In this guest article, Kamil Sadowski examines the Miecznik (Swordfish) programme which will see the Polish Navy introduce new frigates based on the Arrowhead 140 design, the basis of the Royal Navy’s Type 31. While sharing a common hull, Miecznik is more extensively equipped than its British cousin, although both share the potential to be enhanced by carrying off-board uncrewed systems.
Overview
The new generation of warships will be highly capable, multi-role frigates designed to replace the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates currently in service with the Polish Navy. The Miecznik first-of-class, ORP Wicher (Gale), is under construction in Gdynia and due to be launched in 2026. Two further ships ORP Burza (Storm) and ORP Huragan (Hurricane) are on order and the Polish Navy has an option with Babcock to build a further 5 ships.
The AH140 is derived from the Iver Huitfeldt-class of the Royal Danish Navy, a design that has already proven itself as a cost-effective, capable warship. Its modular structure and spacious layout allow for extensive combat system integration. The base platform is relatively simple, but its flexibility provides significant potential for adaptation to specific operational needs. While the general specifications for Poland’s new warships align with the role of a multi-purpose frigate, the Polish Navy has placed particular emphasis on Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW).
Combat Systems
The sensor suite is provided by Thales, delivering the majority of the ship’s key combat capabilities. This includes primary and secondary multi-function radars, a panoramic electro-optical system, and an underwater detection suite comprising a hull-mounted sonar and a towed array sonar. Exception is the electronic warfare system, supplied by Rohde & Schwarz, which is a modified variant of the KORA system. Other additional systems include a laser warning system, navigation radars, and a diver detection sonar.
The primary anti-air weapon is the MBDA SeaCeptor fire control system with CAMM family missiles. The Miecznik will feature a two-tiered missile engagement zone, with short-range coverage provided by CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile) missiles, while medium-range coverage will be delivered by the future CAMM-MR. The Medium range CAMM variant is being developed as part of the Future Common Missile (FCM) programme, a joint UK-Polish venture.
CAMM-MR is designed to be cost-effective, with a range exceeding 100 km. The cost savings and reduced missile diameter, which allow for dual-packing, result in a smaller warhead compared to single-packed missiles of similar length. However, from a warship’s perspective, the ability to carry a larger number of missiles is a significant advantage, given the limited space available for VLS cells. Furthermore, low-cost missile solutions have become increasingly relevant with the growing presence of maritime uncrewed systems.
Adversary long-endurance UAVs, primarily conducting reconnaissance and targeting operations, do not pose a direct threat themselves, but they contribute to over-the-horizon targeting for enemy forces. Engaging such targets must take economic considerations into account. Within a naval task group, where multiple surface combatants with low-cost, medium-range effectors are present, an economic engagement strategy can be employed. This means that target identification and weapon allocation can be planned collectively to optimise air defence resources while ensuring that the most cost-effective weapon is used against each threat.
The inner-layer defence of the Miecznik will be provided by the 76mm Leonardo naval gun, a system already in service with the Polish Navy. The Miecznik will receive the Strales variant, which offers greater precision and guided ammunitions. Additionally, the ship will be fitted with two 35mm guns, equipped with programmable ammunition, developed by the Polish defence industry (PIT-RADWAR). Self-defence will be further enhanced by the Terma C-Guard decoy launching system, which consists of eight fixed 130mm launchers, compatible with a wide range of infrared (IR), radar cross-section (RCS), and acoustic countermeasures.
For surface strike operations beyond the horizon, the Miecznik will be armed with eight Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) from Kongsberg, with an option to install an additional eight launchers if required. NS missiles have been in service with Poland’s land-based coastal defence units since 2015.
Miecznik is also an effective ASW platform, equipped with bow-mounted and towed array sonars. Like its Oliver Hazard Perry-class predecessors, two dual-tube launchers for MU-90 lightweight torpedoes are carried. The MU-90 system is also integrated with Poland’s maritime aviation assets, including the new AW-101 ASW/CSAR helicopters, which are just beginning to enter service. A future MU-90HK variant is under development, which will offer dual functionality as both an anti-submarine torpedo and an anti-torpedo torpedo (ATT).
Weapon and sensors integration is managed by the Thales TACTICOS Combat Management System (CMS). The Miecznik will be the third class of warship in the Polish Navy to be fitted with this system, which will streamline crew training and improve interoperability across the fleet.
Uncrewed enhancement
Although the Miecznik and Type 31 differ in combat system configuration, they share the same potential for uncrewed systems integration. The AH140 design includes four boat bays, providing a significant capability for USV embarkation. Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) are increasingly seen as one of the most promising organic warship assets, offering extended endurance, modular mission adaptability, and the ability to operate in high-risk areas.
The Miecznik’s large aviation deck also provides space for uncrewed aerial systems, allowing it to accommodate rotary-wing UAVs, which can augment the ship’s reconnaissance and ASW capabilities. The effectiveness of UAVs is closely linked to their maximum take-off weight, but ongoing advancements in maritime drone technology indicate that their combat applications will continue to expand.
In the near future, we may see Type 31 frigates operating alongside organic uncrewed platforms such as ACRIMS USV and PROTEUS rotary wing UAS, both configured for ASW missions. This would allow warships to function as ‘carriers’ for ASW capabilities, even if they lack traditional sonar or ASW weaponry, thanks to embarked uncrewed systems. While these assets cannot fully replace traditional ASW frigates, they offer cost-effective, mission-specific capabilities, particularly in littoral operations, infrastructure defence, and seabed warfare.
Navies today no longer have the luxury of maintaining large fleets to cover all operational areas. Modern warships such as frigates are highly capable, but limited in number, making it increasingly essential to enhance their reach through deployable off-board systems.
