Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[NickC]

Ref my above post on funding of the CAMM-ER, looked at MoD R&D funding, found the following 2018/9 £1.6 billion ~ 4% of defence budget, that's a long term decrease from the £2.9 billion of 2004/5, which if have my figures correct was ~9%.

For a baseline checked out US FY2022 defence budget, RDT&E ~ 16%, I'm sure not an apples to apples comparison but gives a ballpark feel on how UK military R&D compares

UK military R&D has been cut savagely in comparison to equipment, personnel and operations, R&D is the seed corn of future weapon systems.

From <https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... xpenditure>

Bear in mind US R&D includes things like stealth bombers, nuclear cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons. They're pushing the boundaries on a significantly larger number of areas than the UK is so it's not entirely unexpected they have a larger share of their budget allocated to R&D

Would you consider the French for a more appropriate benchmark comparison for military R&D especially as a similar European nuclear power, the Ministere des Armees 2020 total defence budget was 48.3 million euros, R&D 5.5 billion euros 11.4% of their budget, UK figure £1.6 billion - 4%, France spends approx three times as much on R&D, MoD has savagely cut back military R&D over the last 15 years for the development of future UK weapon systems.

[Tempest414]

However the French do have a mental block that they can only buy french and they are having a nightmare keeping all there balls in the air

[Ron5]

At this rate the T-32 will replace the T-31 in the Royal Navy, so we could therefore sell them and maybe build eight T-32 to increase the fleet to twenty two and then build eight T-83 to bring it up to twenty four?.

Ha ha ha ha. Good one

[Ron5]

People forget that they are derived from the T21 design

Tenuous connection. Designed by the same company doesn't mean "derived from".

By the way, in many ways the T21 design was crap. Started to fall apart in heavy seas for one.

[ArmChairCivvy]

in many ways the T21 design was crap. Started to fall apart in heavy seas for one.

4th iteration since - must have improved somewhat

[SD67]

Two things are pissing me off about recent posts on this thread:

Firstly, Nick and his selective reporting on CAMM-ER intermixed with his own negative messaging.

The facts are that CAMM-ER is an Anglo-Italian project agreed at government levels. Who does what in various scenarios (Italian purchase, UK purchase, 3rd country purchase) is different and has been agreed up front. For Italian purchases, most of the work will be done in Italy. For UK purchases, most will be done in the UK.

But basically for the missile, apart from the new booster, everything will continue to be manufactured in the same place as for regular CAMM. So the seeker head will continue to be sourced from Italy and other parts from the UK. Location of final assembly will differ.

There are zero grounds for trashing the UK's R&D spending. There are zero grounds for trashing the UK's procurement strategy. There zero grounds for trashing the UK period. This is actually a great example of cross country collaboration benefiting both countries. Win win.

PS and for the umpteenth time, pin back yer effing ears, CAMM-ER carrying case/launcher has EXACTLY the same cross section as CAMM. There is no need to increase the diameter of any VLS to accommodate.

Well said

I'd add to that and say strategically Italy are one of the best partners we have. CAMM. Tempest. AW149 (potentially). Joint users of F35B. Selex, AgustaWestland. Frankly I wish we could partner up on a Hawk replacement as well.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I'd add to that and say strategically Italy are one of the best partners we have.

Yes, Italy and Japan (let's not talk about the war; or if we must, let's make it WW1)
- not wanting to diminish Sweden (nor its industries), but their defence (R&D) spend is 'only so much'

[Timmymagic]

Agree 100%. Should be a no brainier.

Normally I'd agree, but there may be a technical issue...from the EDR Magazine article...

"The platform data link terminal (PDLT) comes from the adaption for shipborne operations by MBDA Italia of the CAMM ER land-based programme solution developed by the Fusaro centre, to provide the required range to cope with the more capable missile version. The shipborne solution will feature four small arrays, of around 40 cm per side, which can be mounted on the main mast to offer 360° coverage, or rearranged inside two turrets on the upper deck of the ship, each one accommodating three arrays covering 180°, as already adopted on Type 23 platforms. The PDLT, which also includes the power generation system below the deck, provides the two-way communication between the ship and the CAMM ER missile; target positional updates can be uplinked from the ship to the missile in flight, while missile status information and diagnostics can be sent back to the ship."

