Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

We will probably fit CAMM to the T-45s just before we sell them off to Chile or Brazil.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 13:13 This articles says SkySabre (or LandCeptor)'s radar can handle 24 CAMM missiles at once.

T23 has 32 CAMM. T26 has 48 CAMM. And, T31 has 12 CAMM... Surely, not only T31, but even T23/26 is not fully utilizing the systems capacity. Increasing its number shall be important.

Hope T26 batch2 carries 96 CAMM.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-bri ... s-service/
To be clear Babcock have said clearly that the RN have not made up the minds how many CAMM type 31 will get they could get 0 or 48 and anything in between

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 10:52
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 13:13 This articles says SkySabre (or LandCeptor)'s radar can handle 24 CAMM missiles at once.

T23 has 32 CAMM. T26 has 48 CAMM. And, T31 has 12 CAMM... Surely, not only T31, but even T23/26 is not fully utilizing the systems capacity. Increasing its number shall be important.

Hope T26 batch2 carries 96 CAMM.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-bri ... s-service/
To be clear Babcock have said clearly that the RN have not made up the minds how many CAMM type 31 will get they could get 0 or 48 and anything in between
Impressive that Sky Sabre can control the flight of 24 missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets, and assuming that capability down to the Israeli Rafael BMC4I system, battle management, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (BMC4I) network, developed by Rafael mPrest subsidiary, used on Iron Dome system. MoD placed ~£78 million contract with Rafael in 2018. Whether the BAE CMS used in the T45 or the T31 Thales Tacticos have similar capability don't know.
BMC4I also known as MIC4AD
The command and control system is the Rafael Modular, Integrated C4I Air Defense System.

Rafael describe MIC4AD as;

MIC4AD is an advanced, unified, integrated C4I system that commands and controls the operation of both air and missile defense, including air-superiority missions. The system provides a total solution for multi-system, multi-layer and multi-range air and missile defense, traditionally operated as separate commands, correlates real-time data from distributed sensors/platforms (radars, IFF system, data links, electro-optics), all connected to the air traffic control picture and mission planning system. The data is analyzed to deliver a real-time, coherent national Air Situation Picture (ASP). Simultaneously, MIC4AD performs threat assessment and hostile target classification, generating an interception plan for threats at any command level (national, regional, tactical). MIC4AD optimizes resource management and swiftly allocates the most appropriate defense system, such as SPYDER, David’s Sling, Iron Dome or other customer systems to the type of challenge. Response includes target allocation to weapon systems (TAWA – Threat Assessment Weapon Allocation) with full, semi-automatic or manual fire control according to customer doctrine. MIC4AD’s open, modular architecture can be adapted to customer operational needs. The system can be integrated with a customer’s existing or future air and missile defense. This flexibility allows incorporating new technologies and systems with the existing arrangement. MIC4AD can serve as an add-on to the customer’s current C4I setup, or replace existing systems entirely. Highly automated, easy-to-use and with advanced interactive displays, MIC4AD is a true force-multiplier. Enabling unified command and fire control of multiple air and missile defense systems, MIC4AD delivers multi-mission, multi-layer and multi-range C4I capabilities that ensure end-to-end air and missile protection.
https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/common-a ... sile-camm/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

NickC wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 13:14
Impressive that Sky Sabre can control the flight of 24 missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets, and assuming that capability down to the Israeli Rafael BMC4I system, battle management, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (BMC4I) network, developed by Rafael mPrest subsidiary, used on Iron Dome system.
Bad assumption because CMS usually can simultaneously track hundreds of targets. I'm sure the Rafael system is not deficient. The Sky Sabre capability is conferred by the missile data link. And I'm not entirely sure that the figure of 24 is correct. I have read of lower limits.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 10:52
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 13:13 This articles says SkySabre (or LandCeptor)'s radar can handle 24 CAMM missiles at once.

T23 has 32 CAMM. T26 has 48 CAMM. And, T31 has 12 CAMM... Surely, not only T31, but even T23/26 is not fully utilizing the systems capacity. Increasing its number shall be important.

