Navy Command to 2030

For everything else UK defence-related that doesn't fit into any of the sections above.
Post Reply

Which would you prefer for the Royal Navy?

13 Type 26 Global Combat Ships and 5 River 2 OPV's
43
61%
8 Type 26 Global Combat Ships, 7 Type 31 general purpose frigates and 3 River 2 OPV's
27
39%
 
Total votes: 70

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Personnel Numbers

One of the biggest challenges facing Naval Command is having enough personnel to crew all of its submarines, ships, helicopters and aircraft as well as the Royal Marines. This was partly recognised in the 2015 SDSR which allowed for an additional 400 staff by 2020 in large part to enable the operation of HMS Prince of Wales.

2015-20

Personnel growth +1,340
HMS Prince of Wales +680
5 River 2 OPV +300
2 Astute SSN +200
Lightning Force Command +160

Personnel reductions -950
HMS Ocean -285
2 Trafalgar SSN -260
RFA Diligence (not inc RFA) -150
3 MCM Vessels -135
4 River 1 OPV -120

Total change +390

What this does also mean is that there should be enough personnel in 849 NAS to crew an additional eight upgraded Merlin HM2 after the retirement of the Sea King ASaC7.

2020-25

Personnel growth +865
3 Type 31e +255
Lightning Force Command +250
2 Astute SSN +200
1 adapted LPH (RFA only) +160

Personnel reductions -965
3 Type 23 -555
2 Trafalgar SSN -260
RFA Argus (RFA only) -80
1 Bay LSD (RFA only) -70

Total change -100

2025-30

Personnel growth +755
3 Type 26 +360
Lightning Force Command +225
2 Type 31e +170

Personnel reductions -925
5 Type 23 -925

Total change -170

So, over the whole decade these changes will free up 270 personnel for other duties. That could include providing enough personnel to operate both Albion class LPD for the first time since 2010!

The Reality

Well that’s what’s meant to happen – the personnel strength of the Royal Navy/Marines is meant to grow to 30,400 by 2020.
What’s causing real problems is that the current actual strength is just 29,280. So some 1,120 short of what’s needed to just about keep Naval Command functioning.

The result is under manning of certain key trades and ships staying longer in port rather than being at sea.

It’s also given an unwelcome opportunity for the National Security Capability Review to effectively say that if the Naval Command currently only has 29,000 or so personnel and it can function then maybe that’s what the new permanent staffing level should be. So that’s 1,000 fewer Royal Marines and no crew for the LPDs which then can be sold as they are surplus to requirements.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Good points on this page, let me try to dive in:
Spinflight wrote:Even though a lot of their programs, especially Typhoon, have been of dubious value.
Expensive. yes. But with all the turns and roundabouts has taken the RAF (later than many other AFs) to multi-role combat a/c era
... where would we be (budget & manning-wise) had that not happened?
marktigger wrote: It was good to see the TA dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st C and the MoD also dragged kicking and screaming to recognise their worth and provide them with proper terms of service and proper training.
The army is a mess as reconfiguring the whole thing for one sideshow operation has been a disaster
I agree about the mess, but part of the reason is that the "air cover" that the MoD is meant to provide "against" the more ignorant politicians has been lacking, partly because of the very high turnover in DefSecs (anyone care to count, from the 2nd Gulf War? Avg tenure?)
- which neatly takes me to the first quoted comment: terms of service being revamped. The whole thing - no doubt the experiences you are quoting helped with input - was to build a smoke screen for for the drastic cut in the numbers of regulars. The army org where the pairing at rgmnt/ bn level, to field enough of next level up -organisations (ie. brigades) has fallen to pieces. Wrong thread for it, but what can we/ will we (the army, that is) be able to field beyond the 2 AI + 2 Strike bdes, with air assault penny-packeted in support?
AndyC wrote:was partly recognised in the 2015 SDSR which allowed for an additional 400 staff by 2020 in large part to enable the operation of HMS Prince of Wales.
- don't forget the conversion of further 300 officer billets into something more useful/ critical
- the number of large units is going down (while their avg size is headed in the opposite direction) => command structure overall will have fewer pyramids to cope with
- while the smaller, more numerous units are becoming not only very lean manned, but by their nature require less "command"
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)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Good points on this page, let me try to dive in:
Spinflight wrote:Even though a lot of their programs, especially Typhoon, have been of dubious value.
Expensive. yes. But with all the turns and roundabouts has taken the RAF (later than many other AFs) to multi-role combat a/c era
... where would we be (budget & manning-wise) had that not happened?
off topic but response to the above. I believe part of the problem is the RAF never believed in Typhoon as it doesn't fit the Fighter command/bomber command mentality they still live in. They wanted a Pure air defence fighter to replace one part of their beloved tornado fleet and when it appeared with a ground attack role they saw it as a threat to the other part of their beloved tornado fleet.
Operational circumstances allowed them to divert resources from developing Typhoon like they did with the tornado where nearly every other type was robbed of resources to make tornado work given there were and are much better platforms I think was crazy (even some of the un modernised aircraft Tornado replaced were better than their replacements). Do they see typhoon as an interim till till F35 is up and running reading some of the threads on various sites I would come to that conclusion.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:I believe part of the problem is the RAF never believed in Typhoon as it doesn't fit the Fighter command/bomber command mentality they still live in. They wanted a Pure air defence fighter
I think you hit the nail on the head
- that does not mean to say that the beliefs have not changed (along the long and winding road that the Typhoon has had to take)
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)

