Subscribe
Notify of
guest
382 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
borg

I don’t want to be the first to comment here but, heck, why not. this is brilliant news. Down vote the sh*te out of that , sad arses.

White Dog

Black dogs matter

borg

Yes, I’m sure they do, I’m a GSD fan personally, Had a White, a Black and a Sable, even had two of mixed parentage, one was a GSD Rottweiler cross and the other a GSD Labrador cross. Any reason you have chosen to comment about dogs on this site ? I’m intrigued to know.

Barry Larking

The right decision. A sea power is what this nation is.

Darren.

Yes, for a premiere maritime nation like Britain (The UK). Kevin Maguire hates this fact, yet his paper (Mirror) rightly, backs up UK industry including the Fleet Solid Support Ships being built in the UK as they should be along with as much material as possible, because the gov gets money back.

Last edited 1 month ago by Darren Riche-Webber
Ron

OK, so I am going to make some assumptons here about the T32. Would it be the GP version of the 26 I don’t think so as that would possibly get a T2X prefix. With it beng a T3X I am going to assume the type will be along the T31 concept. So what would happen if it is a re-engined beefed up T31. Instead of diesels its a Gas Turbine Deisel combination like the T26, a 5 inch gun replacing the 57mm and an increase in missile fit possibly 36 Sea Ceptors and 16 Mk41tubes. The T31 hull can take this, but there are enough diffrencies to make them a diffrent class of ship. They would be closer to the Iver Huitfeldt class and they cost about £350 million each so an RN version would be about £500 million. The reason that I think the T31 hull, superstructure etc would be used is, cost, tooling, spares etc. Why start a new hull when we have a new hull.
What could be intresting is if the T26 program will be speeded up, when the FSS ships will be ordered, the LPDs get replaced and possibly a spped up of the F35 buy. However it plays out it is good to see that defence has for once not been ripped apart but invested into.
Maybe Boris is not such a bad bloke after all, whoops need my meds.

borg

The 5 inch gun option was Trashed here a while back though. I’m no Expert but I had to wonder at the 57mm fit on a 6500 ton GP Frigate though.

X

I think 57mm is too small. I think the minimum these days for a first rate ship is a ‘smart’ 76mm. As I have said before one of the design elements from Horizon which I wish Type 45 had retained were the multiple 76mm mounts. I would say a precision guided 76mm shell is better than a dumb 5in. Another air defence layer. And with heat seeking sensors interesting possibilities for surface combat.

Sean

The 57mm is what the US Navy is standardising on, with it fitted as the main gun on the existing Freedom and Independence classes of littoral combat ships, and the planned main gun on the future Constellation class of frigates.
As a result we can be guaranteed that the 57mm is probably going to see more funding for different munitions; smart, guided, etc, than any other naval gun.

X

Using the LCS as a basis for an argument to fit something isn’t where I would start.

The Leonardo system is one of the most widely fitted naval systems world wide. It won’t be short of funding.

57mm is a lot smaller than 76mm. As I said above a precision 76mm round is better than a dumb 5in round. But I don’t think the same can be said of smart 76mm vs smart 57mm.

Sean

No I wasn’t using the LCS the basis of my argument, I was using the fact it’s the new US Navy standard calibre for the new Constellation class frigate, the the new coast guard cutter, and the existing LCS.
The higher rate of fire of the 57mm means you get as much munition on target as the 76mm, and a smarter 57mm round is better than a smarting 76mm round.
At the end of the day US military expenditure is larger than that for the next 10 nations combined. That’s why their weapons are usually, not always, technically superior.

Teves

If you need land bombardment you may as well strap a couple of big howitzers to the flight deck. No point fitting a gun you may never use.

X

NGS is nice to have not a necessity. During the Falklands about 4500 shells were fired. Hardly a morning’s worth on WW1’s Western Front. Making accurate hits is more often important than weight of fire.

76mm still gives you more options than a 57mm for AAW. Multiple projectiles, bigger blast etc.

Strapping howitzers to a deck? Really? I don’t think so unless they were smart rounds. The sea moves a bit……..

Gavin Gordon

Don’t forget that guns will be firing smart munitions soon enough, effectively swapping out rocket propulsion but maintaining the guidance system. This should, one trusts, simultsneously save money and allow for greater numbers of projectiles, leading to the full renaissance of cannon as a mainstream weapon system, at least over short to medium ranges.

borg

BJ also stated that All Ships will have ‘Directed Energy Labours ” quickly changed to Lasers !!!! So lets not forget this new capability. Dragon Fire might just happen.

Teves

You can get stabilise canons you know a tank can fire whilst rolling around a fielf, my point was the big guns are used less the smaller guns deal with the boat swarms, aircraft etc. Put ship close to shore to use bigger guns gets your ships sunk, Falklands was a case in point. May as well have fitted the 4.5 inch guns on a barge and towed it into a firing position.

Cam

Strap some challenger turrets on while your at it, I’m sure we have 200 odd ones.

Teves

As we have so few combat ships and they are expensive to replace, small guns with high fire rate better or aaw and for swarm / drone attacks we should not be fitting big guns on our fleet for land bombardment or to fight other ships as missile exchanges will be over the horizon out of reach of the guns even with guide/rocket assisted munitions. those big guns could fitted to containers along with a couple of 40mm for air defence so they can be delivered either on a cheap ship or barge or small container ship to bombardment area. We Need to protect our small fleet as we learned in Falklands where we got picked off close to land. I am all for 76mm, 57mm & 40mm cannons. 4.5″ is being phase out and the 127mm is about 15 million a pop. not sure if RN will bring the 76mm in as we don’t use it anywhere else.

DaveyB

The USMC has successfully demonstrated that they could use and fire HIMARS from one of their assault ships. The issue with it though is that you would want to use more than one unit, as it only contain 6 rockets. It will also take up valuable deck space and prevents you from doing any heli-ops at the same time (massive back blast and debris all over the deck). The HIMARS had additional software that was used to counteract the boats sway. From the video footage it looks like the USS Anchorage was anchored off the coast.

I know the RN did look at mounting a MRLS on to a ship back in the late 80’s, ashamedly it didn’t go anywhere. I think they looked at fitting it in place of Sea Slug on the Countys’. The USN recognized the USMC trial as a publicity stunt, but they did recognise that a MRLS/HIMARS ship based system could provide the necessary fire support that the USMC are requiring. They have looked at using a similar box launcher to the Mk112 ASROC or Mk29 Sea Sparrow. The maths for the software would be little different to the gun laying software that takes into account the ship’s movement. Though with today’s know how, I don’t see why you need a trainable launcher. A vertically launched ballistic MLRS is more than doable. The guided GMLRS is a steerable rocket with over 70km range. If launched on a ballistic trajectory, the canards will steer it on to the target after its reached its apogee.

With the announcements of the latest artillery trials in the US and Norway. I do see a renaissance in tube artillery. The US have contracted BAe to build a “hypervelocity” projectile for artillery. This is a development of their rail gun round. It is a sabot, so the explosive content in the shell is reduced. However, when fired from a 155mm gun the sabot travels at just over Mach 5. The smaller 5″ (127mm) is around Mach 4+. When fired from the rail gun it has a velocity of over Mach 7.5. This has two main benefits, it at least triples the range achieved by conventional rocket assisted shells. But also means that the artillery has an anti-air capacity. I know its early days, but they did use both a M110 203mm and 155mm Paladin to each take out a drone. Could this be developed to take out an anti-ship missile or a hypersonic one, it is their ultimate aim, we will just have to wait and see? The US Army has asked BAe to produce a 105mm version. This would help make the 105 more relevant, as its significantly outranged at the moment.

Nammo, a Norwegian company have also developed the ramjet shell. This gives 155mm based artillery a greater than 60nm (111km) range. Again to allow the ramjet to function as it passes through the shell, they would have to reduce the explosive content.

It would be feasible to scale down these two concepts to smaller artillery, but I would suspect the explosive content for a 76mm and especially for the 57mm based shell would be next to useless.

There has been a lot of discussion over the pros and cons of the 76 vs the 57 gun system. For me, the 76 has the operational advantage as the barrel is water-cooled, giving it a better sustained rate of fire. It also has a larger choice of guided ammunition with the Vulcano and anti-air DART. One of the advantages of the 57 system is that there is a version that is non-deck penetrating, so it could be used a plug and play addition.

Ron5

“The US Army has asked BAe to produce a 105mm version. This would help make the 105 more relevant, as its significantly outranged at the moment”

Davey, have you any references for this? I would be interested in learning more.

DaveyB

One of the view links I found.

https://idstch.com/military/army/us-testing-hypervelocity-projectile-hvp-protecting-military-units-land-sea-large-missile-salvos-russia-china/

The was a link with BAe(US) but I can’t find it now.

If the trial is successful, it could bring new life to the light 105 gun.

AlexS

“One of the advantages of the 57 system is that there is a version that is non-deck penetrating, so it could be used a plug and play addition.”

There is also a version of 76.
Called Sovraponte.

Supportive Bloke

“I think they looked at fitting it in place of Sea Slug on the Countys”

Yes, it was looked as a part of the “what do we do with these big ships that are not that old but are useless as the systems onboard are so archaic” conversations.

Ultimately what did for the Counties was the lack of battle damage resistance and types of paint/cabling/rubber seals used. Too big a fuel load and too much toxic smoke. As well as the unarmored Slug magazine and nowhere to put a protected magazine for anything else that might replace Slug.

Though with today’s know how, I don’t see why you need a trainable launcher”

A trainable launcher can be moved to the horizontal to be reloaded onboard with a simple crane/jib arrangement. They are designed to reloaded in the field. A VLS, as we have both acknowledged previously can’t easily be reloaded at sea.

4th watch

You could have a non-trainable launcher like a large mouth organ that lies over to re-load. otherwise it would leave a hole in the desk unless situated at the break of a non flush-deck two deck ship like the counties. The Russians have some complicated method of reloading VLS from below deck.

Comment

I don’t think a UK company makes a 76mm gun?

4th watch

The return of the big gun ship no less. Maga; make a gun great again.

Teves
Pacman27

Something potentially out there is why not make provision for 2 boxer modules to be fitted then we can put everything from CTA40 to 120mm Morton or even a 155mm gun.

sure it’s not ideal but it is making the most out of what, we are investing in.

Nickb

The space needed really should be what is likely to fit the current Rail Gun systems that are under experimental design. I suspect that points to a larger space than a smaller one/

Nickb

Why not fit the smart 5 inch gun. The BAe system is capable of firing guided shells in the same was as the 76mm and they have further range and impact. The difference is surely space and number of rounds fired per time period.

David Broome

57mm/40mm mix is handy in a task force because it creates layered defence. 5″ useful for NGS but with the type-45 and type-4XX, there would be 14 units packing 4.5/5″.

X

Type 45 is going nowhere near the gunline.

AlexS

57/40mm mix is too close.

Cam

I agree, larger is needed

4th watch

I’d love to see us restart the 6″ Naval Gun project. This is the golden gun for using all that special 155mm smart ammo and put it into the Type 32. The Army needs a new 155mm; its all there if you only look for it. Come on Britain!

DaveyB

Did they ever get the 6″ guns on the Tigers working properly. Weren’t they supposed be semi-automatic?

Cam

As a secondary gun that’s fine, but primary gun even the 4.5 inch gun of the 23s would be better.

borg

Well thats the way i see it too.

Meirion X

Thanks for your insight!

Very interesting!

David Broome

Can’t see it being a GP Type-26 (eg it would be called a Type-27 as a hint). There would also be a design cost in stripping things out of what is a ASW platform. Given other spending needs (Dreadnought, F35B) it is likely BAE is focused on the Type-4XX to follow the Type-26 with (maybe 8 units). Most likely the Type-32 is an uparmed Type-31 retaining the 57mm/40mm mix but with a full loadout of Seaceptor, SSGW, VDS etc.

Ron5

I suspect Bae is 100% concentrated on the Type 26 Batch II. That needs to be decided, costed, and contracted.

Nickb

I would suggest we ought to follow the original Danish design and aim to fit something a lot more capable than Seacepter alongside it.