Hope T26 batch2 carries 96 CAMM.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-bri ... s-service/
To be clear Babcock have said clearly that the RN have not made up the minds how many CAMM type 31 will get they could get 0 or 48 and anything in between
The current number is 12. The question is, will the RN increase that. I suspect that will be decided by Babcock's remaining on budget and not chewing through the contingency funds. However, I guarantee it won't be 48 :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:47
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 10:52
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 13:13 This articles says SkySabre (or LandCeptor)'s radar can handle 24 CAMM missiles at once.

T23 has 32 CAMM. T26 has 48 CAMM. And, T31 has 12 CAMM... Surely, not only T31, but even T23/26 is not fully utilizing the systems capacity. Increasing its number shall be important.

Hope T26 batch2 carries 96 CAMM.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-bri ... s-service/
To be clear Babcock have said clearly that the RN have not made up the minds how many CAMM type 31 will get they could get 0 or 48 and anything in between
The current number is 12. The question is, will the RN increase that. I suspect that will be decided by Babcock's remaining on budget and not chewing through the contingency funds. However, I guarantee it won't be 48 :lol: :lol: :lol:
I agree it wont be 48 however no where has it been confirmed it would be 12 just because the CGI shows 12 dose not make it so the clear statement was the number of CAMM is not yet decided

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 18:00 I agree it wont be 48 however no where has it been confirmed it would be 12 just because the CGI shows 12 dose not make it so the clear statement was the number of CAMM is not yet decided
As the system is already contracted between HMG and MBDA, the number is already decided. As the hull build has already started with fixed price contract, again it is surely already decided.

It is simply not yet announced/open to public. Someone can try freedom of information?

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:43
NickC wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 13:14
Impressive that Sky Sabre can control the flight of 24 missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets, and assuming that capability down to the Israeli Rafael BMC4I system, battle management, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (BMC4I) network, developed by Rafael mPrest subsidiary, used on Iron Dome system.
Bad assumption because CMS usually can simultaneously track hundreds of targets. I'm sure the Rafael system is not deficient. The Sky Sabre capability is conferred by the missile data link. And I'm not entirely sure that the figure of 24 is correct. I have read of lower limits.
CMS usually can simultaneously track hundreds of targets
can other CMS systems match the Rafael BMC4I and control the flight of 24 individual missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets.

Interested in your source of
And I'm not entirely sure that the figure of 24 is correct. I have read of lower limits
contradicting what Senior Training Officer, Major Tim Oakes said in the PR

PS Think remember reading on the forum that the NS110 and Tacticos limited to controlling/targeting just three targets at any one time, anyone have the correct info?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Sea Wolf on Type 23 could control 4 missiles at a time two for each 911 FCR.
Thales claims NS100 can track 1000 targets, but lets assume the radar needs to dedicate 10x more resources to turn target tracks into 'weapons locks' that's still 100 targets. It's unbelievable that Tacticos can only control engagement on three targets at a time. What would be the constraint?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 19:13
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 18:00 I agree it wont be 48 however no where has it been confirmed it would be 12 just because the CGI shows 12 dose not make it so the clear statement was the number of CAMM is not yet decided
As the system is already contracted between HMG and MBDA, the number is already decided. As the hull build has already started with fixed price contract, again it is surely already decided.

It is simply not yet announced/open to public. Someone can try freedom of information?
What has been contracted is the integration of CAMM into the system what we are trying to guess is what is in the contract now is it to allow up to 2 or 3 times 12 missiles meaning type 31 could be fitted with 0 , 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 missiles

For me I see the RN opting for 24 missiles however as tensions climb ever higher with both Russia and China I would not be shocked now to see 36

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5545
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Tempest414 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 09:01What has been contracted is the integration of CAMM into the system what we are trying to guess is what is in the contract now is it to allow up to 2 or 3 times 12 missiles meaning type 31 could be fitted with 0 , 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 missiles

For me I see the RN opting for 24 missiles however as tensions climb ever higher with both Russia and China I would not be shocked now to see 36
Is it only the integration into CMS? Interesting to see the source/document.

By the way, integration into T31 hull needs "T31 hull", and T31 hull is already contracted and build already started, and the contract is "no modification allowed". So I understand it means the CAMM number is already decided? How can you keep it "not yet decided" without any modification option to the hull-integration contract? The only option will be to build the hull capable for 24/36 CAMM, but not adding the LMS box, no wiring, no shock absorbing gears. Anyway, "number of holes on the hull" must be already decided?