Uncrewed platforms provide relatively low-cost yet effective force multipliers that can be deployed in numbers in high-risk environments. Whether seen as an advantage or a threat, their presence is reshaping naval strategy, making the AH140 one of the most effective options for an adaptable warship with the potential to operate alongside a new generation of autonomous systems.
Great article.
Hopefully also adds to why UK has bought T31 as it is a very upgradable platform.
“ CAMM-MR, will be dual packed in some of the 32 Mk 41 VLS cells (Image: MBDA).”
If you look at the image it clearly has two slots.
So if we could please drop the ‘it will be quad packable’ discussions?
I’d see this double packed load out being replicated on 8 Mk41’s on T26/31 with then the basic CAMM kept for shorter range.
CAMM-MR is a much bigger missile than the Std CAMM. so std CAMM can be quad packed (LM show this on their website) and CAMM MR will be dual packed. Both will use an ExLS adaptor so both are possible solutions for the UK on both the T-26 and T-31. It all depends on what mix we want to deploy.
I thought LM showed ExLs as triple packed.
Isn’t ExLs three common cells quad pack with standard CAMM missiles? So each 3 cell unit equals 12 missiles overall.
Correct.
It’s only triple packed if firing a hot launch missile (such as RAM). The space for the 4th missile is used for exhaust gases. Note that ExLS is extremely light weight, so hot launch is severely limited to small missiles only. CAMM is not hot launch, so can quad pack, as can CAMM-ER (at least for drop in ExLS – unclear for current stand alone ExLS).
if however you are referring to the 3 cell stand alone ExLS system, it can handle 12 CAMM. There is a seperate CAMM launch controller that can only handle 12 CAMM missiles. Hence it comes in lots of 3 (3×4=12). So a mk41 ExLS drop in system requires 3 CAMM launch controllers, for a standard 8 cell mk41. A standard stand alone ExLS only needs one if firing CAMM.
Rubbish. ExLs does not support hot launches.
Lockheed’s ExLs system is specifically for quad pack missiles.
Lockheed has made no public statement whether it will develop a new twin pack equivalent just for CAMM MR. My guess is that it won’t, sales of the ExLs so far have been dismal.
Basically, MBDA graphics of MR being launched from Mk 41 VLS should be viewed as wishful thinking.
BAE make the quad pack for ESSM which has been very successful (as well as all of the other missile canisters for the USN) , so Lockheed aren’t the only source of multi-pack systems for mk41.
The difference being that the ESSM quad pack is not able to be used independently from the Mk 41. It needs the Mk 41 to manage the hot launch gases.
But you are correct in that MBDA could spend money to develop a Mk 41 insert for CAMM-MR. The question is: would that be any better than a fatter MBDA “mushroom”? Mk 41’s are not inexpensive and “mushrooms” are cheap.
The question would be in that case, do we need flexibility in missile loadouts even at some extra cost?
I doubt a T31 is going to be carrying a load of FC/ASW or even ASW missiles at the same time as fulfilling an area defence role with CAMM-MR.
If we only get mushrooms, the MR becomes a “take it or leave it” capability, rather than one that can be chosen in place of alternative missions. More likely it would preclude some of those missions entirely by reducing mk41 capacity.
If we’re going to limit ourselves to a single possible combination of missile carriage we might as well go for the Soviet system of one missile per launcher (even the modern Russians use multirole VLS).
The RN lags behind in this regard.
I see a lot of people suggesting that a single stage missile will have poor terminal maneuverability. That being said, PAC-3MSE is also single stage, and that’s a HTK missile, so who knows.
Perhaps a dual-pulse rocket motor for terminal agility, and defence against SRBM.
Does Artisan on the Type 26 have the capability to use extended range SAMs?
Maybe in the Mk41 launchers, but not in those …sigh….’mushroom farms’
Thats only for the T23 old sea wolf VLS. The newer VLS dont have mushrooms at all
The 45 have them or will have.
Incorrect. On current plans, Type 31 and Type 26 frigates will have MBDA “mushrooms”.
Actually it is more likely that CAMM-ER and CAMM-MR will be supported by “mushrooms” than Mk 41 VLS with ExLs.
Who care’s what the launchers look like? VL Seawolf didn’t actually look much better when missile were loaded.
In terms of function they can’t be any worse than the old VL Seawolf launchers. Cleaning up the upper deck for days after a launch because of the frangible launcher covers being blown all over the place.
I’d have been way happier on my old 23 with Sea Ceptor than the Seawolf. Significantly better range, higher PK.
I do see a version 2 of the CAMM_MR being made later on. Looking at all the images of both CAMM-ER and the MR. MBDA have basically grafted on the nose of the standard CAMM to a wider propulsion section, which then narrows down to the CAMM tail section. So there is potential for a further upgrade. Where the missile’s nose, propulsion and tail sections profile all become the same diameter. This should not affect the ability to dual pack a pair of missiles into the MK41. As the propulsion section carrying the folding strakes is the widest section. We would just be making the rest of the missile the same diameter as this section.
This would have a number of benefits. The first is that the electronics section can be be made wider and moved forwards, along with batteries and warhead. This would leave space (volume) for additional fuel. Secondly with more fuel carried which not only allows for a longer burn duration. But could also allow for mid-body jets as per Aster, thereby enhancing its terminal manoeuvrability.
With a wider nose section, this would allow for a bigger diameter radar antenna. Which is currently uses a traditional mechanically scanned radar planar antenna. This could be swapped out for a PESA/AESA version. Crucially the wider surface area of the antenna allows for more gain in transmitting and reception, which equals better detection range.
The next benefit is aerodynamic, with a flush sided body, you are less concerned with the flow field, that comes with the flow having to moving from a smaller diameter to a larger diameter. Especially when the missile is travelling supersonically, as these junctions will cause shock waves that could cause issues when the missile is turning.
