SW1 wrote:I really don’t get the negativity around this ship type. I think it’s the most sensible procurement decision they’ve made since HMS ocean was built
Completely agree. It's bizarre. Compare T31 threads/comments to River Class. T31 is so negative, not a real ship, not armed enough, waste of money, upgrading it is a waste of money.
River Class best thing since sliced bread, lets buy more, lets add bigger guns, missiles, radar. We need replacement Mine/Survey ships - answer a stretched/modified/up-armed River Class. We need low end/GP frigate - stretched/modified/up-armed River Class is the answer.
NickC wrote:
Re. the T31 Sea Ceptor launchers, Italian sources mention the launchers (see below) in passing on info on the Albatros NG/CAMM-ER, would infer that its unlikely the EXLS would be used.
Albatros NG/CAMM-ER build which appears substantially Italian as one would expect as the Italian Government funded the development of the ER, based on an original 2011 agreement between MBDA UK and Italia which agreed to a joint initial investment in a GBAD missile, Ground Based Air Defence........
Nick are you going to give any credit to the European defence Review article you have virtually quoted verbatim.
NickC wrote:
Re. the T31 Sea Ceptor launchers, Italian sources mention the launchers (see below) in passing on info on the Albatros NG/CAMM-ER, would infer that its unlikely the EXLS would be used.
Albatros NG/CAMM-ER build which appears substantially Italian as one would expect as the Italian Government funded the development of the ER, based on an original 2011 agreement between MBDA UK and Italia which agreed to a joint initial investment in a GBAD missile, Ground Based Air Defence........
Nick are you going to give any credit to the European defence Review article you have virtually quoted verbatim.
Although weirdly you have removed a lot of the references to the commonality with CAMM and the work of MBDA UK to downplay UK involvement.
As you quite rightly point I should have credited edr, apologies, one source did mention, which can't remember sorry, stated the the Italian Government made it a condition of the development contract to maximise Italian content. I don't mean to downplay UK involvement but think it's a reflection of the low R&D invested by UK, there was an earlier post listing the top 10 countries military R&D, think UK came 9th?, expect majority for Dreadnought, you would have thought CAMM-ER would have been natural for a 50/50 joint development programme between UK/Italian MoD's, instead 100% funded by the Italians.
Can't have been 100% funded by Italy, I remember a report of the UK stumping up the last of their commitment to the program, to provide the cash for final trials to get underway. It wasn't that long ago
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Can't have been 100% funded by Italy, I remember a report of the UK stumping up the last of their commitment to the program, to provide the cash for final trials to get underway. It wasn't that long ago
Another oddity is the picture at the top of the Alatross NG brochure, it shows the missile launching past the radar of the firing ship.
Now it might be photoshop but the radar looks awfully like Artisan on T23.
The appropriate time for criticism will be when they are commissioned and it still felt that they are lacking something that an individual feels is essential!
Can't have been 100% funded by Italy, I remember a report of the UK stumping up the last of their commitment to the program, to provide the cash for final trials to get underway. It wasn't that long ago
Nov 2019, MBDA 55sec video of the CAMM-ER at Italian test range
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.
Secondly, the misunderstandings regarding CAMM and the Type 31.
In the last stages of the Type 31 competition, both Bae and Babcock's told the MoD/Treasury that they could not contain their price for the ships within the 1.25 billion. They asked for relief.
Rather than admitting that they were wrong about the budget, the Treasury and MoD, came up with a neat little wheeze. They would remove the cost of integrating, installing and purchase of the CAMM system from the shipbuilders and that cost would be covered by an increase in the government supplied materials budget. That meant the total (ship builders contract plus GFX) budget grew to approx 2 billion. But it very nicely removed a stick that could be used to beat the government ("Boris/Dave gets it wrong on battleship price") at the expense of the original, oft repeated, statement that GFX would be kept to an absolute minimum.
Bae & Babcock's were happy and the winner, Babcock's, signed a contract to build the ships for 1.25billion sans CAMM.
So Babcock's cares not how many CAMM are fitted. They are not paying. They do not have to contain within the 1.25 billion.
When it came time to sign a contract with MBDA for the CAMM's integration, installation and purchase, it was the MoD that signed NOT Babcock's and it is the MoD/Treasury that will buy the systems and services.
So when MBDA referred Xav to the MoD for details and not Babcock's, it's because Babcock's is not a party to the contract. Clearly the MoD has asked for details to be kept secret. Which could mean a different number of VLS per T31 or could mean just the normal government paranoia.
PS We've learned recently that one Sea Ceptor system can handle up to 48 launchers. It's an architectural limit. The Type 26/31 VLS has 6 cells per unit so one Sea Ceptor system can handle up to 8 VLS i.e. the number on the T26.
PPS We've also recently heard that it's the health and safety lot that have insisted on the mushroom launchers as they provide better protection to ship and crew than ExLs.
Ron5 wrote: 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.
Great clarity there. Don't want to derail the navy thread, but those same things will need 'more ticks in the boxes' as for land applications
... I am all ears and not postulating anything
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
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.
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
Defiance wrote:US R&D includes things like stealth bombers, nuclear cruise missiles and hypersonic weapons
Like in all 'bleeding edge' stuff, one in 4 might come thru. Something to be expected.
- not the same thing as our armour projects (3 in 4 failing )
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If you want to follow US practice in this area it’s a sure way to go broke. You look at niche areas to specialise in and in others leverage commercial R&D spent by looking at funding to adapt it to military needs.
