UK Defence Forum

If the T-31 gains two or more eight cell Mk41s then it would make sense for the RN to look at the ExLS Quad Pack system again. We could possibly see the Batch 2 T-26 replacing the Mushrooms with an additional two eight cell Mk41s amidships but these would probably not be "Strike" length launchers meaning large missile like the Tomahawk could not be used. On the plus side the T-26 could fit 64 CAMM in these two launchers or even a mix of CAMM and CAMM-ER. I believe VL ASROC or similar sized weapons would also fit. These would be the same Mk41 version as should be fitted to the T-31, able to fire CAMM and a number of other weapons including AShMs. I do not know what length of Mk41 is needed to fore the SM-6 Blk 1B though.

Lord Jim wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 17:17 If the T-31 gains two or more eight cell Mk41s then it would make sense for the RN to look at the ExLS Quad Pack system again. We could possibly see the Batch 2 T-26 replacing the Mushrooms with an additional two eight cell Mk41s amidships but these would probably not be "Strike" length launchers meaning large missile like the Tomahawk could not be used. On the plus side the T-26 could fit 64 CAMM in these two launchers or even a mix of CAMM and CAMM-ER. I believe VL ASROC or similar sized weapons would also fit. These would be the same Mk41 version as should be fitted to the T-31, able to fire CAMM and a number of other weapons including AShMs. I do not know what length of Mk41 is needed to fore the SM-6 Blk 1B though.

When we look at both the RAN and RCN version of the T26 we can see that the current forward missile section can house 4 8 cell Mk41s along the current back row and also house them where we have the mushroom cells, it appears this forward space has room to house up to 48 Mk41s in 6 sets of 8 cells.

As for ExLS I believe the RN have a been foolish not to adopt it as the mushroom cells take away from one of CAMMs best qualities of its close packing.

From the looks of the design I believe the T26s full capabilities would alllw it to have 48 Mk41s ( all strike length ) forward and 12-15 ExLS mid ship allow 48-64 CAMM / CAMM-ER

Jake1992 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 18:35

Lord Jim wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 17:17 If the T-31 gains two or more eight cell Mk41s then it would make sense for the RN to look at the ExLS Quad Pack system again. We could possibly see the Batch 2 T-26 replacing the Mushrooms with an additional two eight cell Mk41s amidships but these would probably not be "Strike" length launchers meaning large missile like the Tomahawk could not be used. On the plus side the T-26 could fit 64 CAMM in these two launchers or even a mix of CAMM and CAMM-ER. I believe VL ASROC or similar sized weapons would also fit. These would be the same Mk41 version as should be fitted to the T-31, able to fire CAMM and a number of other weapons including AShMs. I do not know what length of Mk41 is needed to fore the SM-6 Blk 1B though.

When we look at both the RAN and RCN version of the T26 we can see that the current forward missile section can house 4 8 cell Mk41s along the current back row and also house them where we have the mushroom cells, it appears this forward space has room to house up to 48 Mk41s in 6 sets of 8 cells.

As for ExLS I believe the RN have a been foolish not to adopt it as the mushroom cells take away from one of CAMMs best qualities of its close packing.

From the looks of the design I believe the T26s full capabilities would alllw it to have 48 Mk41s ( all strike length ) forward and 12-15 ExLS mid ship allow 48-64 CAMM / CAMM-ER

Impressive amount of launchers but what about the missiles and the cost of them.

bobp wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 20:51

Jake1992 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 18:35

Lord Jim wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 17:17 If the T-31 gains two or more eight cell Mk41s then it would make sense for the RN to look at the ExLS Quad Pack system again. We could possibly see the Batch 2 T-26 replacing the Mushrooms with an additional two eight cell Mk41s amidships but these would probably not be "Strike" length launchers meaning large missile like the Tomahawk could not be used. On the plus side the T-26 could fit 64 CAMM in these two launchers or even a mix of CAMM and CAMM-ER. I believe VL ASROC or similar sized weapons would also fit. These would be the same Mk41 version as should be fitted to the T-31, able to fire CAMM and a number of other weapons including AShMs. I do not know what length of Mk41 is needed to fore the SM-6 Blk 1B though.

When we look at both the RAN and RCN version of the T26 we can see that the current forward missile section can house 4 8 cell Mk41s along the current back row and also house them where we have the mushroom cells, it appears this forward space has room to house up to 48 Mk41s in 6 sets of 8 cells.

As for ExLS I believe the RN have a been foolish not to adopt it as the mushroom cells take away from one of CAMMs best qualities of its close packing.

From the looks of the design I believe the T26s full capabilities would alllw it to have 48 Mk41s ( all strike length ) forward and 12-15 ExLS mid ship allow 48-64 CAMM / CAMM-ER

Impressive amount of launchers but what about the missiles and the cost of them.

I accept that to fill them would come at a cost but I’m of the mind set that it’s cheaper and quicker to rush buy missiles and slip them in the VLS in a time of need than it is to try and “quickly” retrofit the VLS to said ship.

But the statement was more to show what the T26 could be fitted to if the RN wanted and how the use of ExLS mid ship instead of the wasteful mushroom set up could free up usable space forward.

I agree that having the launchers available is a good thing. And yes there is an option to procure missiles as say a UOR, but modern weapons can not be produced rapidly. There needs to be an adequate war stock for troubled times. Pity that the money for such a situation is not there.

bobp wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 22:14 I agree that having the launchers available is a good thing. And yes there is an option to procure missiles as say a UOR, but modern weapons can not be produced rapidly. There needs to be an adequate war stock for troubled times. Pity that the money for such a situation is not there.

