The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

John Howie, the chief executive of Babcock International's marine business on Royal Navy's Type 31 Decision, Capabilities, Affordability in interview with Vago Muradian of Defense & Aerospace Report. Quite informative. Of note at 14:09 during the interview he states that they are expecting most of the exports to be sales of the design, systems and engineering expertise, rather than actual ships, because most customers will want the ships built in their own yards.

 

[Ananda]

Yes, I think the International market trend is more and more on building the ship on local customer yards, with the established players provide design, manufacturing supervision or in some cases build one or two more complex modules.

Seems that interview answered one question that I asked previously in thìs thread on how far the UK teams will have the IP to sell the design overseas on Type 31, as the design are foreign origin (Iver and Meko 200).
Base on the interview the UK team on Type 31, have the rights to sold the design.

 

[milliGal]

More details are listed in a new savetheroyalnavy piece.

I thought the armament was particularly interesting. Seems like they have gone for gun heavy loadout ("the broadside is back"), with relatively small calibres at a 57 mm main gun and a 40 mm Bofors front and rear. A 24 cell sea-ceptor silo is mounted mid-ships, and interesting they have opted to drop any CIWS like a phalanx (I suppose the Bofors fill that role).

 

[John Fedup]

Two 40 mm guns is a great idea. The 57 mm is indeed an impressive gun too given its rate of fire but the 76 mm Oto Melara would have been a good choice, perhaps better. I recall the video of an RCN ship being sunk in an exercise. The Halifax class frigate's 57 mm gun didn't match the damage inflicted by an Iroquois class destroyer's 76 mm gun. Then again, neither matched the destruction of a torpedo that broke the target in two.

 

[hauritz]

I wonder what BAE thinks of all this. Of the three type 31 contenders, this is the design that would most challenge the capability offered by the type 26. The size of the ship does leave open the possibility of a more comprehensive weapon and sensor fit than the other contenders.

Not only will this ship be going up against the Type 26 for potential orders from countries such as NZ but there is a possibility that the more expensive Type 26 might lose out on follow on orders from the Royal navy.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I could see a follow on from the Type 26 going to an Air Defense role. Possibly selling on the type 45 to interested parties (ME? Brazil? Asia?).
I could see the RN ordering more Type 31 if the actual delivered price is right.

They really do sit in different categories, the Type 26 is quite a sizable hull, with room for growth and weapons. Quite beamy, with room to grow and flex space that could be specialized. The T31 is always going to be less ambitious and has hard limits on what it can do. The Type 26 is a Burke to the T31 FFG(X) program. I guess thats how I see it.

Guns are quite cheap, to purchase and to operate long term. They are also idea to take out unmanned or drone type assets which are probably going to be an issue in the future. Guns are likely to be useful against asymmetric and unmanned threats. With modern munitions they are also quite useful inner layers and will be for sometime.

Do find the mix a bit odd. 40 and a 57mm.. 40mm and a 127mm would have been nice. Personally I find the 57/76 a bit of a peashooter and over lapping with the 40mm. It would have significant range and power over the other munitions. The 40mm is an interesting choice, Australia recently going with the OTO 40mm on their OPV's.

If the Type 31 could fit a 5" (which it already has) I could definitely see NZ taking a long hard look at this. Maybe some others, so maybe there are export orders to chase in that space.

Is that dazzle camouflage?

 

[ngatimozart]

I could see a follow on from the Type 26 going to an Air Defense role. Possibly selling on the type 45 to interested parties (ME? Brazil? Asia?).
I could see the RN ordering more Type 31 if the actual delivered price is right.

They really do sit in different categories, the Type 26 is quite a sizable hull, with room for growth and weapons. Quite beamy, with room to grow and flex space that could be specialized. The T31 is always going to be less ambitious and has hard limits on what it can do. The Type 26 is a Burke to the T31 FFG(X) program. I guess thats how I see it.

Guns are quite cheap, to purchase and to operate long term. They are also idea to take out unmanned or drone type assets which are probably going to be an issue in the future. Guns are likely to be useful against asymmetric and unmanned threats. With modern munitions they are also quite useful inner layers and will be for sometime.

