Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by overlander, Dec 27, 2006.

Share This Page

  1. StobieWan

    StobieWan Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    63

    Some of this is pull through from the type 23's - the Sea Ceptor is a soft launch system and quite light which gives a few interesting opportunities to mount missiles higher than heavier systems and the original plan was to fit Type 23 with Sea Ceptor in the same place that the outgoing Sea Wolf silos were located. Now, Sea Wolf VLS, it's not quite a bottle with a bit of wood attached to the missile but it's not very complex and Sea Ceptor was very much designed with that foot print in mind.

    The Mk41's that will also be installed, they're much larger (I believe they're talking strike length cells?) and likely not intended for air defence missiles, although they could of course launch the full range of Mk41 compatible articles.

    Where it could get very silly is if the Type 45 ever got those additional cells, and ended up with Mk41 as well - leaving it with Sylver and Mk41..I'm not saying it's going to happen but it'd be interesting if it did ;)
     
  2. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,817
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    A strike length Mk 41 is twice as tall as is needed for Sea Ceptor, & heavy & expensive compared to dedicated Sea Ceptor launchers. Flexibility is useful, but fitting strike length Mk 41 launchers with the intention of filling them with Sea Ceptor is a waste of money, space & weight.
     
  3. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    NSW

    I wonder if that means the Kiwis are pulling out MK41 aswell?
     
  4. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,817
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    The ANZACs have self-defence length Mk 41 AFAIK, originally for Sea Sparrow, not strike length. It's much shorter. I can't remember if it's being replaced, but it could be, to reduce weight & maintenance.
     
  5. htbrst

    htbrst Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Yes, they were being removed and replaced with Sea Ceptor silos- at least that was the plan a few years ago - not much about the upgrade has come out since. Lots of commentators since seem to assume the mk 41 is staying though.

    This APDR issue about the upgrade from 2014 states:

     
  6. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I'd say your getting the NZ and Australian vessels confused. NZ has elected to go for the Sea Ceptor and is having there Mk41's removed Australia however is retaining theres as we are fully involved in the design and manufacture of the ESSM's.
     
  7. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    NSW

    Do yon know if the Kiwis are selling the MK41 or putting into storage for the NGF?
     
  8. StobieWan

    StobieWan Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    63

    I recall that they're selling off the Mk41's but don't have a source I'm afraid.
     
  9. t68

    t68 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    NSW
    So that should put you in a good position with a possible UK built Kiwi T26/31e if they continue to use European combat systems.
     
  10. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,892
    Likes Received:
    266
    Location:
    In the rum store
    BAE have released it's design for the Type 31e* frigate. Apparently it's partly based on the Omani Khareef class corvette design but will have a speed in excess of 25 knots and a range of around 7,500 nm.

    *e = export
     
  11. MrConservative

    MrConservative Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,211
    Likes Received:
    283
    Location:
    Behind a Desk
    Not strictly true about European systems. The CMS is from Lockheed Martin. The RNZN Anzacs are a bit of a global parts bin approach. That may well be what the replacement could be - designed in one country, built in another, weapons from another, CMS from somewhere else etc... By all accounts the replacement is a long time off. In fact since it is looking more likely post 2030, and the current $20B funding plan was only up to 2030 - one wonders if kicking that cost down the road a couple of years into the next timeframe say 2030 onwards means that the best solutions are made not the fiscally convenient for the time.
     
  12. Systems Adict

    Systems Adict Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    24
    It is indeed based on the Oman Khareef corvette...
    Khareef Class Corvettes - Naval Technology

    Here's a link...

    Type 31e DIMDEX | Newsroom | BAE Systems | International

    At the base of the article, there's an embedded link, taking you to pretty pics that you can download & keep...

    Related to this, here's a news article from the Company who will be PRIME beside BAE

    Cammell Laird, BAE Systems focusing on exports for Type 31e frigate

    ...as well as another link to another article about some of the competition...

    Babcock announces industry team for Type 31 frigate bid
     
  13. StobieWan

    StobieWan Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    63
    That's probably not a bad bet - there's a few examples in the water and I'm sure it could be stretched by a few metres if the RN wanted that. Would they stick with diesels or go CODAG with say, an MT30 to get some more speed out of the design?
     
