Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[NickC]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

BAE state that the beamwidth on Artisan is <2 degrees

A contradiction and don't think anyway to reconcile them but would note as said in radar size matters, USN state sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the aperture.

Not really a contradiction. And I'd give benefit of the doubt to company published data rather than some aside in a BTL comment.

Would be intrigued to know as how Artisan achieves <2 degrees with its relatively small antenna as diffraction is a law in physics and that depends on the aperture area size, one extreme example is the new US missile defence LRDR in Alaska where they went with very large arays of 60' x 60', 3,600 sq. ft. to give the necessary precision to distinguish warheads from decoys at long range.

[donald_of_tokyo]

S-band wave length is 7.5cm to 15 cm. What frequency ARTISAN 3D is using?

[NickC]

S-band wave length is 7.5cm to 15 cm. What frequency ARTISAN 3D is using?

Artisan is an E/F band radar 2 - 4 GHz, NATO classification, but generally known under the older IEEE nomenclature as S-band, many navies, not all e.g. SMART-L, led by USN changed from L to S-band with the SPY- 1 as the volume search radar though partnered it with an X-band shorter range radar as the higher frequency shorter waveband gives better discrimination for better fire control.

[abc123]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

On the discussion of radars I don’t understand why RN isn’t fitting cheap 3D AESA radars to the Rivers and Bay class. At less than £2m a set for Sea Giraffe 1X it seems a bit of a no brainer cheap and small enough to go on a future small USV.

What is the point if they aren't also fitted with missiles that would need the tracking data?

Agreed. Considering that all Artisan equipped ships are also equipped with short-range air-defence missiles, how important is that?

[donald_of_tokyo]

S-band wave length is 7.5cm to 15 cm. What frequency ARTISAN 3D is using?

Artisan is an E/F band radar 2 - 4 GHz, NATO classification, but generally known under the older IEEE nomenclature as S-band, many navies, not all e.g. SMART-L, led by USN changed from L to S-band with the SPY- 1 as the volume search radar though partnered it with an X-band shorter range radar as the higher frequency shorter waveband gives better discrimination for better fire control.

Thanks. "Artisan is an E/F band radar 2 - 4 GHz", this means 15 cm to 7.5 cm wavelenght. ARTIASN is more a 4 GHz radar or 2 GHz radar? Depending on that, diffraction limit changes by a factor of two.

[tomuk]

S-band wave length is 7.5cm to 15 cm. What frequency ARTISAN 3D is using?

many navies, not all e.g. SMART-L, led by USN changed from L to S-band with the SPY- 1 as the volume search radar though partnered it with an X-band shorter range radar as the higher frequency shorter waveband gives better discrimination for better fire control.

That statement is not really correct. USN don't use X band radar for fire control and many navies still retain a mixture of x or s and long rang l band radar.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Changing the topic and moving over the "scaling" discussion from the River Class (OPV) thread, I think we need to move the conversation from a vague one about scaling and size of the RN, to something that is actually aligned to priority requirements grounded in reality.

If the threat of war is as dire and serious as senior politicians and military officials have stated recently, then we need to get real now. We need to look at what can be done in the short term (2030) and medium term (2035) that secures the defence and security of the UK and our BOTs, and do this is in the context of tight finances and the loss of personnel and need to focus money in this area, not just new kit. We also need to look at this in terms of increase efforts in energy security using more domestic or near shore sources.

When we talk about threats (from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) whilst we would contribute to any conflict in the IndoPacific region - the threat to the UK is Russia. Russia does not nor will anytime soon pose a significant surface threat - it's threat is primarily sub surface, along with long range hypersonic / ballistic missiles and UAVs.

Focusing purely on the surface fleet, but ignoring carriers, amphibious ships, auxiliaries and small patrol craft, currently we have:

-2024 (30 ships): 6 ASW T45s, 7 ASW T23s, 3 GP T23s, 5 B2 Rivers, 3 B1 Rivers and 6 Hunt MCMs

If nothing changes the plan looks like the following:

- 2030 (24 ships): 6 AAW T45s, 5 ASW T23s, 3 ASW T26s, 5 GP T31s (with 12-24 CAMM / NSM no MK41 VLS) and 5 B2 Rivers

- 2035 (24 ships): 6 AAWT45s, 8 ASW T26s, 5 GP T31s (maybe with MK41 VLS) and 5 B2 Rivers

Comparing this against the threats, we've done nothing to improve the AAW/ASW position - if anything we've gone backwards as scale (and ability to scale in the future) has dropped.