D J

Adding CAMM-ER would be a very good starting point & relatively easy if it can re-use CAMM launch electronics etc (allowing you to mix & match as required). I understand this is the case with the ground launched systems. This will get you to ESSM type area defence coverage. If you want to go further then you will need hot launch systems & depending on missile selection, may require significant CMS integration costs & better radars.

Sunmack

Please let the T32 not have the same powerplant as the T31 as that makes it useless for ASW. The T45 is hopeless in the ASW mission with a basic sonar and a noisy powerplant. The 31 has no sonar and is noisy. Whilst the T23 is a capable ASW platform with only 8 that means only 2 or 3 on station and a couple are likely to be with the carrier.

Same with the Astute in terms of insufficient numbers. Only 2 on mission and one of them is likely to be with the carrier.

Conventional submarines are widely proliferating into unfriendly nations and are one of the main ways they would use to close sea lanes or threaten shipping.

I’d like to see the T32 equipped with the T26 powerplant and ASW sensors which begs the question as to why not just build more T26. And while we’re at it put some Tomahawk’s in the MK 41 VLS so we no longer need to waste an SSN sitting around waiting to lob cruise missiles.

X

It is more a question of rafting than modern diesels being unsuitable for ASW.

Diesel electric drive would be better.

Kammy

I could be wrong or been high at the time when I heard this, but I always thought when the last type 26 was built. The same shipyard will start the construction of the type 45 replacement based on the type 26 hull. I thought it was part of their ship building plan. That would explain why they’re not ordering more type 26 as it will disrupt the timing of the replacement. Should note that I’ve not checked when the last type 26 commissioned is being built and when the type 45 get decommissioned so I could be completely wrong.

Glass Half Full

And yet the Danes are converting their Absalon class support ships to ASW frigates … and the “Arrowhead 140 specifications already meet NATO noise requirements for an ASW vessel” per Babcock’s A140 website. So a T32 based on T31 certainly wouldn’t be useless for ASW.

4th watch

A type 32 with the T26 propulsion module would be good for about 35kn like destroyers of old.

Ron5

We’ve been told by @MKP that the Iver Huitfelds are quiet ships. Not Type 23 or Type 26 quiet but quieter than most frigates. Certainly quiet enough to contribute to ASW. BTW their engines are double isolating mounted.

Dan

Who told you that. ? No raft or noise reduction technics it is a commercial design

Dan

Where does it meet the ASW any noise requirements? Really. You should check that one again. It’s a commercial design platform. Noise reduction costs money and lots of it these ships are being built for 250 million. What does that say?

The US are spending millions reducing the cost of their Virginia Class submarines.

Wake up

Glass Half Full

No need to check again. Bottom paragraph
https://www.arrowhead140.com/exportability

Danes conversion of Absalon and reclassification as ASW frigate
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/royal-danish-navy-eyes-towed-sonar-systems-for-absalon-class-new-asw-role/

Can’t see the relevance of your submarine comment.

I’m wide awake. Let’s see what your reading comprehension’s like.

MR MARK D HARRISON

Tomahawks are subsonic and will have a high chance of being shot down.

Dan

Submarines won’t be with the carriers. Type 31 is a waste of time. The commercial designed vessel is a compromise. Tomahawks are dated and by them will not be the weapon of choice. They will not be fitted to ships. Just look at the MOD doctrine.

You should look at the efficiency of the T23s as a ASW capability it’s in question

RichardB

Speeding up the budget constrained T26 program is an easy win which makes a lot of sense capability wise, and might be partially compensated by some savings on the T23 life extension program and manning. A downside is that BAE could then end up with a workload gap before the T4X destroyers are needed.

Supportive Bloke

Which is why you **might** end up with two more T26 for not a lot more money. So the program can be speeded up but there isn’t a gap before T4X.

And you **might** end up with three more T31+, but I’d be amazed if the T31+ was other than a fully fitted T31 as the RN won’t want another training/supply chain created.

Ron5

“RN won’t want another training/supply chain created”

If that was significant, there wouldn’t be a Type 31.

Ron5

I understand there are other bottlenecks in the supplier pipeline that may prevent an acceleration of the T26’s build. Due to the success of the T26 design in Australia and Canada.

Meirion X

Ron, I think the build time issue with the T26 is the amount of time to fit out in Scotstoun. At least three years, from the end of 2021 to hand-over in 2025.
I am pretty sure the fitting out could be done in two years?

Ron5

As I said, there are issues in the supply chain for some of the key items that may interfere with an accelerated schedule.

James Fennell

I don’t think we should get uptight about guns as NGS is the only real use and there are a lot of better ways to do it with drones and like – lasers will be what they want to kill swarming drones and USVs. 57mm is excellent weapon in the interim. Think future not past.

RN fanboy

bloody good news, 24 escorts how about 34 Escorts and 1 x BB

David Simpson

How about you get a grip
Of how even more expensive that would be… come on!

Something different

I feel if we had 34 escorts there will be those demanding 44. If the Navy had 44 there will be others who would desire even more ships and so the cycle would never end.

merchantman

I always thought the German pocket battleships were the right size and concept if too slow. In the Baltic they put in sterling work lobbing 11″ shells at that Russian armour. Just saying, honest.

Duker

They were designed from around 1925 or so and the parameters of long range and diesel power under the so called 10,000 tonne limit of the treaty of Versailles. The fast battleships of the Allies didnt come till later in the 30s ( and were matched by the Scharnhorst class)

TrevorH

The Germans should have built 4 more Scharnhorsts nor 2 Bismarks. Or used the steel for more subs! Or more destroyers.

4th watch

Probably right the Bismarks were always going to be a key target as singleton raiders. The Scharnhorsts were lucky to survive their heavy weather encounter with HMS Renown.

Paul

Well we could purchase an Iowa…….complete with 16” guns, Tomahawks and Harpoons…….might actually be a good investment lol

Pete

An 80 year old ship lmao

theantipodean

We could get engineering input from the Indian and Brazilian Navy lol

James Fennell

Sadly not – has a weapon range of 50km compared to 2,000 for an F-35, noisy as hell, would take half the RN to man and fuel and be sunk by the first sub that heard her (that would be all of them).

Ron5

The RN already has a commissioned battleship, are you requesting another?

Cam

24 is what I was hoping for , Santa came early…l

borg

The QRA people are already on it ! You back on UKDJ yet ?

Cam

Nope, still banned, and they haven’t told me why after multiple emails….

Badger.

Excellent news – about time we had some. An ASW Type 32 frigate would be a thought, perhaps based on the Type 31 but made quieter. I wouldn’t have thought we need another five general purpose frigates.

Glass Half Full

The Danes have recently re-designated their Absalon class support ships as ASW frigates and will be converting them for this role. The Iver Huitfeldt class frigates and T31 use the same hull design and T31 always met basic NATO ASW standards anyway, so a T31 with a more ASW focused role is one option.

However, MoD is likely to want competition, as the article states, so they may generate an RFI for frigates with broadly similar specs to the French FTI or the Italian PPA Full or Light+ classes. This wouldn’t exclude an upfitted T31 competing though.

If so, then what we might see are ships with AESA GaN based fixed panel radar (maybe both S- and X-band, or just S-band), 57mm main gun, 8-16 Mk41 cells, 12-24 CAMM cells, positions for canister launch ASM (although VLS may be used for this), competent ASW particularly for littoral roles (but not T26 level) as the core capability. Merlin capable deck and hanger. Mission module/ISO space.

Meirion X

What about a triangler array of AESA panels? Each panel giving a 120 degree field of view. And being fixed on to the top of ships tower.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Glass Half Full

US Constellation class are going with 3x larger S-band but lower down on the mast. Looks like they’ll use rotating x-band high on the mast. So at least in this case/application, fixed 3-face radar is considered acceptable.

The French and Italians seem to favour four face solutions, perhaps to avoid trying to cover too much air volume with a single panel when countering close in swarm attack?

Hunter class seem to be using a 6-face solution.

So the answer to your question probably lies in the capability of the radar TRMs and the processing software, when addressing up to 120 degree window. Also factoring in cost, weight, power, cooling and desired performance considerations for the planned tasks.

DaveyB

There is lots to consider between equipping a ship with either 3, 4, 6 or more AESA panels. For starters sector sweep speeds will be faster if you have a larger number of panels, i.e. 3 = 120 degree sector, 4 = 90 degrees and 6 = 60 degrees etc. Thus the scan rate of a 60 degree sector will be at least twice as quick as a 120 sector as there is less sky to search. The other issue to consider would be power consumption. With a fixed percentage of the ships electrical power, you have a choice on how they operate, either all operating simultaneously, divided into pairs or being clocked in a sequence. If you are operating them in sequence then all available power can go to the array for maximal power output, but it means the other sectors are turned off and blind.

If you are operating them simultaneously, then the available power has to be divided between each panel. Therefore, for three panels each will share 33.33% of the total available power, for four panels it would be 25%. Whilst with a six panel, each will share 16.67%. What this means is that a three panel AESA has the potential to use more power and therefore could generate significantly more range compared to a six panel array.

The CEAFAR on the Hunters will be using 6 panel arrays mounted quite high up on the mast. However, the arrays cross sectional area will have to be limited due to the added top weight. The cross sectional area of an array is critical to the performance of the radar. You can boost the performance of a smaller array by overdriving the amps in the transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs), but they’ll need serious liquid or cryogenic cooling and it radically shortens the life of a TRM. In general the greater the area (i.e. more TRMs) the greater the range and receiver sensitivity. CEAFAR is being clever in this respect as it can stitch together a number of conjoining sectors to effectively increase the available cross sectional area of the array. This is still a sticking plaster fix as it won’t be to the same performance as a larger panel due to losses.

The panels weight also comes into play. The US SPY series of PESA and AESA radars are generally mounted quite low on the ship. This is because they have a much higher count of TRMs to maximise range and receiver sensitivity. The newer SPY-6 marries a S band and X band within a single TRM. Each channel has its own dedicated path, therefore each can operate simultaneously without interfering with the other. It also means that the X band array has the same area as the S band. This means the X band having better target resolution and angular discrimination than the S band, will also have a better range and receiver sensitivity than say Sampson. Conversely Sampson’s view of the horizon is further, as its mounted much higher up, giving it the edge with reaction times for targets popping over the horizon.

You could say a thee panel array would be better suited for large distance and volume searches. Whilst an AESA with a greater number of panels would be more suited for horizon searching and tracking large numbers of swarming targets.

TrevorH

Is there a marginal difference. What is the optimum. We must assume that a T32 will not be as large or tall as a T45.

Ron5

The problem with panel layouts is that the beams get weaker as they diverge from 90 degrees (orthogonal) to the panel so a beam that is sent out in the direction between edges of adjoining panels would be weak. Three panels are 60 degrees between panels and are therefore worst. Four panels are 90 degrees and are better, five panels even better etc.

If you require beams that are equally strong in all directions, the TRM’s should be mounted on the surface of a sphere but unfortunately that introduces other issues.

Four panels is a reasonable compromise and is the most common choice.

One panel, or two panels back to back, can be made to work if they rotate. Artisan is an example of one panel. Sampson is for two.

Ron5

“For starters sector sweep speeds will be faster if you have a larger number of panels”

Say what? AESA panels are swept at electronic speeds. There’s no practical difference how ever many panels are used.

As for switching panels on and off…..

DaveyB

Come on mate think it through logically? A single panel aesa has generally a maximal azimuth sector of 120 degrees whilst it has 90 degrees in elevation. Agreed a AESA can do a sector sweep in less than a second, but it depends on the range and volume of sky you are searching. For example if you are searching a sector over 200nm away that is a lot of sky to check compared to something closer like 50nm, so the scan rate will be slower. Or conversely if it’s searching only a 60 degree cone of the sky compared to a 120 degree cone. To aid the visualization, imagine a cone with a length of 1m and an included angle of 60 degrees, the cones base will be 1.05m2 compared to 9.4m2 for the 120 degree cone. Therefore for a radar its sweep of the area will be significantly faster for the 60 degree cone than the 120 degree cone.

