 1970’s cheapening the design and weapon installation on todays builds in similar ways to the mistakes they made cutting the size and weapons fit on the type 42s. I hope to be proved wrong but I doubt it.

Duker

Its 14 years of Tory austerity which stopped the new T26 development in its tracks in 2010, the delays meant instead of steel being cut around 2012 they were looking for ‘cheaper options’ till the program was restarted where they left off in 2017.
This is why the RN is in such dire circumstances over the T23 running on much longer because of the 5-6 years delay on the next frigate program- supposed to follow on from T45 and funded as such by labour.

The T42 project in mid 1960s ( first was ordered in Nov 68) was initially seen as a ‘Sea Dart frigate’ because of the smaller size of the magazine and launcher compared to Sea Slug Counties. The bigger full fat destroyer version was of course HMS Bristol.
The 4200 T , 400 ft and GT T42 was seen as affordable at about £9 mill ea ( 1965) and a build rate just about 2 per year.
Batch 1 were 6 laid down over 4 years, unfortunately some came in overweight during build and a weight saving exercise removed some hull longitudinals – which was later fixed with external stiffening

So the reason for the small T42 was because the larger Sea Dart destroyer was stopped with only 1. That then resulted in a bigger T42 with 50 extra ft/ 3ft extra beam was then used for B3, which also had a hull strength error.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Let the subs.hit land targets

For sneaky attacks on individual targets, say a terrorist camp, then yes. But in general no. You need mass to take out enemy aerodromes and radar sites. Firstly UK submarines don’t have VLS which means the poor chaps up for’ard are going to be working hard to reload tubes. That would be silly and it isn’t going to happen. Secondly you don’t want others knowing where your boats are for a whole variety of reasons even if they are sitting within the perimeter of a carrier group.

No land attack missiles should be launched from ships. On the first night of Gulf War the USN launched 52 TLAM from 9 ships. In total during that war the USN launched over 288 TLAM only 12 of which came from submarines and that was probably more too spreading out the work share.

No you want mass to cause attrition to the enemy to protect your assets as they go in. You want to take out radars, runways and aprons etc. It is why building T45 without at least 90 VLS cells was a mistake. If you have 2 T45 with a carrier group and between them you have say 100 missile you can cause damage to the enemy to allow you carrier based aviation to get on with the job at hand. Better to spend 50 million taking out airfields than lose aircraft and expensive trained pilots at 50 million plus each time. Of course the UK won’t do that because we don’t have the money and of course the the American will do if for us (as Trump points out.)

To use that much hackneyed scenario of the Falklands think about if that happened with Burkes or Ticos. Think about day of the landing if Comodoro Rivadavia, Río Gallegos and San Julián were all taken out were out of commission for a week. You can’t do that launching TLAM’s in penny packets from torpedo tubes from SSN’s. Imagine if as soon as they saw the Argentines were flying those base were hit again. All the troops would have been ashore and the trooping ships would have been back out to sea. Rapier would have been landed, tested and ready to play. The troops would have been dug in. Fewer escorts would have been lost. So for the cost of those missiles more money would have been saved in the long and more importantly lives.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Zookeeper

Worth adding to you several very-well-made points (directly above) that all of the USN naval ship designs are all – ever since WW2 ended – always designed and planned around which one of the key roles that particular ship will play in supporting and protecting the dozen big USN Carrier Groups

That is all very very different from how the RN operates…..

Therefore

The initial specification for the then-proposed RN T45 was botched by the technically illiterate Mr C. Parry 30 years ago = simply because he planned and designed that ship around refighting the Falkands War (i.e the T45 is only optimised for air defence of a carrier battle group)

and so the RN ended up with a thoroughly very British version of the USN Aegis AD cruisers;

….but of course the T45 was much smaller overall and with many fewer missles tubes and, of course, without Aegis……

(and then the implementation of the entire T45 programme was severely botched by the Army Brigadier who ran that “problematic” development programme . He was somebody who really did not have “Scooby-Doo” what he was doing… except his dress sense……which , to be fair to him, was immaculate (note 1.)

Therefore – as you have strongly hinted at directly above – you agree with what I have said here on Navy Lookout several times in the recent past

= what the RN really needs now are several modern day multi-purpose cruisers

Say 15,000T, 100mile range, 180m long, equiped with several helicoptors and lots of missile tubes

So all-round:anti-aircraft; anti-submarines; anti-surface; and occasionally, land attack capabilities

Long range and size is essential for at least sum of our future warships because the three most likley regions of the world where the RN will be fighting next – i.e. in a big hot war against a modern nation state – are up in the Arctic Ocean (Russia) , Arabian Gulf (Iran) and Western Pacific (China and/or North Korea)

– all of which are vast and expansive regions that are a very long way away from home and of which have very big waves: and the local enemy has plenty of local firepower

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Note 1.
I have often wondered whether he ever became head of the most important unit in the UK armed services today: the ADC (Army Dress Committtee).

Whale Island Zookeeper

LCS was to replace OHP in secondary roles not carrier support per se. That it was appalling in all aspects caused them to look for something more conventional hence the Constellations which the USN are, to use a technical word you may wish to make note of, buggering up good and proper.

IH/Absalon base design satisfies everything the USN needs. Size for sea keeping. Ocean crossing ranges, Built around American weapons. Good sized flight deck. Not clever.