It is true a longer missile is less responsive. However this can be mitigated by either forward/mid-body reaction jets or mid-body strakes. The strakes create more lift than the missile’s body, which helps it turn. Patriot uses forward body reaction jets to help it turn, thereby giving it a cleaner less draggy fuselage. The downside to the strake, is that they also create more drag, which affects the terminal speed and range.
Dual pulse and multi-pulse rocket motors are being investigated by MBDA. It does seem a likely candidate for at least a dual pulse motor. As the second burn helps restore the missile’s energy towards the terminal engagement. Thereby raising the Pk value against the target.
Isn’t CAMM-ER a consistent diameter, unlike the initial concepts?
So we may see the final design for MR being much sleeker than that image, which is from a few years ago.
Standard CAMM can be quad packed, read carefully and do some reading
*This discussion* is about CAMM-MR which, a while ago, a couple of people shouted me down for stating couldn’t be quad packed.
I haven’t commented on the standard CAMM above…..
But as you raise it: CAMM quad packing was qualified in 2017 by LM & MBDA-UK.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_3_Cell_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
I could have sworn we were talking about CAMM-ER rather than MR.
Doesn’t RAM fire from ExLS as well now?
ExLS is a cold launch system for CAMM only. Other missiles ignite inside the launcher
No, ExLS is marketed by LM for CAMM, Nulka decoys, JAGM and RAM blk2, it isn’t just a CAMM system.
Not sure how JAGM and RAM fire but they might well be hot launch despite the reduced exhaust collection.
Maybe because the missiles are so light relative to, say, Tomahawk, it doesn’t matter?
No, ExLS, whichever version, can fire hot launch missiles by utilising the space for the 4th missile as an exhaust port. However ExLS itself is very light weight, so only small missiles can hot launch from it (ESSM can’t). RAM can, so can Nulka. However, this limits hot launch missiles to tri-packing as against quad-packing because of the exhaust port requirement. Standard mk41 is heavyweight (designed around hot launch) & has a seperate exhaust port. If you drop in a ExLS insert into a mk41, I believe the same applies (even though the mk41 has an exhaust port, I don’t believe the insert can handle it & survive). Happy to be corrected on the last point.
I was very careful to state CAMM-MR at the top of the thread!
Even in the previous discussion?
In that case, you have my apologies for misconstruing your words.
No, you said that CAMM-ER would be twin-packing and CAMM-MR would be one-per-cell in this article’s comments:
https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-netherlands-multifunction-support-ship-concept/
However, I agree with your previous statements around a two-stage design for CAMM-MR being more maneuverable in the terminal stage.
My ideal CAMM-MR would be a narrow diameter booster making use of the full strike length cells, with a CAMM on the front. If that CAMM terminal Dart could be modified to use a ramjet (more agility and no performance disadvantages as CAMM-MR is not a point defence SAM), even better.
I missed the prior discussion but it should be noted that Lockheed does not claim the Mk 41 with ExLs supports CAMM-ER.
CAMM-ER is about a meter longer than standard CAMM so that may rule out Lockheed’s launchers.
However, if the ER is supported by ExLs, it would be quad packed, as the missile’s storage/launch container has an identical cross section to standard CAMM.
Say the same, nicely written and well presented. What a jam packed ship! Too much for the RN T32 requirement or batch 2 T31 follow on? Don’t know how this missed the RAN light frigate selection? Might be good for NZ who may need to muscle up a bit and sooner. Indonesia also building a stretched version of the A140 – all in the same neighbourhood down here!
To be honest I assumed the exclusion of Type 31 was a deliberate political move. Either because of the optics of cancelling (reducing) one British frigate order to place another or simply a case of wanting to diversify the RAN supply chain what with the additional submarine decision that had been made since the original Hunter class order. There was certainly a lot of discussion of Babcock offering it to the RAN before they officially announced the strategy change. Agree regarding NZ though of course whatever the RAN end up going with for their light frigate will likely be a major contender.
What the T31 should have been. With so few hulls, the RN needs them to be multi role rather than designed for a single main task. Need an extra ASW frigate to counter a threat? We have a spare T31 and maybe a T45 in a week or so. Oh wait a minute.
Completely unrealistic though, this is not a budget design above. Not a low crew setup. These will be Poland’s only warships so they can afford to pack them to the brim
Exactly we have T45 and T26 which are high end specialist ships. We will have 14 of those.
T31 is an upgradable GP option for UK.
This now makes even more sense with small uplifts in budgets coming. We at least have some good big hulls that can be upgraded with more things that go bang.
Small uplift in budgets…….. I admire your sense of humour.
2.5% is a small uplift….we at least know that is going to get real quite soon now.
There will be kicking and screaming from the left with the cuts needed to fund 3% which now seems to have a growing level of support now that defence is top billing thanks to Tangerine Man.
Obvs defence is a convenient stalking horse for welfare reform which all the grown ups know needs to happen.
Obvs, obvs Trump doesn’t really mean to walk away from NATO he is just saying something evidently outrageous and outwardly stupid as a conversational device to shake things up. When we promise to go to 3% in some sensible timeframe then he will embrace….so he can push ……weapons sales!
SB, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding your on your “Obvs, obvs” comment about Trump. He’s been pushing for European powers to spend more on defense all along, and at the same time he recently talked about making arms sales to allies easier. I’m not a fan of his methods and I dislike him personally, but he’s been brutally honest and very transparent about his intentions all along.
So increase taxes on unearned income and let the wealthy squeal for a change.
So you like waste in government and hate people for being wealthy. How communist of you. Don’t be surprised by communist results in UK, you already are seeing them.
Why don’t you think it’s whack that we tax people who work more than people who don’t for the same income?