Switching arrays off is a well known method of utilizing the available power and maximizing its use to increase the gain of a array for maximum range. If you only can use 50kVA to power the radar you either have to split what is available or use it to power a single array for maximum gain. For simultaneous use you divide the available power equally between the arrays. This is a well known problem for older ships that update the radar to a newer or larger multi-panel array without updating their power generation system such as the early Flight 1 and 2 Arleigh Burkes, when updating the SPY from 1C to D (PESA) radar.

Ron5

I think you have a very fertile imagination.

DaveyB

Cheers

Dave G

Presumably sector sweep relative time of 3 or 4 panel solutions will also depend on the number of TRMs in each panel as well and how it can use them? 3 big panels with an ability to sub divide into 2 search beams compared to 4 smaller panels but 1 beam per panel (as a basic example).

DaveyB

Yes and no. The beam is formed by collective and disruptive interference. The more TRMS you have the narrower you can make the beam or conversely the more number of beams you can transmit. The beams direction is changed by altering the signal phase around the first TRM that transmits. It can also be achieved by time delaying the signal from the TRMs. The beam is literally added to and is pushed in the direction you want to search. The larger the number of TRMs does mean the single beam’s scan rate and sweep speed is dependent on the number of TRMs that need to be addressed. But we are talking relative switching speeds in the hundredths of a second. The more TRMs you have collectively adding to the TRM that transmitted first the greater range you can achieve. You can also ramp up the amps in the individual TRMs to further get a boost, but only for so long as cooling becomes an issue.

The main impact on switch speeds is target distance. If for instance you are looking at an object over 200nm away. The transmitted pulse train made up of pulse repetition intervals(PRI) and pulse repetition frequency (PRF) have to be widely spaced to allow time for the signal to get to the target and back again, even though they are travelling at the speed of light in the atmosphere. Therefore, the scan rate and sweep speed has to be slightly slower to allow for the beams travelling time. When the target is much closer, then the PRF and PRI can be more tightly spaced, therefore the scan rate and sweep speeds can be much faster. This is true for older analogue radars as it is for newer AESA radars. However, with AESA you can do some cleaver tricks with interlacing the beams, but also have multiple beams transmitting simultaneously in different directions. With digital AESA radars you can also codify the waveform. This means you can let a computer infinitely control the range setting and beam steering. Therefore, you can have a long distance search set with one code, whilst a shorter search has a different code. This makes it easier for the computer to filter out ghosting and returns that could confuse the signal processing when you have multiple targets along a similar track.

When you are trying to transmit near the edges of a three panel array. The beams angle from the TRMs becomes more acute. You can bend the beam over further (up to 150 degrees has been shown), but you quickly run into issues like back scatter and ghosting. With money through advanced signal processing software you can filter this out. But the gain vs cost is miniscule, so its rarely used. Also at angles past 120 degrees the range drops off significantly.

theantipodean

This is only a four year settlement so that’s industry participation, all the gates and contract award in next to no time. Treasury use it or lose it rules apply.. It will more likely be a limited competition between Babcock and BAE but the Type-32 is a big hint and gives the MoD time to see how the initial build of the Type-31 progresses.

Glass Half Full

I’m assuming the commitment to four years of budget increase is because that’s the length of this parliament. Doesn’t mean they’ll be a continuation of the uplift in budget in the next parliament though.

I don’t believe we should be expecting T32 being built or even started in the next four years because it would create a feast and famine shipbuilding schedule that would be counter to the NSS, and a disaster for trying to establish a sustainable ship building industry. It may not even be practical with current shipyard capability and capacity, given the other vessels also required. The earliest delivery might be a continuation on from the T31 production timeline, so late 2020’s, which may also be the earliest to support adequate RN manning. This gives plenty of time for a competition and full design. MoD also know the upper price bounds with T26 and the lower price bounds with T31, so should have realistic understanding on costs going in.

I’d be surprised if an up-armed T31 didn’t win, Babcock would seem to have a number of advantages and its not clear what another design could offer that would provide a significant advantage.

4th watch

Well thought through.

Ron5

Nowhere in the announcement did it say the cost of the new Type 32’s would be met out of the increase.

Something different

I agree about whether there is a need for more frigates. If there is money to spend, an extra three AAW escorts or subs would make for a more balanced force.

James Fennell

Is there any evidence that the T-31 is particularly noisy? I read an excellent assessment of the Iver Huitfeld carried out by Logimatic for the Danish Navy which says ‘The frigate is constructed with a view to attaining a low radar signature, low infrared radiation as well as a low radiation of underwater noise and low magnetic signature’. The report also points out the ships has exceptionally low vibration levels even at high speed. 
‘https://www.logimatic.dk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/SeenSailed_Enkeltsider_Www.pdf

Ron5

Mostly an advertisement that repeats the debunked claim that the ships are a third of the cost of everybody else’s. I wouldn’t put much faith into it if I were you.

Badger.

Thanks James, I’ll have a look at that.

Deep32

James, T31 hasn’t been built yet, so no evidence either way really. However, cost of building T31 and propulsion mode would seem to point to fact that ASW is not a design consideration. Noise reduction for ASW ops is expensive, hence the T26.

4th watch

However if you are part of a strike force the noisiest element is your weak point.

Deep32

Absolutely, that’s one reason why the T45 engine upgrade is important.

James Fennell

I think the hull design is predetermined and I imagine the Danes designed it to have a low accoustic signiture as they are currently adapting its smaller sisters for ASW.

Propulsion is a valid point, although the T26’s CODLOG is less fancy than the T23s CODLAG, or the monstrously complex IEP of T45, it does allow the turbine and diesels to be disconnected from the hull. T31s CODAD is direct drive.

Nevertheless I would not write them off as ASW platforms without.a lot more information. Plenty of navies use direct drive CODAG or CODOG frigates for ASW, such as the ANZACs and Canadian Halifaxes.

One advantage of CODAD is that its simple and robust with plenty of excess electrical power generation, and modern high speed marine diesels are quiet and vibration free – hopefully less fragile than the other systems and thus less time in refit.

Also we have to ask if offboard systems will change the dynamic?. If a T31 carries a virtually silent XLUUV with a tail and datalink via a UAV, does it really matter beyond self-protection? She can hunt subs stealthily with her offboard systems.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
Deep32

Hi James, sorry wasn’t very clear in my original post when referring to cost. Wasn’t alluding to hull design, but more the lack of noise reduction methods- rafting etc, which is where a lot of money goes in construction. The hull design only has a minimal impact acoustically.
Yes, many navies use some form of diesel propulsion for their ASW units, but to be effective and not hinder towed array performance, these units will have substantial noise reduction technology built into the hulls.
Whilst modern diesels are far quieter then previous, unless properly rafted and insulated with still transmit noise through the hull. As this noise is generally in the low frequency range, it travels long distances in water.
You are a little confused with your propulsion modes, any engine configuration that has a high speed diesel engine (350 erpm+), and/or a turbine will have a reduction gearbox, so aren’t really Direct Drive engines, but Diesel Reduction systems.
I think we are still some way off using XLUUVs in the manner you describe, ultimately that is the goal, but not just yet. There are some significant hurdles to overcome with power,comms and control before they will be able to function in that fashion.
Cheers.

James Fennell

By direct drive I mean there is a mechanical connection between engine and prop (through reduction gears obviously), rather than a power feed to separate electric motors. My understanding is that the IH’s in Danish navy service have rafted diesels.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
X

We need a direct replacement for HMS Scott. We can’t operate a nuclear submarine fleet fully without one.

I just hope the ship is RN or RFA and not operated under some ‘scheme’ which sees the likes of SERCO involved.

Steve

Not sure what she would do with submarines?
Ate you not thinking about RFA diligence? Disposed of now though.

Deep32

HMS Scott collects all sorts of oceanographic data, which finds its way into things such as publications, charts and sonar aids. All of which are used by submarines. Not replacing her would be a huge miss for the RN in general and SMs in particular.

don

RFA diligence replacement needed as well since more far east operations seem to be in the pipeline for the navy

David Broome

A Sir David Attenborough with a 30mm/LMM provides a decent template

X

It could have WW2 40mm Bofors to satisfy its gunnery needs.

Scott was built around her sonars.

Steven Jones

I think you mean “Boaty McBoatface” 😂😂😂

theantipodean

OK HMS Boaty McBoatface then (with a 30mm/LMM pannier)

James Fennell

The multi-purpose survey vessel is the Scott replacement. With added capabilites like extra-large unmanned subsurface vessels (drone subs) I should think.

X

Type 32 sounds wishy-washy. We need a ninth T26. It makes T31 sound a bit ‘rushed’.

Deep32

TBH, we probably need 10. That would give us 6-7 available at any given time, allow any CSG a much more credible ASW escort force, without having to see what NATO units we could use. Can’t see it happening though!!

X

We need 12 to 16.

3 for 1 with 9 would give us one for the North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea and 2 for elsewhere. You could program for 10. But you say it yourself ‘6 to 7’. A tenth hull brings nothing really.

Deep32

Fair point wrt 3 for 1, but still think that extra 1 would be useful for CSG protection – 3 is better than 2, especially as the T45’s don’t bring much to the ASW game apart from some deck space for a Merlin…

Yes it would need some planning to have the 7 instead of 6, but not beyond the realms, then again, 12 is always better than 10…..

X

It is planning man as well as hull availability.

The rule of three is a bit old hat perhaps. But it gives you a reference point to start at.

Teves

Rule of three is being watered down they are aiming for 300 days at sea when available, maintenance every 5 years which is why they planned for 8

X

I don’t care what the MoD(N) is doing. They have to work with what they have. It is far from optimal. We are in a mess because they can’t plan.

theantipodean

Why not 16-24!! We have to avoid fantasy fleet stuff.. Frankly 5 uparmed Type-31 Batch IIs would bring surface escorts to 24 and that’s 16 hulls available for deployment. A vast improvement over right now. Let’s take the wins, get the ships built on budget for a change and add capability rather than sinking them with cost while on the drawing board.

X

Looking at our commitments its what I think we in the UK need; 12 first rare ASW ships. More realistic than talking about 5 (why 5?) up armed B2 T31. Most of the discussions here are ‘fantasy fleets’.

Ron5

10 ships “brings nothing” over 9 because 10 is not a multiple of 3 ?????

That just might be the dumbest comment I have ever read on this forum. And that’s saying a lot.

James Fennell

My hope is that the Type 4X replacement for the Type 45s is a truly mulitpurpose platform, like a US destroyer. Six of those plus the eight T26s would be enough for escorting the carriers. Then the ten T-31 / T-32s can do the all of the other tasks including escorting the amphibs and RFAs. I’d like to see the T45s get a weapons and sensor upgrade for Anti-Ballistic Missile capability. Defence against very long ranged weapons will become important.

Meirion X

Fitted with a triangular array of fixed AESA panels, at the top of the mask, will give you a 360 degree field of view. Vital to detect sea simming missiles.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Andy a

I’m no where near as knowledgeable as some on here but apart from cash is there any reason us navy ships can do everything surface sub and air warfare would it not make sense for nation with less ships crew and cash (yes us) to do the same so each ship can deploy any where anytime?

Meirion X

You mean the Arleigh Burke destoryers? They are suppose to be very good at anti air warfare. But I have doubts about them being very good at ASW due to they only have gas turbines engines, and not have had rafted diesel engines.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Meirion X

I will be interested to know will the Type 32 frigate be a step up from the T31? I still think the RN should ask for one more T26 to meet the ‘rule of three’.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
X

This T32 news does sound odd. A ninth T26 is a must.

Jim

Great news!

And how should this be funded? By weening the UK population of the vast benefits that they have become accustomed to from the Blair years forward.

NHS needs to decide what is necessity and what is nice to have
Parents need to be informed that children are their responsibility (We provide support through various schemes so why is the Rashford scheme even getting off the ground)
etc
etc

Defense of the realm is sadly something that many within the nation have forgotten. But then many dont really see themselves as British, either considering themselves as European first, or have only moved to the UK for economic reasons and have no pride in the nation

borg

looks like you are another target of the down voter mate.

Something different

That sure is a long complaints list. Defence is important but so is ensuring kids don’t go hungry (regardless of whether it’s their parents fault or through socio economic circumstances).

borg

No excuse for not feeding your Kids though. Looking after them and providing the basics should be every parents no 1 goal, Benefits or not.

borg

Interesting to see this attracted the Down voter. would really like to see an actual reason why ?

borg

Obviously you would be a rubbish parent, not wanting to even provide food for your children.