PS From where the "not yet decided" assumption came? I remember before the final contract, it was stated so. After the final Critical Design Review of T31 build, I cannot remember anything indicating "not yet decided"? And, CDR is "nothing to change anymore", by definition.

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1701
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Scimitar54 »

What if the CAMM silo is supplied as a “Module” ? Just one opening would then be required. Perhaps T31 could even be built as FFBNW, or with a Test “Module”, The operational “Module” could then be built separately and actually installed post build.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 09:21
Tempest414 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 09:01What has been contracted is the integration of CAMM into the system what we are trying to guess is what is in the contract now is it to allow up to 2 or 3 times 12 missiles meaning type 31 could be fitted with 0 , 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36 missiles

For me I see the RN opting for 24 missiles however as tensions climb ever higher with both Russia and China I would not be shocked now to see 36
Is it only the integration into CMS? Interesting to see the source/document.

By the way, integration into T31 hull needs "T31 hull", and T31 hull is already contracted and build already started, and the contract is "no modification allowed". So I understand it means the CAMM number is already decided? How can you keep it "not yet decided" without any modification option to the hull-integration contract? The only option will be to build the hull capable for 24/36 CAMM, but not adding the LMS box, no wiring, no shock absorbing gears. Anyway, "number of holes on the hull" must be already decided?

PS From where the "not yet decided" assumption came? I remember before the final contract, it was stated so. After the final Critical Design Review of T31 build, I cannot remember anything indicating "not yet decided"? And, CDR is "nothing to change anymore", by definition.
So the contract was signed to integrate CAMM in to the ships systems and hard where in May however at DSEI in September the Babcocks stand said the RN had not decided on the number of CAMM to be fitted Page 288 on the type 31 thread

Also since that statement there has been no statement stating how many CAMM will be fitted

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 04:44 Sea Wolf on Type 23 could control 4 missiles at a time two for each 911 FCR.
Thales claims NS100 can track 1000 targets, but lets assume the radar needs to dedicate 10x more resources to turn target tracks into 'weapons locks' that's still 100 targets. It's unbelievable that Tacticos can only control engagement on three targets at a time. What would be the constraint?
Re Sea Wolf presuming two missiles fired per target to increase Pk percentage?

With the Israeli Iron Dome system designed to face multiple attacks, eg a total of two thousand plus Hamas rockets fired in last May's conflict coming in concentrated bursts, so understand why Rafael BMC4I designed to control up to 24 individual SAM Tamir missiles. With ship the threat level from individual anti-ship missiles would be much higher than Hamas unguided rockets, eg air launched BrahMos missiles with 300 kg warheads, and would expect two CAMMs fired per target to max its Pk, that would drop BMC4I targeting ability to 12, which might be required in worst case scenario with more than one a/c attacking (the Israeli Sa'ar class corvettes fitted with two C-Dome systems, 20 Tamir's each plus 32 longer range Baral-8s)

Re as said have no info on the NS110 and Tacticos numbers to control/target missiles simultaneously other than remember in previous post some time ago, speculation Tacticos capability based on computing power, algorithms and software, perhaps one reason why Thales Nederland developing it's next level CMS AWWS, Above Water Warfare System, for the new Dutch and Belgium frigates, FWIW AWWS video previously posted shows 12 air targets being targeted simultaneously.

Reuter pic
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 18:00
Ron5 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 17:47
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 10:52
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 06 Dec 2021, 13:13 This articles says SkySabre (or LandCeptor)'s radar can handle 24 CAMM missiles at once.

T23 has 32 CAMM. T26 has 48 CAMM. And, T31 has 12 CAMM... Surely, not only T31, but even T23/26 is not fully utilizing the systems capacity. Increasing its number shall be important.