With a modest increase in funds and a slow improvement in recruitment / retaining personnel, I would say the following is realistic, and actually starts to address the need to counter the threat.

- 2030 (33 ships): 6 AAW T45s (with TLAM & CEC), 5 ASW T23s, 3 ASW T26s, 2 GP T31s (with 12-24 CAMM / NSM no MK41 VLS), 3 AAW T31s (with 48 CAMM / NSM & CEC), 5 B2 Rivers and 9 new 90m MHPCs (UUV/USV mothership with AWS TAS)

- 2035 (35 ships): 6 AAWT45s (with TLAM & CEC), 9 (+1) ASW T26s, 1 ASW/AAW T26 (new radar and additional VLS replacing the mission bay), 3 AAW T31s (with new long range radar, 48 CAMM / NSM & CEC) and 16 new 90m MHPCs (UUV/USV mothership with AWS TAS)

2 of the T31s would be put up to to sell to the likes of the RAN / RNZN / RCN in the early 2030, with an increased tempo on the T26 build to increase the current order by 1, and to extend the design to increase AAW capabilities (in partnership with the RAN) which then would replace the T45 / T31 AAW ships.

I'm sure everyone will have their own take - but we need to relate this back to the immediate threat, and less focused on the 90's/00's thinking of nation building and policing the world.

[Tempest414]

Changing the topic and moving over the "scaling" discussion from the River Class (OPV) thread, I think we need to move the conversation from a vague one about scaling and size of the RN, to something that is actually aligned to priority requirements grounded in reality.

If the threat of war is as dire and serious as senior politicians and military officials have stated recently, then we need to get real now. We need to look at what can be done in the short term (2030) and medium term (2035) that secures the defence and security of the UK and our BOTs, and do this is in the context of tight finances and the loss of personnel and need to focus money in this area, not just new kit. We also need to look at this in terms of increase efforts in energy security using more domestic or near shore sources.

When we talk about threats (from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) whilst we would contribute to any conflict in the IndoPacific region - the threat to the UK is Russia. Russia does not nor will anytime soon pose a significant surface threat - it's threat is primarily sub surface, along with long range hypersonic / ballistic missiles and UAVs.

Focusing purely on the surface fleet, but ignoring carriers, amphibious ships, auxiliaries and small patrol craft, currently we have:

-2024 (30 ships): 6 ASW T45s, 7 ASW T23s, 3 GP T23s, 5 B2 Rivers, 3 B1 Rivers and 6 Hunt MCMs

If nothing changes the plan looks like the following:

- 2030 (24 ships): 6 AAW T45s, 5 ASW T23s, 3 ASW T26s, 5 GP T31s (with 12-24 CAMM / NSM no MK41 VLS) and 5 B2 Rivers

- 2035 (24 ships): 6 AAWT45s, 8 ASW T26s, 5 GP T31s (maybe with MK41 VLS) and 5 B2 Rivers

Comparing this against the threats, we've done nothing to improve the AAW/ASW position - if anything we've gone backwards as scale (and ability to scale in the future) has dropped.

With a modest increase in funds and a slow improvement in recruitment / retaining personnel, I would say the following is realistic, and actually starts to address the need to counter the threat.

- 2030 (33 ships): 6 AAW T45s (with TLAM & CEC), 5 ASW T23s, 3 ASW T26s, 2 GP T31s (with 12-24 CAMM / NSM no MK41 VLS), 3 AAW T31s (with 48 CAMM / NSM & CEC), 5 B2 Rivers and 9 new 90m MHPCs (UUV/USV mothership with AWS TAS)

- 2035 (35 ships): 6 AAWT45s (with TLAM & CEC), 9 (+1) ASW T26s, 1 ASW/AAW T26 (new radar and additional VLS replacing the mission bay), 3 AAW T31s (with new long range radar, 48 CAMM / NSM & CEC) and 16 new 90m MHPCs (UUV/USV mothership with AWS TAS)

2 of the T31s would be put up to to sell to the likes of the RAN / RNZN / RCN in the early 2030, with an increased tempo on the T26 build to increase the current order by 1, and to extend the design to increase AAW capabilities (in partnership with the RAN) which then would replace the T45 / T31 AAW ships.

I'm sure everyone will have their own take - but we need to relate this back to the immediate threat, and less focused on the 90's/00's thinking of nation building and policing the world.