The initial specification for the then-proposed RN T45 was botched by the technically illiterate Mr C. Parry 30 years ago = simply because he planned and designed that ship around refighting the Falkands War (i.e the T45 is only optimised for air defence of a carrier battle group)

No, no, no, ooh no sir no………You have back to front. The RN wanted a replacement for T42. T42 like all RN ships of the era was a GP warship. Yes their main purpose was to pop missiles off at Soviet MPA but they were also submarine hunters; the main reason why destroyers and frigates carried helicopter was ASW. If the RN had got what they had wanted there would have been 12 T45 with SeaViper, a proper ASW fit out, a 155mm gun for NGS and surface work, and a Merlin. As budget cuts bit and the end of history was declared hulls numbers were slashed and everything that could be was stripped from the design. Sea Viper was sufficiently good that it was worth sending to sea on a less than well fitted out hull. But T45 then became a HVU, something that needed to be escorted, and not an escort itself. It will always sit within sight of the carrier in war as with only 6 of them the RN can’t afford to send them off to do other work. Not that it could because they lack ASW.

If you were designing a ship purely for carrier air defence you wouldn’t need a hangar. They take up too much space. You want to give your weapons amd sensors the best arcs possible. The frigates on the screen and the carrier would carry any helicopters needed and a specialised AA asset isn’t going anywhere near the gun-line so need for spotting. STWS and a clutch of ASROC would be enough to prosecute any subsurface target the sonar found. ** You would want to have two VLS for maximum capacity and redundancy. That’s another flaw in the design of T45 not enough cells not just for AA missiles but for TLAM; I think Their Lordships missed the first few hours of GW1 on telly. Optimally you would have 76mm mounts fore and aft and a number of CIWS not a 4.5″ or a 155mm gun. Nothing symbolises more the lack of investment and impotency of the current RN than T45’s Mk 8 Mod 1 gun.

** This would be the reverse of the problem the USN had with Flight 1 AB’s. Their navy decided that that AB’s didn’t need helicopters and cabs could come from the carrier. But when detached from the carrier group the reach of the AB was greatly diminished. Plus ASW cabs on the carrier’s busy flight deck and in their busy hangar took up too much space. So from Flight II on they had hangars. The QE’s would never have full hangars or be as busy as US CVN so could easily accommodate ASW cabs so need for AAW escorts to have them. That is is if T45 had been designed as a specialist aerospace defence ship from the get go. But as I said above T45 was going to replace T42 so ASW kit was needed and a big gun for NGS etc. was needed and they would be built in sufficient numbers that they might spend some of their time not shackled to the carrier. Imagine if we had had the 12 T45 and 24 frigates to go with them. On a three for one basis enough for two T45 and 4 frigates for carrier and that still leaves 2 T45 and 4 frigates for other tasks……….

Last edited 7 days ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
There's grey in my beard

“From the Get Go”.
I hate that americanism most intensely.

12 T45’s and 24 Frigates, now that would be nice. I think there is a lesson to be learned having so few T45’s. Lets hope we get at least 8 T83’s and 18 Frigates with the mythical T32’s.

I’m not a betting man but I know where my money would go.

26 escorts would be quite some force that’s for sure.

Whale Island Zookeeper

I can’t see the RN getting more than 3 T83 possibly 4. Hopefully properly armed and fitted out.

T32 is a fiction. Doris Johnson misspoke and for some reason the MoD(N) perpetuate the mistake. T31 and T26 are both in build and large AAW escort is needed. I cannot see why the MoD(N) would start work on a fourth design.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

If the RN had got what they had wanted there would have been 12 T45 with SeaViper, a proper ASW fit out, a 155mm gun for NGS and surface work, and a Merlin. As budget cuts bit and the end of history was declared!

Zookeeper

I reply with just one word = wrong

T45 was conceived long after the Berlin Wall fell

The one, and only, reason why the RN did not get more T45’s – and why they were /are so badley equipped – was that the MOD / RN simply failed to properly manage their own development programme; especially to design and built the novel air defence radar.

Thus it went wildly over budget

Therefore, eventually, somebody in Accounts Department went

“Mr Parry: Quite simply = no more money for your wet dream”

So the planned order numbers – and also the specification got cut

…back to what had first been promised…..and agreed

All because the Q Buffoons had already widely overspent the budget = upfront…..

—————————–

RN R&D is bit like a bunch of kids going into a sweetshop with shopping list – and then all collectively changing their minds – and often changing their minds halfway through eating the packet of sweets – and then all deciding to visiting a different sweetyshop = to see what they have on offer nextdoor)

—————————-

This is what Parliament had to offically say

“As with so many other Defence projects, the problems on Type 45 Destroyer result from the Department’s unrealistic and over-optimistic assessments of the likely costs and timescales to deliver technically complex equipment“. 

You can read the whole gory story here, the MP’s entire report;

  • adults only,
  • parental discression advised
  • read after the watershed

Microsoft Word – MOD Type 45 Destroyer FINAL CRC.doc

It is called “Groundhog Day” (or Deju Vue if you voted Remain)

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Duker

T45 contract was 6 firm with 2 options. So thats 8. The RN gave up the last 2 options because the money was to be spent on T26 development being bought forward and follow on construction…the 2010 SDR threw that out the window and some Rivers became fill ins.

Jim

Just got up, read this and Scooby Doo got my attention, then I read the 15.000 tn Cruisers with 100 mile range and then some mention of ACDC.

Going to have a double expresso so I can make sense of it all.

Currently singing “Scooby Dooby Doo, where are you” to the tune of “Thunderstruck”

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

CORRECTION

Jim

Apologises for the “100” typo: which was caused Fat Finger Syndrone

I orginally read – so just before I deleted the crucial bit – as follows:

“minimum of a 10,000 mile unrefuelled range”

After all,

…..100 miles would be rather short legs for a globetrotting cruiser

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Jason

I thought PAAMS is better than most versions of AEGIS. They shot down Houthi drones and ballistic missiles?

Whale Island Zookeeper

There are 120 AEGIS ships in the water with another 60 on their way.

SeaViper is very good and the Americans really like SAMPSON.

But which system is going to be maintained in the future?