Hope T26 batch2 carries 96 CAMM.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-bri ... s-service/
To be clear Babcock have said clearly that the RN have not made up the minds how many CAMM type 31 will get they could get 0 or 48 and anything in between
The current number is 12. The question is, will the RN increase that. I suspect that will be decided by Babcock's remaining on budget and not chewing through the contingency funds. However, I guarantee it won't be 48 :lol: :lol: :lol:
I agree it wont be 48 however no where has it been confirmed it would be 12 just because the CGI shows 12 dose not make it so the clear statement was the number of CAMM is not yet decided
The Thales spokesman at the previous DSEI said 12 as well as the Thales CGI published by DES showed the same number. I'd bet money the contract says 12. But you're right, not 100% certain. Maybe 98%.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 19:13
Tempest414 wrote: 07 Dec 2021, 18:00 I agree it wont be 48 however no where has it been confirmed it would be 12 just because the CGI shows 12 dose not make it so the clear statement was the number of CAMM is not yet decided
As the system is already contracted between HMG and MBDA, the number is already decided. As the hull build has already started with fixed price contract, again it is surely already decided.

It is simply not yet announced/open to public. Someone can try freedom of information?
Our mole at DSEI this year was crystal clear that the Babcock's folk on their stand said the number hadn't yet been decided. Quite possibly the contract was for x with options for an additional y to be exercised later depending of the state of the GFX budget.

That fits with the press reports that there was unhappiness within the RN about the low missile count. Perhaps that unhappiness resulted in a concession that the number would be looked at again later to see if more were affordable.

Zero chance for FOI - commercially confidential.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brit ... mmediately

Today we have discussed areas for a broadened and deepened cooperation. We have agreed upon strengthened cooperation in a number of areas:

The UK and Denmark will enhance cooperation on response forces – both within NATO and with rapid deployable forces for crisis response.

The UK and Denmark will continue cooperation in the Baltic region, including within the framework of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence in Estonia and Multinational Division (North) in Latvia and in Denmark.

The UK and Denmark will work together to develop the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) to stand with allies and close partners and defend common values.

The UK and Denmark will cooperate on and train Host Nation Support to ensure fast deployment of UK forces through Danish territory in case of crises. To deter Russia from aggressive behaviour and other threats, NATO must be able to deploy forces across all its regions at the speed of relevance in order to provide timely reinforcement of allies in a crisis or a military conflict. We will enhance cooperation on military mobility through NATO, the Northern Group and bilaterally.

The UK and Denmark remain jointly committed to NATO-EU cooperation, with a view to building a mutually reinforcing partnership.

The UK and Denmark will enhance our operational cooperation, including in the North Atlantic, in such areas as air and maritime surveillance, joint training, disaster relief, intelligence-sharing and anti-submarine operations.

The UK and Denmark will explore opportunities for enhanced cooperation in tackling terror threats and supporting stability in Africa.

The UK and Denmark will cooperate on training, the operational use and maintenance of frigates based on the similar designs of the UK Type 31 frigates and the Danish Ivar Huitfeldt-class frigates.

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 16:25 Our mole at DSEI this year was crystal clear that the Babcock's folk on their stand said the number hadn't yet been decided. Quite possibly the contract was for x with options for an additional y to be exercised later depending of the state of the GFX budget.

That fits with the press reports that there was unhappiness within the RN about the low missile count. Perhaps that unhappiness resulted in a concession that the number would be looked at again later to see if more were affordable.
I wonder if the vague mutterings by the new CDS about T31 being FFBNW Mk41 was in response to that. Assuming it never comes to pass, the proposal to do so gives an easy retort to anyone questioning the lack of more than 12 CAMM on the 'Venturer Class'. ;)

On the subject of things we won't get out of the MoD, I'd be curious how full/empty the T45/23 silos were for CSG21...

User avatar
RichardIC
Senior Member
Posts: 1371
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by RichardIC »

Jensy wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 20:49
Ron5 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 16:25 Our mole at DSEI this year was crystal clear that the Babcock's folk on their stand said the number hadn't yet been decided. Quite possibly the contract was for x with options for an additional y to be exercised later depending of the state of the GFX budget.