The only thing we can do to change the dial by 2030 is to add capability to ships in the fleet and maybe build 4 new OPV's and add one extra T-31 there is no hope of building 9 OPV or adding any type-26's in next 6 years

As said forget TLAM on T-45 much better to add MK-41 and buy some SM-6 to totally fulfill the BMD need a Type 45 with a loadout of 48 x Astar 30 , 32 CAMM , 8 x SM-6 and 8 x NSM would be one the worlds top AAW destroyers

As type 26 come on line it can bring the surface TLAM in with it. I would also add NSM and Stingray to type 26

Type 31 I would forget Mk-41 and fit out with 40 CAMM and 16 NSM plus a VDS

OPV's open a new line to build 10 to 12 ships to replace all River and Hunt class under a new Multi role OPV program

Looking out past 2030 add 1 more type 26 and 2 more type 31 plus carry on with the MR-OPV program

[serge750]

if there was money to put mk41 on the T45 ? i would rather put it towards speeding up the T26 if possible as they have mk41 from the start, probably would have 1 or 2 T26 in service before the first 45 gets mk41 anyway......

[donald_of_tokyo]

Changing the topic and moving over the "scaling" discussion from the River Class (OPV) thread, I think we need to move the conversation from a vague one about scaling and size of the RN, to something that is actually aligned to priority requirements grounded in reality.

Very interesting discussion.

...If nothing changes the plan looks like the following:
- 2030 (24 ships): 6 AAW T45s, 5 ASW T23s, 3 ASW T26s, 5 GP T31s (with 12-24 CAMM / NSM no MK41 VLS) and 5 B2 Rivers

And this is a great improvement in "active" escort number. With the 2200 escort crew (=10 + 1 double, manned escorts), for example,

- 3 AAW T45s = 200x3 = 600
- 3 ASW T23s = 200x3 = 600
- 3 ASW T26s = 150x3 = 450
- 5 GP T31s = 115x5 = 575
TOTAL 14 escorts can be manned with 2225 souls.

5 River B2 can be as is, and 6 MCMV man-power will be used for MHC-LSV and MCM-USV sets.

This is 30-40% improvements in active escort numbers. In other words, RN is already on track to increase (active) escorts. Actually, the number of active escorts will be in the highest level after 2010.

All the other issues are open for good discussion, but this simple fact shall not be underestimated.

[Tempest414]

if there was money to put mk41 on the T45 ? i would rather put it towards speeding up the T26 if possible as they have mk41 from the start, probably would have 1 or 2 T26 in service before the first 45 gets mk41 anyway......

The only way to speed up type 26 is to buy 3 or 4 more type 26 as we would need 3 more to allow the speeding of the build and not leave a gap between T-26 and T-83 and this would cost about 2.4 billion

Adding Mk-41 to T-45 should be all about adding BMD and not land attack

[Repulse]

if there was money to put mk41 on the T45 ? i would rather put it towards speeding up the T26 if possible as they have mk41 from the start, probably would have 1 or 2 T26 in service before the first 45 gets mk41 anyway......

The only way to speed up type 26 is to buy 3 or 4 more type 26 as we would need 3 more to allow the speeding of the build and not leave a gap between T-26 and T-83 and this would cost about 2.4 billion

Adding Mk-41 to T-45 should be all about adding BMD and not land attack

Both are very valid comments. I would love to see the T45 get TLAM but going back to the threat then @Tempest you are correct BMD needs to be the priority.

The gap between the T26 and what comes next is something that needs to be managed, and I would set the direction now in that the T83 will be additional batches of an evolved T26 design. If the MOD committed to BAE a T26/T83 12 mth build drumbeat till 2040 now it would transform things completely.

Edit: I would sell the T31s in the 2030s to help pay for it and provide the crew.

[Poiuytrewq]

I seriously worry that the “the navy needs to be bigger” phrase is just being used for political reasons for people who know no better and just want 10s of frigates on a wall chart, whilst the government dances around stats on total tonnage.

Building more Frigates is a good idea but how and when is the problem. I really don’t see HMT funding additional T26.

Given the current security climate HMG should commit to an ongoing building program of T31/T32 at Rosyth on a fixed drumbeat at the current pace but the headcount must catch up or it would be pointless.

This is why any meaningful uplift in funding should be directed to rebuilding the Army and RAF first followed by RN later in the decade when the headcount hopefully starts to improve.

However much can be done by 2030. Clearly many are repelled by the thought of more OPVs for RN but I would suggest that not all OPVs are the same and the capabilities of OPVs are evolving and moving away from basic EEZ patrol. Vard is certainly enthusiastic about the capabilities of their 115m next-gen OPV.