John Clark

Excellent sound reasoning Jim, it doesn’t go down well with the Woke set!

The benefits budget is jaw dropping, absolutely enormous despite efforts to cap individual claims…

I don’t know if it was actually achieved, but I believe the thrust of the reform was to ensure an average family on benefits, can’t claim more than £24,000 a year in total.

This figure based on a family with two kids and an average wage.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me….

Unfortunately, many people in the UK feel a sense of ‘entitlement’, the Government’s job is to look after me!

I claim a nice round figure in benifits, absolutely zero, I look after my family and work hard running my business and live within my budget.

It’s called personal responsibility, it’s what some of us do to pay the taxes that pay to keep the country solvet.

Some folks need a good wake up call and kick up the arse!

Interesting that Defence is finally a rising priority, a positive step forward for the UK.

A clean Brexit, Covid defeated and rising defence spending underpinned by a strongly growing economy (make no mistake, our flexible service based economy will spring back quickly), will make for a great few years ahead for the UK!

Andy

There is no such thing as a entitlement unless someone has first met a obligation.

To quote a former Prime minister.

Ian

Jim…..another Blair legacy is so many students doing irrelevant courses that don’t necessarily bring much benefit to the UK. But they do seem to get a left of centre anti military bias taught to them

Damo

Students doing irrelevant courses has been going on for decades. Not sure how you can blame it on Blair.

Worth looking at the economics of university education over the last 20 years since it stopped being free in England. Huge money making machine, bigger employers plus delays thousands of 18 year olds from flooding a job market every year and the impact it would have on benefits etc. There’s the other element of a more educated workforce

David Broome

Wonderful news. Bravo PM as this is a red letter day.

That said, the Type-32 is surely the Type-31 Batch II? As this is a four year funding settlement, it is hard to see how a whole new frigate would go from drawing board to contract award in that short period.

The Type-31 will be well underway allowing for an uparmed Batch II with, say for example, 36 SeaCeptor, i-SSGW, VDS (eg Captas-2) and ASW torpedoes to augment the Type-26. This enables 19 credible escorts for Carrier Strike with the 5 GP Batch I Type-31s having incremental upgrades (like another 12 SeaCeptor and Block II+ upgraded Harpoons also for the Type-45 with rounds for the P8-A).

That’s a lot of capacity and comes on a hot building line when costs will be known. 24 major surface units would be great and it appears to have the fiscal headroom for capable UUAVs to make up the lack of SSNs that accords with cyber.

The weakness in what the PM said was a lack of announcement for the second tranche of 48 F35Bs (or even confirming a reduction in the planned acquisition but confirming that with a firm order for 58).

Despite the extra money Dreadnought has to be funded from the MoD that presents fiscal risk.

On the upside the Batch II rivers may also get lethality upgrades like 40mm and a pair of 30mm with LMMs.

Last edited 1 month ago by David Broome
David Broome

PS Watch for a potential greening of the Type-32 propulsion (hybrid drive or maybe hydrogen). This allows the RN makes an appreciative nod to the PM’s agenda and that of the IMO.

Meirion X

It so the T32 frigate powered by Hydrogen, this would be useful for a ASW role as well.

merchantman

I think with the Dreadnaughts we should build 3 at the present planned rate but build the 4th slower and build it along side Astute replacement and never commission it. Its back up surely and as such the less spent on it the better.

theantipodean

That achieves nothing than adding a lot of cost I am sorry.

X

No. You need 4 SSBN’s. I would have 5 or 6. You need to think about work scheduling at Barrow. SSN(R) will be bigger even than Astute.

Ron5

“That said, the Type-32 is surely the Type-31 Batch II? As this is a four year funding settlement, it is hard to see how a whole new frigate would go from drawing board to contract award in that short period”

Nobody has said that it would.

theantipodean

It is a four year settlement so if it is not awarded then it goes back to Treasury. The clock is ticking.

Ron5

That’s is totally irrelevant to the Type 32’s. Nowhere does it say or imply that their entire cost will be met out of this settlement.

Meirion X

Most likely this settlement will just include the R & D cost for T32 over the next 4 years.

If say, MoD started some construction of T32 in early 2025, that new money would only cover costs of T32 of that Financial year.
Further build costs would need to be carried over to a new settlement for the future following years.

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
Andy a

Can I ask any one where idea of up armed type 31 is coming from? Has any one said that or we just assuming? Could be stripped t31 with no offensive capabilities except hugging enemy to death

rec

Its good to see a replacement for HMS Scott , survey ships are vital to providing navigate deep sea routes for submarines. I would think the T32 is a higher spec T31.

D M

Chicken feed. I voted for Boris but he failed to answer a single question put to him by the opposition. Will our armed forces be cut? no answer. More money, good but you just cut 8bn off the budget in the last 10 years and what about the 13bn blackhole in the MOD budget? no answer. How are you paying for it? no answer. As for “space command” frankly that’s just bizarre. Is he aping DT, I know they joke he does. Why on earth would the navy need another frigate type when it doesn’t even have enough of the current ones on order. Personally I think they have lost the plot if they think 4bn annually is going to do anything but slow the rot. Still 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing, I guess.

Last edited 1 month ago by D M
Rob

I reckon Gen Carter will be replaced by an RN Admiral pretty sharpish.

James Fennell

Nick Carter has to be congratulated to get this through.The Army will get fewer men and a lot more robots, in many ways they will have the biggest culture shock and its brave of him to take that forward.

Pacman27

Not at all, he is the worst GCS in years and one of the primary reason the MOD has such a terrible reputation.

do not forget he was directly responsible for FRES which has spent a fortune and received absolutely nothing in return after 10 years.

the RN leadership over the past 10-15 years in particular have been very impressive and I think deserve the real credit here, as do the RAF who have some pretty impressive capabilities.

if we can get out of some of the crazy PFI’s and sort the ground force out then I think this is indeed a red letter day for the military.

one thing I always try to remind people of is that the military offer opportunities to everyone from all walks of life and is often the only true career path for those who have had a bad start in life. Most bases are also located in areas of high deprivation and the jobs they provide are also generally in poor areas. So all in all the value of our military should not be under estimated.

Ron5

Very good comment.

James Fennell

I fail to see how the CDS who delivered the biggest defence uplift since the Cold War is a failure. He was director of Army Resources from 2006-9, long after FRES had kicked off in 2002 -in fact he got the programme rationalised, Scout SV ordered and the UV selected, although the last decision was reversed during the 2010 SDSR, after he had left for Helmand. He was leading 20th Armoured in Basra in 2003-6 and in Afghanistan from 2001-3 – very far from FRES.

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
X

Nice to see the Downvoter has got in early. Well done Downvoter. Let’s see some more!

Damo

I down voted your comment on t32 being wishy washy as i felt you were being negative. You can’t expect to hear full details on day 1. Other than that, keep commenting. We don’t all need to agree

X

You though are not the individual who downvotes my posts multiple times for kicks thread after thread.

Thank you for giving permission to continue to post.

Damo

My pleasure. I also give you permission to keep bleating about down votes. You don’t need to thank me but I like it when you do

Steven Jones

He was giving you encouragement not permission. PS: I down voted your comment for being “snarky”. 😂😂😂

X

🙂

X

See Not A Boffin post below re T32. As I said it is nothing of real substance. Not negative but fact.

And thanks again for allowing me to make comments.

Something different

Sure are a lot of wishy washy snowflakes on this site who, probably, ironically like complaining about ‘over sensitive’ snowflake PC millennials etc etc

ANDREW JOHN WILDE

Surely the Type 32 frigate is for export only.

Charlie

It’s there to fill a gap in escorts we would still have with the frigates ordered as of now. And I would assume it would also be for export like the type 31. I heard there is plenty of interest from other nations in the type 31 which would be great for the shipbuilding industry. To meet that demand you would need more than one shipyard to do that. This would allow the type 32 to be a modified type 31 with the potential to be built at the same shipyard/s without the need to rip everything out and start again for a new class of ships. This would sort of make sense. But as of now we really don’t have any clue about the type 32 other than that it’s highly likely a batch 2 type 31 or other version for a different task in the fleet

Ron5

“But as of now we really don’t have any clue about the type 32 other than that it’s highly likely a batch 2 type 31”

I am not sure we even know that.

theantipodean

The big clues are 1 Type-32 and 2 this being a four-year settlement so the new frigate will not be a clean sheet design given the Type-31 was announced when Cameron was PM. As for the speculation by others of the MCM, the Batch II River is more likely to provide a suitable platform with MCM modules allowing for fewer hulls but the same capability.

Ron5

I believe you are misreading the announcement. Nowhere did it declare that the Type 32’s would be built with the new money.

Steven Jones

So the Type 32 is an export version of the Type 31 whose design was driven by it’s desirability on the export market ? Hmmm.

Teves

No t31 was down armed due to a silly price tag set by morons who no nothing about what a warship look like and how much it costs.

Dave Wolfy

If they are being bought for the RN, they can’t be.

N-a-B

Definitely a good news day – primarily because of the emphasis on maritime power. However – none of that four-year settlement is likely to result in new ships etc now. What it does do is give some certainty to the IR, so MoD can crack on and define the shape of the force. Any more single year settlements would have resulted in ruinous drift and waste of money.

Type 32 is almost certainly just a placeholder for a programme in the mid-30s. It has no substance as yet, but hopefully will lead to a new design in the late 20s, exercising the right skills in both industry and MoD at the right time. Use them, or lose them.

Hopefully, the eventual number of F35 can now be confirmed in the IR – along with the force structure. I’d expect it to be less than the 138, but hopefully in the 70-80 bracket. That would give a forward fleet of 50-ish, which would support three operational squadrons, plus an OEU/OCU and attrition reserve. Not ideal, but better than 48 with 30 in the forward fleet.

A replacement for Scott would be very welcome both for the navy and for UK shipbuilding. The biggest worry is that we expand the industry to build T26, T31 and then FSS at the same time, expecting that commercial shipbuilding will backfill the order books. It won’t – but an (as yet unfunded) T32, Research vessel and potentially T4X will go some way to making multiple yards viable. The proof will be if and when the ring-fenced capital budget the shipbuilding strategy called for is produced. Not holding my breath on that one.

One also hopes that the funding allows for the important stuff. Not Top Trumps kit fests, but proper ILS, support, spares and manning that means the availability of the existing fleet improves and becomes less of a rob Peter to pay Paul exercise.

Lots to be pleased with, but the price tag yet to come. Someone’s going to pay – and it isn’t going to be The Black Watch (there’s probably a joke in there somewhere…..).

Last edited 1 month ago by N-a-B
Steven Jones

Announcing a reduction of our F35B order would just hand Biden a stick to beat us with, we can just continue our slow rate of purchase and retire the older, less capable ones as the new builds enter service.

Challenger

That may well be what happens in the long-term but in the shorter term there will still need to be a plan mapped out for the fleet size/structure so i’d imagine we’ll eventually see a commitment to 70-80 jets up to roughly 2030 with future purchases left undecided so as not to look like we’re shirking our commitment to The States.

Ron5

That makes a lot of sense.

theantipodean

What I am hoping for is a second lot order of 48 with the government also announcing plans for a third lot. If that 3rd lot does not happen it leaves 96 (84 once the early builds that will not be upgraded and operational conversion are factored in). Assuming two thirds availability, that means around 55 F35Bs that would a credible minimum. As someone else has suggested, a firm commitment now to 58 in lot 2 (with a review thereafter) would be even better. As 15% of the F35B is made in Britain so a 2nd/3rd lot helps international sales campaign to Australia, Singapore, South Korea, Japan etc.

Ron5

Aircraft “availability” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Roders96

It also gives us a better negotiating position in a trade deal..

Are we due to make one, over the next couple years?

Andy

Don’t get me wrong cash most welcome but designing whole new set of frigates sounds like wasting cash, can’t crew ships we have already!
Why not upgun rivers and type 31 before building more fantasy fleets we can’t arm or crew

X

While not needed for police work for combat these days full aviation facilities are a must have for an escort. Upgunning a River would be a waste.

