Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike McNamara

Good to see the Navy progressing with technology, it’s come a long way from my early naval experiences (1966) with Ferranti CS7 water cooled computers with 4K of RAM – but it still worked! I’m surprised that Head Up Displays (HUD) have not been available earlier for bridge watch-keepers, but I suppose it’s really about getting all the ‘bit’s to work in a single ‘floating’ architecture.

I’m unsure that there will ever be a fully ‘Human-Free’ warship making AI strategic/combat decisions, even in the most advanced ‘Star Trek/Star Wars’ fantasies, there’s always a ‘Human’ that is the final ‘Engage’ decision-maker. But of course, time will only tell.

Excellent article to use to follow these developments.


1.5 billion smartphones a year,replacement cycle about 1year,6 type 45,replacement cycle 30years.This is why we need collaborative programmes and why we need to use commercial systems.


All good stuff, but how many hulls cut to support this “value Added” UK content? This may be a simplistic way to look at things, but people may say when looking at the Type 45’s as an example and are told they are 4 times more capable than the Type 42s that preceded, so that’s why we do not need as many hulls (the hull are probably not the expensive item). This may be true in many areas like tracking targets etc, but someone may ask this:, can the Type 45 sail 4 times faster and have 4 time more range? Does the type 45 have 4 times more armament? Can the weapons travel 4 times faster and 4 times further. Are the type 45s 4 times more battle worthy? Naughty but, can we get this BAE stuff that is fitted in hulls made abroad by cheaper Countries? Is there better stuff abroad that can do this for cheaper?


But also, our potential adversaries have possible become 4 times more capable with their ships and systems too.

jon livesey

The way you are asking the question isn’t good, because you are constraining the answers to chosen parameters. A naval gun with GPS guided shells does not need to fire four times as far or four times faster to be four times as effective. It just has to have four time the probability of hitting its target.

We saw this during the Second World War. A bomber in 1945 didn’t look all that different to a bomber in 1939, but it could hit a target the size of a railway train, whereas in 1939 you would be lucky to hit the right city.

One place I agree with you 100% is that there is no simple trade-off between effectiveness and numbers. The best system in the World isn’t much use if you can afford only one of them. In this case, however, the incremental cost of AR isn’t that great, so it really means enhancing the effectiveness of what you already have, rather than sacrificing hulls to get it.

Iqbal Ahmed

Welcome to the new cyber world.

Multi million pound software and hardware on warships built for hundreds of millions of pounds that can potentially be hacked by a freckled 14 year old hacker whizkid from the PC in his mum’s bedroom before breakfast.

It’s enough to make anyone feel 100 years old!