Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Jdam
Member
Posts: 719
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
Has liked: 24 times
Been liked: 107 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Jdam »

FCASW for the type 26 and NSM for the type 31 going forward?

It was also be very interesting to see how quickly the NSM appears on the Type 23's :think:

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 132 times
Been liked: 318 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »


GarethDavies1
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 26 May 2021, 11:45
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 15 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by GarethDavies1 »

Good news. Hopefully they can be in service by 2026!

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Timmymagic wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 13:22
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 10:36 I believe Type 31 will come on line with 24 CAMM given the rise in tension a cross the globe
By the time T-31 and T-26 arrive in service, and the T45 upgrade with Sea Ceptor, there is a very real chance that CAMM-MR will have arrived as well. There's a couple of questions around that that I'm currently not sure of:

- Does the recently announced development of CAMM-MR mean that the previously trailed purchase of CAMM-ER is in abeyance? Or is it complementary to ER? The Poles look like they're going for all 3, albeit from different systems initially.
- Will T31 and T26 have the sensors and systems to support CAMM-MR? Will Artisan cut it? Should we have ordered NS200 rather than NS100 for T31?
- Is there space in the T31 and T26 missile areas for a longer missile like CAMM-MR? (no issue with T45 in that respect). Have we left space for future developments?
- CAMM is quoted as 25km, CAMM-ER 45km....(those figures are on the low side as well...suspect its more like 40km and 70km in reality). CAMM-MR is going to exceed CAMM-ER by a margin. We're probably going to have a 100km+ missile available for all Frigates, a near Sea Dart Mk.2 capability. That changes things somewhat...
My guess is that CAMM's range of 25 KM is against fast maneuvring targets during tests CAMM reached 60km but at that range I again guess it would be a large slow target. I reckon its main kill zone would be 35 km's

CAMM MR will be a nice add on but right now I would be happy to see 24 CAMM on Type 31

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4693
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 245 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

https://www.forces.net/services/navy/ro ... ile-system

This anti-ship missile will look to replace the Harpoon surface-to-surface weapon, due to go out of service in 2023, and will be fitted to three vessels at pace, ready for operations on board the first Royal Navy vessel in a little over 12 months.

Interesting.
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
SW1

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 108 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Great news but where does that leave the Mk41s on the T26?

Why 11 sets?

Type45 plus the T31s?

A T31 with NSM would be starting to get there and it would show the idea of Patrol Frigates was a concept for a different era.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
Has liked: 132 times
Been liked: 318 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SW1 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 14:16 Great news but where does that leave the Mk41s on the T26?

Why 11 sets?

Type45 plus the T31s?

A T31 with NSM would be starting to get there and it would show the idea of Patrol Frigates was a concept for a different era.
Empty??

I would guess as they plan to integrate on type 23 and type 45 it will be like harpoon, fitted on the ships that are at sea or preparing to go to sea and moved around accordingly

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4693
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 245 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 14:16 Great news but where does that leave the Mk41s on the T26?

Why 11 sets?

Type45 plus the T31s?

A T31 with NSM would be starting to get there and it would show the idea of Patrol Frigates was a concept for a different era.
11 sets for T45 and T23.

I guess (hope), 11 sets be rotated on the active ships. Active T45 and T23ASW is less than 11, anyway.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Has liked: 58 times
Been liked: 226 times
France

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Tempest414 »

Poiuytrewq wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 14:16 Great news but where does that leave the Mk41s on the T26?

Why 11 sets?

Type45 plus the T31s?

A T31 with NSM would be starting to get there and it would show the idea of Patrol Frigates was a concept for a different era.
Maybe some Tomahawk Blk-V for long range land attack to be replace down the line

I agree with donald I would prefer to see the 11 sets used across the fleet

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 22 Nov 2022, 20:15
Ron5 wrote: 22 Nov 2022, 15:10
SW1 wrote: 22 Nov 2022, 11:06 Personally they need to be talking about doing less with the same or less with less to allow contingency to be built up.
Spending more time in the pub only invites further cuts.