DaveyB

For policing and fishery protection work, I don’t see a need of up-gunning the Rivers. However, I don’t see why it can’t have its own VTOL UAV such as the S100 Camcopter. On the B2s’ put a 20ft ISO down one side next to the crane and you have an instant hangar. The S100 is only 3.1m (10.2ft) long and at its widest 1.24m (4.1ft), so in theory a pair could be housed, plus everything needed for maintaining them. A UAV of this type would significantly enhance the ship’s ability for long range surveillance and catch people unawares, illegally fishing.

X

The Rivers are good ships. Just not very good packages. A hutch for a small UAV would be useful. But there is a vast difference between a UAV for police work and a helicopter for combat, liaison etc.

Andy a

True but the cousins are arming firescout with number of missles would this not be very cheap way of adding capability to patrol ships

Peter S.

My view also. The T31 is set to be so weakly armed as to have little combat effectiveness beyond its own self defence. Spend some of the new money on uparming these now rather than waiting for a fightier version in 10+ years time. We also need to address the lack of up to date heavy ASMs.
Whilst I think the additional money is real, much of the rest is just Boris playing fantasy fleets.

Terence Lindley

Reading between the lines the new Type 32 is probably going to be a multi-role light frigate of about 3,000 tonnes to replace the Enterprise survey ships as well as the Hunt and Sandown class MCM designed for operations in the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific regions.
Something like the Fassmer OPV 2020: https://www.fassmer.de/en/shipbuilding/products/navy-vessels/opv-2020

Paul.P

Maybe the 110m BAE Leander hull which competed for T31? Appledore built Enterprise at 90m and HMS Scott at 130m I think.

David Broome

I can’t see that another hull form. More likely MCM would be based on the River class using containerised modules to swap capability between vessels that leverages the Batch 2 Rivers too.

Teves

That would be at best a corvete, most likely a sloop but no way a frigate.

Teves

Better to redirect the black swan concept for MCM, survey ships, future opv’s, etc common hull, engines plus may be 2 props for normal ops and a water jet to help get in or out of a tough spot, mission bay below flight deck that can accommodate iso containers, work boats, ribs etc, even get the hanger bay along with ribs either side, could even make the bay to remove the davits to carry Merlin plus Apaches or uav’s so it can act as a mini strike ship to land 50 marines with equip and vehicles, could even bring back gun ports to the mission bay to fit torpedo launchers or ADL’s to launch ASM’s this would be a true multi purpose boat/ mother ship. Oops I am dreaming again.

Paul

The Type 32 is in reality an export version of Type 31 with all the bells and whistles Type 31 should have from the start, not a new design etc. As we have yet to lay down the first vessel in class, why not just build 10 x Type 32?

Bigmac

This is some of the best news for the Royal Navy in 50 years. One question is where is the personnel coming from. My understanding is the RN is still some 2K people short of what is needed for the fleet they have, especially in engineering positions.

Jon

The government seems to be coming from the position of “how do we boost the economy” not just “how do we boost defence”. Capital expenditure and research boost the economy, but employing more people directly may be an argument the First Sea Lord will have to make separately. It could be as “simple” as downsizing the army to pay for the navy. That would be something Wallace could get the nod from the cabinet from pretty easily.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
DaveyB

The problem for the Army is that they are too front line focused. They did this after the last down sizing by binning a lot of the support elements such artillery, signallers, engineers, loggies etc. The Army are struggling to put together a meaningful battle group. They need to rebalance their footprint before any cuts in manpower are made. I can’t see any of the foot regiments upping sticks and becoming loggies. However, I do agree the Navy’s manpower is too small. I think it was Wallace who wanted to know if the Navy could currently man all of its ships and was finally given the answer of no. Therefore if Boris wants the Navy to do its job its manning has to be properly scaled and increased, but not at the expense of the other two services, who are also struggling with manpower.

Glass Half Full

I think a lot of the manning issues get addressed with T23 coming out of service. If MCM migrates to mission modules predominantly using T31 (and perhaps T32), RFA, commercial platforms and shore then the aging out of MCMV provides additional headcount.

Its also a question of timing. If as seems possible T32 follows on in timeline from T31, so late 2020’s, then we have almost a decade to build experience in new recruits and add to experience of existing personnel.

TrevorH

Yes, 24 new model escorts would be economic in manning. The carriers are economic for manning as well, excluding its air wing. 24 escorts would need 5 more chief enginerts of course. And 5 more captains…

OOA

Excellent news. Made my day.

Don

“new multi-role research vessel”

Was it not new multi role research vessels in Boris speech 8mins 15 secs

Also FSL
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdmTonyRadakin/status/1329474978664882176

Or is plural referring to all the different types of ships referred to.

Last edited 1 month ago by Don
Sunmack

One element of the announcement was about closing existing capability gaps. Trying to stay realistic, what would be the top 5 current capability gaps you’d seek to address?

Mine would be:

1) Equip the F35 with Storm Shadow and NSM to give it a proper stand off land and sea attack capability
2) Buy additional medium lift helicopters to carry Crows Nest and undertake plane guard duties thus releasing the Merlin’s to focus on ASW
3) Equip two thirds of the escort fleet with a long range SSM. Those without would be deployed with the carrier whose F35’s would carry out the anti-ship role
4) Install the additional VLS on the T45 that they were equipped for and make these compatible with carrying a TBMD missile (either SM6 or ASTER 30 NT, whichever is the more effective)
5) Scrap the T31, add the savings to the new investment and build a further 6 T26.

And I’m going to cheat and add 1 more. Put hangars in the last five Rivers so that they can actually take over maritime interdiction, search and rescue, anti-piracy and disaster relief missions in place of a frigate.

Dave

The contracts are already signed for t31. Pulling out would be an incredible waste of money.

We have to accept they’re on their way

TrevorH

I see it as 5 light frigates, 8 anti sub warfare, 5 heavy frigates and 6 anti aircraft destroyers. The T31s are quite large as it is so its quite possible the T32 could use it as a basis.

But 2 new types are now awaiting to be developed.. T32 and T4X. If the 32 is determined to be cutting edge, and not hyperbole, then could they based on the same platform. Even ignoring that… just what modern cutting edge equipmemt can we fit into a T32 that makes it special?

Possibly the Navy have not worked that out yet.

Dave

Good idea about the medium lift choppers though, anything to get maximum numbers of Merlin’s doing their core role (which they’re extremely good at) seems like a positive

T.S

1: NSM for ALL surface vessels plus a few sets for bays/albions etc for if war breaks out
2: Approx 12-15 new merlins
3: data link and dipping sonar for wildcats
4: additional squadron of F35
5: BMD capability for T45

On top of this we need new armaments for T26 – a modern version of asroc but with spearfish attached, invest in Camm-er and something like SM2. The CEC for T45 would be handy too.

DaveyB

I think I’d actually place CEC at the top of the list, followed by additional Merlins. The reasons for this is that, yes you can use Link-16 for data networking, but its incredibly slow and has a very limited bandwidth. By including CEC, initially with the carrier task group and then rolled out amongst the rest of the fleet. It will significantly enhance the groups abilities to counter swarm attacks, which I believe will be the main threat rather than the odd anti-missile attack.

Next up is Merlin. Its scheduled out of service date (OSD) is I believe 2030, which coincides with the in-service date of the US Army’s future medium vertical lift program. The MoD and Leonardo have not announced a replacement or any major developments for Merlin (and Puma whose OSD is 2025). From which I can guess they are waiting on who wins the US Army competition. In any case I do see the OSD being extended, so a new buy would still have plenty of life on it. With the additional demands placed on the HM2 for Crowsnest, will there be enough for ASW duties between the frigates and carrier, plus training and maintenance? How many Merlins will the carrier use for Crowsnest, 3, 4 or more? There aren’t enough Junglie Merlins either that could be kitted for Crowsnest. Then there’s the HM1s sitting at Shawbury gathering dust. These are pretty much bare airframes now, could some money be earmarked to re-establish them and kit them out as dedicated Crowsnest aircraft? This would free up at least eight HM2s for dedicated ASW work. Equip them with a CEC node and the command and control effectiveness increases massively.

Ron5

“Then there’s the HM1s sitting at Shawbury gathering dust”

That ship has sailed. They are past any VFM recovery.

Meirion X

Spearfish weighs 2 tons! You would need a large ICBM to launch it!
Stringray is much lighter to launch.

T.S

Of course! Stingray, got them the wrong way round.

theantipodean

You are aware the TOTAL MoD capital plan is an extra 7 billion? You have just dropped 6 billion on 6 more Type-26 that leaves the Royal Navy exactly where it is today with 19 surface escorts. That also leaves 1 billion for your wish list not forgetting Army and the RAF, Dreadnought and F35B Lot 2.

Oh and Babcock will be entitled to claim 1.25 billion in cancellation costs so you only save 750 million. In other words, say what?

The Type-31 is a perfect upgradable GP frigate that replaces the 5 GP Dukes. With 750 million built into the Type-31 contract by the MoD there is scope for GFE (that could, I hope, include Block II+ kits for the Harpoons coming off the Type-23 and for the Type-45).

The Type-32 is I hope a Batch II Type-31 designed for general escort (full load of Seaceptor, i-SSGW like the Type 26 and a COTS VDS). This allows the Type-31 and Rivers for homewaters and for extended East of Suez deployments with 19 escorts for carrier strike and to support Faslane.

That is achievable from the extra capital investment and grows the RN to 24 surface escorts.

Iminwayovermyhead

Just up arm everything we already have pls

Rob

Since c1700 British defence has been based upon a strong navy and a small professional army for foreign deployment backed up by a large militia / army reserve should it be needed. The advent of aviation meant that we also need a good air force. This spending round is a reset, we are simply putting our defence posture back to what it has been for 300 years.

X

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This should have happened 25 plus years ago. A return to the sea. The Army reduced and rerolled into a force like the USMC.

WW1 and WW2 ran against the grain of our history. The Army’s place in the nation’s psyche is a result of two things. Armies being personnel intensive so the organisation’s profile was raised considerably. And our Establishment’s want us to become European.

Duker

You could argue the opposite. The Napoleonic wars and WW1 and WW2 set the pattern since the early 1800’s- which book ended the anomaly of most of the 19th century distractions in building an empire in Africa and Asia. The Empire has gone of course. WW2 especially was a major war at sea of course

X

WW2 was a major war at sea. But how much larger in personnel terms was the Army? Or consider the RAF based at home? How much a higher profile do you think they would have?

During the Napelonic era the army was very much the junior partner. It aided allies on the Continent, but it wasn’t a vast force.

And in terms of Empire the Army followed on after explorers, the RN, merchants, etc. We didn’t really conquer the Empire. A few military distractions here and there were far outweighed by trade, diplomacy, and naval actions.

You need to consider the make up of British, French, and Central Powers forces for the late 1700’s and 1800’s. To follow your line of reasoning the CP would have had a large fleet too, but they didn’t. We had a large navy and small army, the French had a large army and a large (but not as large as ours) navy, and the CP were land based.

Too much WW2 fantasy on this site.

Harryb

The Army is not the USMC nor should it be. It must maintain the ability to conduct as full a range of land warfigting as possible, in an independent way.

X

True. The USMC is better armed for a start. How does an army fight independently without a large sea based logistical chain? Do you know a division in the field consumes thousands and thousands of stores to sustain itself? Armies are the least ‘independent’ arm.

Harryb

All three armed services have a job and must be able to achieve that. Are navy must not come at the expense of are army or airforce and vice virca. This inter service hating is no good and just what the treasury wants.

X

What does the Army do that the Royal Marines could not do? And why can’t all our air assets be FAA?

The Army is currently at the right size but desperately needs vehicles and artillery. We need ships to move it.

Harryb

The royal marine cant deploy division size all arms forces. And the air assets shouldn’t be FAA as it’s a tactical airforce that focuses on the need of the navy. Not the strategic elements of air power or the tactical needs of areal warfare. By its very nature the FAA is focused on the sea.

X

I think you are more hung up on tribes preserving tribes than the job at hand.

Harryb

There a reason why practically every other country has tree services. So what you want to transfer every aircraft to the FAA? Then the they will be responsible for every task currently preformed by the RAF. In which case the issue will still exist as one naval officer wants more investment in istar capacity and the other in ship born helicopters.