Aren't the Italian Navy putting CAMM-ER on some of their new light frigates, so installing the system on our vessels should not be that complicated unless there is no room for missiles this length integral to the ships design, regarding the T-26 and T-31. Maybe it is too late for the T-26 Batch one but could there be a chance for the remaining five as well as the T-31, as no steel has been cut for the latter? Doubling the range would be useful, and maybe a more mobile launcher for land use, ideally armoured, could be developed to use the original CAMM.
Lord Jim wrote:Aren't the Italian Navy putting CAMM-ER on some of their new light frigates, so installing the system on our vessels should not be that complicated unless there is no room for missiles this length integral to the ships design, regarding the T-26 and T-31. Maybe it is too late for the T-26 Batch one but could there be a chance for the remaining five as well as the T-31, as no steel has been cut for the latter? Doubling the range would be useful, and maybe a more mobile launcher for land use, ideally armoured, could be developed to use the original CAMM.
Lord Jim wrote:Aren't the Italian Navy putting CAMM-ER on some of their new light frigates, so installing the system on our vessels should not be that complicated unless there is no room for missiles this length integral to the ships design, regarding the T-26 and T-31. Maybe it is too late for the T-26 Batch one but could there be a chance for the remaining five as well as the T-31, as no steel has been cut for the latter? Doubling the range would be useful, and maybe a more mobile launcher for land use, ideally armoured, could be developed to use the original CAMM.
There’s obviously enough clearance for CAMM-ER in the forward launchers in T26, because the Australian and Canadian versions have a strike length MK-41 VLS where the T26 has the CAMM cells. I think it’d be a no-brainer to make at least the forward 24 cells long enough to take CAMM-ER.
I’m pretty sure the same could be done in T31, because both T31 and its parent IH design can take the MK-41 as well... I don’t think that’ll happen though, given the T31 mission requirements...
JohnM wrote: don’t think that’ll happen though, given the T31 mission requirements...
Well those could change... like howabout: babysitting any of the LRGs, while being the only combatant 'around'
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
JohnM wrote: don’t think that’ll happen though, given the T31 mission requirements...
Well those could change... like howabout: babysitting any of the LRGs, while being the only combatant 'around'
And if they do end up serving as LRG escorts more cells can be added... the design can take 4x8 MK-41 cells, so a simple dimensional analysis tells you it should able to take up to 6x6 CAMM/CAMM-ER MLS sets. Let’s just hope they do end up with at least 4x6 sets to begin with and not 2x6...
JohnM wrote: don’t think that’ll happen though, given the T31 mission requirements...
Well those could change... like howabout: babysitting any of the LRGs, while being the only combatant 'around'
And if they do end up serving as LRG escorts more cells can be added... the design can take 4x8 MK-41 cells, so a simple dimensional analysis tells you it should able to take up to 6x6 CAMM/CAMM-ER MLS sets. Let’s just hope they do end up with at least 4x6 sets to begin with and not 2x6...
Yes the weapons bathtub on the IH has room for 4x8 Mk41 plus 4 x Stanflex slots which can take either a Mk56 12 cell ESSM VLS or 8 tube Mk141 Harpoon launcher. Unfortunately on T31 a lot of the weapons deck has been sacrificed to provide space for the boat bays.
As the T31 is IH with as little change as possible the time hasn't been taking to rationalise the superstructure as it will retain the mid mast and stub mast for the long range radar. Maybe this can be resolved with T32.
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?.
Off the rack
To Greece, actually built to the spec that has been submitted to that competition?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
SW1 wrote:I really don’t get the negativity around this ship type. I think it’s the most sensible procurement decision they’ve made since HMS ocean was built
Completely agree. It's bizarre. Compare T31 threads/comments to River Class. T31 is so negative, not a real ship, not armed enough, waste of money, upgrading it is a waste of money.
River Class best thing since sliced bread, lets buy more, lets add bigger guns, missiles, radar. We need replacement Mine/Survey ships - answer a stretched/modified/up-armed River Class. We need low end/GP frigate - stretched/modified/up-armed River Class is the answer.
Because the T31 is neither fish nor fowl. At £400mn per unit it is an expensive large OPV/Corvette whose design’s only merit seems to be its large, ignoring the suboptimal use of that space. People talk about the potential of the ship - great spend the money and realise the value.
The River Class is starting to prove it self a very useful vessel. Sure it was overpriced by about 50% due to the industry annual spend commitment, but you cannot blame the class for that. It doesn’t pretend to be something it is not, it is a non offensive patrol ship. Any talk of increased systems / weapons are and should be purely for self defence. For the next 10 years, along with the globe trotting Echos, they will be the most commonly seen RN presence around the world.
”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston
River Class best thing since sliced bread, lets buy more, lets add bigger guns, missiles, radar.
Quite .
People forget that they are derived from the T21 design that was meant to be a 'real warship' but without any growth margin soon fell into secondary duties.
- nobody could fault their looks, though
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
River Class best thing since sliced bread, lets buy more, lets add bigger guns, missiles, radar.
Quite .
People forget that they are derived from the T21 design that was meant to be a 'real warship' but without any growth margin soon fell into secondary duties.
- nobody could fault their looks, though
Type 21 has gone on to give many years of good service to the Pakistan navy
I would also like to see both the T-31 and Rivers given a bit more teeth i.e 12 more CAMM and NSM on T-31 and 57mm on the Rivers
ears and not postulating anything
)