BTW, open your ears, the Navy has been very vocal on how it views its future.
You would have thought the start of this year would made them learn their lesson obviously not!

Yes its views change like the wind!
Tad weak. I'll grant a do-over.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 03:09
Repulse wrote: 22 Nov 2022, 17:13...
tomuk wrote: 21 Nov 2022, 21:07 Kipion takes one vessel on an extended basis. Anything can and has escorted LRG I wouldn't call it a standing commiment.
Anything can, but if you think there will be many T45s and ASW T23s/T26s spare to do this in the longer term is living on a hope and a prayer.
tomuk wrote: 21 Nov 2022, 21:07 ooh T31 is a high end force now? I thought it was no good and we needed more B2s
The general conversation at the moment is that Europe is the higher risk region, so it’s where we should be focusing our more capable platforms rather than using them for lower level constabulary / training / diplomacy operations.

My problem with the T31 is that it isn’t equipped to act as a high end escort, and even then I believe we should have more ASW optimised platforms. It also is too large / expensive to do a role that an OPV is doing.
tomuk wrote: 21 Nov 2022, 21:07T31 is a brand new modestly armed ship designed with availability and maintainability in mind it will not take 2 T31s to replace 1 old well worn B1 River.
I’d be delighted if the T31 hits the 70%+ availability of the River Class, but it won’t.
Comment-2 (of 2): On how the T31 will/shall be used, my thought. (continues)

1: I am always surprised that many here think there are only high-end-escorts and patrol vessel. No. If you look around the world, there is clearly another layer, so called "2nd-tier escorts". Actually, a "spectrum" of capabilities in ships.

high-end escorts : T45, FREMM/Constellation/T26 ASW frigates etc
2nd-tier escorts : Nansen class, many MEKO200s etc
Patrol ships (high-end): Floreal-class, Spanish BAM, Holland-class, USCG Heritage-class cutter
Patrol ships (low-end): River B1 OPVs, many Vard-7 80/85/90-OPVs, numerous Japan CG long-range cutters
...

2: What is more, tier-1 threat and lower-tier threat is going to take different tactics. Nowadays, the diversity of threat is getting even larger.

In 1990s, the major threat against ship were high-subsonic sea skimmer. There were another layer, Mach-3 class supersonic ASM. Only two layers. The former is to be handled with CIWS and short-range SAM (SeaWolf, Sea Sparrow et c), and the latter by long-range SAM (SM-1 and SM-2, as SeaDarts etc).

Modern maritime anti-ship threat is,
a: hyper-sonic ASM, and ballistic ASM (deadly expensive, but very difficult to neutralize)
b: (legacy) super-sonic ASM (like Vramos) (very expensive, but not easy to neutralize)
c: modern sub-sonic ASMs (NSM etc) (relatively cheap, stealthy and agile and soft-kill tolerant, not easy to neutralize)
d: (legacy) sub-sonic ASMs (Exocet, Harpoons, Chinese equivalent etc) (cheap, easy to neutralize)
e: slow suicide UAVs (very cheap, each easy to neutralize, but comes in number)
f: fast boat harassment/swarm (very cheap, each easy to neutralize, but comes in number)

So, there are wider spectrum of threats which "soldiers on a merchant ship" cannot handle. Advance in technology make this happen, and it will surely continue. Important to note is, items d, e, and f are so cheap that even a small nation or militila can operate them (although in reduced number). So you need numbers of assets to handle these lower-end threats. I understand this fact manifests the need for a ship like T31.

T31 can handle threats e and f much better than T23/T26/T45 can do, thanks to adopting 57 mm main gun and 40 mm guns (by forgetting NGFS). T31 is also not-bad at threat-d (57/40 mm 3P rounds). T31 can handle b and c, partly with its CAMM (if the number is limited). As such, T31 can also contribute to CVSG and LRG escort thanks to its CAMM, as a member of the escort (if threat is large) or even as a sole escort (small).