Harryb

Also it’s worth noting the usmc is a separate service to the USN, unlike the RM.

X

That is very true and something many don’t realise.

Duker

Yep. The new RM uniform has a toned down version of the white ensign as upper arm patchcomment image

X

It’s says on your id card you are RN.

Don

Multi role research vessels.

Seabed data cable security is becoming more to the fore.

Could we see Minehunters and hydrographic survey vessels roled up together in a new class of multi role research vessels that key tasks will include minewarfare , ocean survey , data cable security, operation of ROVs
AUVs and USVs.

Something different

After this good news does this site need a name change? 😉

Duker

keep the Royal Navy Great ?

borg

Maybe we should have a Vote.

borg

:0

Stu

😀

TrevorH

“Saved The Royal Navy”?

Daniel

Regarding the Type 31, and the Type 32 if it is based on the Type 31 / Iver Huitfeld hull – The base design has two forward gun positions, surely a combination of 5″ for NGS and anything heavy, and a 57mm for lighter, smaller targets and some close range AAW work would make sense if the Type 31 is to be “up-gunned”. Both of these weapons are in US inventory so guided munitions will continue to be developed for them for some time, and support should never be an issue. I am aware that there is currently a 40mm in the upper gun position, but couldn’t this be feasibly moved aft to have a 40mm weapon on each side of the ship similar to the two 30mm on the T23’s and T45’s?

Meirion X

Put the 57mm on the T45. That would allow the under deck gun magazine to be removed, which could allow the silo to be extended a bit, maybe to 64 cells.

borg

So lets add it all up. 7 new Subs, 8 type 26’s, 5 type31’s, 5 type 32’s (?), 3 FFS and 1 multi role research vessel. That’s 29 Ships and Subs being built in the UK. At least. great for Jobs, great for Industry, Great for Taxes and a great boost in national pride.

4th watch

I think its blooming great. Year after year things slid down and down. Now we are reversing the trend. Maybe 2021 can become the turning point for a lot more.

borg

After a bit of Searching I have found a reference to the Type 32. Look up Audacious Class Trimaran. i can’t post the link. It’s just a Concept but we did build a scaled version called Triton I believe.

Last edited 1 month ago by borg
Teves

Looks like an interesting fit although I get the feeling you won’t get change from 1 billion each with the weapons fit. I bet they won’t spend more than 3 billion for 5 hills, won’t be surprised if we end up with 5 t31s with 32 mk41 mix of aster30, asroc, tomahawks ASM,s and 24 sea ceptor, torpedo launcher from t23, dragon fire laser.

borg

I guess we won’t know anything until some actual facts are published. Oh and welcome to the Club mate, looks like you have an admirer !

borg

so predictable !

Teves

What is with down voting meaning less posts

borg

It’s a feature for people who can’t debate, have nothing to offer, multi accounts and sad little lives. there is no worth in this feature as it just gets abused. As mentioned a few times, It will eventually go from here like so many other places and then these people will have no other option other than to join in healthy debate.

N-a-B

You do realise that it’s a completely fictional fantasy site? Everything on it – with the exception of the reference to demonstrator vessel RV Triton – is made up.

RV Triton still exists (just) – currently laid up and for sale in Hull docks IIRC after spending the majority of her life as a chartered in Australian Border Force asset. Triton was built purely to validate the numerical modelling for hydrodynamic and structural loading at large scale – she was about 2/3 the scale of a putative surface combatant.

Trouble with trimarans was – and still is – that once you get to a certain size their benefits over a monohull are very limited and below that size they are actually very hard to make work as a functioning ship.

Last edited 1 month ago by N-a-B
borg

Yes mate, It was why I said Fictitious on another Thread on UKDJ. However It was all I could find anywhere on the Internet so thought it might be of Interest to some on here as nothing is really known yet. well not by us normal folk that is. Do you have any Info mate ?

N-a-B

It’s a placeholder. It’s not real (just like T4X). At some stage later this decade, it’ll hopefully start becoming real. Not before.

borg

Well I hope not though. Truth be known it’s something many here would love to see. A return to the importance of a strong Navy and all the benefits it will have in the future, not just post Brexit. I also would like to think that the Type 45’s will be replaced eventually too, Ok maybe T4X is not a goer but something will replace them without a doubt .

N-a-B

T4X is a goer. It will be the T45 replacement. It just doesn’t exist as a formally defined requirement yet, which means that it can’t yet be designed, let alone have folk play Top Trumps over what it should and shouldn’t have. All in good time.

T32 is exactly the same – a placeholder programme that will (hopefully) be funded once its in the Equipment Plan timeline horizon (normally 10 years).

Last edited 1 month ago by N-a-B
X

You said that no long back on ARSE. 🙂

borg

What’s an ARSE apart from the obvious ?

X

Army Rumour Service

borg

OH……. and the “E” ?

X

Armour Rumour SErvice

borg

What do you know of the Independence Class mate ? 19 ships in total, how do they perform ?

Duker

Yes. Their issues dont seem to be connected to the ‘tri-hull’ designcomment image

borg

I know they are designed for Littoral Waters but they are very interesting designs. Fast and stealthy with various equipment options and they are not much heavier than our Rivers.

X

Crap

borg

Littoraly, ? Lol.

X

It’s hard to believe the most advance navy in the world could come up with such an ill founded concept that goes against common sense.

borg

Zumwalt doesn’t seem too clever either, Or so I keep reading.

X

Zumwalts don’t even have Aegis.

You would think they would remove those guns. Fit a Mk 45 mount in one of the wells. And put something else in t’other. 🙂

TrevorH

Or cost. It was the military-industrial complex on speed. Loads of money leeching out of the US taxpayer into self interested parties. I’m guessing there are many examples. The Bradley(?) another.

X

Bradley is unique. It is both a failure and successful too! 🙂

Andy a

The cut them all didn’t they and only built a couple

branaboy

The reference to a Type 32 Audacious class trimaran is a fantasy game site. There however was a R&D Trimaran vessel, Triton, built by the UK back in the 1990s as part of the research for the Future Surface Combatanat that has resulted in the Type 26 City class frigate. Here is the link from Think Defence which has a comprehensive write up on the FSC http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/the-type-26-frigate/type-26-frigate-history 

borg

No ! you don’t say lol !

borg

I only posted that as It was the only reference to a Type 32 I could find, This was hot off the press at the time before most people had really noticed BJ’s reference to a Type 32. I chose to post it to provide a topic for people to discuss. The Triton was a very interesting Ship well worth discussing. The Independence Class of 19 ships Is a Trimaran too.

Scotty

Exellent news, come on – this is whats been needed for a LONG time

Harryb

This is good news. Especially if it becomes true. But as it seems everyone on this page dislikes the army, and hates the RAF. I feel I should point out these improvements are no good in the grand scheme of things of our other forces suffer. I would also like to say that the RN has been fairly well treated in the last few years. The simple reality is a billion pounds will get a division of tanks, a squadron of fighters, and a single ship. I await the dislike.

Harryb

*if

X

HAve up-voted your down votes.

I don’t hate the Army. But an army has little utility in peace unlike a navy. An army is a tool of intervention these days and that has been shown to get us nowhere really. Armies have no reach and no endurance without a large logistical chain.

Harryb

Thank you for that. Although I gravely disagree. Britian requires garrison forces along with training and building forces for local forces. Both jobs that would not sit well with the RM. On top of this while the army logistics footprint is heavy the navy is considerably more so. The logistical challenges of the Falklands far sappased those of Granby, Telic and Herrick.

X

Garrison where?

And why can’t the RM train? I am sure I have tripped over more than a few Bootneck instructors down the years? Or perhaps I am mistaken?

I think you need to read up on logistics.

An army formation cannot move itself strategic distances.

Harryb

Falklands, Cyprus, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kenya and Estonia. All rather boring posts where you stand around looking pretty. Not very fun for a commando force which expects to be kicking in doors. Yes a army formation requires logistic support but so to does a carrier group. This is besides the fact that 100% of people love on land. So the RM are great if you need to deploy a small force within a few miles of the cost from a expensive amphibious vessel. However, if you’re enemy is miles in land and require a large ground force to deal with. Which is happy to be transported by aircraft and commercial standard ships like the point. Then you need an army. The RM simply doesn’t have the logistics to travel far across land. As the army showed it has in the gulf and Afghanistan.

X

In the Falklands there is one reinforce company of infantry. The other 900 souls are RAF bods. One would suggest an RAF Regiment job. But I am sure some other formation used to garrison it at one time.

Kenya? More SF anti-Islam terrorism. Ideal ‘commando territory’.

Afghanistan and Iraq? Really?

Estonia? The Russian ain’t coming. Honest. At least not on land. Under the sea yes.

Enemy miles in land? I am sure the RM (and other ‘marine’ branches) deployed to Afghanistan.

All the Army personnel attached to (what was once) 3 Cdo have done All Arms Commando Course. The RN funds Army units like 29 (RA) Cdo. No reason at all those units or indeed all the land units the UK NEEDS shouldn’t be RM. It won’t happen. You need to expand your thinking a bit. Nearly half the world’s population lives with 100km of the sea. About 30 minutes by Merlin.

Harryb

As for the training yes the RM have instructors. But the Army have battalion set up for that task.

X

I am sure I have been to CTC Lympstone. I am sure I know who gets a better grounding in infantry warfare. But heck you may be right.

Harryb

The difference is when training up local forces. It’s not just infantry skill. Is building the command structure, logistics structure and supporting arms. That why we have the special battalions.

X

To what effect? Why? Why do it? Has Afghanistan passed you by?

Harryb

Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Cameroon and many other nations. And to good effect. Because if those we train fight, we dont have to.

Supportive Bloke

This somewhat ignores the total lack of investment in the surface fleet under New Labour.

Selling off 3 x T23
Cutting T45 12 -> 6
No investment in munitions
Stripped out spares inventory
Delaying the Astute program.
Etc etc

Then send the RN all over the place on Blair’s wars.

That is why there is such a massive investment hill to climb.

Ok Gordon Brown ordered the two carriers – I sometimes wonder if he didn’t do it either out of sorrow or spite.

You either say

a) you need to X. It costs Y. Here is Y get in with it.

or

b) here is a decent pot of money get on with it

X

Politicians messing about with the production drumbeat at Barrow to me is ‘high treason’.

TrevorH

Blair and Brown had the Navy on a string for years before they ordered the carriers, and surely we know they ordered them to appease the Nationalist vote. Not that they were grateful.

Meirion X

Blair only came into office in 1997.
The carriers were proposed in the 1998 SDR, and development started forthwith. So how come Blair had the RN on the string for years before the carriers?

Last edited 1 month ago by Meirion X
donald_of_tokyo

Great news.

Anyway T32 is years away. Fun to talk, but not coming into real within a few years, (and even can disappear, as T24, T25, and T26 did)

On the other hand, what is the most important for RN is the remaining 5 T26 to be ordered. In that case, what equipment shall be there?

Clearly, T26 is under-equipped. Before uparming T31, I think uparming T26 (and T45) has much higher priority.

1: Its radar is “modest” at best. RN can adopt Australian AESA? Or, following T31, can the larger version of N200 4D radar be better option? Actually, adopting SPY-7 like Canada will also be a good idea (looks not so top-heavy, as RAN T26 is).

# In reality, I wanna see British AESA. At least, why not GaN version of Artisan?

2: “48 CAMM” is gradually becoming insignificant, compared to RAN/RCN T26, and US Constellation class design. Can ExLS adopted to increase CAMM to 96 or so? Canadian T26 carries 24 CAMM for CIWS role. Good, Phalanx is not effective against modern ASM, it is well known. But this means, 24 of 48 CAMM is for CIWS role (in view of RCN). In addition, they have 32 ESSM, but RN T26 only has 24 CAMM…

3: FC-ASW is decaded away. Expecting no delay is just irresponsible attitude. RN needs 19 sets of Interim ASM, to equip all of their escorts. If it is NSM, it is not so expensive. Also, it has not much overlap with FC-ASW, if the latter is really intended to replace StormShadow. Completely different class of missile.

