HMS Somerset has rejoined the Royal Navy fleet after more than 2 years of post-refit engineering issues restricted her availability.
In February 2022, HMS Somerset completed a £20M Life Extension (LIFEX) refit in Devonport that began in November 2018. The project included more than one million man-hours of work (inevitably slightly delayed by the effects of the pandemic). In March 2022 she proceeded to sea for post-upkeep sea trials but a serious issue with the rudder bearings was discovered. The ship was rushed through a 3-week operational sea training period but had to be docked in Rosyth between June and August for further work on the rudder. (Full story here).
Although inadequate weapon and sensor testing had been carried out, she had short spell as Fleet Ready Escort and made it to Norway for an exercise and was the first RN vessel to receive an outfit of Naval Strike Missiles. She returned to Devonport in December 2023 and was expected to participate in exercise Steadfast Defender (Feb-March 2024).
Somerset sailed on 9th February ahead of STDE24 but suffered another breakdown and returned home after just 2 days at sea. She was dry-docked for a third time (since completing LIFEX) and after another 5 months finally emerged in July with the mechanical issues cured. At a time when the RN is especially short of frigates, the consequences of these issues that lasted more than two years have been serious.
A precious frigate with a towed array sonar tail could not be utilised, putting further demands on the already very threadbare fleet at a time when the SSN force is similarly stretched. The ship was unable to participate in planned exercises and deployments. Test-firing of the Naval Strike Missile (to be known in RN service as the Maritime Offensive Strike System (MOSS) ) was on hold, delaying the introduction of an important new RN key capability.
Somerset went back to sea on 26th July and, having finally got back into her stride, she now has conducted a typical workup which so far has included, Seamanship evolutions, a practice RAS with RFA Tidesurge, Merlin helicopter embarkation and test-firing the Magazine Torpedo Launch System (MTLS). Further noise ranging and sensor calibration is also needed before a ship can be declared fully operational after so long out of routine.
The Fleet Weapons acceptance trials of MOSS is expected soon, although it takes time to prepare the ranges for live-firing serials. In July 2021 the House of Commons Defence Select Committee said of RN warships: “When ships do get to sea, they act like porcupines — well defended herbivores with limited offensive capabilities”. Bringing MOSS into the fleet and fitting it to 10 other escorts will be a significant step in addressing the RN’s lack of firepower.
I’m semi-surprised no other escort has had NSM fitted and fired one. The plan was to get it fitted to “three vessels at pace” back in November 2022. Twenty-two months later it’s been fitted to one ship and not test fired. Is the phrase “at pace” cursed, or merely ironic?
To fit NSM to another ship would have resulted in even fewer ships available for tasking. The RN is so tight at the moment it is having to very carefully balance the need for ships to be upgraded against the need for ships to be ready for tasking or training to become ready.
I’m not sure I’m buying that. RN could have put them on St Albans prior to its reintroduction to the fleet with minimal disruption to tasking, or on Kent prior to it going into long term refit. The whole T23 refit/maintenance schedule is messed up already by Westminster and Northumberland, so Kent wouldn’t have missed some carefully laid out slot by taking a couple of extra months.
While I get there is an optimal order to doing things, I find it hard to believe that a full work up is required for the test firing of NSM.
But if the need is for fully worked up ASW units then maybe NSM can wait. Without detailed knowledge of the RN’s assigned priorities it’s impossible to know which of the individually important tasks is the most important.
You have a point and that certainly could be true of St Albans coming out of refit; I was going from the originally stated plan which was to put NSM on three ships as fast as possible. I concede that priorities might change. That’s why I gave the example of HMS Kent on its way back into long term refit, for which there could be no firm plans even in 2027 until after the hull inspection.
It’s always going to be the case that there are things the Navy knows that I don’t, but when there’s a pattern of inflexibility leading to delay that is seen to be harmful in retrospect and this fits right in, I’m entitled to be suspicious.