That makes it sound as if the Data Link for CAMM-ER is different from the one used by the UK for Land Ceptor and Sea Ceptor. And is needed for the additional range.

It might be that CAMM and CAMM-ER are not as interchangeable as we thought....but then the comment from the Commander of 7AD (that 40km MRAD is on the way) may make a nonsense of that...

[ArmChairCivvy]

That makes it sound as if the Data Link for CAMM-ER is different from the one used by the UK for Land Ceptor and Sea Ceptor.[...]

It might be that CAMM and CAMM-ER are not as interchangeable as we thought....but then the comment from the Commander of 7AD (that 40km MRAD is on the way) may make a nonsense of that...

Yes, we come back to the question of whether mixed batteries are feasible, or whether two types (ranges) of batteries will exist with different system solutions.

[Timmymagic]

Looking at the T31 Sea Ceptor arrangement it appears the Italians would be mounting their 4 PDLT antenna's in position 1 on the masts of their vessels, whereas the UK has the Sea Ceptor Data Link in Position 2 (there is also one forward above the bridge).

[Timmymagic]

Yes, we come back to the question of whether mixed batteries are feasible, or whether two types (ranges) of batteries will exist with different system solutions.

Given the small numbers of batteries we have, and the nature of the Sea Ceptor system (sensor agnosticism and seperation of sensor and shooter) that would be daft. We can only hope that the Italian's are using a different PDLT purely due to wanting more local content, rather than it actually being non-compatible or a performance issue.

[donald_of_tokyo]

An old news on November 2020.

€1.5B contract for the delivery and full integration of Thales’s Mission and Combat System for the four MKS 180 class frigates.

We know total build cost (including CAMM as GFX) is £2B for 5 T31. Not sure how much was payed for Thales UK, which will cover the CMS integration, but I guess say £0.5B or so for 5 hulls. This tells us TACTICOS and combat system is much less complex than those of MKS 180 class frigates. In one side, cheap and simple is very good, RN can buy and operated 5 hulls of T31 thanks to it. In another side, T31's combat system looks very very simple (typical as a heavy corvette, but only a fraction of a full-fat frigate).

https://thales-group.prezly.com/damen-a ... the-future#

[Ron5]

What are all these "batteries" ??

[RichardIC]

In another side, T31's combat system looks very very simple (typical as a heavy corvette, but only a fraction of a full-fat frigate).

Got a source for that Donald?

[donald_of_tokyo]

In another side, T31's combat system looks very very simple (typical as a heavy corvette, but only a fraction of a full-fat frigate).

Got a source for that Donald?

Sorry I was not clear. Just saying the big cost difference means T31 CMS lack some costy part compared to those for German new frigates. I think this is clear. As TACTICOS is a scalable CMS, no surprise for me.

As the armaments and sensors vastly differs, this is also not a surprise. You do not need high analysis power if your sensor is short-ranged/low-resolution. You do not need high-speed calculation power if your CMS is not intended to detailed ASW multi-static analysis nor long/mid-range AAW control. I will buy low spec (and cheap) PC for just writing an email, but will surely buy powerful one (=expensive) if I am doing intensive simulation/rendering. But, anyway it is a Redhat PC with many softwares installed. Nothing is surprising here?

In short, I'm not saying TACTICOS onboard T31 is a monkey version. It is a full spec TACTICOS. But, TACTICOS itself is scalable. So, it enables MOD/RN to buy T31 cheaper, because its weapon systems and sensors are relatively simple. Good thing, it is. If now, there won't be 5 hulls in contract.

[NickC]

The new gen Thales AWWS CMS now marketed as TACTICOS as used in the new Damen Belgium/Dutch M-class frigates and the Damen MKS-180 / German F126 frigate

[tomuk]

Maybe a more intelligent question would be why are the German Navy fitting such a sophisticated radar/cms to the MKS180.
A 10,000t destroyer only fitted with RIM and ESSM which is supposed to replace the 3600t Brandenberg ASW frigates.
And we moan that T31 is under armed and oversize.

[ArmChairCivvy]

A good question; they wanted an 'intervention' frigate that could stay 2 years away from 'home port'
- and now the spec has shifted away from that; BUT not by much

It is almost like our 'global cruiser' that will now... be the RN asw specialist (but a pricey one)

[TheLoneRanger]

Is it wise to invest so much in developing and buying a French combat system in our frontline Naval ships given the importance of our naval capability and the direction of both the EU and the UK and the "Internet of Warfare" revolution we are seeing with connected subsystems, remote drones etc.