Also, adding BMD (or anti-hypersonic missile) capability to T45 will be very important, because it is designed to defend QNLZ and PoW from such threats.

T26 and T45 will face the high-end threats. Can they survive there with current equipment? May be not. T32 will not be sent there, so its modest armament is good enough, I think.

borg

Did you mean Type 31 at the end mate ?

donald_of_tokyo

Thanks, you are right. I meant Type-31.

borg

I agree, I’m also wondering where exactly they would be sent in times of need.

Roders96

Probably the shipyard for refitting.

To be the second wave and replace losses.

Teves

Would be useful if they could find a way to reload camm at sea that would help a lot. That way 24 tubes is enough as long as they are separated so you can still fire one lot of tubes whilst reloading a remote bank of camm launchers like ExLS.

Stej

Oh by the way T26 has 24 Camm up front and another 24 mid ship so that’s a total of 48..

Glass Half Full

IMO it comes down to how a T26 would be used in a hot war in the next 30-40 years of its life. The two high priority roles would be carrier/amphibious group escort along with T45/T4X, or operating in the North Atlantic in conjunction with other surface, sub-surface, air and LEO space surveillance assets. Sub-surface would be unmanned sensor platforms. Air assets would be UK, US, Norwegian and probably Canadian P-8’s plus whatever France commits to. Space assets might either leverage US LEO networks or use UK predominantly LEO assets directed by Space Command. In other words a comprehensive ISTAR picture environment.

In both those roles, either T45/T4X and/or air/space assets provide the high end radar/IR/electronic emissions picture. So while a more performant T26 radar solution would be nice its not essential for these roles, especially given the likelihood of a modern CEC being integrated. If T26 is the basis for T4X then that’s when we move to much higher radar capability and perhaps standardise on that going forward. There will be a number of modern, established, GaN based fixed panel, radar solutions at that point to select from: Raytheon SPY-6, Lockheed SPY-7, Leonardo, Thales, and SEA Technologies just for starters. Some will have already been integrated into the T26 platform. So we can avoid high risk unproven radar solutions.

First time I’ve heard 48 CAMM described as insignificant, so you get a prize for that 😉 We should look at the T45/26 Phalanx as placeholders for directed energy CIWS. For now CAMM provides CIWS up through area air defence. If we really need more than 48, then we can quad pack 8x Mk41 cells and still have 16x Mk41 for something else.

I agree that NSM is a good interim ASM and land attack capability that doesn’t undermine FC/ASW.

T26 can carry BMD in the strike length Mk41, so I don’t see value in adding either Sylver A70 or strike length Mk41 to T45. T26 may not have organic targeting capability, but can source it from other platforms/systems for BMD, using CEC or even just current comms capability.

Teves

MK41 are too expensive for camm use better to use ExLS it’s a 3 cell quad pack 4 of them is 48 camm available plus spreading them about the ship would mean you don’t loose them all if the magazine is hit.

Glass Half Full

Agreed. I was simply pointing out that if we really needed more than 48 CAMM, which was Donald’s suggestion, then we still have the option with the Mk41 cells. Personally I don’t think we would need more and I would prefer to use the cells for Aster 30 or something else.

Andy a

Do we know what missles if any are going on t26? And what happened to interim harpoon replacement?

Glass Half Full

Well I don’t know, but here are some ideas, including some that don’t make sense IMO but get mentioned all the time.

  1. If the RN decide sticking with Aster for the long term makes sense, then Aster 30 (inc Blk 1 NT variant) would be the most obvious first candidate to qualify in Mk41 for the late 2020’s.
  2. If the FC/ASW program delivers both stealth sub-sonic cruise and high supersonic cruise missiles for anti-ship and land attack, then both might be qualified 1H2030’s. If FC/ASW omits some combination of those characteristics, then US options may come into play. However, given the T26 delivery time frame we’d be looking at missiles relevant for the 2030’s on, so I don’t see Tomahawk as viable. The current LRASM (which isn’t currently qualified for surface launch by the USN) is likely to be replaced with the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 winner, so also not viable.
  3. Another popular candidate to eliminate, ASROC, or more accurately Lockheed’s VLA, besides using the US torpedo and having a very limited range, is not rated for launch in higher that Sea State 6 conditions, so helicopters are the better delivery vehicle.
  4. So then we have options like SM-6 and SM-3 for BMD along with Aster Blk 2 BMD which will all need 7m strike length VLS cells. These can leverage CEC or just conventional comms for targeting data from other platforms/systems

For interim harpoon replacement:

  1. NSM, RBS-15, or even just updating Harpoon for the next 10-15 years until FC/ASW is available.
  2. The oft discussed Brimstone or Spear Cap 3 might be options. However, given how infrequently ship launched ASM have been used and the relatively light weight of these missiles for ASuW use, I suspect the RN will want to avoid supporting multiple tiers of capability for logistics and support cost reasons. Spear 3 might be used for precision land attack, but if a T45/T26 is operating with a CSG then the F35B is the best option for this.
  3. Sea Venom from the helicopter would probably address the most likely targets. MBDA is reportedly working to make Sea Venom surface launch capable too.
James Fennell

I like the idea of the new survey vessel protecting undersea cables – we know that is a key vulnerability. With several very large UUVs onboard hopefully.

David

A thought, 13 Hunt- and Sandown-class minehunters currently in service are in need of replacement. Is the magical type 32, to replace them, but with a number of small vehicle drones.

David

Make that vessel drones

X

Drones aren’t as clever as you think and they need to be looked after.

Teves

Look up the work boats RN are using 3 USV work boats to drop drone to detect and destroy mines but they need mother ship, a frigate would be a waste of resource, better using something size of the rivers B2.

Don

I reckon they may rerun the T31e_RFI
Maybe with a few tweaks on spec, instead of fit to receive it will be fitted with. The T32 contract then going to the winning bidder. It could be interesting, you could see anything-
a brand new Leander offering, a H+W Navantia bid, the current T31 bid.
The idea being its a competition and not a shoe in for the exsisting T31 to keep costs competitive.

X

No

Glass Half Full

One other slightly different take on what T32 might look like, would be to construct a family of frigates more like the Absalon class, with the internal multipurpose deck. Not primarily for vehicle transport though.

Applications might include:

  • 1) Serve as command platforms with a containerized command and control centre to address an LSS-lite role with up to 200 personnel.
  • 2) Support amphibious force command and control along with a more numerous fleet of low cost, small, fast, more flexible amphibious platforms, halfway between the USN LAW concept and say the Damen LST 120. The new amphibious ship concept would replace the Albion and Bay-class vessels that are increasingly vulnerable in their war time roles, and in the Albion-class case under utilised in the peacetime role. Higher numbers of the new amphibious concept ship would also tie in well to the NSS and regional dockyard capabilities.
  • 3) Use the extra deck space to better support the MCM mothership role vs the T31, as the Hunts and Sandowns age out.
  • 4) Support a containerized hospital.
  • 5) Transport ISO standard containers and/or some 50+ vehicles, if we let the Point-class go. We can fall back on STUFT if we need volume RO-RO in a conflict, assuming RO-RO ports are still viable.
  • 6) Provide a better HADR platform than T31, particularly in conjunction with the amphibious ship concept outlined above.

All the above wouldn’t preclude a higher level of sensors and armament than T31, even to the extent of supporting an ASW role; the Danes are currently reclassifying and converting their Absalon class as ASW frigates.

IMO, the lower end warships (T31, T32, MCMV) are all about maximising flexibility in peace and conflict, since we will always have fewer ships than we might like. The same flexibility philosophy applies to the RN and RFA amphibious fleet.

Last edited 1 month ago by Glass Half Full
Don

Something like that could undertake the role the Bays have undertaken in the Caribbean (HADR) and the Gulf(MCM Mothership).

Glass Half Full

Yes, and in the Gulf case such a frigate platform might rapidly transition between MCM mothership role and a Gulf escort role at times of heightened tensions, the escort role being something neither a Bay, or dedicated MCMV with optional OPV role, can do.

We should also recognise that the Caribbean role is likely to see significantly worsening hurricane seasons as the seas warm, with more powerful storms and potentially more of them. This may require an ability to support a greater number of vessels in different places, if a number of islands are badly affected. This is also part of the argument for a greater number of simpler amphibious platforms with beach landing capability.

Don

Agree
Excellent point on changing roles in the Gulf. You can have an extra escort on task immediatly instead of waiting days and weeks for another escort to be pulled from elsewhere.

Don

I’ve wondered if a stretched Absalon would be possible. The stretch bringing you up from two engines to four. So you get the advantages of both the Arrowhead and Absalon.

4th watch

I like the idea of 4 funnels! Just add a ram bow and its back to the future.

T.S

I think T32 will basically be what we all wanted the T31 to be in the first place. 32 mk41, a larger calibre gun up front and canister ASMs. On top we might see better sensors, NS200 radar upgrade and some minor noise reduction and a lower spec towed array. Basically, a proper GP frigate.
Personally, I would be more than happy with that and would balance the fleet out nicely. That gives us 5 patrol frigates and 5 patrol ships to forward base, for fishery works and escorting foreign vessels through our waters. Tick. Then 8 high end asw frigates for carrier/bomber protection, and 5 rounded GP frigates to sail lone wolf style, or act as second rate AAW/ASW ships and fill in where required.
The only other items to fully round out the fleet for me would be a replacement for Ocean and some sort of 15k tonne multi role vessel with some amphibious landing capabilities and to act as drone motherships for search, recon and mine sweeper work.

David Barry

When are we getting these ships?

Cam

So I imagine these will be light frigates, even compared to the type 31…… anyway great news if true and has made my year…. who agrees..

David Barry

Bluffer blojo blowing smoke, try not to inhale too deeply.

borg

It’s fantastic news mate but nothing is known about them yet…..

X

A class of 6 purely for ASW in the North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea. Crew of 70-ish say.

Don

But its for a general purpose frigate
So would it not be a less well-equipped vessel for choke point escort and protection of sea lines of communication and not a multi-mission combat vessel for ASW?
What would the effect of a new ASW class be on T26?

Last edited 1 month ago by Don
X

All ‘true’ escorts are ‘general purpose’. That is why T45 stretches it, and T31 without any ASW equipment isn’t an escort.

By ASW I mean their main tasking.

Stupidest thing the RN was designate T23 with out 2087 ‘general purpose’.

Don

“By ASW I mean their main tasking”

Are you looking at rafting and TAS if this is there main tasking?

X

Yes.

Don

To do ASW properly costs. The T32 proposal seems to be a follow on in the same vein as T31 and the budget likewise. The best that may be feasible within constrained budgets is something similiar to what the Danes are doing with The Absalons.
Yes a GP frigate should be capable of doing AAW ASW ASuF to a minimum level but can’t match the standards achieved by a specialist vessel.
The question is what is an acceptable minimum level of capability in each field and what is an acceptable cost for this?

X

Smaller compliment and less steel would make some savings.

A specialist vessel? The Royal Navy backed away from building specialised escorts back in the 1950s when the fleet was huge because they couldn’t ensure they would have the right mix of ships when needed. Threats come from all angles. Above water, sub-surface, electro-magnetic spectrum. All RN escorts have had some capability to take the fight to the enemy in all spheres so all are ‘general purpose’.

I like to think in terms of point and area weapons, or first and second rate. So I would expect a first rate destroyer to have area air (Sea Viper now, Sea Dart before) and a decent hull sonar (and helicopter). And a first rate frigate to have a TAS, large ASW helicopter, and perhaps ‘ASROC’ and a decent point or local missile system (Sea Ceptor now, Sea Wolf before). Throw in quiet propulsion systems, guns, AShM missiles as you will.

Meirion X

Do you mean a modernize T23X?
There was a proposal sometime ago.
A little bigger I think, 18m beam?

X

I see something with minimal manning about a compliment of 70. About 3500 tonnes. Very good sea keeping. Diesel electric to allow the accommodation, bridge, to move further aft.