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

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

Typhoon was also meant to replace the Jaguar fleets as the programme developed, hence No 6 squadron being one of the current Typhoon force. I don't think the problem is with the Fight/Bomber conflict. I think it started when the RAF basically took control of naval fixed wing aviation with the JHF. The SHARs were sacrifices as soon as possible to allow the Tornados to be retained and improved. However the RAF's front line strength was constantly being reduced, and only 7 then 5 Typhoon squadrons were planned so to keep the Tornado the Harriers went. Returning the Naval aviation, because the RAF was still in charge of fixed wing, it was forced to select the F-35B as a Harrier replacement for the Carriers rather than the F-35A it would have liked as a Tornado replacement. Therefore with the Tornados on the way out it had to accelerate the Typhoon improvement programme to giver it enhanced A2G capabilities.

Almost by accident the RAF have adopted a swing role platform in the Typhoon and are beginning to see the benefits this brings. There are those in the RAF who would like the balance of the F-35 programme to switch to the F-35A once the 3 F-35B squadrons are stood up, and they may get there way down the line when the Typhoon finally retires in the early 2040s. In the mean time the RN will have a very good platform to operate off its carriers but will never have enough to operate both with full air wings. The fly in the ointment will be forcing the RAF to give carrier ops the priority for the F-35B fleet, but having the Typhoon in its evolved form should ease this.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Therefore with the Tornados on the way out it had to accelerate the Typhoon improvement programme to giver it enhanced A2G capabilities.

Almost by accident the RAF have adopted a swing role platform in the Typhoon and are beginning to see the benefits this brings.
I can subscribe to that "story in a nutshell". Also to the "almost by accident" angle.

But Tornado retirement? Originally it was for 2024 (cfr. Luftwaffe's gradual 2025-2030). Without the constant "disappearing squadrons" and also the carrier & F-35 delays, the smooth glide from naval "B"s into (further) "A"s could easily have happened... and may have been the plan in the desk drawer all the time, while singing along in the new jointness choir (and to those notes, sorry...rules)?
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)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

An Amphibious Future

Hopefully, the National Security Capability Review will reject any plans to cut our amphibious forces. If that happens the Royal Navy needs to start considering the way forward for its amphibious fleet as changes could begin as early as 2024 with the retirement of RFA Argus.

If it is replaced by an adapted helicopter landing dock (LHD) based on the French Mistral-class amphibious assault ship it would have the ability to embark at least sixteen helicopters and 450 Royal Marines. To ensure it could be fully crewed one of the Bay class landing ship docks would be retired at the same time. As with the vessels it’s replacing its crew would be from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The replacement LHD carrier would also need to be capable of operating as a hospital ship and in peacetime have the role of aviation training ship.