Hmmme…..well even G Brown Esq formerly of HMT realised that if you do that the economy shrinks and that the tax take just gets smaller.
Oh….defence companies need something called *investment* and that comes from…..even Racheal from Customer Complaints has figured out that defence needs investment capital from the markets…..reaches for economics primer 101…..as HMG have rattled the piggy bank and found it a bit empty they need to get the money from somewhere….which will be…..crikey those investors you have frightened off with high taxation that are now all sunning themselves elsewhere.
Investing in the UK doesn’t mean you live here. Residents get taxed because they want to live in the UK and take advantage of what that brings. If they want to leave they can do so — and can still invest in exactly the same UK companies. Goodbye, guys, and enjoy your foreign beach. If you want to live here, pay your fair share like the rest of us do.
For most people in my life, “unearned income” is one of the most insulting dishonest terms that politicians love to use. It is money they make on savings they have disgracefully accumulated during their working lives (and already taxed). And it doesn’t mean they are wealthy either.
And G Brown, formerly of HMT, was all about getting people saving and investing.
Well and money they didn’t actually earn but received and invested from others when they die for instance but from other forms of living gifts too which the wealthy are really good at exploiting. I’m not arguing one way or another about whether they should or should not being taxed but the assumption that ‘unearned income’ is simply about money accumulated from their work during their lives. Such honest hard earned savings by ordinary people for the most part, are not really decried by almost anyone and it’s wrong to suggest that’s the focus of that term.
Im with you …..they like to blame everybody else meanwhile whilst Rome burns they get richer at the proles expense shame people want to believe the deform propaganda.
Meanwhile maybe some of the cap gaps will be filled …the new secretary of state for defence seems grounded and realistic …we will see
More optimism. Trump is quite willing to walkaway from NATO. From his perspective (and many others), NATO is a large cost item with no reward.
I have to admit I was suprised and pleased to hear 3% with cross party support.
That will buy an awful lot more good defence.
I am well aware of the history of the T31 competition and the price cap( which has already been exceeded). But even for their intended role of forward deployment as singletons, they are dangerously under equipped. For this sort of patrol presence, an R2 is perfectly adequate.
I am still not convinced that funds will be found to increase escort numbers above 19. That small fleet, leaving the RN with 6/8 available for operations, means all of them should be fully capable of AAW and ASW.
Just because we saved money by reducung some T23s to GP frigates doesn’t mean we should build new ships with such limited capability.
Indeed.
Hence the Mk41 and NSM plans which with a radar upgrade give very good AAW ASh capabilities.
ASW is something else but that may be dealt with another way.
You are stating your wish items as “plans”.
I could not agree more. Thumbs up!
Yes, the T31 is the only real means to add capability mass to the RN without having to wait another 10 years. Muscle up that class now to act as a secondary AAW frigate rather than it be a GP that adds nothing to a conflict, simply build another batch of OPVs to be a back filler ‘GP ship’ basically downgrading the GP role to what it truly is, a flag waving pirate and smuggler catcher. We then have 19 high end ships in a relative short time. Although maybe stick with the 57mm not the 76mm given how far down the line we are now with the 57mm.
I’m not sure about your comment that the Polish ship will not have low manning. No doubt higher than the UK Type 31 but a lot lower than older warships.
No firm cost estimate has been given for the Polish frigates but the budget for the 3 ship class has been stated to be about 3 billion pounds. About double the unit cost of the UK ships?
Shaky numbers tho’, getting accurate costing from any country outside of the USA is next to impossible.
The government of the time was absolutely insistent that any winning proposal had to deliver 5 ships within the set budget. To a large extent the weapons fit was down to the contractor. They had to balance the requirement to operate for long periods away from the U.K. against the weapons fit and the price.
Except the budget wasn’t big enough for even CAMM.That was removed from the contract to make the ships fit. HMG is paying for the missile system directly
It was anything to get it past the post.
The CAMM controllers will be T23 recycled.
Only the actually tubes and loom will be new.
The missiles are almost never part of the contract.
Tend to side with you Peter. If money allows it 3-4 if these to bolster the fleet might free up all the others T45/23/31/26s to do their more “specialist” thing elsewhere. But maybe a slightly toned down version.
Why can’t Captas-1 be added to the Type-31? Babcock even hinted strongly at it on the Arrowhead website. A basic VDS is better than no VDS.
Interesting that Poland have opted for the extra boat bays and sacrificed 4-5 knots of speed. I suppose they don’t have carrier groups to keep up with.
Also that they have managed to fit CAPTAS-2 in the stern instead of the “mission space” on T31. Could we fit some sort of containerised sonar?
The mission space is not far enough towards the stern for that
Ultimately all you need is a decent diameter reinforced tube to run the tail through.
I say both of those things for a reason.
The stresses that the tails put on T23 initially lead to the sterns being substantially reinforced.
It should be too tight a fit and things trailed tend to pick other unwanted things up….
So you could put CAPTAS-2 in the mission bay and then extend the tail….
Poland made different compromises to RN. Poland wants, very sensibly, to defend Poland and its neighbours. But in the end budget and size are real for all navies. So, yes, Poland could have had a 15,000t cruiser perfection-class-that-never-gets-built planned that would not have got built any time soon and would have blown the budget. Rather they have chosen to go for the something-very-good-that-far-outmatches-any-Russian-ships approach for delivery soon.
There is also the issue of having the industrial capacity to the build the dream ship. MILSPEC builds are much harder than building a huge cruiser or a large tanker.
On our design, what is in the space between the stern and the mission space that would be occupied by the CAPTAS, then?
Surely the torpedo defence system doesn’t take up the whole stern, and that space is far too useful to waste on accommodation or some such like.
And what on earth are we going to use 6 containers with no access to sea or sky for?