Don

Is it time to reconsider the A200 Meko T31 proposal?

https://www.navylookout.com/in-focus-the-meko-a-200-type-31e-frigate-candidate/

X

Yes. I am not opposed to GT. I am just think we need something smaller but combative for closer to home. And MEKO 200 is about the right size and form.

comment image

Or something like the PLAN’s Type 054A at 4000 tonnes which a CODAD ship.
comment image

I don’t think Russia is going to invade Western Europe; they can’t either. But their submarine fleet is a different matter. That isn’t to say they are a severe threat just another that needs to be managed.

They could also take on some sort of training role too.

Don

Yes, good comment would have to agree.

A batch of Meko T32 would expand RN ASW options and complement T31 Arrowhead well.

Nice photos.

X

T31 good potter around the Gulf and other places doing the work that used to be done by sloops. Shame T31 couldn’t have had twin hangars like its Absalon predecessor. In fact if we had a smaller class of true escorts as I describe we could have built 6 Absalons instead of a IH based design.

4th watch

Don’t want Corvettes like the Leander offering.

Fat Bloke on Tour

Pretty thin gruel — all it shows is how far we have fallen.
Getting all hot and bothered because BoJo has found some spare cash down the back of the Westminster settee.

Base questions still remain — when can we bring new equipment costs back to reality?
And what should be the crewing arrangements going forward?

Base question — how many ships are out in blue water today?
What percentage of the RN’s current staff is afloat the moment?
2030 Leander — how big should the crew be — 50 / 60 / 70?

Once we can bring the running costs and the capital costs back to the real world then we can then think about getting the fleet numbers back up — doing more stuff and better stuff.

Something different

I think considering the financial situation the nation is in with COVID any kind of increase to defence spending is frankly unexpected and welcomed.

D M

What your not excited over the prospect of a new Boris boat. Armed with the mk50 swagger gun and the ability to never give its position away because no one actually knows what it is.

Arron

Huf hack military on YouTube has literally stolen your article word for word!

Darren.

We were all worried about defence of this nation and in particular, at sea. No more defence cut backs. It’s a question that had to be addressed. 2.2-2.3% is not 3% which this Nation deserves at minimum, but it is not under 2%. There is still a long way to go and china-19 must not be allowed to knock the stuffing out of us. Chin up.

Teves

With all the correspondence below no one has brought up the fact that we still only have 6 underarmed type 45 AAW,s, all the talk about T32 we have 2 carriers, 2 LPD , 3 bays we should have at least 12 to defend them alone and better seems to boot. Maybe the 6 new one could be purposed for AAW and ASW. I would take off the 6 existing t45 the 2 30mm 1 of the CIWS & the 4.5 replace with 57mm, 2 40mm and 24 camm in 2 ExLS. And add the 16 MK41’s.

borg

Censorship is a bummer STRN. Just saying.

Meirion X

It would cost over $200M to fit 6 T45 with Mk. 41. I seen a price of $17M for a system of 8 cells.

X

A mere bagatelle these days.

We should have based Sea Viper around US missiles and silo from the start.

Gunbuster

If Sea Viper was based on the then available US missiles that would have been Standard 2, a semi active radar homer. So you would have also needed to fit, somewhere on the upper deck at least 4 tracker /illuminating radars to make the system work.
Using Sea Viper active homers means no illuminating radars and a massive saving in through life cost, supportability and importantly top weight on the vessel which reduces hull stress and allows for a very tall mast.

Only now, some 10 years after the last T45 was launched are the USN finally catching up with AESA Radars in SPY 6 and active homers on Standard 6.

X

I appreciate the difficulties and technical problems.

X

I will add that is the problem with down votes. Do those -3 votes represent somebody who has a grounded technical opinion like Gunbuster? Or is it some nutcase whose head I live in for free? We shall never know.

borg

It’s just some sad person mate…….. i’ve had a fair amount of my replies Censored on here lately.

X

I have noted he now upvotes posts I have replied too.

Anyway I appreciate GB’s reasons why Sea Viper is better as it is. But I do wonder whether we gained anything not going with AEGIS from the start. We are where we are. Though I will say it is SAMPSON that makes the USN jealous not Sea Vipers kinetic capabilities. I would build all T26 with AEGIS. If we had 16 like that we would have a lot of capability.

RAN Hunter class……

comment image

Deep32

Certainly is a fine looking and potentially well equipped ship! Interesting comments ref SAMPSON vis AEGIS, such are the vagaries of defence procurement, one side comes up with something good (Sea Viper) others have to raise their game to compete. Its picking a winner from the go that’s difficult, if not we would all be millionaires I expect!! LOL.

X

Sea Viper is brilliant. But when you look that RAN will have 12 Aegis ships; 9 Attack plus 3 Hobarts. The RCN will be getting 15 T26 variants all with Aegis; originally there were only to be 5 but the RCN thought it more efficient to go with just one variant. All the Italian FREMM have area air defence capability plus their two Horizons plus 2 new destroyers. We will have 6 Sea Viper ships, excellent missile system but a lacklustre ship, and 8 T26 with an enhanced PDMS (even though very good nowhere near AEGIS). It’s curate egg time again.

Duker

Aegis is a broad term. The correct definition is SPY radar AND AEGIS combat system.
Australia for instance on its T26 wont have SPY and will have a Saab combat system with some Aegis CSL (common source libraries)

The CSL is used on the USN LCS frigates , and no one would call them ‘aegis capable ships’

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/aegis-combat-system/evolutionary-design.html

Deep32

Hi mate,
Sorry about the non content of the other post, just a test post really to see if I have been banned. I have had two previous ones ‘awaiting approval’, with one being censored and removed. Only thing I put was in support of you both, nothing contentious or bad! Whilst being able to post to others on this thread without any problems, knowing that I have posted to you both before without any snags!! A little strange I thought, so, a little test it was! Once again sorry for using you as a guinea pig so to speak.

X

I don’t mind.

I have had a couple ‘waiting for approval’ too.

The sad thing is the little trolls who come here will probably have their posts posted straight away.

borg

A sign of things to come in the up coming Re-vamp ?

borg

There a a few of my comments Waiting Approval now. I think It’s an automatic function that picks up key words that the Site owners have deemed worthy of scrutiny. Censorship in other words.

X

I don’t know.

To be honest I find myself churning the same stuff over here. There isn’t much to discuss really.

borg

Deep32 and X, It’s certain words that are being picked up. You can guess which ones, i’ve been trying it out !!!

Deep32

Hi mate, agree with that comment, and yes it is those very ones you allude to.

Teves

What are the costs of additional sylver launchers at least could go down the road of Exocet, RBS 15 etc or maybe develop a cheaper system

borg

vote

borg

up

borg

down

Deep32

Indeed!!!

Phillip Johnson

Ugly stories are starting to float confirming the F-35’s are going to be cut the 60 something and the Army is going to loose 12,000 slots – Captain Haddock on Twitter: “Always read the small print: “An RAF order of 138 F-35 fighter jets will be halved.”” / Twitter

X

It’s pilots (and other personnel) as much as airframes to be honest. 72 F35B would be OK. My fear is we end half B and half A, and that would be a waste of a couple of billions worth of carrier just to save a few million and gain a little in range and load.

The Army has no kit so I can see why HMG think they can shrink it even more. It’s only just viable now.

Something different

It wouldn’t surprise me (I think the army is going to bear the brunt of any cuts) but not sure where this chap has got his info from. A lot of recent negative speculation seems to have not quite one to fruition thankfully.

James Fennell

60 something F-35s and 12K less boots is ok so long as it means uplift in capabiltiy for rest.

Kevin Hastie

I wonder whether the Type 32 might resurrect the Venator 110 or Stellar Sytems Spartan; somewhat smaller vessels than the Type 31….?

Ron5

Seems unlikely. The RN rejected Venator as not being what they were looking for and Stellar was just a couple guys in a room doing a couple CGI’s. Good guys but not a serious bid that was taken forward.

Teves

Just seen post Harland and Wolfe offering leander class frigate based on khareef corvette stretched to about 120m. Not sure it’s good enough as I believe it’s a cramped design not much scope for weapons etc and not FOST rated. As seen in other posts army to be reduced, F35 order cut in half, the T32 could quickly become a ghost ship or an empty hull fitted for for but not with. Not much of a navy if they cannot stand and slug it out may as well send rowing boats around the world with minister preaching the errors of there ways.😀😀😀
https://lbndaily.co.uk/cammell-laird-revive-bid-build-new-british-warships/

Ron5

You might want to read that article again.

borg

You might just want to stop Negative Voting too mate . You’ll be at a loss on here soon mate.

Teves

I did read it the type 31 was revived last year and awarded last December the design was ratified few months ago, the shed they will be built in is nearly complete and steel cutting will start in the new year. So what they are actually saying is they are reviving old Leander plan to submit for type 32 my point it that if it’s was not the correct product then it’s probably still the wrong product for the type 32 if this is a frigate to help with carrier escort and independent missions into the info Pacific region.
Ps down vote as well as up votes welcome as everyone has the right to vote how they please but try to be be factual.

borg

That’s why I cancel as many of yours and others.

Teves

Your welcome throwing your negative votes in we all have an opinion but you don’t seem to like people giving you a negative reply why is that. Luckily I cannot be bothered by negative voting.

borg

Ermmm, I Cancel all the Negative votes that you get from others mate…… Thanks for that, I’ll not bother again

Teves

Apologies not ment for you last comment case of fat fingers on my phone.

borg

Can’t say Down Votes on here but That’s what i was referring to ….. just saying.

4th watch

Still the wrong product.

Ron5

I was pointing out your opening line states Harland and Wolfe were offering the Leander class whereas the referenced headline is “Cammell Laird to revive bid to build new British warships”.

4th watch

The Leander offering was tiny and years out of date so the T32 may be a development of the T31 with what the RN really wants with many of the benefits of engine rafting and hull quietening, sensors etc. You end up with the capabilities of a 2035 era T23- being a frigate that we and other Navies can actually afford in numbers.

4th watch

I am surprised to see The CEO of Cammell Laird talking about the Leander as T32. This would be a third Frigate design and negate the whole point of T31. I hope BAe dont stick their foot in the door.

James Fennell

Ben Wallace said:

“The Type 32 is obviously not in the next five years… but a commitment to put funding to the next Type 32 programme.

“The Type 32 we hope will come further along from the Type 31 – the Type 31 is only five ships, and the Type 32 will hopefully follow a similar track.

“They will be able to be used for NATO.

“The Navy have requested another class of ship – that’s the Type 32.

“If you think of the profile, the Type 23 which will be coming out of service, and some of that will be picked up by the Type 26 and the Type 45s.

“It’s about increasing our surface fighting ships, destroyers and frigates”

Sounds like they will be in the T45 or T26 bracket, not T31

From https://www.forces.net/news/sea-vessels/type-32-frigates-what-do-we-know-so-far

Last edited 1 month ago by James Fennell
borg

“Next Generation” then ! as BJ mentioned. Sometimes it pays to read the script, He mentioned keeping ahead of the Future threats, it might just be that He is tuned in to those future threats and listened to people in the know. Think Type 32 Next generation not what is there now. Exciting times ahead with Tempest and a positive defence minded Government for once.

borg

And the Negative vote is for what exactly ? Another example of Trolling and that’s after the two negatives on James Fennell’s post.

James Fennell

Borg, I took it more as a reflection on Ben Wallace than myself, which seems a little churlish since he just did exactly what most commentators here have been asking for!

borg

Exactly mate. But this particular Troll just likes to do the negative thing time after time. I get up early every morning and spend a fair amount of time just undoing all the troll like efforts…. It was the same on the UKDJ site and a few others. X, Deep, Teves and myself have had loads recently for no reason, just like you had until I cancelled them.

Steven G

I think there needs to be a focus on weapons not extra hulls

RN is cut to the bone with missile stock, the T45 need the Aster NT update and then it’s the long list of designed but “not fitted with”

Teves

Another take on type 32 yet again talking up MCM replacement surely a frigate is to expensive a boat baby sirtting a flottila of work boats searching for mines. We need actual combat frigates. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/11/20/the-royal-navy-could-get-a-mysterious-type-32-frigate/

4th watch

Been Albion and Bulwark due to their remaining in service.
How about chopping off the top hamper and replacing with through deck and stbd bridge? We used to do this sort of thing. Besides who benefits or why is it necessary to have them arranged without a hanger or lifts for below deck hanger.