Do find the mix a bit odd. 40 and a 57mm.. 40mm and a 127mm would have been nice. Personally I find the 57/76 a bit of a peashooter and over lapping with the 40mm. It would have significant range and power over the other munitions. The 40mm is an interesting choice, Australia recently going with the OTO 40mm on their OPV's.

If the Type 31 could fit a 5" (which it already has) I could definitely see NZ taking a long hard look at this. Maybe some others, so maybe there are export orders to chase in that space.

Is that dazzle camouflage?

Yep, I can't understand the reasoning for the 57 mm either or even the 76 mm. My own view is that 5 in would be optimal especially for NGS, which you would think would be part of the Type 31 mission capability set. But then again this is the RN and pommy MOD that we are talking about.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Two new calibers? On top of the 5" being added? Export wise the 5" as a maximum I think would have been desirable. The 5" is a quite a flexible round, and is (or its approximate 130mm) standard on every major surface unit on the planet.

Going a 5" with 2 x 40mm I think would have been quite neat, but I am not sure the design could take that, it might be roomy enough if you delete 1 x 40mm, but we are talking a pretty significant modification, if it can take it at all. I guess these are the compromises you need to make with a smaller design. I'm not what exactly 57mm gets you that 40mm doesn't (particularly with the 6 mode ammunition being basically the same other than size), and if you aspire to something larger, then the 5" has to be very attractive with many options and much heavy hitter and range.

I do wonder how much money this all saves. There are reasons to build smaller ships, but when you are already in the middle of building a class of larger ships seems like poor timing to me. Particularly if the driver is the "save money". With all different weapons and systems in a completely different configuration. I guess we will be able to evaluate after the project is finished.

I wonder if the Type 26 could take a pair of 40mm.. Replacing the 30mm.. Would be nice to have some commonality there too. The 40mm would be a huge upgrade on the 30mm.

So many different calibers on these two ships in the same navy. 7.62mm, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm 57mm, 127mm. While transitioning RN must be playing pokemon. While transitioning out of 113mm. Throw in 76mm and I think you would have bingo.

 

[ngatimozart]

Two new calibers? On top of the 5" being added? Export wise the 5" as a maximum I think would have been desirable. The 5" is a quite a flexible round, and is (or its approximate 130mm) standard on every major surface unit on the planet.

Going a 5" with 2 x 40mm I think would have been quite neat, but I am not sure the design could take that, it might be roomy enough if you delete 1 x 40mm, but we are talking a pretty significant modification, if it can take it at all. I guess these are the compromises you need to make with a smaller design. I'm not what exactly 57mm gets you that 40mm doesn't (particularly with the 6 mode ammunition being basically the same other than size), and if you aspire to something larger, then the 5" has to be very attractive with many options and much heavy hitter and range.

No problems with a 5 in and 2 x 40 mm. The Iver Huitfelds have 2 x 76 mm up for'd and a 35 mm Millennium gun down aft on top of the hangar. The Absalons have a 5 in gun and a 35 mm gun up for'd and a 35 mm Millennium gun down aft on top of the hangar. The Arrowhead is a modified Iver Huitfeld which is a modified Absalon. The only reason that the Ivers have 2 x 76 mm is that they pulled those through from previous ships because they couldn't afford new 5 in guns.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With a 5" they would fit in as an ideal ANZAC type replacement for some where like NZ. Indonesia was interested in the Iver Huitfeldt design as well, probably as a licence design. If its as successful as the Type 26 design they would have done well.

Reading the details in the link, the new ship doesn't fit into the frigate maintenance complex? Seems like some future planning on the ship building plan.

Like the Type 26, the Arrowhead will not fit inside covered dry docks of the Devonport Frigate Refit Complex.

 

[ngatimozart]

With a 5" they would fit in as an ideal ANZAC type replacement for somewhere like NZ. Indonesia was interested in the Iver Huitfeldt design as well, probably as a licence design. If its as successful as the Type 26 design they would have done well.

Yes, it'shaping up to be a good contender or NZ. I've posted on it in the RNZN thread here.

 

[Stampede]

More details are listed in a new savetheroyalnavy piece.

I thought the armament was particularly interesting. Seems like they have gone for gun heavy loadout ("the broadside is back"), with relatively small calibres at a 57 mm main gun and a 40 mm Bofors front and rear. A 24 cell sea-ceptor silo is mounted mid-ships, and interesting they have opted to drop any CIWS like a phalanx (I suppose the Bofors fill that role).