Full integration seems to require consoles for the sailors to operate the missiles from, and combat management system integration work. The USN has been using NSMs for years on the Independence class LCS, but in more of a stand-alone configuration and they are only now being integrated into the ship’s combat management systems. If the RN is going all-in on integration, maybe the consoles and combat management system work was already done on Somerset and it would have been a disruption to the program timeline to move the equipment to another ship.
HMAS Sydney and USS Fitzgerald both fired NSMs recently at RIMPAC, but likely after years of complicated integration into Aegis and a lot of the behind the scenes work that I suspect went into Somerset. It was just bad luck that Somerset had mechanical problems.
The consoles ? They are just generic work stations with suitable sized screens and a keyboard etc. The CMS will just be split over a number of workstations where operators have specialist training in the deeper functions and control of specific weapon systems or sensors.
As the Dukes already had Harpoon and the type of weapon it was it probably didnt have a unique operators station and the functions already exist to bring together the sensor information for targeting and firing. All thats needed is a CMS update for the different method of transfer of intial targeting ( it has its own mid course and final seekers).
Nope…
Although CMS consoles are generic in display the comms(to an extent) and weapon system operation parts are unique to specific positions.
The MTLS operator boxes are only on the ASWD position.
Sea Gnat are at the EWD position
The 4.5 Gun is a unique console as is Sea Ceptor.
T23 had a dedicated Harpoon operators console.
Target info was passed from the CMS to the console. When you had that info, you then did your Harpoon planning bit.
So flight plan, dog legs, final approach/attack type, launch times and bearings was all calculated on the console. You fired from the console. You didn’t back feed that info into CMS.
The whole harpoon system had a massive SFC in the Harpoon Power Room to deliver the power supplies the missile needed. This was because it was built as an air launched missile first and so had aircraft voltages, frequencies, and phases. When ship fitted you also needed to produce these hence the SFC setup.
Thanks for that
I can’t believe it takes years to integrate NSM into the weapons system.
How long dose it take to install a weapon on our ships and why don’t we trust are alies we buy them from to advise us of there performance, I get we need to trial them to but 2 years and fitted 1 ship, get those spending are money out of the mod
Much longer than you think. Teams all need training on how to use/employ the system, how to maintain it, how to respond to hang-fires. damage to launch containers etc. As well as how do we employ it (TTPs – Tactics, Techniques and Procedures).
These are all taken into consideration before we even bolt something onto the decks. Especially as it hasn’t been bought under a UOR (Urgent Operational Requirement), afaik so is probably classed as GFE (Government Furnished Equipment) so there are valid processes and procedures to follow
Nothing, despite what people think is plug and play.
Other things to consider in addition to Russ comments.
Mutual interference/RF susceptibility of the weapon to ships emitters…of all kinds.
You dont want something going whoosh because your main radar or talking on radio comms induces a voltage in a cable.
Primary, Secondary, and emergency power supplies need installing so changes to Switchboards and distribution centres will result.
CMS and data highway requirements. Ships course, speed, roll and pitch, windspeed and direction are just some of the things that Harpoon required in a specific data format. NSM will also require those.
You also need shore side support to look after the weapons in the depot and to load/unload them.
This is why we need to move to a continuous production policy. Indefinite ship build order with the newest ship replacing the oldest. No mid life re-fits, higher fleet availability and quick replacements if we ever lose ships to accidents or enemy action. It will also increase our chances of exports and the retired ships will still be young enough to sell 2nd hand.
Its hardly a mid life refit, as it started after 22 years service
Refits are still required after 7 years or so
Which was the original philosophy behind the T23. That worked well didn’t it….
Sounds great in theory, not so clever when you engage with HMT.
Around 2008-2009 they started the development effort for T23 replacement build.