Speed in a CSG is something I struggle to understand. The maximum speed of a Tide Class tanker is about 20 knots. I’ve read ASW frigates go even slower than that when looking for submarines. So what’s the need for a carrier to go at 30 knots and escorts to maintain pace? Is this just about getting to the theatre (without the tankers and FSSS?), then everything slows to the pace of an ASW frigate? I can get why a carrier might occasionally want to go quickly for wind over deck, but that wouldn’t apply to escorts.
Does apply to escorts cause they wanna stay in formation, it’s also about evading threats like not being where you’re expected or actually dodging weapons
I think that the auxiliaries aren’t really supposed to accompany the carrier group the entire time; it sort of retires from the danger area to refuel and resupply.
Most of the time in transit the group will probably travel at about 20 knots, but in combat zones they will sprint to avoid enemies (like SSKs which top out at about 15kts without massively burning through endurance).
It won’t be as necessary for the QEs to get wind over the deck like a CATOBAR does, but it helps if all of the warships are able to sprint at the same speed.
Frigates for ASW purposes will work as “sprint and drift” where they charge ahead of the group and then wait with tail out for it to pass by.
T31 as an AAW escort will need to manoeuver quickly and have a rapid sprint to move up threat from the carrier as the scenario changes.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that’s a basic synopsis of the different evolutions for carrier escorts.
Sailorbouy
Before I fail you, giving you an F minus on your latest homework..
…..Please can you go and reread the offical history of the deployment of the two RN carriers – – both to locations well south of King Neptune’s line of comtrol – back in 1982.
The RFA’s – supply ships and tankers- were usually included well within the Carrier group
That formation was quite deliberately selected because, when/if those nasty Exocet ASM’s came flying in – that formation would ensure the enemy misstle first hit RFA Expendible
( i.e. before the missle hit the vital carrier (i.e. a strategic decision = because the loss of any one carrier and its airpower meant = end of war)
Thus the RFA’s were manouvered to be UP THREAT of the Carriers
That is why RFA’s need plenty of self-defense kit = because an incoming enemy missile seeker head cannot read a ship’s name plates and pennant numbers
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Falklands War was nearly 50 years ago.
Grinch
Yes correct – however according to my (georgian) calender it was 43 years ago….
However, let us not forget that one conflict had ALL of the aspects of a modern peer-on-peer nation state war
i.e. of the type one would expect to fight today
In all of the subsequent conflicts, quite frankly, we have had to rely on the USA for much of that “heavy lifting”
Therefore, whilst the falklands were a long time ago: that old adage still applies……. thise who fail to learn key lessons from the past are doomed to repeat them…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Militaries that equip and operate like the past, lose.
Grinch
I totally agree.
However the RN today – with its Carriers Strike Group(s) supported by escorts and RFA’s and several big amphibians etc – is still today fundamentaslly “not dissimilar” ORBAT to thiose formations which went south 43 years ago
Thus the RN today still needs to bear in mind those important lessons from that quite-recent conflicit
Because those that do not learn from their past mistakes…,………,,are doomed to repeat them
However the RN then needs to add in the efects of other innovations, such as
something the RN has noticeably failed to do with both the F35 and tomahawk – despite both low observability (stealth) and tomahhawk cruise both having been ogainlly invented almost exactly fifty years ago to this day…
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
ASW frigates slow down to hunt but then speed up to catch up.
The Tides are capable of faster than 20kts.
ASW frigates generally pootal along at around 3-6 it’s when hunting SMs with their TA out. SMs hunt at these speeds to, although they can both hunt at higher speeds. The faster you go, the shorter your detection ranges are going to be, so 3-6 kts is the optimal search speed when using a TA.
Type 26s will be trolling at significantly higher speeds.
Is there a specific design feature that enables that?
Or just refinements to existing technology?
The QEs still like to have wind over the deck as it makes it safer and more efficient to take off and land with high fuel and ordnance loads. Especially if they are doing an SRVL recovery. In that respect they are just like a CATOBAR carrier but with less wires and more brake dust.
From what I’ve read over the years, the optimum speed for ASW work is way lower than any top speed, T23 and T26 are the best ships probably ever built to do this work, everything has been tuned to make them invisible and undetectable whilst doing ASW stuff. All Top Speeds that are quoted are more than likely just a guide, we saw the T45 and QE attain higher speeds in trials. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Tides can’t manage a few more knots either.
HMS Rodney was reported as having attained a pretty impressive turn of speed back in 1941, even with some pretty serious engine room issues.
T26 might not be a T21 but it sure as hell packs a bigger punch.
Weren’t the Nelsons the slowest of the postwar battleships?
They were designed to ram in the 16″ turrets and as much armour as could fit and so had smaller machinery spaces than the later ships, at least as far as I read.
The Nelsons were a product of the naval treaties that were in effect for most of the inter war period. Designers and Navies and to choose a compromise between speed, armour and armaments that kept the ships within the weight limits imposed by the treaty.
The RN kept too closely to it ! Were originally planning 4 larger ships called the G3 but there was also an N3 that would have had 9x 18 inch guns.
Yes they were not as quick as others but the rumour is she hit her highest speed ever whilst racing to intercept Bismark despite all the issues.
Because speed in a CSG is inexorably linked to both WoD (which implies a direction btw) and deck operating cycle. That is separate to the overall force speed of advance. There may also be some chunky positional requirements to remain within certain areas, which can mean having to reposition quickly. The impact for the escorts is that if the carrier puts the hammer down in one direction, the escort needs a bit of margin in speed to position to screen the carrier during that particular serial.
Thanks to all for the helpful responses.
Royal Navy fleet speed is 16 knots. Individual ships go faster for tactical purposes.