As far as T31 is cheap to build, cheap to operate, and requires (relatively) less man-power, it has its own rationale to be in RN. I think T31 is as cheap as needed. But its man-power is not so low, and therefore I am sceptical about T32.

My thoughts.
Threats a T31 is not configured to handle:

1. Any submarine, anywhere

2. Any mine, anywhere

3. Any aircraft, dropping any kind of bomb from high altitude

4. Any warship with OTH weapons that can handle two incoming Venoms

Repeat: it's a peace time configured ship. Can handle diplomatic/constabulary duties.

BTW, the RN conclude many generations ago that the best defense against FAC are missile equipped helo's. Not purpose designed warships.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 09:12 IMO we wouldn't be here if the T26 would have stuck to its original brief and been a kind of growth T23, around 5000t with basically the same ASW capability, but cheap enough to mass produce.

However then we wouldn't have the Ozzies and Canadians on board, as they basically want a junior AB.

(Also in a perfect world there would have been a proper competitive tender for the P-8, Boeing's pricing is off the wall.)

So we are where we are. All we can hope for is technology insertions into the lesser platforms via modularised or off board systems. Maybe some lateral thinking is needed. Does all the offensive capability need to sit on the T26? Could you not extend the reach by putting an additional Merlin or two on the accompanying RFA? Or a FireScout on a River B2?
The RN wanted a warship that could hunt & kill SSN's for the next 30 years, meet current standards for health, safety & habitability, be a platform for deploying off board assets, and be able to do all of the above anywhere on the globe.

Your Type 23 plus could do none of the above. That's why it didn't happen.

There was a competition for a new MPA, the P-8 won.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4693
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 245 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:12 Threats a T31 is not configured to handle:
1. Any submarine, anywhere
2. Any mine, anywhere
3. Any aircraft, dropping any kind of bomb from high altitude
4. Any warship with OTH weapons that can handle two incoming Venoms
Repeat: it's a peace time configured ship. Can handle diplomatic/constabulary duties.
BTW, the RN conclude many generations ago that the best defense against FAC are missile equipped helo's. Not purpose designed warships.
Item-1 is also for T45.
Item-2 is also for T45, T26, T23, and CV.
Item-3 is also for T26
So, yes it is a problem, but not only for T31.

Item-4 is not so clear for me. T31 do not need to sink enemy ship. What is important is NOT be sunk. In almost all cases, T31 can call for air-raid to destroy her enemy. It will take several tens of minutes, but that's it.

Also, if "missile equipped helo" is the right answer, T31 can carry two Wildcats with 20 LMM. So, it is perfect match?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:56
SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:08
Great news and looking forward maybe a high low mix with FCASW as the High end, I'd like to see JSM ordered for P-8 annd F35 as well
You are correct: canceling FCASW would save a lot of money and now wouldn't leave the RN without an anti-ship missile.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Timmymagic wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 13:22
Tempest414 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 10:36 I believe Type 31 will come on line with 24 CAMM given the rise in tension a cross the globe
By the time T-31 and T-26 arrive in service, and the T45 upgrade with Sea Ceptor, there is a very real chance that CAMM-MR will have arrived as well. There's a couple of questions around that that I'm currently not sure of:

- Does the recently announced development of CAMM-MR mean that the previously trailed purchase of CAMM-ER is in abeyance? Or is it complementary to ER? The Poles look like they're going for all 3, albeit from different systems initially.
- Will T31 and T26 have the sensors and systems to support CAMM-MR? Will Artisan cut it? Should we have ordered NS200 rather than NS100 for T31?
- Is there space in the T31 and T26 missile areas for a longer missile like CAMM-MR? (no issue with T45 in that respect). Have we left space for future developments?
- CAMM is quoted as 25km, CAMM-ER 45km....(those figures are on the low side as well...suspect its more like 40km and 70km in reality). CAMM-MR is going to exceed CAMM-ER by a margin. We're probably going to have a 100km+ missile available for all Frigates, a near Sea Dart Mk.2 capability. That changes things somewhat...
CAMM-MR details seem rather slim unless you have a source that I do not. I think banking on it right now would be a long shot.