40 mm is interesting.
Is this the future trend for close in defence.
Maybe the RAN's Arafura class made a correct call with this calibre..

Regards S

 

[oldsig127]

I'm not what exactly 57mm gets you that 40mm doesn't

Three times as heavy a projectile? With much more space for electronic gizmology and stuff that goes bang. It may be as simple as that - a more destructive round.

(Waaaay back in WW2 a 2pdr gun was 37/40m and a 6 pounder was 57mm. Modern ammo is comparable)

oldsig

 

[the concerned]

Have they gone for the 40mm as commonality with the up gun IFV's that are being introduced to the army. Maybe it's a gun that would be rolled out across the rest of the ships. I actually suggested this calibre for the patrol ships.

 

[Rob c]

Have they gone for the 40mm as commonality with the up gun IFV's that are being introduced to the army. Maybe it's a gun that would be rolled out across the rest of the ships. I actually suggested this calibre for the patrol ships.

Off the top of my head if I remember right the Bofors 40 mm has nothing in common with the CTA 40mm to be fitted to the Warrior, even the ammo is different as the CTA 40mm uses telescoped ammo.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Three times as heavy a projectile? With much more space for electronic gizmology and stuff that goes bang. It may be as simple as that - a more destructive round.

(Waaaay back in WW2 a 2pdr gun was 37/40m and a 6 pounder was 57mm. Modern ammo is comparable)

oldsig

Just in these days where there is a move to consolidation they seemed to have filled every niche. 7.62mm, 12.7mm, 20mm, 30mm, 40mm 57mm, 110mm, 127mm. Sure not all of those are going forward, but it doesn't seem like there was any effort to consolidate. It just seems, a bit odd. Some of the closest sizing occurs on the same ship like the 40mm and the 57mm. Or the 20mm and 30mm on the type 26.

The 40 and 57mm have common fusing electronics, so in terms of training and manufacturing there. It might be that is what they are trying to prove. That this particular combination works well together.

There is certainly a considerable size/volume difference more than the few mm would imply.

40mm and 57mm from FUZE 3P Programmable All-Target Ammunition | BAE Systems | International

The US seemed to find the 57mm perfect for its coast guard and LCS builds. It has a high rate of fire and I can see why its attractive over 76mm rounds particularly in constabulary/anti-air etc type missions. The ammo is also much easier to handle than larger rounds. Certainly the gun fitment seems to balance out and compliment the (fairly) limited missile capability.

With all 3 guns blazing they would be capable of putting a considerable wall of defense up against various incoming threats.

 

[76mmGuns]

I wonder what BAE thinks of all this. Of the three type 31 contenders, this is the design that would most challenge the capability offered by the type 26. The size of the ship does leave open the possibility of a more comprehensive weapon and sensor fit than the other contenders.

Not only will this ship be going up against the Type 26 for potential orders from countries such as NZ but there is a possibility that the more expensive Type 26 might lose out on follow on orders from the Royal navy.

Perhaps. But they already got another 24 from Australia and Canada. That's likely to be the bulk of the future orders imho. Any other orders, if any, will likely be in drips and drabs of 1-2, no?

 

[Todjaeger]

Perhaps. But they already got another 24 from Australia and Canada. That's likely to be the bulk of the future orders imho. Any other orders, if any, will likely be in drips and drabs of 1-2, no?

The Type 26's ordered for the RAN and RCN are going to be built in Australian and Canadian yards respectively and to the respective nation's specifications. Right now it looks like the RN will have a choice when ordering future surface escorts of either the Type 26, or the Type 31, and these vessels will IMO likely be built in different yards, by different companies. This leaves the UK in the situation where any extra Type 31 orders would likely be coming at the expense of additional Type 26 orders, and unless a foreign country were to place an order for Type 26 frigates built in a UK yard, the Type 26 workforce is going to be looking for work once the RN order is completed.

 

[Systems Adict]

It's Official,,,

The UK now has x2 carriers at sea for the 1st time.....

New aircraft carrier sails for the first time

 

[spoz]

The first time for some time - 50 or so years ago it was the norm, more recently if you count the CVS.