The gap in performance isn’t enough to offset the size of the AEGIS base.

And if the RN adopted their could always plumb ‘Son of SAMPSON’ into the code base.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Jason

If one is considering it just in isolation: yes, Pamms (as it used to be called) is an excellent AAD missile defence weapon system.

However, in my orginal post, I was talking about the overall design concepts for one and only warship which now carries that missle system: the T45

Hard truth is that the RN T45 destroyer is today a one-trick pony;

….and the outcome of the recent RN Ops off Yeman proves my point…

Simple truth of the matter is, yes, the T45 did very-efficently shoot down very many incoming Yemani / Houthi drones and missiles – usually at ranges relatively close to the warship itself (i.e a classic close-in air defence operation)

However, a very big BUT is coming next:

  1. the T45 soon ran out of warshots
  2. = and so the Yemani’s / Houthis carried on firing missiles and drones
  3. and the T45 was unable to carry a land attack helicopter – which is probably the one (and only?) UK weapon system which might have effectively detected and destroyed the Houthi’s firing points (launch sites) ashore without causing severe collateral damage
  4. Furthermore, the T45 would have struggled to deal with anything much else other than the relatively slow drones and missiles
  5. Therefore IF the Iranian’s had encouraged their Houthi allies to also use kamizakize remote controlled boats and/or small submarines (i.e. the ones which even the towed array on the T23 has trouble detecting) then I beleve that the T45 would have been in real trouble.
  6. US reports in Oct 2023 – coincidentailly just before US elections – did say that Iranian designed mini-subs and unmanned boats had been detected approched the US Eisenhower carrier group…..but, for reasons still unknown, they did not attack…..

So – despite the RN shooting down lots and lots of “hostile incoming” with its world-class AAD – at the end of the day the Iranian / Houthi threat remained so severe that almost all of the routine civilian merchant shipping was still being deterred from using the Red Sea (and so shipping was all going the long way around via the Cape)

Therefore, when it deployed the T45 off Yeman in 2023, the RN did not achieve its one and only key strategic objectice

= which was (always) to reopen the Red Sea for Civvy Shipping (note 1)

Which is why I was strongly hinting in my orginal post that the RN really needs to learn some very hard lessons about what it really needs fitted onboard its proposed T83 (which is still on the drawing board)

Hence my comment that next generation of long-range RN ships needs to be a long-ranged multi-role cruiser

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Note 1.

  • That strategic objective has only been recently been achieved by the US President (i.e. the new one with bright orange hair) threatening to Rain down fire and brimstone on the Irainian’s if the Gaza war was not settled soon….”.
  • To date, or at the very least during the one month since his reelection, that threat against Iran appears to have worked, and worked very well…..
  • And The Donald probably means waht he says – mainly because the mad mullahs appear to have been the masterminds behind the third unsucessful attempt on his life made during 2023 (as foiled by the FBI)

Note 2.

  • The Donald’s recent rhetoric towards the Iranian’s is – coicidentially – exactly the same statragy as I first proposed exactly one week after Hamas first attacked Israel on the 7th Oct 2022.
  • My post here on NL was made on Saturday the 14th Oct 2022:
  • I said to hit the Iranian’s very hard and very soon = otherwise that the still-very-young Israel vis Hamas conflict would very soon spread like wildfire throughout all of the MIddle East
  • and so = because effective action was not promptly taken against the Iranians , who had very obviously and quite delberately provoked that war, therefore a very big war did spread very rapidly throughout all of the MIddle East
  • The war raged throughout all of 2023.
  • ..which is why the RN was in the Red Sea – well over one thousand miles away from Gaza
Whale Island Zookeeper

The US have fired 220 AAW missiles in the Gulf. It would be easy for the small RN with its small VLS count to run out of bangs bangs.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Zookeeper

And the UK would run out of money!

It was widely reported recently that the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group alone expended over $1 billion dollars worth just of weapons and muntions when it was fighting the Houthi’s during its deployment in the Red Sea (Note. Just during 2023).

To that huge expenditure must be added fuel, personel, Big Macs (to feed the crew ) etc etc

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Duker

None of those background claims about Yemen bear any relation to the truth.
The Iranians didnt know about Oct 7 before hand . Hamas isnt their ‘proxy’ ( different versions of islam which are diametrically opposed – see Northern Ireland). Hezbollah in Lebanon more so as they are Shia.

Yemen was in civil war long before recent events , indeed Saudi Arabia attacked them 2015 with US assistance – Just as Putin did to its neighbour 10 years later. US has been bombing Yemen even at start of Obama era.
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/a-timeline-of-the-yemen-crisis-from-the-1990s-to-the-present/
US military presence in Saudi Arabia started the whole Al Quaeda thing and the later occupation of Iraq led to ISIS.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Duker

Nonsense

Please can you reread my post of the 14th October 2022, here on Navy Lookout

The reason why the Iranian’s quite deliberately started the Gaza war against Israel – and then spread that war out to other parts of the Middle East – was to prevent the Israeli-Saudi diplomatic and militray alliance, i.e. so joining forces against Iran, being completed and signed

To date = Iran has sucessfully achieved its war aims

And let us not forget that one of th “victims” of the Israeli covert attack – when they detonated Hezbulla’s’ radios and pagers – was the Iranian diplomatic ambassedor to Lebonan…. who had Hezbulla device in his hand when it went “bang”

Having terroist organisation’s communication device on and about ones person is hardly an “activity compatible with normal diplomatic behaviour”

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Duker

Initial US intelligence suggests Iran was surprised by the Hamas attack on Israelhttps://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/11/politics/us-intelligence-iran-hamas-doubt/index.html
The US has intel services you know
You seem confused by the Shia militia Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Sunni militia Hamas in Gaza

OkamsRazor

What nonsense. This is typical armchair admirals arrogance, that every platform should have everything! The most successful navy in modern history has decided, after decades of experience to go down the specialist route. But you know better. We currently have the best AAW on the planet (T45), and are soon to introduce the best ASW on the planet (T26), but you know better. What pray are your exalted qualifications that put you in this position?