The VARD 7 115 NGOPV provides air, surface and sub-surface surveillance and engagement capabilities consistent with robust OPV littoral, task group light escort, sovereignty and constabulary roles, and includes an operations room accommodating up to 16 operator positions with a secure, segregated server room.

A rotating electronically scanned array medium range multi-mode radar supports situational awareness, early detection and tracking and cueing of surface and air threats beyond the main gun and point defence missiles. This along with 360 degree electro-optical surveillance and missile warning systems complement the weapons capabilities – a 76 mm super-rapid gun system and SeaRAM. A fire control radar supports the main gun.

https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... raphic.pdf

Clearly an impressive vessel but too much capability for an RN OPV+.

Sharing a similar hull form as the 115 NGOPV and 125 NGOPV, the Vard 7 125 OPV is a much simpler vessel relying much more on commercial standards, has a similar range to a T31, similar top speed as a RB2, can embark a Wildcat and 4x RHIBs but only requires a core crew of 50. https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... -7-125.pdf

Neither vessel is perfect for RN use but clearly the NGOPV is mixing naval and commercial standards in much the same way as the Vard derived Offshore Patrol Cutter for the USCG. A version optimised for RN could include the 115m NGOPV hull form but with a much simplified superstructure arrangement.

If RN and BAE are content that the River Class have reached a dead end then Vard could rapidly and cost effectively provide the solution.

[Poiuytrewq]

Changing the topic and moving over the "scaling" discussion from the River Class (OPV) thread, I think we need to move the conversation from a vague one about scaling and size of the RN, to something that is actually aligned to priority requirements grounded in reality.

First things first, if HMG doesn’t provide additional funding then even current planning is unaffordable. Extra vessels are out of the question without deleting something else.

However what RN could or should do if HMG actually did increase funding is a valid discussion. IMO current planning is based around the assumption that funding will increase to 2.5% GDP before the end of the decade so any increase beyond current planning will require a shift to 3% GDP or around £10bn extra per annum. Thats seems unlikely but it would be good politics for an outgoing administration to provide that funding boost just before losing the election to set a trap for the incoming administration.

The landscape by 2030 could look vastly different but RN is well placed with both the T26 and T31 in build with a third yard gearing up to build the FSS and the SSN numbers look set to rise once the SSBNs are completed. In the most simple terms just keep building!

[serge750]

My issue is that I do not see which of the priorities is the T31 actually addressing. The priority is not a GP ship, it’s to either to tackle sub surface threats or provide wide area / BMD defence.

The discussion around a T32 is interesting, but unless it’s another batch of T31s, which does not align to priorities, it will be a new class which wouldn’t deliver anything till after 2035. More T26s really is the only thing in town that makes sense from a FF/DD perspective.

I am also quite nervous from going too far with OPV+s - sure you can add CAMM for local area defence like the Venator 90 design had, but my view is that the priority is three fold; free up T45s/T26s from low level duties, provide additional platforms to operate unmanned systems and ASW sensors from and keep the cost / crew size to a minimum.

[donald_of_tokyo]

...https://vardmarine.com/wp-content/uploa ... raphic.pdf

Clearly an impressive vessel but too much capability for an RN OPV+.

For me it looks very much low standard in damage control. The NGOPV in military mode requires a crew of 150. Vard 7 125 OPV requires 50, with similar hull.

Also note that USCG Heritage class cutter, which is Vard 7 110 derivative, requires a complement of 125. This is when it needs to be "nearly" of escort standard.

For me, it is clear. OPV is OPV, cannot fight, especially when it is lean manned. To fight, you need damage control and hence large crew. All data online, to my knowledge, tell as such.

[serge750]

Since we are spending lots of money on the T45 PIP & CAMM upgrades etc i actualy hope they have longer service lives than 2038 so maybe we could fit in a extra 1 or 2 T26's to increase th ASW for the RN by defering the T83 a couple of years.......while modestly increasing the fleet numbers

[donald_of_tokyo]

My issue is that I do not see which of the priorities is the T31 actually addressing. The priority is not a GP ship, it’s to either to tackle sub surface threats or provide wide area / BMD defence.

The discussion around a T32 is interesting, but unless it’s another batch of T31s, which does not align to priorities, it will be a new class which wouldn’t deliver anything till after 2035. More T26s really is the only thing in town that makes sense from a FF/DD perspective.