Probably not worth it as the RN opted to not go for rafted machinery and other hull quietening measures. If the RN want additional ASW ships then additional T-26 is the answer.
I don’t think any of the A140 versions have rafted machinery. The simplicity of design is part of what keeps their price down.
Rafted machinery is an option – according to Babcock!
For real ASW performance you need everything silenced be that onboard pumps, relays, toilet seats, galley fitting, doors….you name it the signature has to be reduced. That is what makes T23 and T26 so very special.
Level of platform silencing requirement depends on the area we suppose to conduct ASW operations. T23/26 are on the top in this criteria, but not all ASW FFGs are designed with such strict approach. When the opereational environment is noisy (traffic) littoral area then, even warship with less advanced propulsion (operating in quiet state) will be enough given she has adequate sensors to ensure UW awareness. That is why even T31 with proper modules or/and unammed assets may do specific ASW in restricted zone, while T23/26 is covering other part in are where e.g. S2087 may exploit its full potential.
Of course.
Horses for courses.
Out in the middle of the ocean T26 is queen.
In coastal waters, which are inherently more noisy then other factors come into play and radiating self noise is no longer the limiting factor.
Our SSNs and ASW frigates conduct TA ops in both the littoral and deep ocean environments, so no, silencing requirements are not driven by geographical regions, but, by getting the best performance out of your search systems (TA) you have fitted.
Self preservation is also an important consideration, so, he who detects the opposition first, generally gets the first shot in.nine the ASW world, there are no prizes for second place.
This is the reason: “in both the littoral and deep ocean”. Its different story when you operate mainly in littoral.
Also, even if you are fitted with most powerful sensors (e.g. S2087) shallow water will not let you exploit its full potential -again, solution scalable to particular conditions is better than the best possible.
Thats why, capabilities are linked with expected operational conditions and that is how Miecznik was shaped
Not sure it’s an option that anyone has taken up. Likely there is a good reason for that.
“ ROLE SPECIFIC FEATURES
Underwater radiated noise signatures are managed within the platform, to reduce the range at which it can be detected by an adversary. This includes measures to counter the self-noise of the main propulsion, electrical power generation and auxiliary systems.”
From the Arrowhead140.com website
That quote sounds like total PR speak.
Sounds like rafting & acoustic insulation of the main noise generators to me
An option non of the customers for the various A140 variants have for som reason taken up.
All the main engines and supporting equipment on our T31s are ‘rafted’, they are not just bolted to the deck. Believe the same applies to the IH class too. For ASW purposes it’s the bare minimum you would need to get a half decent detection range out of any TA system that might be fitted.
IIRC, the IH’s have the “engineering tolerances” for rafting mounts & other quietening measures, though how much of that was retained for the A140 redesign is an unknown.
The RFI for T31 also required “pragmatic noise reduction” and a capability for quiet running at low speed
Thing is that to have quiet running a low speeds you need to have quiet ancillaries and not just the main drivers.
Otherwise the fresh waster pumps and air handling [for example] will dominate the noise spectrum.
So you could switch the air handling off for brief periods but that isn’t much good for crew efficiency in the tropics or in the arctic!
Increased quietness was indeed offered to the RN for the T31’s but Paul is correct, it was turned down.
Better surely than the T31 being entirely blind underwater?
A hull sonar might require less modification, but a towed array’s capability can’t be replaced by unmanned drones (at least not those that could be carried by a frigate).
Both would be necessary if you wanted a decent capability, it doesn’t need to be top notch. Very few navies operate fully quietened frigates anyway.
First day back at school today ? Learnt anything interesting ? i wish I was so young again, might just change a few decisions I’ve made.
Today was decent, nice slow first day back.
CCF was hell though, stupid new cadets kept wandering away during drill commands.
Christ…
T26 is everything we learned from T22 then T23 plus a bit then with a very strange submarine derived gearbox….all because T45’s IEP didn’t go so well.
Still feels weird to me that the T22s were in service during my lifetime and NL has articles about them.
I just associate them in my mind with the 1980s and haven’t really thought about how new they were during the Falklands.
They were very advanced ship designs for their time.
Very well designed but very crew heavy – which is what sealed their fate of early OoS.
Left a big hole behind as they were heavily armed and very capable. Part of the reason T45 could be stripped back so much was T22 which could do the ‘other’ capabilities.
B3 were ELINT/EW fitted and when they were drawn down RN didn’t have a proper fit until the function was transferred to T45.
I suppose that the current T26 with their numerous CAMM and mk41 are the doctrinal replacement to T22.
I also like the “bulky superstructure” aesthetic, which is also shared with Hood and a lot of the 1920s cruisers.
Do you think it might help if the T31 transmitted constantly by hydrophone in all the main Chinese dialects ‘Please don’t sink us we have no ASW equipment?’
Not in the Persian Gulf, no.
Perhaps they could have different ones for different places?
So………
Lotfa ma ra ghargh neknid, ma tajekizat ASW nadarim!
……..for the Persian Gulf?
It possible you are on to something with the Chinese one. I read that Chinese ballistic missile subs often frequent the SCS, which is why they try to hustle ASW frigates out as quickly as possible, but don’t care about our OPVs. Perhaps your hydrophones would indeed give the T31 fewer peacetime hassles in SCS.
The SCS is soon to be renamed the Western American Sea…. apparently.
If their focus is on the Baltic I guess losing a little speed is far less significant than operating in the Mediterranean, Atlantic or even more significantly still the Pacific.
One extra boat bay over the 3 for the Type 31 and no reduction is speed. The propulsion system is identical for both classes.
Speed for T31s tends to be listed as greater than 28kts but the Polish ones only claim 26.
I had thought that the boat bays got in the way of a diesel downtake, but looking at the images that doesn’t seem to be the case.