Netking

Is it nonsense because he made a factual incorrect statement or just because you disagree?

We currently have the best AAW on the planet (T45)”

Again, is it so because you boldly claim it is or do you have anything to support your claims?

OkamsRazor

Well, apart from numerous reports and blogs describing performance during allied exercises, comparisons of specifications (FREMM AAW & ABs), and reading the Congressional Reports on the travails of the AB upgrade’s, no evidence at all. How about you any evidence of a superior AAW platform? Appreciate that denigrating the RN is some sort of pensioner viagra on this site, but actual evidence suggests that apart from numbers, our kit & training are generally superior to most. Interesting RAND report last year giving statistical background to my “opinion” and obviously RAND are amateurs!

Netking

Please share these numerous reports and supporting blogs with the rest of us. And I mean real official reports, not just random people on the internet making claims. Seriously, claiming that you have the best AAW platform in the world is like a footballer claiming to be the best footballer in world but when it’s game time (Against the Houthis) watching another player do things that you admittedly cannot do and only hope to be able to do in the future, yet still claiming that you are the best. The T45 are fantastic platforms with potential that have not been fully realized but it does a disservice to everyone when we lie to ourselves and make this silly claims that are clearly not true.

Esteban

No, you really don’t… And you have no stockpile of missiles. The type 45 have been an absolute maintenance disaster. Really awesome for a few shots and really cannot affect any sort of battle after that

OkamsRazor

Another ignorant comment, perhaps you would like to produce some evidence that the well publicised US recuperator issue has actually made T-45 availability any less than French/Spanish/German or Italian vessels, you might be pleasantly (or unpleasantly in your case) surprised. As for your “few shots” not sure what you are on about, unless one of your children inserted that comment.

Duker

Spot on.
The WR-21 was a US led development although the RN ended up as only user.
RR has replaced Westinghouse-Naval Division as prime , but thats fairly recent after Northrop Grumman took over W

“The team members and primary responsibilities are: Westinghouse, Marine Division — prime contractor and system integrator; Rolls-Royce — RB211 derived engine developer; Allied Signal, Air Research Division — recuperator and intercooler developer, and CAE Electronics — controller developer”

and because:
‘Compared to the existing simple cycle propulsion engine, the ICR will save 30 percent in fuel”
Even though its was same footprint as the LM series, Lockheed was far too good at military procurement politics and made sure the USN never used the new engine with ..gasp..an RR 3 stage Gas turbine instead of the GE CF6
OVERVIEW OF THE WR-21 INTERCOOLED RECUPERATED GAS TURBINE ENGINE SYSTEM A MODERN ENGINE FOR A MODERN FLEET. …..ASME 1993 Crisall, Parker

Just Me

T45 is not the ’best AAW on the planet’ – nothing like it.

OkamsRazor

Compared to what? What is it with silly postings without any technical knowledge. The T45 was designed from the ground up to be an AAW platform, there is no competition. Neither the ABs or the FREMM are in the same ballpark, so why make yourself appear dumb?

OkamsRazor

Perhaps you should get an education from NavyLookout, which has published numerous articles on the T45/ABs/FREMM and the various other surface combatants from Europe and Asia before you spout nonsense. Anyone with any knowledge of naval radar and the physics involved will inform you of the physical parameters and power performance that make the T45 superior to current surface combatants. But emotive opinions are not relevant.

Netking

Great, Let’s see what NavyLookout who I think provides some of the best info anywhere had to say about the T45 with regards to ABM specifically

Oct 7 24
“Defence against ballistic missiles with much longer range, higher trajectory and overland which is what was needed to protect Israel was challenging for the USN and currently well beyond current RN capabilities.”

“HMS Duncan is currently in the Eastern Mediterranean and would have been the only RN vessel that could have been deployed to contribute any kind of useful support. At best she may have been able to provide additional sensor data using the Sampson Radar which has some capabilities that are complimentary to US systems.”

“The US Navy benefits from integrated sensor coverage and cooperative engagement capability (CEC) between its ships and space sensors as well as the superior SM-3 missile. CEC was abandoned by the RN as a cost-saving measure in 2012 so it does not have full interoperability with the USN.”

Duker

ballistic missiles with much longer range, higher trajectory and overland “

That would explain why a T45 in the Med couldnt reach out beyond Israel and into Jordan and Syria to intercept the Iranian BM.
Wasnt designed for that role

USN while saying SM-3 were used , obscures how many and how accurate they were, and they are a mid course phase ‘hittile’

D J

Is T45 superior in AAW – no, but it’s up there. Sampson radar is no longer bleading edge, but still better than most. Time moves ever forward. Its current main problem (other than propulsion which is getting fixed), is lack of missile depth. Adding CAMM, allowing Aster 15 to be replaced by Aster 30 is a big plus. However they seriously short changed CAMM. They could have / should have had 48 CAMM, or preferably 24 CAMM & 24 CAMM-ER. The space was there.

As to the rest of the T45 package, the less said the better. Still, there isn’t a naval task force anywhere in the world that would say no to a T45 turning up.

OkamsRazor

As to your land attack scenario, ignorance is apparently bliss! What naval platforms did the Isreali use to take out Iranian infrastructure? Got in 1, they used F-35, as will we.

Duker

Israel fired air launched ballistic missiles for its direct attack on Iran
F16 and F15 aircraft were the launch platforms from above Iraq. Not really possible because of type of large missile that F-35 used but rumours ….