OTH Sky Sabre can operate CAMM-ER and the head army dude said the army would be getting some. It's real.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 13:34
SD67 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:56
SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:08
Great news and looking forward maybe a high low mix with FCASW as the High end, I'd like to see JSM ordered for P-8 annd F35 as well
I think if we were gonna adopt it across land sea and air I’d get Raytheon uk to manufacture and we could perhaps develop it thru the complex weapons program. It’s looks very capable.
Isn't the complex weapons deal just with MBDA? i.e. the UK guarantee orders if you guarantee to maintain R&D&P in the UK.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 13:56 .. during tests CAMM reached 60km ...
I'm pretty sure that was a ballistic shot i.e no guidance, just shoot it at 45 degrees and see how far it goes.

SD67
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:30
SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 13:34
SD67 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:56
SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:08
Great news and looking forward maybe a high low mix with FCASW as the High end, I'd like to see JSM ordered for P-8 annd F35 as well
I think if we were gonna adopt it across land sea and air I’d get Raytheon uk to manufacture and we could perhaps develop it thru the complex weapons program. It’s looks very capable.
Isn't the complex weapons deal just with MBDA? i.e. the UK guarantee orders if you guarantee to maintain R&D&P in the UK.
Team Complex Weapons includes Raytheon - SPEAR Capability 1 ie Paveway 1V. Though given NSM is pretty mature I don't see how the UK could muscle in on some production work at this late stage. Though maybe a chance to sell Norway some Merlin to replace their not quite functioning NH90 debacle

Side point - Poland has already ordered NSM for their T31 derivative. Quite a bit of North Sea compatibility building up here

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:20 Item-1 is also for T45.
Item-2 is also for T45, T26, T23, and CV.
Item-3 is also for T26
So, yes it is a problem, but not only for T31.
HMS are usually used for mine avoidance. Anyhow, saying other ships have the same problem(s) doesn't make the T31 any better, does it?
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:20 Item-4 is not so clear for me. T31 do not need to sink enemy ship. What is important is NOT be sunk. In almost all cases, T31 can call for air-raid to destroy her enemy. It will take several tens of minutes, but that's it.
Another way of not being sunk is not being there (or not being built). If an asset confers no advantage it just becomes a burden.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:20 Also, if "missile equipped helo" is the right answer, T31 can carry two Wildcats with 20 LMM. So, it is perfect match?
You'll note I did not list anti-FAC as a T31 weakness. In fact, it's probably the T31's only military capability. And in that, no better than a Wildcat that can be operated off a host of ships that are not T31's.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6440
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Has liked: 49 times
Been liked: 32 times
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:47
Ron5 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:30
SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 13:34
SD67 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:56
SW1 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:08
Great news and looking forward maybe a high low mix with FCASW as the High end, I'd like to see JSM ordered for P-8 annd F35 as well
I think if we were gonna adopt it across land sea and air I’d get Raytheon uk to manufacture and we could perhaps develop it thru the complex weapons program. It’s looks very capable.
Isn't the complex weapons deal just with MBDA? i.e. the UK guarantee orders if you guarantee to maintain R&D&P in the UK.
Team Complex Weapons includes Raytheon - SPEAR Capability 1 ie Paveway 1V. Though given NSM is pretty mature I don't see how the UK could muscle in on some production work at this late stage. Though maybe a chance to sell Norway some Merlin to replace their not quite functioning NH90 debacle

Side point - Poland has already ordered NSM for their T31 derivative. Quite a bit of North Sea compatibility building up here
Thanks, didn't know that. Perhaps Kongsberg should be included in the team.