The RN Type 31 is Not a General Purpose Frigate, as it has No Anti Submarine capability at all. No Sonar, No torpedoes. The “Sonar 2170”, that is listed, is the replacement Nixie anti torpedo decoy system.
It seems a waste of money putting CAMM missiles into the very expensive, £9 million Mk41 x8 launcher. Mk41 is a Hot Launch system, CAMM is a Cold launch missile. It would be better to have Mk41 for Cruise missiles etc & install cheaper Cold launch silos for CAMM MR.
CAMM-MR is too large for the cold launch silos that CAMM uses. Furthermore, it can’t be dual-packed into those cold launch cells. Those cold launch cells are also incapable of taking anything apart from CAMM or potentially Spear-3.
The Mk41, on the other hand, can cold-launch the CAMM and CAMM-MR when using the ExLS inserts. It is also more adaptable, able to carry a wide range of cruise missiles.
So all in all, Mk41 is probably the best choice. 32 cells are planned to be installed, so assuming that 32 CAMM are quad-packed into 8 of these cells, there are 24 remaining cells for CAMM-MR and FC/ASW.
That isn’t strictly true.
The “CAMM silo” you refer to is actually the canister the missile comes in, plugged into a hole in the deck. Quad packing CAMM is simply a frame to mount 4 canisters in a single mk41 tube.
Presumably CAMM-MR will use a similar system given that it will have a ground based launcher.
“Quad packing CAMM is simply a frame to mount 4 canisters in a single mk41 tube”
And all the electrical connections….oh and you still need the missile ejection system as well….
Well, yes, but the point was that the silo itself is specific to the missile rather than to the ship.
The ejection system is part of the canister, isn’t it? How else would the piston work?
Its a gas generator not a ‘piston’
Yeah it’s pneumatic, but I thought there would be some sort of driving seal between the walls of the canister and the missile itself.
You need both a gas generator and a piston effect to make the missile pop out on command.
Like most great British inventions it is so simple it is almost unbelievable that nobody did it before!!
“cold launch silos that CAMM uses” are a glorified tube.
Lol….. Glory Holes!
Given the state of the US, its fall to facism and Trump making an historical pivot to vote with Russia and North Korea in the UN, not to mention threatening annexation of Greenland and Canada, do we trust the US as an ally or even just an arms supplier?
Is it time to revisit MBDA Sylver launchers?
Unlike LM with the ExLS, MBDA have not demonstrated quad packing of CAMM, but it has been in their marketing for a long time. For a given length (3.5m, 4.5m, 5m or 7m) an 8 cell block of Sylver is slightly smaller in footprint, and mass than an equivalent MK41. If we want to add quad packed CAMM and then maybe CAMM-ER to T31 and T45, should we be investigating Sylver A45 for these use cases – buy European, maybe even UK involvement in production?
I presume its too late to switch out MK41 on the T26, I think the contract is already signed. I would be worried about getting software or spare parts for those launchers in future.
A good rule of thumb for Defence procurement seems to be: copy what the Poles are doing.
(Caveat: it’s early days yet and I’m sure there is room for some delays and cost spirals)
Even ignoring the equipment plan for their Land Forces.
Aussies (and sadly possibly Canadians) take T26 and make so many changes that costs are ballooning
US take Fremm and make so many changes I wonder whether it would have been quicker, cheaper and simpler to have started from scratch
Polish take T31 and come up with a very nice-looking balanced design
I do wonder why Captas-2 rather than Captas-4-compact?
I cannot help but think that this would make for a very nice T32
(Minimal changes such as 1x 57mm and 2x 40mm as guns and Stingray as fish seem necessary for logistics but I must resist the urge to want Spearfish and T07 and Tomahawk and Sampson and rafts for machinery)
Poland’s defence spending seen rising to 4.7% of GDP in 2025; Reuters.
Sure. Let’s copy that.
5% now as a credible deterrent vs. 30% if a war kicks off strikes me as an absolute bargain. And that’s without counting the human cost.
Reason for Captas-2 is compromise between desired performance and conditions in Polish Navy operational areas. Both Captas-2 and 4C have single (dependant) tow (VDS with DTAS) that provide good depth control in shallow water column. Both types were carefuly considered.
Many thanks
TGIMB
You forgot to mention that, back in the 1930’s, the Poles were the first to decypher the secret Enigma machine
….about ten years before the Oxbridge educated boffins at Bletchley Park
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Crikey, I never knew that, tell us more ? Did we not know that Poland had done this all those years ago ? I didn’t think that Germany was even owning an Enigma machine back then. Can you post some links please, It would be really interesting.
Jim
As requested, one link attached
The Polish cryptographers who cracked the Enigma code | Sky HISTORY TV Channel
However, by far and away the best overall account of the whole battle to decipher Engma is contained in the book “Beyond the Enigma”,
That is, to all intends and purposes, the offical history of Bletchely Park, then, a bit later on most of what happened at GCHQ at Cheltenham
Worth buying it with your Xams book token.
However it is an incredibly densely packed book and thus it takes a lot of time to read
Interestingly it was not only the Poles who were short-changed by the Oxbridge graduate buffons when it came to “handing out the credit” after the war
Bletchely Park is often credited with developing the first ever electronic computer
However, in reality, that honour definitely should have gone to eastender Tommy Flowers – of the Post Office Research Establishment up at Dollis Hill in North London.
He simply built – mostly using left-over bits from telephone exchanges – what the Oxbridge boffins all said was completely and utterley impossible.
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Thanks for that.
A proper warship not like T31…
But a vastly more expensive one when built at the same labour rate. I makes no sense to compare a ~£250m ship against what at U.K. labour rates would probably be a £450/500m ship. It would be a total shock if the expense ship wasn’t vastly more capable than the cheaper one.