Theoden

It’s not a surprise MK41 isn’t funded. Type 45 and 26 are rightly at the front of the queue for it. Sea Ceptor and NSM is not ideal but at least adequate. The Type 23’s are a hopeful example for Type 31.The weapons and sensors a class starts life with will be dramatically different to those they end their life with. Like everything it’s all about money and political priorities. If the review doesn’t cut anything else RN related then that’s probably the nearest thing to good news we’re likely to get for the foreseeable future.

Jason

Ask and they keep saying wait for rhe SDR.

Theoden

Expect nothing good and hope for nothing bad. But then i’m a born pessimist.

Louis Gordon

Without the mk41, does the ship have any offensive capability at all? The Iver Huitfeldt it’s based on manages to have 32 Mk41 cells, 24 Mk56 cells, 16 Harpoons and even gets the SMART-L radar (basically an S1850M). We’ve managed to take a design for a formidable fighting ship and turn it into a patrol vessel.

ATH

That’s because the RN requirement was for a mid level escort optimised for semi permanent deployment. It was never budgeted to have a high end weapons fit.

Louis Gordon

So in other words, it would be effectively useless in a large scale conflict?

Hugo

Not totally useless, we deployed the T21s to the Falklands after all. Even sea ceptors isn’t sufficient but that should be installed at the bare minimum

Paul42

Yes, and two of them were sunk. The fact is the UK just isn’t interested in high end fighting vessels, we’d rather spend money elsewhere and knowingly put our naval personnel in harms way with totally inadequate kit. Wonder if that has anything to do with our recruitment crisis?

Duker

And 2 high end ( for 1982) T42 destroyers were sunk also.
Its a feature not a bug of hostilities involving naval forces, that the enemy will target all your vessels….and vice versa.
So we can put those claims to one side

Esteban

My God that was a long time ago… And it didn’t really work out great for the type 21s did it

Hugo

No, but when you look how they were taken out, by bomb strikes, the T31 is a flak frigate in comparison, and it will at the very least have sea ceptr

Jon

T31s will carry Wildcats. Shipborne helicopters and small missiles have proved very useful against less than peer navies. I imagine they’d be of some use against Russian corvettes, especially in combination with Peregrine spotters.

However the obvious point is that they can be upgraded in the run up to war.

Deepsixteen

It would seem that we are at the point that these need to be installed you might be able to buy some missiles that fit your VLS within a year or two but fitting the VLS will most likely be out of time scale. Being on a under armed vessel in a conflict is not a great place to be.

D J

In a wartime situation, it wouldn’t take long to fit mk41. Obtaining missiles for mk41 from allies will also be doable, especially if those allies are also involved. It’s basically a free frigate for the combined effort. The T31 CMS already has some mk41 compatible missiles integrated. Getting hold of mk41 in a hurry will be the hard part. Getting new would be difficult unless an ally has some already delivered for a ship not in a state to fit them. Otherwise 2nd hand would be it & the numbers for either would be limited.

Jason

Never that simple. Inserting means trials getting the CMS linked, etc

D J

Wartime, we can skip the formalities. Adding a missile to a CMS takes time. The CMS in T31 has been sold to numerous countries, meaning a wide range of missiles are already integrated. If the missile has been integrated for someone else, free beer. As Ukraine has shown, you can do just about anything if you have to. The impossible can take a little longer.

Last edited 18 hours ago by D J
Jason

Yadda they can be upgraded. That goes for the 23s that could be but deccomisioned.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Jason

Just to point out that it has just taken the RN four years to refit one T23

that is hardly a fast refit…..

Peter (irtae Taxpayer)

D J

The bigger problem is the T23 was never designed to be still around. It’s not a ship with a 30 year design life, perhaps we can milk another 10 years. They have already milked the design dry. It’s a 18 year design life. Add 6 years (33% extension) & you get 24 years. Do it again you get 12 years (total 30 years). That on a 30 year design is 50 years!

Last edited 17 hours ago by D J
Just Me

If only the Russians didn’t fit fairly competent SAMs to their corvettes.

Jason

Guns and AsuW CAMM. Wildcat.

Adrian Paul Alexander Macfarlane

Just waiting for Keir Stamer to hand over power to Donald(T) E.Musk (President) defacto then install Nigel as puppet P.M (Dictator)then becoming the 52nd State if Greenland /Denmark capitulate.
If memory serves me right ,the good ‘Old US of A’ considered going to war with us somewhere after the 1st WW because they felt that our Royal Navy were at the time the most powerful and largest Navy at that time in the world.

Jim

That was the Red Plan, Basically it was a war against the British Empire with Canada being the focal point. There was also an Orange plan which included Japan. We had no official counter plan but it was discussed.
Good job the Japan attacked Hawaii in many respects. There were huge populations of Germans, Irish, Italian and French in the USA.

Jim

That was the Red Plan, They also had an Orange one that envisaged a war with Japan at the same time as with the British Empire.

Deepsixteen

They tried to invade Canada in 1812 it didn’t go well for them we burned the White House down and everything reset to the start line. I do note that they do not win often without being allied with us.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Deepsixteen

Not forgetting that the US of A only joined in WW1 (on our side) when the German’s and Mexicans decided to get together in 1917…

and The Donald has recently spoken openly abou his fears of being invaded by Mexico

= which is why he is building a wal….

Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Esteban

Yeah that’s kind of the pattern for the UK for the last 100 years or so… You might want to look at history a teensy bit closer… And just look at reality right now

Jim

To Watch Zero, I just added a reply to your Red Plan comment but it was deleted along with yours !

Jim

OK, that was all a bit odd !