In this situation the two QE carriers and the LHD carrier would be rotated and crewed to ensure that at any given time two of them would be available for deployment.

In the 2030s the two Albion LPD and the two remaining Bay LSD should be replaced by a further three LHD carriers. This would increase helicopter capacity significantly while maintaining landing craft capability and the number of Royal Marines being transported plus reducing crewing levels by a third.

Today the amphibious fleet consists of 2 x Albion LPD, RFA Argus and 3 x Bay LSD with a crew of 940, ability to carry 1,860 Royal Marines, 11 LCU and 8 LCVP landing craft and operate 13 helicopters.

If these were replaced by four Mistral-class LHD they would have a crew of 640, be able to carry 1,800 Royal Marines, 12 LCU and 8 LCVP landing craft and operate 64 helicopters!

In this situation when both QE carriers are active only one LHD needs to be active as well while when only one QE carrier is active up to three of the LHD carriers would be available for deployment.

Going down this route would provide the most amphibious capability for the limited resources available. Design work needs to begin shortly to adapt the Mistral for UK requirements and to operate as a hospital ship so that one LHD carrier can be built to take over from RFA Argus in 2024.

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

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

Nice fantasy

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

But why should it be a fantasy?

The French can build a Mistral for about £500 million so it's not that expensive even to buy four and the total size of the crew is reduced by a third so easing shortages and saving money!

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

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

Ok so all we need to do is find £2Bn by reducing/cancelling other defence programmes and everything is great. Keep you fingers crossed and we may get to keep Albion and Bulwark, but if they go they will not be replaced and the RM will become a small unit raiding and fleet protection force, also used as elite conventional light infantry.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

30 YEAR PLAN as part of
THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING STRATEGY:
́
A Royal Navy plan will outline the schedule and capability of naval ships in
which we will invest billions of pounds over the next 30 years.
́
It will underpin all future shipbuilding procurements.
́
It will provide a mechanism to keep the delivery of ships to time and to
cost.
́
This will provide Industry with the strategic direction they need.

In this case, we have until 2033-37 to find the £2 bn, so £100m a year into the piggy:

Figure 3: Thirty Year Shipbuilding Forecast on page 22 of the pdf
THIRTY YEAR FORECAST
NAVY PRIORITIES

COMMANDO
TASK FORCE
PLATFORM

Landing Platform
Dock (LPD)
Landing Ship Docking
Auxiliary (LSDA)

INITIAL OPERATING CAPABILITY (as indicated on the graph)

2033-2037
for
FUTURE AMPHIBIOUS CAPABILITY
- for the capabilities listed above, in the first half of the time slot
- for PCRV, the latter half... which takes the thoughts to having multi-function ships, and configuring their "insides" as needed?
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)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

That's right, three LHD carriers should be affordable on the 2033-37 time horizon.

The only reason to raise this at all in the near future is RFA Argus' retirement in 2024. It's the golden opportunity to start the process with a single new LHD costing no more than £500 million, crewed by the RFA and so that there are enough of them one of the Bay's would need to be retired at the same time. But if we want a new ship by 2024 it means a minimal change to the basic Mistral design and cutting steel sometime in the next twelve months!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yes, the driver
AndyC wrote: in the near future is RFA Argus' retirement in 2024. It's the golden opportunity to start the process
- against that background there was that single article about the RN conceptually looking for a multi-function vessel
- if they get one, then that would leave a whole decade for trials (and improvements) before the next one will need to hit the water
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)