BTW sell Norway more Merlins

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 4693
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Has liked: 238 times
Been liked: 245 times
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Ron5 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:48
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:20 Item-1 is also for T45.
Item-2 is also for T45, T26, T23, and CV.
Item-3 is also for T26
So, yes it is a problem, but not only for T31.
HMS are usually used for mine avoidance. Anyhow, saying other ships have the same problem(s) doesn't make the T31 any better, does it?
Sorry, it was not clear for me. For example, ships cannot fly. Is it a problem? No. Mine avoidance sonar are sometimes added to escorts, but I believe it is not always. Mine avoidance sonar is specialized high-frequency sonar, very different from ASW sonar. Japanese Mogami class has a mine-avoidance sonar and TASS. I'm not sure T45 and T23 has mine avoidance capability. I've read some report on torpedo alert capability, though.
donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 15:20 Item-4 is not so clear for me. T31 do not need to sink enemy ship. What is important is NOT be sunk. In almost all cases, T31 can call for air-raid to destroy her enemy. It will take several tens of minutes, but that's it.
Another way of not being sunk is not being there (or not being built). If an asset confers no advantage it just becomes a burden.
For T31, being there is the key, because it is there to "patrol" the area. Lack of ASM is not good, but I do not think it is critical, because the Wildcat can carry 4 SeaVenoms.
You'll note I did not list anti-FAC as a T31 weakness. In fact, it's probably the T31's only military capability. And in that, no better than a Wildcat that can be operated off a host of ships that are not T31's.
But, T31 is the smallest/cheapest asset RN can send with a good enough helicopter assets. From BMT report, any ships with length shorter than 110-120 m has significant helicopter availability limitations. Requirement of T31 to have a length longer than 120m comes from there.

I'm not saying T31 is an ideal asset. Just saying T31 can actually do something, contribute to UK.

SD67
Member
Posts: 567
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
Has liked: 93 times
Been liked: 104 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by SD67 »

I have a mental image of Wallace sitting in his office with a bucket list of "Defence Contracts that need Signing" on one wall and on the other a tear off countdown calendar saying "Only <x> Days till Government Collapses"

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2727
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Has liked: 77 times
Been liked: 265 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Timmymagic »

SD67 wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 12:56 I'd like to see JSM ordered for P-8 annd F35 as well
JSM isn't integrated on P-8. Australia was looking at it c2015. But since then its gone deathly quiet. Australia has gone and purchased LRASM which the US is integating on P-8 for c2027. Suspect they've decided to really keep their P-8 out of harms way by using LRASM range. Norway hasn't shown much interest in integrating JSM and P-8 either...

Phil Sayers
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 03 May 2015, 13:56
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 67 times

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Phil Sayers »

On the assumption that the NSM sets for T-23 will later move over to T-31 (and frankly it would be madness not to so that must be the plan) this really is s significant upgrade to their capability. My main concern about the plan to have land-attack handled by T-26 down the line was that T-26 would either be doing ASW work far from any land targets or else would be escorting a carrier group that already has formidable land-attack capability in the form of its aircraft - simply not enough T-26 to go around for much in the way of solo deployments. In contrast the plan was to have T-31 operating in exactly the theatres where we might wish to be conducting strikes at short notice but without any ability to actually strike.

Precision land-attack at over 100 miles range goes a long, long way to alleviating that concern and a credible anti-shipping capability is also highly welcome. Delighted at this news.
These users liked the author Phil Sayers for the post (total 2):
wargame_insomniacPoiuytrewq

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2322
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Has liked: 72 times
Been liked: 108 times
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Poiuytrewq »

donald_of_tokyo wrote: 23 Nov 2022, 16:05 I'm not saying T31 is an ideal asset. Just saying T31 can actually do something, contribute to UK.
Absolutely, lots of potential but will it be realised.

For example,

T31 is commissioned with 24 CAMM plus 57mm/40mm and NS100. It’s about as basic as it gets. What if each T31 is also FFBNW up to 16 NSM? Very little changes in terms of operating cost or crew size, it’s just insurance for a rainy day.

Also, each T31 can embark up to two Wildcats. A pair of T31s armed with 32 NSM and embarking 3 or 4 Wildcats is a real strategic headache for an adversary, especially if operating in conjunction with P8s or an SSN.

Suddenly the T31 becomes a massive force multiplier for RN.

Post Reply