Phillip Johnson

I am a bit late joining in but 2 comments:

  1. Given previously released pictures it will be a sizable miracle if the level of outfitting at launch will be anything like that suggested in pictures included in the article. I wait to see pictures of the launch, but I will stick with my earlier prediction that the project is at least 12 months behind contracted schedules and slipping, and that the delay will flow through to later vessels. In general terms, time lost early in a project is not made up unless someone adds extra resources and there is no sign of that happening.
  2. I am not sure what the impact of failing to order Mk 41 VLS will be. The original intention was to use Seaceptor individual launch tubes as fitted to the T23’s. A decision was then made to fit Mk 41. It was never clear whether this was as well or instead. If it was instead, and it probably was, that means at least the first T31 (and perhaps several) will commission with no air defence missiles and remain in that state until some later refit. If someone can prove me wrong please do so.
Jason

The original was no ASuW missiles. There will be likely less Sea Ceptors fitted than a 23.

Jason

Easy target for enemy submarines unless there are ASW PODs?

Jim

Could say the same about T45’s but they are not designed for ASW, just like the T31’s. It’s the T26’s job together with Merlin’s and Astute’s. It’s the Layered defence principle we choose to employ in times of conflict. Think of the T31’s as R2’s on steroids, patrolling the Words oceans giving presence but also having some degree of fighting ability should it be called for.

And don’t forget their size, they can be upgraded if really needed.

Jason

The T26s are not enough for ASW. Are you a government bot? You write like an armchair admiral.

Jim

Oh deary deary me.

Whale Island Zookeeper

I have been told we are not to worry about Opfor’s combined flotilla of approximately 125 boats. And that China is adding to that number at approximately 4 nuclear and 3 conventional boats each year.

Jim

My pet hate is how we all dismiss China and their incredible building program, not just ships and Subs but every conceivable piece of military hardware and software.
They ain’t doing all that just to take Taiwan.

Whale Island Zookeeper

It is rather like Russophobia here. When it suits the Russians are clowns. And then when that doesn’t suit Russians are Sardaukar on speed.

FWIW the Russians aren’t coming. We are seeing the limits of Russia’s reach now. Oh how we laugh. But we should consider Russia is lacking nothing and its forces are out number us. So if we laugh at their performance in the Ukraine how would we do? We can’t do a thing without the US.

The West has just lost two wars to forces who wear sandals and carry AK47’s.

I am not sure whether it is hubris or fear. But I would rather respect the enemy and start from the position that they can do us harm.

Sending a 5000 tonne warship to sea without ASW is just stupid. It can barely defend itself and has little offensive weaponry that it won’t give Opfor too much worry. So why are we sending them to sea? Sonars and rafting don’t actually cost that much. It is too much of a compromise.

A ninth T26 would have made more sense. On a three for one basis one could be kept here to watch Russia in the Norwegian Sea and leave two for the carrier or elsewhere.

Last edited 7 days ago by Whale Island Zookeeper
Jim

I seem to remember that T31’s did go down the Rafting route, I’m pretty sure that T45 didn’t and that both classes would be reliant on T26 as part of the Layered protection.

I also recall that T31’s can carry two Merlin’s and also be equipped with TSA, It’s going to be interesting seeing how they evolve.

Whale Island Zookeeper

I think they can only carry one cab.

All manner of stuff was stripped from T45.

All the escorts will be able to contribute to the air and surface pictures, but only T26 will have sonar. And these will be on the outside of a task group. It is hard enough to compile a decent subsurface picture. You need just as many ‘ears’ under water as you need ‘eyes’ above.

The Absalon can carry two Merlin. It would have probably been the better design for the UK to build. Half the machinery so a cheaper build. For a hull supposedly for second line duties losing all that top speed wouldn’t be a much of a loss. Heck we might have been able to have six with ASW kit. I would have called them sloops.

I am very fond of the IH / Absalon design. I think this is the ship the US should have chosen for its frigate programme. Basic ship built around US systems. They could have used AEGIS. They could have built a mix of both designs.

Jim

I’m probably confusing the various designs regarding Merlin’s, I do remember reading something about having room for two in the hanger though.

The Constellation class have all the markings of a right mess and a costly one at that. Personally I would have liked to see them opt for a T26 derivative but I know that the brief was to go for a proven design.

I’ll bet the cost’s will soar to stupid levels though.

Anyway, are you up to date with the PLAN Type 076 ? It looks to be quite the thing especially if their new J35 can be operated.
Would like to know what your thoughts are.

Whale Island Zookeeper

The Chinese know to extend their influence they need a large and capable marine corps with capability to deliver mass ashore quickly. The 76 follows the pattern we have seen previously with each new class being larger than the last. The drone angle is interesting. I am not sure about J35. Easier to build than true fleet carriers.

This is what annoying many US Marines, ex-US Marines and commentators across the Pond that Force 2030 and the USN want out of this game.

I think we should have built a pair (preferably three) large LHD something like the USS Makin Island instead of building carriers. Build on our strengths of ASW (sea control), light amphibious warfare, and also have a deck big enough for a number of AEW / ASaC cabs for task group defence.

Jim

Fair Comments TBH.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Taiwan is a long way from mainland China. All the US has to do is deny the Straits not control them. System like QuickSink are only going to improve. Fit it to a SDB derivative and get the range up to 100nm and deliver them en masse from drones and the Chinese are literally sunk.

If Taiwan was serious about defending itself they would give every adult a rifle, they would maker sure every home had a 120 days worth of food, built LAW in huge numbers, and made sure a goodly portion of the population had first aid training.

But no we should have gone with a GT powered Wasp. We could have sent a commando for a cruise every year. And then in spring or autumn get Pingers and Bravos aboard in numbers for sea control exercise.

Hsiung Feng

Taiwan Strait is 100 miles at the narrowest point, London to Birmingham at cow fly distance, Meteor missile has a longer range than that.
I wouldn’t say Taiwan is a long way from mainland China unless you are rowing across by dingy.
Guam is 1800 miles from China and is still well within missile range from inland China.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Oh you wouldn’t would you?