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

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

I like the optimism, but a plan looking 20+ years into the future is a pure wish list. Current funding levels are barely enough for the MoD to tread water. The RN as well as the other two services are going to have higher priorities then large LHDs, platforms for the RFA possibly. A Bay successor is far more likely than platforms manned by the RN. I see the RM being a raiding force, with shipping targeted on moving kit and personnel into theatre. The RFA can go places civilian charter vessels cannot. The RFA vessels should allow deployment of assets into theatre without major port facilities, on a scale relevant to the capabilities of the UK i.e. a maximum of a Brigade possibly reinforced. It will not be the case of landing battalion sized formations in rapidly, but rather one or two companies then bringing in the remainder over days rather then hours.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: The RFA can go places civilian charter vessels cannot. The RFA vessels should allow deployment of assets into theatre without major port facilities, on a scale relevant to the capabilities of the UK i.e. a maximum of a Brigade possibly reinforced. It will not be the case of landing battalion sized formations in rapidly, but rather [one or] two companies then bringing in the remainder over days
- the above is the the crux of the matter, and also the future
- while remembering that without a PCRV such a force cannot be landed at all (or can, if there are comparable facilities in a nearby friendly state)... and 2024 is coming soon (hot on the heels of 2018; was 2017 the year of the Navy?)
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)

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

The General Purpose Frigate Competition

After starting with five designs from four companies the competition has evolved to be between four designs from two alliances and one design team.

The leading consortium is that between Babcock and BMT announced on November 7th https://www.bmt.org/news/2017/11/babcoc ... ace-ships/ This brings together a strong industrial partner with limited design history and a pioneering design team that created the QE carriers, Tide class tankers and several other concepts but lacks a manufacturing capacity.
BMT Venator-110.jpg
BMT’s Venator-110 is probably the favourite design to win the GPFF competition. Arguably its flexibility, cost effectiveness and modular construction was the inspiration behind Sir John Parker’s independent report into naval shipbuilding.

The Babcock/BMT alliance now has the luxury of either putting forward the Venator-110 design or the Arrowhead or indeed both!
The Venator-110 technical brief can be found here https://www.bmtdsl.co.uk/bmt-design-por ... 0-frigate/ It’s main advantages are the ability to carry up to 48 Sea Ceptor SAM for credible self-defence in addition to eight anti-shipping missiles and genuine global deployability. It can carry a Wildcat + a UAV but not a Merlin. The major question mark over the design is whether it’s possible to build it for £250 million.
Babcock Arrowhead.jpg
The Arrowhead is described as a case study and can be found here https://www.babcockinternational.com/en ... /Arrowhead Compared to the Venator this design appears to have a larger more capable mission bay and a larger hangar so that it can operate heavier helicopters such as a Merlin + a UAV. To have this extra capability the number of potential SAM launchers has been pared back to just 16 which I would argue is insufficient for self-defence.

The other main alliance is between Cammell Laird and BAE Systems http://www.janes.com/article/75125/camm ... rigate-bid As one of the major purposes behind this competition is to break BAE Systems monopoly on warship construction they could clearly not take the lead and have wisely joined with Cammell Laird.
BAE Cutlass.jpg
Their submission is to be called the Leander and is a development of BAE’s Cutlass which in turn is an extended Khareef corvette. From the one detailed image released by BAE the armament is similar to the Arrowhead but it lacks that ships larger mission bay. In addition the Khareef’s have noticeably less range than either of the Babcock/BMT submissions although that might well be rectified in the enlarged Leander.
Steller Spartan.jpg
Finally, comes the rank outsider, Project Spartan being proposed by Steller Systems http://www.stellersystems.co.uk/news/sp ... e-frigate/ They have a major disadvantage in not being teamed up with an industrial partner. The Spartan itself has a large enough hangar to operate both a medium helicopter and a UAV but doesn’t have the full mission bay of the Arrowhead. Again judging by their design image the Spartan has the more limited number of just 16 SAM launchers.

For me the key statement by the First Sea Lord that, “All this points towards a credible, versatile frigate, capable of independent and sustained global operations,” must mean the Type 31e having enough SAMs to defend itself when operating alone. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/first-s ... abilities/

At present, only the Venator-110 has a credible anti-missile defence.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

Well 16 Sea Ceptor is still a huge gain over the 4 Sea Cat (+ reloads) the Leanders and T-21s carried! I must admit I do like the Arrowhead. Now only if they could fit an 8 cell Mk41 instead of the basic Sea Ceptor launchers we would be sorted

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by benny14 »

I am a fan of the Venator, hopefully now they have access to the arrowhead they can use parts of it to optimize and improve the Venator and bring the costs down even more. I dont see the Spartan as a contender anymore it is between the Venator and the Leander.