That fits with the press reports that there was unhappiness within the RN about the low missile count. Perhaps that unhappiness resulted in a concession that the number would be looked at again later to see if more were affordable.
I wonder if the vague mutterings by the new CDS about T31 being FFBNW Mk41 was in response to that. Assuming it never comes to pass, the proposal to do so gives an easy retort to anyone questioning the lack of more than 12 CAMM on the 'Venturer Class'. ;)

On the subject of things we won't get out of the MoD, I'd be curious how full/empty the T45/23 silos were for CSG21...
There were no vague mutterings. Look at the transcript. what was vague?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Lord Jim »

There does seem to now be a official wish to make the T-31 more "Spiky", after it has entered service and increasing the number of Sea Ceptor Carried plus the addition of one or more eight cell Mk41s would accomplish that. The fact that the T-31 has the space for such additions should help with any future installations as well. We will just have to see what happens an what the timeframe is.

wargame_insomniac
Senior Member
Posts: 1135
Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by wargame_insomniac »

SW1 wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 17:00 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/brit ... mmediately

Today we have discussed areas for a broadened and deepened cooperation. We have agreed upon strengthened cooperation in a number of areas:

The UK and Denmark will enhance cooperation on response forces – both within NATO and with rapid deployable forces for crisis response.

The UK and Denmark will continue cooperation in the Baltic region, including within the framework of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence in Estonia and Multinational Division (North) in Latvia and in Denmark.

The UK and Denmark will work together to develop the Joint Expeditionary Force (JEF) to stand with allies and close partners and defend common values.

The UK and Denmark will cooperate on and train Host Nation Support to ensure fast deployment of UK forces through Danish territory in case of crises. To deter Russia from aggressive behaviour and other threats, NATO must be able to deploy forces across all its regions at the speed of relevance in order to provide timely reinforcement of allies in a crisis or a military conflict. We will enhance cooperation on military mobility through NATO, the Northern Group and bilaterally.

The UK and Denmark remain jointly committed to NATO-EU cooperation, with a view to building a mutually reinforcing partnership.

The UK and Denmark will enhance our operational cooperation, including in the North Atlantic, in such areas as air and maritime surveillance, joint training, disaster relief, intelligence-sharing and anti-submarine operations.

The UK and Denmark will explore opportunities for enhanced cooperation in tackling terror threats and supporting stability in Africa.

The UK and Denmark will cooperate on training, the operational use and maintenance of frigates based on the similar designs of the UK Type 31 frigates and the Danish Ivar Huitfeldt-class frigates.
Nice - is this the first such Joint Declaration that UK has signed since Brexit? If so then we could do with similar ones with Norway and Netherlands. But this should help with LRG Nirth as well as future CSG if the Danish are willing to provide escorts such as IH Class.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

The RM and Dutch Marines already work as one and in real terms LRG North is made up of RN and RNLN ships work together all the time as seen with CSG21 and LRG/N and AP/N

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1061
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jensy »

RichardIC wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 21:07 what was vague?
Yes, I did watch the session and indeed replied to your comment at the time....

What seemed vague was the lack or detail, such as:

- Likelihood of actually being integrated?
- Number of cells
- Purpose of fitting MK.41 (AAW/land attack/ASuW)
- Would they supplement or replace the CAMM VLS
- Why this has ​never been mentioned previously?
- Is a Type 31 with Mk41 overkill for a stabilisation/patrol frigate?
- What this means for Type 32

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

The new Japanese 5,500t Mogami-class frigates (contract awarded Aug 2017), first four launched and first is already on its sea trials. FFBNW 16 MK41 VLS cells, November supplementary budget funding 32 cells presumably for next 2 frigates of the expected 22 frigate programme. Expected use of the 8 of Mk41 cells is for 32 ESSMs with double the range Sea Ceptor.

Mogami approx 1,000t lighter than the T31 (Babcock "its not a front line complex warship it essentially for some constabulary roles, anti-piracy")

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... for-jmsdf/

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Jensy wrote: 11 Dec 2021, 00:37
RichardIC wrote: 08 Dec 2021, 21:07 what was vague?
Yes, I did watch the session and indeed replied to your comment at the time....

What seemed vague was the lack or detail, such as:

- Likelihood of actually being integrated?
- Number of cells
- Purpose of fitting MK.41 (AAW/land attack/ASuW)
- Would they supplement or replace the CAMM VLS
- Why this has ​never been mentioned previously?
- Is a Type 31 with Mk41 overkill for a stabilisation/patrol frigate?
- What this means for Type 32
These are all good points for me the idea of fitting Mk-41 cells is in the face of things between NATO and Russia and China hotting up very quickly over the past 2 years and even in the last year

I can see type 31 being up graded very quickly to have a HMS and 24 CAMM and a 8 cell Mk-41

Post Reply