CMS platforms are more critical to the future than they have been to the past.

We have crossed that line where these system were specific to a ship to now an interconnected mesh of systems spread across multiple platforms in a task force and now, at the heart of all that - we now will have french systems in the brains, the heart and soul of our ships.

Shouldn't BAe start to build a home grown combat Naval system ? Why do we spend some much money investing in developing French intellectual property that they will own?

[Enigmatically]

We have a home grown combat system and combat mgr system But Thales won the bid because BAE insisted on only allowing their combat system to bid for the Bae led platform.

And tacticos is Dutch. They would be very annoyed with you

[RichardIC]

Shouldn't BAe start to build a home grown combat Naval system ?

Like the one that's fitted to every major RN vessel that isn't a T31?

[NickC]

Is it wise to invest so much in developing and buying a French combat system in our frontline Naval ships given the importance of our naval capability and the direction of both the EU and the UK and the "Internet of Warfare" revolution we are seeing with connected subsystems, remote drones etc.

CMS platforms are more critical to the future than they have been to the past.

We have crossed that line where these system were specific to a ship to now an interconnected mesh of systems spread across multiple platforms in a task force and now, at the heart of all that - we now will have french systems in the brains, the heart and soul of our ships.

Shouldn't BAe start to build a home grown combat Naval system ? Why do we spend some much money investing in developing French intellectual property that they will own?

In recent post above pointed out that though UK spends more on defence than France, France spends ~ three times as much on military R&D, due to the limited investment by the MoD over the years if we want decent kit for the services mainly have to buy foreign as exemplified by fit out of the T31, only nominal UK content, would point out in this particular case though Thales a French company the TACTICOS CMS is Dutch as is the radar, guns Swedish, engines, gears, propellers German etc, etc

[Ron5]

We have a home grown combat system and combat mgr system But Thales won the bid because BAE insisted on only allowing their combat system to bid for the Bae led platform.

Not heard that before. Why would Thales propose a Bae CMS when they have one of their own?

[Ron5]

Is it wise to invest so much in developing and buying a French combat system in our frontline Naval ships given the importance of our naval capability and the direction of both the EU and the UK and the "Internet of Warfare" revolution we are seeing with connected subsystems, remote drones etc.

CMS platforms are more critical to the future than they have been to the past.

We have crossed that line where these system were specific to a ship to now an interconnected mesh of systems spread across multiple platforms in a task force and now, at the heart of all that - we now will have french systems in the brains, the heart and soul of our ships.

Shouldn't BAe start to build a home grown combat Naval system ? Why do we spend some much money investing in developing French intellectual property that they will own?

In recent post above pointed out that though UK spends more on defence than France, France spends ~ three times as much on military R&D, due to the limited investment by the MoD over the years if we want decent kit for the services mainly have to buy foreign as exemplified by fit out of the T31, only nominal UK content, would point out in this particular case though Thales a French company the TACTICOS CMS is Dutch as is the radar, guns Swedish, engines, gears, propellers German etc, etc

Selecting Babcock's Type 31 had fuck all to do with UK R&D spending.

[TheLoneRanger]

No disrespect to the Dutch - but the future of warfare is increasingly software driven and the lack of "joined up thinking" by the UK MOD to investing in developing intellectual property that we ultimately own and can resell for economic benefit down the road is frustrating as well as the increasing "lack" of military capability from not being able to further develop new platforms.

This is where the French do it better, and why you see Thales everywhere in all UK defence programmes. They harvest long term strategic objectives from each of their military programmes whereas the UK treats each procurement as a single transaction with no strategic gameplan to further our military security or economic interests.

Warfar systems are progressive and iterative and we are losing with each iteration ....

This approach by the MOD is a strategic threat to our national security, sovereignty and with each project, the UK MOD actively undermines the pillars of our national security. That is what I find most frustrating... frustrating.. frustrating ...

Given the important of Naval capability to the UK, why don't we have a large naval ship yard that does both naval and military platforms like Damen : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damen_Group ??? ( https://products.damen.com/en ) There is something worng with the UK and the way we approach our commerical organisations that is so brutual in looking for short term market efficiency at the expense of long term strategic capability.

There is no investment strategy in the UK ..