Indeed. Defence contractors don't make their profits by tying up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of stock in warehouses in case someone needs them in a hurry! Any UOR will require a slot in someone's production schedule, and getting bumped up the list will cost big bucks.

I understand UK/RN ammunition stock and engineering support is dangerously low, as noted in the following article.
https://www.navylookout.com/how-can-few ... avy-fleet/

For me, "filling the cilo" or, obtaining "enough stock of ammunition" are the highest priority. Of course, getting enough man-power is the second priority. "Adding more hulls" is just below them.

Buying enough ammo is much more important than up-arming anything or buying T32, I think.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 02:12 I understand UK/RN ammunition stock and engineering support is dangerously low, as noted in the following article.
https://www.navylookout.com/how-can-few ... avy-fleet/

For me, "filling the cilo" or, obtaining "enough stock of ammunition" are the highest priority. Of course, getting enough man-power is the second priority. "Adding more hulls" is just below them.

Buying enough ammo is much more important than up-arming anything or buying T32, I think.

Ammunition, spare parts, personnel, training and proper maintenance makes a better ship.

donald_of_Tokyo Wrote,

For me, "filling the cilo" or, obtaining "enough stock of ammunition" are the highest priority. Of course, getting enough man-power is the second priority. "Adding more hulls" is just below them.

Donald San, I would agree with you, but for just one fly in the ointment. As the RN manpower is sufficient to provide un-necessary “double crewing” of some escorts, the real priority order is for the last two (of the three) to be reversed. This will become even more relevant as the replacement of T23GP by T31 occurs.

donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑06 Jan 2022, 02:12 …RN ammunition stock and engineering support is dangerously low…

I’m not a logistics expert, and I’m sure there are many complexities / provisions in the supply chain that are not apparent to us mere mortals. However, prioritising flashy kit over the ability to fight and sustain the fight is the usual political BS we’ve come to expect. If the defence media know it so will Russia, China and every other potential foe out there. It almost like everyone still believes there is zero chance of a war and therefore it doesn’t matter - having this lack of preparedness makes war more likely as people try to take advantage.

This is exactly why we should be laser focused on requirements, rather than frigate numbers and wall charts. I would cancel every T31/T32 if it was the difference between having a CSG capable of war fighting for a sustained period or not.

I thought this article was interesting, covering the advance deployment of HMS Montrose for 1,000+ days in Bahrain to cover patrolling abd protecting merchant shipping in the Persian Gulf.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british ... sian-gulf/

I thibk this will be pertient to the T31's as currently the plan is for all 5 of the General Purpose Frigates to be advance deployed, especially to locations EoS.

26th January Babcock have contracted KAEFER UK & Ireland to apply over 510,000m2 of specialist paint coatings, so 100,000 m2 per ship, surprising to me such a large number.

PS KAEFER UK & Ireland is a subsidiary of a family owned German company.

https://www.kaefer.com/KAEFER-in-UK-amp ... -Navy.html

Type 31 still being pitched to Greece

Greek article with some notable claims.
https://navaldefence.gr/ektakto-h-type- ... enic-navy/

This morning, a Babcock delegation passed through the door of the Ministry of the Interior, with a proposal for the famous program of "corvettes". The only difference is that the British do not bring a proposal for a corvette of 2500-3000 tons, but for a displacement frigate of 5700 tons. They know very well that the Ministry of Defense does not choose to buy corvettes for reasons of ease of use, but for reasons of need and cost. Therefore, it comes with a proposal, which we can hardly refuse.

The article claims that Babcock are no longer offering an Arrowhead derivative but instead a RN spec Type 31, or close enough.

In the total cost, the British also offer the modernization of the 4 MEKO200HN, with systems similar to those that will be installed in the Type 31HN. The proposal for the modernization of MEKO200HIN is based on the wishes of the Navy, but also on the experience of Babcock with the modernization of MEKO200ANZAC of Australia and New Zealand.

Considering HII have not given up on Greece, and are still aggressively pitching their maxed out Freedom Class, it seems Babcock have decided to take another spin. Still offering build in Greece too, unlike France.

Good luck to them. Pitching a 5700t frigate in a competition for 3000t corvette adaptions has worked before!

P.S: I'm sure the penultimate sentence will make any RN fans smile.

image is interesting shows 24 mushroom

Tempest414 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2022, 18:00 image is interesting shows 24 mushroom

Good eye! Don't think we've seen this image before:



Also piqued my personal obsession with the boat bays. Back to two port...

Surely that's a 'fan' rendering. An official rendering wouldn't have rust stains on it. Plus I thought the potholes had been deleted on T31. Other oddities: rear boat bay door, midmast mesh panel, funnel 'exhaust pipes'

Now we just need that "Fan" to do a rendering with Mk41 VLS and AShM Canisters

And that"Fan" to be the First Sea Lord....

Its from turbosquid

jonas wrote: ↑15 Feb 2022, 14:06

Though other Polish Twitter users are saying the decision has already been made, and Babcock is the #1 preferred option.

Just simply quite reasonable...

Doesn't matter.

The Separatist scum have already written off shipbuilding in Scotland as an acceptable sacrifice...For others to make on their behalf.