It comes in three missile configurations.
1. Two 3-cell Lockheed Martin ExLS VLS. 24 MBDA Sea Ceptor.
2. Four 3-cell Lockheed Martin ExLS VLS. 48 MBDA Sea Ceptor.
3. Two 3-cell Lockheed Martin ExLS VLS. 24 MBDA Sea Ceptor. Also a single 8-cell Lockheed Martin Mk41 Strike Length.

Option 3 would be expensive, but it would give it a decent self defense capability and allow it to use the same stockpile of VLS launched ASM missiles that the type 26 will most likely have. Option 2 would give it the same amount of CAMM missiles as the type 26.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Caribbean »

I don't think that the Mk41s themselves are a major cost. Gabriele did some research on costs a while back on his blog and they were relatively inexpensive. IIRC, it was the mission planning and control sofware/ hardware for Tomahawk that really drove the price up.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by RetroSicotte »

The Arrowhead is more than 16 SAMs. It's 16 Mk41, which CAMM can quadpack in.

So in theory it's 64 SAMs if it takes entirely them.

User avatar
AndyC
Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 11 Dec 2015, 10:37
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by AndyC »

Can you provide a source for that?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by RetroSicotte »

AndyC wrote:Can you provide a source for that?


You can see them in their video, those are definitely Mk41s, and it even states "Strike" and "Tactical", which are the designators used in Mk41 models. :)

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

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

Well I can tick that off my wish list. I strongly believe that the RN should look to the Mk41 as is standard launch system for both the T-26 and T-31. As has been pointed out the cost appears to be greatly outweighed but the possible benefits including flexibility. I know few UK designed weapon systems currently are configured to use the Mk41 but it would be in the interests of BAe etc. to consider this as it would open up export sales. I would go as far as to say the Mk41 should become a NATO standard.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by shark bait »

The Mk41 should be be everywhere, but it costs a lot and is not essential so it won't be on the T31.

That's an acceptable compromise with vertical launching only being an advantage for AAW missiles, where the RN will be using CAMM straight out the cheap one shot canisters/silos.

There's no real advantage to stacking cruise missiles vertically, so if the navy ever get any, they will retrofit them with a simple deck launcher.

Unfortunately, stripping back the costs, the Mk41 is one of the first things to go.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Naval Command to 2030

Post by Lord Jim »

I was thinking more towards the weapons systems currently planned or in development. I was also under the impression from previous posts that the Mk41 only become overly expensive when the "Strike" versions was selected and costs of the additional systems to launch TLAMs was included. Many other current vessels of varying sizes seem to be fitted with the Sea Sparrow capable Mk41 and that is the one I was aiming at the T-31e in particular.

On the first point, if the Anglo/French Harpoon/Exocet replacement was developed to beb able to be fored from a Mk41, the export potential would be huge and it would compliment the american LRASM, likewise the successor to ASROC will also be launched from the Mk41.

Given teh extremely tight purse strings on the initial 5 T-31e Escorts, I can understand the RN not fiting them but space should be there for other customer if they desire it and for the RN if it chooses to purchase a secong more capable batch and/or enhance the original batch. Witht he T-26, adding a third stsndard length 8 cell MK41 replacing the Sea Ceptor launch canisters would also bring benefits. If say one set of 8 is actually strike length to allow TLAMs t otbe carried, that would give the T-26 a capacity of upto 64 Sea Ceptors.

In my mind the benefits gained provie a strong case to find the extra funding to fit Mk41s to both classes. The closer the RN T-31e is to that offered for export, the more likely it is to be a success and the same goes for the T-26. The one shot Sea Ceptor canisters are a typical cheap bespoke UK solution which is to say a case of penny pinching to put it mildly. That form of launch system is ideal for smaller craft and also retrofitting to exisitng platforms, like the Queen Elizabeth class and the RFA's new platforms, where space for new systems is a premium.

Post Reply