The oldest that wasnt sold to Chile, HMS Argyll was commissioned in 1991
The major defence cuts from the ‘party that cant be named’ from 2010 put the hold on that for 5 years as the build/long lead orders & development contract for £850 mill werent signed till 2015. To become pre election announcements
As well, actual new build program was slow walked as the 5 yr delay ( filled with some OPVs no one wanted) meant new frigates building had run slap bang into the Dreadnought spending
First steel cut was Jul 2017 for HMS Glasgow, which is just under 10 years when funding was allocated for the T23 replacement design
1924 the worse cuts to the Royal Navy in modern times with at least 10 years for British industry to be able to replace some of what had been lost with political cuts to the fleet with enemies seeking the opportunity to look at advantages they can make during this cost cutting appeasement and running down of the Royal Navy! Then WW2
2024 sound familiar, the fleet at its lowest ebb since the 1920’s, then along came the facist bully boys, just like Putin and his cronies now, politicians the time is here, stand up and begin the forces fight back before it is too late, build up the forces to to at least the bare minimum whereby the Royal Navy can at least put out a permanent force that does not have to hide its failings behind fellow NATO nations!
First, I am no lover of Russia. Putin is no a facist. Good old fashioned Dictator is a better title but name calling him a “facist” is lazy writing. He is not a good person. However, he does put Russia first. Why did NATO push boundaries right up to Russia, knowing this would provoke Russia? Russia can barely hold on to a few 100 kilometers of land in Ukraine. Russia is no threat to come thru the Fulda gap a take Europe. The armed forces of the UK will never again attain the levels of even the Falkland War days. Social spending in the UK is astronomical. Anyone with a martial spirit has no interest in joining a service that cannot even get a basic armored vehicle from design to production without enormous cost overruns. The RN cannot keep more than 2-3 combat ships and maybe 1 SSN at the ready. Defense spending has become a work program. I am from the US and we are on the same path, just that we have more money to waste and bigger budget.
Ajax, if that’s what you are talking about, had enormous delays and quality issues. I don’t believe it had enormous cost overruns. Of course the delays have had knock on costs elsewhere, but I believe that majority of the work was on a fixed price contract. Nor would I class it as a basic armoured vehicle.
Why do you believe self-defence for the three Baltic States is a Russian provocation? Why does Russia believe it has a right to attack and take over neighbouring coutries, and that those countries can’t join a self-defence block. However not only does President Putin believe he has the right to exercise dominion over Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, etc, he exercises that vision with armed agression. No wonder the Baltics joined NATO, applying in 2002. Very prescient. Of course it’s a little odd that the president waited twenty years to “react to the provocation”.
And let me add, because it’s gnawing at me, that even thinking in terms of the Fulda Gap, would be an existential threat to modern Europe that would and should bring down the wrath of NATO. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are gone and good riddance. The idea that only the safety of Western Europe should be worried about by NATO is as obsolete as chain mail. President Putin controls the biggest country in the world. Why is that not enough for him?
Well Stalin wanted a neutral Germany in 1952 ( but armed like Sweden) and offered reunification to get it and avoid West Germany joining Nato.
The countries that had occupation forces, especially France, were completely opposed and the CDU Chancellor Adenour didnt want to accept the Oder -Neisse border with Poland and have those left leaning voters in Berlin and East germany.
Maybe not a “lover of Russia” but you’re certainly an apologist for Putin.
If walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. Putin certainly matches this definition
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#:~:text=Fascism%2520(%252F%CB%88f%C3%A6%25CA%2583,individual%2520interests%2520for%2520the%2520perceived
No Putin does NOT put Russia first, he puts Putin and his self-interest first. Russia is a kleptocracy, Putin has had close link with the vory since his early days in St Petersburg.
The tens of thousands of Russians killed in his pointless wars would disagree with you.
NATO did not “push its boundaries” up to Russia. The countries which bordered Russia ask to joined NATO voluntarily, NATO didn’t force them to join. As next-door neighbours of Russia they were well aware of Russias tendencies towards authoritarianism and attacking its neighbours. All the Putin has achieved is increasing the size of his borders with NATO by frightening Finland into joining NATO. (He even frightened Sweden into joining NATO and Sweden doesn’t border Russia!)
You comments about the Fulda Gap are 30 years out of date, Putin’s aims are not to invade Central Europe as the Warsaw Pact planned. His aim is to ‘rebuild the USSR’ by reconquering the nations that regained their independence after the collapse of the USSR: ie Ukraine, Baltic States, Belorussia, etc, etc. It’s all-driven by Putin’s fragile ego and his desire to build a legacy.