  14. Systems Adict

    Systems Adict Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    24

    Here's the original RN / UK PLC Flyer for T31e...

    https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/medi...-launch-folder-line-diagram-v4-1.pdf?la=en-gb

    My concerns are already all over that piece of paper....

    #1 - It's currently 2018 & UK PLC NEEDS TO...

    a. Agree who is going to build these ships
    b. Settle what is going into them
    c. Agree a build programme &..
    d. Cut steel on the 1st ship by year end 2018

    #2 - They want the 1st vessel ready & IN-SERVICE by 2023

    #3 - The equipment they want, the open architecture / medium calibre gun & a myriad of other things.

    How practical / achievable is it ?

    I make the point of putting #1d out there, as that timescale is just 5 years from now.

    HOW can the RN pick an alleged 'COTS' design, then modify it to meet THEIR needs & get it all for the mere price of £250m ?

    Finally, T26 1st-of-class is due to 'enter service' in 2023, bearing in mind that she is actually under construction, so we really think that EVERYTHING is gonna just fall into place or is it gonna be yet another budget blowing cluster, just like the QEC build in sections & integrate at Rosyth process ??

    I'm stumped...

    SA
     
  15. StobieWan

    StobieWan Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    3,021
    Likes Received:
    63

    Put it that way, it's not going to happen - I've not kept up and thought 31 was away in the future a bit.

    If they're due to be cutting steel in 2018, or even 2020, that's very ambitious..




    I'd sooner they just built lots of 26 in serial production as I suspect things won't run smoothly with two builds but hey ho...
     
  16. hauritz

    hauritz Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    40
    I really can't understand the reasoning behind the type 31.

    The pricing I have seen for this ship is either extremely optimistic or it is just going to be a glorified OPV. Even if they can keep the cost down to around a quarter of theType 26 I think I would rather have an additional Type 26 and perhaps build a couple more river class OPVs instead of the planned 5 type 31s.
     
  17. ASSAIL

    ASSAIL Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    2,376
    Likes Received:
    324
    Location:
    Darwin NT Australia
    I'm going to take a shot here to answer the why.
    T26 was supposed to be the "global Frigate" winning plenty of export orders an increasing the RN/Britains global influence.
    The delays and cost blowouts scuppered that theory.
    T31 was then envisioned to provide the replacement export winning design.
    The problem though is that it is many years behind the rest of the pack with other navies already buying a plethora of modern euro Frigate designs and leaving Britain out in the cold. To remedy this T31 is then constrained to a ridiculously unrealistic price which further degrades its appeal.
    The RN should be constructing further T26s to add to its orbat but it is so resource poor that there is no other option other than for it to forced into T31.

    This is a diabolical situation for the RN to stomach but I guess T31 is better than an OPV however, luckily, it is possible to improve its effectiveness in the long term should the financial constraints be lifted.
    As for the export prospects T31? They may win a few orders but the timing is terrible and it offers nothing extra over the other euro offerings which are already established. Britain has ignored the market for far too long.
     
  18. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,042
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Certainly a sad situation for the RN. How realistic is a £250 million Type 31 and what kit will it have for this price? Can't help but think a Type 26 stripped down might have a better cost/capability ratio and the actual bottom line might not be all that much higher than what a Type 31 is likely going to end up at. Perhaps 4 Type 26"Lites" instead of 5 Type 31s, especially if they are capable of being upgraded to a full Type 26.
     
  19. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,817
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    A Dutch-built OPV of the same size cost €120 million or so ten years ago. That type has very good AESA radars & electro-optical sensors, hangar & flight deck for an NH90, a 76mm gun & several light guns. How much would it cost to make it a few knots faster & add the extras the Type 31e has?

    I find it odd that we keep getting told that twice the price (allowing for inflation) of a 3750 ton high-end OPV (a 'glorified' OPV), spent on a ship of the same size, can only buy us an OPV. Is British shipbuilding really so much more expensive than Dutch? Does it really cost us twice as much to build a ship? Is getting something significantly better for twice the price completely unrealistic?
     
  20. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,042
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Ya, you really have to wonder about inflation and " modification to our standards " costs. Our AOPS are another example, Norway built theirs for around $200 million about 10 years ago and our "Canadianized version" is over 3 times that. I am not sure if we are putting more exotic kit on board compared to Norway but I seriously doubt it.