I am also quite nervous from going too far with OPV+s - sure you can add CAMM for local area defence like the Venator 90 design had, but my view is that the priority is three fold; free up T45s/T26s from low level duties, provide additional platforms to operate unmanned systems and ASW sensors from and keep the cost / crew size to a minimum.

I am not sure if it is only "tackle sub surface threats or provide wide area / BMD defence". A T31 with 24 CAMM can cover the Red Sea task, as much as HMS Richmond (T23 GP) can. I think this is important task.

And, as we know, most of the escort resources are on T45 and T23/26, not much on T31. I think T31 will be providing good enough outcome to secure UK defense. Even if RN did not order 5 T31s, it would have provided only 2.5 more T26. (Actually, I preferred "2 more T26 and 2-3 more OPV+" than 5 T31. But, the build of T31 is progressing, and selling them will never give us back all the resources already spent there.) But, as least as of Feb. 2024, I agree continuing with 5 T31 as-is is the best way to proceed. They have lots of tasks to do.

Even in hot war, T31 has many tasks to do.
- Who are escorting RFA fleet from long-range ASM attack? = T31.
- Who are filling the gap, stop the enemy corvettes prevail that theater? = T31. Note Russia has many many corvettes.
- ASW? P-8A will do it. More ASW? Just order more SeaGuadian (ASW UAVs).
- AAW? T31 is as good as T23 in AAW.
- How can UK improve military capability on short notice, say 3-4 years? Building new warship will not meet the schedule. Up-arming the 5 T31 will.

I do not agree T31 "as is" is useless. RN desperately needs to replace the T23GPs. Improving its war fighting capability is worth considering (if budgeted), but it just improves the T31, which is already so-so useful. Existence of Russia DO NOT eliminate existence of Houthi rebels nor Iran. They BOTH exists. And even against Russia, 2nd-rate escorts can find many place to contribute.

[Jdam]

My issue is that I do not see which of the priorities is the T31 actually addressing. The priority is not a GP ship, it’s to either to tackle sub surface threats or provide wide area / BMD defence.

They were ordered to addressed the following priorities:

Be Cheap.
Keep our escort numbers at 19, so the politicians don't look bad and we could save face on the world platform.
Be Cheap
Shut up the SNP (a feet in itself)
and were cheap

[donald_of_tokyo]

My issue is that I do not see which of the priorities is the T31 actually addressing. The priority is not a GP ship, it’s to either to tackle sub surface threats or provide wide area / BMD defence.

They were ordered to addressed the following priorities:

Be Cheap.
Keep our escort numbers at 19, so the politicians don't look bad and we could save face on the world platform.
Be Cheap
Shut up the SNP (a feet in itself)
and were cheap

.. but as capable as T23GP. Even better in close-in warfare against fast boat and UAVs (thanks to the guns). ASW? T23GP rarely do it. NGFS? Not a trend these days.

Also, complement of a single T23 can fill almost two T31. In other words, in the current man-power limited situation, RN can double the number of active GP frigates from 2 (out of 3 T23GPs) to 4.

[Jdam]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

[Tempest414]

The Fact is if we have 8 x T-31 and 8 x MR-OPV's covering Indo-Pacific and South Atlantic that frees up 14 tire 1 escorts to carry out duties as seen fit

The RN have pulled off a blinder in keeping escorts numbers up with Type 31. We now know that 40 CAMM can be fitted in the place of 32 Mk-41 thanks to the RNZN

As said forget Mk-41 on T-31 and fit it out with 40 CAMM and 16 NSM this along with its gun fit and Wildcat would make T-31 a real hand full for 70% of all escorts now in service

[donald_of_tokyo]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

No.

George in twitter said 24 planned, as I remember. But that is far from official statement.

[Tempest414]

Do we know how many missiles the type 31 will carry when completed?

This will depend on weather T-31 gets 8 - 16 -24 or 32 Mk-41 as it could then carry 32 - 64 -96 or 128 CAMM

[Jdam]

The type 26's are as capable as T23 GP but we switched to the Type 31 because they were cheaper, no other reason, they may meet that criteria of a type 23 GP but that's a pleasant bonus.

All the official render of the type 31 have 12 mushroom, when was the last time the compliment of missiles wasn't known or announced before the launch of a ship for the Royal Navy? The first type 31 will hit the water this year (hopefully) and we still don't know. It doesn't inspire confidence.

The reason I bring it up is I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a ship with 12 missiles off the coast of Yemen right now, at least the type 23 has the compliment to deal with what is looking to be the largest threat to our ships in the next few years.