Your comments about the U.K. and its armed forces are equally devoid of factual accuracy, as I’d expect from an ignorant red-neck MAGA supporter or Russian troll-bit. (TBH No real difference between the two.)
I agree with you entirely. Russia is and has been a nut job since 1917. Life has always been cheap for the ruling class to exploit. Its history is truely appalling with the mass murder of Stalin’s era quickly followed by WW2 cowing the populous into accepting their fate.
Few it seems in the USA MAGA circles can grasp this tragedy any more. Putin is a throwback who still kills his opponents without hesitation. Its decadence to treat with him. As it happens some people in the UK tried to befriend him personally and its untrue to say he was rebuffed. Sadly he has chosen to be rebuffed and seeks a place in 19th or 20th century like history as successor Czar.
it wasn’t ’then WW2’, there was a serious large scale rearmament programme from 1935, where new battleships, and crucially carriers, were laid down. It was during this period that also gave us top fighters that then enabled us to win the Battle of Britain. It’s my opinion that if we had not cut the budget in the 10 years prior to 1935 we would have simply had thousands of biplanes and outdated ships and useless tanks, that would have been no use against the newly built German forces, the drought and reboot in 1935 forced us to spend well and in the right places.
Depression years meant there wasnt money anyway, nor was Hitler in power until 1933. Context always matters
I’ve asked this on ukdj but not here. I’m wondering if the T23s could fit a Phalanx or 40mm or additional 30mm atop the hangar? I know its extra weight etc but such a great arc of fire is wasted. Just for a bit of upgunning while still in service. Same for the RFA Argus too, having an additional forward Phalanx for more defensive coverage.
It might well be possible but is it worth both the money and the time out of service to make the modifications? I suspect that as the T23’s and Argus are towards the end of their service lives they won’t see much modification beyond NSM on some of the T23’s.
As I said previously there is no margin left on a T23 for a phalanx that high up.
You would need a lot of strengthing to the hangar roof to increase stiffness.
The old power supplies from the 911 are up there which is good but all the tracker cabinet weight was below the hangar roof in the tracker office on the port side fwd of the hangar
Phalanx weight would all be above that, on the centre line and a lot further aft
You would also need RU Magazines up there and a method of resupplying to the mount from the deep magazine which is way way fwd to aft. Goosenecks, block and tackles, cruets and the people to lift and shift it.
Why cant hangers be below decks? A third of the ship is taken up with servicing a helicopter that may be increasingly vulnerable?
Where below decks, theres also equipment below the flight deck on say a T23, such as the towed array, same goes for T26
A major change in Somerset during this upgrade was replacing Sea Wolf in a one for one with Sea Ceptor.
No need for Phalanx
This is of course a complete and avoidable nonsense.
Whoever decides on the thickness of the plating on RN warships needs the sack. Anyone knows the hull plating is an important design feature. It has little to do with stability as so much of it is low down. In future its going to be much more important to get this thick enough as we operate in the North more often.
The one thing the Russians do right is use a heavier gauge than we do for working in ice.
Its far more important to make the thickness right and coat it properly than anything else for longevity. HMS Belfast (1938) was all galvanised when launched (possible because she was rivetted) as were all the prewar Cruisers and Battleships. She was then fortunate to be given early galvanic protection in the post war era. You don’t see prewar ships rust streaked despite the poorer paint then used.
Already the River 2’s are showing a shocking degree of indentation that is a sign the plating is too thin. Seek professional advice! Materials count.
Where did you get that information that pre war riveted warships had galvanised steel plating ?
Find and name the senior Marine Engineer who signed off on fitting SOMERSET with an untested plastic bearing for the rudder, which unsurprisingly failed. Find and name the company that presumably provided assurances that it would work. In industry, a lessons-learned process would have seen legal action taken against the bearing supplier and the engineer fired or retrained. Do we know if any of this has happened?