Well a Type 071 LPD does at best 25kts which means it is 4 hours to Taiwan. That’s quite a long time to be exposed to air attack or submarines.

A Type 072A has a top speed which means it will take 5 hours 45 minutes to cross the Straits.

Most of PLAN’s minor amphibious craft top out at 12kts which means 8 hours 20 minutes……….

I would say you don’t think too much do ya?

Hsiung Feng

Any seaborne landing would be preceded by air strikes with missiles/drones/aircrafts to eliminate any defenses and the amphibious fleet would be escorted by the vast PLAN. The number game is on China’s side, any military planner would know that.

Try not to think too much.

Last edited 7 days ago by Hsiung Feng
Whale Island Zookeeper

It is a question of three things:

1) denial not control
2) sufficient mass reaching the island in the first wave
3) sustainment

I think the PRC forces are still a decade away from being able to fight off US efforts to deny the straights. I don’t think the US can control them. But in that decade the new administration will keep US forces sufficiently ahead.

Try not to swallow the Party’s propaganda. It’s a stalemate.

Jason

But F-35B isnt cleared for Meteor yet.

Hsiung Feng

F-35B isnt cleared for Meteor yet is neither here nor there,

The point here is the distance between China and Taiwan is 100 miles the narrowest, and not a ” long way” away as someone here claimed that has not looked at a map and has never been there.

Esteban

Give Taiwan the American second amendment problem solved…

AlexS

As if the modified T26 : Canadian and Australian aren’t a mess…
But at least they are real multipropose ships…

Jason

Can but havent and no dedicate sonar team.

Jason

Agree.

Jason

Tell NATO-first Healey.

Jon

The float off date has been announced several times and always missed. I want to believe it. For a second or two I think I actually did believe it this time. But then I saw in my mind’s eye the Peanuts cartoon with Charlie Brown about to kick the football. This time, Charlie, this time she won’t pull the ball away at the last minute.

Is there a mast on Venturer yet (presumably the ceiling isn’t high enough) and if not will it be fitted on the hard standing before the launch?

Jim

No Mast, no Sails either !

From what I’ve read, she will be leaving with much more work having been done under cover than initially envisaged.

Can’t wait to see the pictures and the NL article.

Duker

That should mean the time taken for the remainder of fitout will be less ?
I bet it wont

Jim

That’s true.

Apparently the Sails and Rigging are all on long order backlog.

Sorry, I previously said I wouldn’t reply to you but it now seems you are you and you are no longer another you who was pretending to be you. I must admit that the real you was rather difficult to hold a conversation with at times but now you seem to be rather more relaxed. I’m glad to see you are feeling yourself again.

Keeping Venturer longer in the shed and giving the reason we were told is either correct or just a lie. Personally I never believe predictive production timescales and I’m happy to believe they had issues that needed extra time to address like every other incredibly complex programme.

Duker

Ive always been the same .
Its me thats exposing the sock puppets and their mission because the RN is going to the south China Sea in 2025. That meant I was targeted with dupes. But there always been vendettas around

Will

At the risk of being a broken record again, I just have to say that a second batch of T31s—another five ships—would solve a whole lot of problems for the RN, and at a very reasonable price.

Jim

I’d prefer another 5 T26’s personally but that’s never going to happen.

nige

I find it utterly ridiculous that the MK41 system has not been funded yet. The Royal Navy needs these ships out on patrol as soon as possible to replace the ageing type 23s. With no weapons to speak of, the type 31 has been reduced to large OPVs
not a general purpose frigate. Again
HM Government is trying to save money but wastes it hand over fist bringing ships back into dock to fit stuff that should be fitted during construction. Rivet counters under graduates with no experience getting jobs because they have a piece of paper from university but can’t even cross a road on their own.

Jonno

Defence is too important to be done on a hand to mouth basis. We need 4 or 8 year spending plans and get on with it.
So few military minds in Parliament, the average MP is a waste of space when it comes to Defence. Ditto most of the media.
Private Jones would do better.

MSR

Maybe it’s a good idea to hold off on purchasing Mk41 for the moment while we wait to see what the Orange One will do with tariffs. I write this on the same day that he imposes 25% tariffs on the USA’s two most important trading partners. If his bloodshot eye turns once again towards NATO, we may hear more about tariffs on arms exports and about Congress blocking ITAR requests… remember that his people don’t seem to understand how tariffs work so, if such a move is mooted, we will quickly find out how much influence Lockheed has with the new administration. In other words, if Lockheed turns up at the Whitehouse and says “No” will their voice be heard by the MAGA Republicans? This will potentially be very enlightening about current power structures… and while we wait to find out it behooves the RN to go carefully and make sure money isn’t wasted on weapon systems that might get blocked, or rendered too expensive. There are always alternatives.

MSR

Addendum. Consider the following scenario: the UK is discussing a trade deal with the US. The UK’s red lines include the NHS and access to the British farming sector. The USA’s stated goals include, specifically, access to the NHS for US private health care and access into the British farming sector. Specifically.

If granted, the British farming sector will be economically unviable in the face of far greater and cheaper US imports of such delicacies as chlorinated chicken, hormone fed beef and GM cereal crops, all of which were rejected by the UK during Trump’s first term. The results for the NHS are so obvious I will not waste page width detailing them, here.

There is no indication at this time that Trump’s team would hesitate to use the defence relationship as leverage to break the UK’s red lines. None at all. That is why I suggested, in the OP, that this will be a very interesting moment when we get to find out just how much influence entities like Lockheed have over Trump’s people, because if Lockheed can intercede to stop defence being used as a bargaining chip, it certainly will… but will it succeed?