The smarter thing would be to compare the ships against their expected threats. If the UK ship fails and the Polish one does not, the lower cost of the UK ship is meaningless.
It would like me buying a car for my commute but to save money the car I bought is so slow, I arrive at work late every day. Yeah, I saved money but the car doesn’t meet my requirement so the money I did spend was totally wasted.
I agree with everyone here who has a concern about the Type 31’s lack of ASW. It looks like the first two, and certainly the first one, may be too far along to do anything now and would have to wait for a refit. But what about the 4th and 5th and maybe even the 3rd? If planning started now, these should be able to be modified without too much added construction time and expense (plus the cost of new components). Given that both Poland and Indonesia are adding sonars to their versions, it’s clear that this can be done and there should be lessons learned available there.
What would be the most cost effective solution?
It’s probably most cost effective to leave the T31s to the original spec and add AAW (extra radar plus Mk 41 VLS) in capability inserts after delivery. If we want ASW it should be in the next batch. Altering the current contract in any way means renegotiating and that will be pricey and add too many delays.
Yeah, I was afraid that the contract, more than technical matters, might be the biggest hurdle. What about adding the MK 41 VLS? Did that involve contract negotiations?
So far the planed addition of Mk41 will happen at a post build refit on at least the first 2 and possibly all the T31’s. The contract was apparently very specifically set up not to allow post contract modifications. The idea was to give Babcock a fixed contract for a fixed fee.
I believe it hasn’t been bought yet and is expected to be added after delivery.
We don’t really know.
MoD has been totally silent on this and in general on T31 weapons fit. Not even confirming number of Sea Ceptor tubes or if NSM is fitted from the off.
I’ll be very interested in what we see when she is wheeled out of the shed!
True. We shouldn’t have to wait too long.
I know I’m expecting the minimum set up because Babcock signalled it pretty strongly last year. Nevertheless plans can change. There were some undisclosed discussions between MOD and Babcock since then that resolved the cost dispute. Who knows if other things were agreed? It’s possible we just missed the FMS announcement, and we might have missed budgetary alterations for the major project figures given they’ve been hidden under commercial confidentiality. I also recall you speculating that a batch of the T26 Mk41s could be diverted.
I believe you are kidding yourself about NSM. I can’t recall any announcement that T31 will ever get NSM. Isn’t it just speculation that they’ll eventually be taken off T23 and transferred?
Just let me add, because I want to vent: I’m getting pretty sick of MOD talking about transparency but failing to publish equipment plans and hiding the costs of programmes such as Type 31 under the excuse of commercial confidentiality. Is there a Freedom of Information regulator who can check the validity of claims like that? ICO perhaps. We seem to be told less and less these days, and it’s nothing to do with Russia or China finding out military secrets.
Half of me agrees and half of me disagrees.
The world is very unpleasant ATM and some of the capability information released on say T45 probably wouldn’t be now.
That said we will soon know, via George at UKDJ, what is going on with T31 armaments. Im sure we will get a drone pass.
As soon as it is in the water anyone with binos in a tower block will be able to see the answer!
Totally agree. The secrecy is totally inappropriate. All it is for is to cover up the inadequacies of the civil servant and politicians running the show.
11 sets of NSM were announced.
That is 6 for T45 and 5 for T31?
Or where else are they being used?
I suspect we will see more of them in T26 as the mid price bulk missile – bolt on upgrade that keeps VLS slots for other things.
We already are installing them on the T23s. Sure I think they’ll be moved to the T31s, but for now the announcements state T23s. That means to me that we won’t see NSM this Spring when they roll out Venturer, but we might well see it added next decade.
The contract was renegotiated due to COVID and inflation.
What that entailed was never publicly announced.
Which is why and given how relaxed MoD are being about the timeline I suspect that something else has changed.
Treasury is more than happy to watch the T31’s run later and later, Saves money.
And no, the contract was not “renegotiated” in any shape size or form.
I’m beginning to think; just launch first five as planned. Use as platforms for helos (some more AW101s would obviously be nice), NSM and drones (air, surface and subsurface), Order a bigger batch of T32s (pretty much Polish Mieczniks but with a few tweaks to meet RN logistics tail) and then during the planned maintenance and upgrade cycle add Mk41, bow sonar, torpedo tubes, TA to the T31s. Otherwise I can forsee us fiddling and faffing to add bits to the five originals, delaying entry to the fleet and spaffing lots of money for the privilege.
Be nice to also stretch the T31 design for the T32’s in order to get a larger hangar/mission bay structure. This was show on the Babcock’s model of an advanced Arrowhead.
Excellent article from a new (to us) author. Thank you.
Donnie John — just what is he up to?
What are the bookies taking money on?
Big anti-China play — get Russia out of its Beijing orbit and get them onside with the US?
Putin playing him for a fool to drive Europe and the US apart plus get the USSR band back together?
Plus new money won’t go far if we keep with the current MOD / UKMIC build economics?
Does the MOD or the politicians have the minerals to call the suppliers out?
Also — Polish warship design — the base platform is starting to creak.
Couple of flaws — VLS above the main deck / side launch for its brood.
Steel is cheap / air is free — Bay Class sized should be the new normal.
Sober up son, you’re talking nonsense.
Bit harsh — some detail would have been good/
As in just what is Donnie John up to?
The distance between the bridge and the bow seems too short, it does not look elegant and would allow extra space for more SAMs etc and i am sure not great for sea keeping –
as FYI – here the fit on the Indonesian version.
they have gone to 64 cells of the Turkish Milas equiv. of mk41
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/02/indonesias-merah-putih-class-frigate-what-you-need-to-know/
A question for the experienced mariners on this site: does the RN use-case of long distance, high endurance, blue water deployments mitigate against a weapons fit as dense as the Polish example?