So, maybe don’t rule out Sea Ceptor and Aster 15 on Type 31 just yet. “Events, dear boy, events.”

Hugo

We’re not getting Aster on any new RN platform.
We’re retiring Aster 15 as well

Duker

Aster is compatible with Mk41 VLS.
Any future RN destroyer will still have Aster still as UK is part of MBDA, Just the type of VLS it uses will change from Sylver VLS currently

The shorter range Aster 15 ( same missile but without booster) is being ‘retired’ because the Sea Ceptor on T45 largely fills the mission ( out to 25km)

Last edited 6 days ago by Duker
Hugo

Aster has the option to go in Mk41 but no one has integrated it. Neither will we, we’re moving to Mk41 and far easier to pick up the SM series missiles.

Duker

The VLS launcher is the least complicated part. LM just provides the interfaces. Its far more difficult to rewrite the CMS software to put SM series into the mix.

Like I said Britain, France, Italy have developed the Aster through MBDA, their own multinational and is counted as a sovereign capability, the original reason for having their own radar-combat systems instead of AEGIS-SM-Mk41

LM has test launched the CAMM/Ceptor from Mk41 as a quadpack with an ‘insert’. Aster doesnt need an insert as its a standard hot launch compared to CAMM needing a cold gas ejection system added to the base.

No need to buy a whole new missile system to fit the VLS ..LOL

Hugo

We haven’t bought Asters in years and if we were going to keep using them we might as well stick with Slyver vls instead of making problems for ourselves like trying to put Fcasw in mk41 as well.

Also no evidence we’ll be using ,CAMm in mk41.

But pretty likely we just pick up Spy radars and SM missiles than bothering trying to get LM and MBDA to agree

Duker

LM has tested Camm in MK41 after it designed the cold gas launch ‘insert’ or the 3 cell ExLS standalone system

Whether RN or anybody use their Mk41 as a Camm VLS is irrelevant, its tested and available [ Poland has ordered it]

UK has already decided the combat system ,radars and missiles are sovereign capability like France and Italy have too. So no Aegis-Spy-SM at all for them.

The latest SPY-6 radar isnt available for export to even US allies .
The Japan-US SPY-7 from LM is available though

Esteban

What are you actually on right now?… No one gives a s*** on the other continent. Tempest in the teapot

Jim

It’s great to have such brilliant articles that we can all enjoy and comment on, such a shame that the comments section seems to be infested with so many fake profiles/names. It seems to be getting worse every article now.

Personally I can see patterns, similarities and motivational clues being left by so many new posters.

I actually believe that one poster here has acquired the ability to create a clusterf*ck of disruption and multiple personalities on a truly epic scale.

Please just go away now, you know who you are, I guess that at some point the site owners will get to a point where they are fed up deleting all your many posts and will just not want the hassle of having a comments section.

Esteban

You are not helpful at all… Look in the mirror.

Esteban

And oddly enough I’m not from Russia… Or China? Or any of your other bogey men?. And I am not Orange

Jim

Odd reply, not sure why you took it personally ?

For the record, It’s not me who mentions Russians, Chinese or any bogey men, I just see lots of fake accounts made up for the sole reason of giving grief.

I note you mentioned earlier that you weren’t UK based ? where are you based ?

Jonno

They should order a follow on of at least 3 more T31s.

Of course this is too much to expect from a Government that understands nothing about Business. Hey, Hello No 10 a longer Product run leads to lower Unit Costs.

Another 3 T26s would be a good plan too, taking the escort fleet to 25.

Martin

They are UK’s gunboat of the 21st century.

John

Yes Martin that is right, they are not perfect by any means but hopefully can relatively easily be mass produced.

I do think we need more of them as well as the T26, easier to expand production than start a new design.

As for where the money comes from, UK and our Continental friends will soon be having to pony up much more than their present (exaggerated) 2%. For better or worse USA is no longer going to carry all the weight for them while they spend their much higher taxes on socialistic handouts instead of acknowledging that national security is the number one reauirement of any national government.

Cheers

John

Duker

Geography is paramount

US has expensive nuclear retaliatory Triad – Europes nuclear powers dont.

US has global military obligations not just Nato but ME ( Israel-Saudi) to Japan Korea-Taiwan- Australia Europe doesnt

Britains primary obligation is this
Greenland- Iceland-Norway region as thats the ‘border with Russia’, most of it is ocean hence the RN focus is there ( but isnt and isnt funded for ‘other’)

Screenshot-2025-02-03-095030
Scot

Don’t get me going about the Type-31s just a terrible compromise! They should have purchased a larger number of Type-26s. That would be cheaper while offering more capabilities to boot…

Jim

Whilst I agree to a certain extent, you have to take on board the costs of the T26’s in comparison to those of the T31’s. On paper back when these were first muted, you could get 4 T31’s for a single T26. I’d rather have 5 large and adaptable hulls soon than just one extra T26 period. Having 13 in total at least gives more opportunities to be in more places and the T31 has room for growth even more so than the T23 ever did. Give the RN another batch of 5 to keep a steady flow and we at least get VFM and an increase in hulls.

Martin

There is no way that type26 would be cheaper than type 31.
The specialist design to make them quiet not cheap, the specialist equipment such as towed array and the computing power and soft ware to run it not cheap, the power train not cheap compared the type31 requirements.
If you wanted to confront pirates, drug runners and intervenein in low tech military actions the type 31 is the most cost efficient solution.

Sunmack

For the £9 billion that we are planning to give Mauritius to take back the Chagos Islands, you could have 10 Type T26 frigates

Jim

true

Hugo

9 billion over 100 years

John

Unreal that Mk41 VLS is not going to be installed by commissioning – typical defence on the cheap move by MOD. Pathetic.