Arming the Royal Navy of the future

During DSEI, Navy Recognition had the chance to speak with Geoff Searle, program director for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship, and one factor emerged: apparently, there is not a clear plan, at the stage, for arming the Type 26 with a surface to surface missile. At least, there is not a plan that BAE knows: it is always possible that, within the MOD and Royal Navy, thinking is actually at a much more advanced phase, since there is a long running program for the definition of Future Maritime Fires capability.

At the moment, however, what can be observed is that the Royal Navy does want at least 16 Strike Length VLS cells fitted to the new frigates at build. There just isn’t a precise plan (at least not out in the open) for fitting a specific weapon system in these cells.

More precisely, a definitive choice hasn’t even been made yet about which cells should be fitted: the europen Sylver A70, or the American MK41 system? A choice could be made next year, or later still.

At the same time, the Royal Navy is preparing to fit the Type 45s with the electronics and wiring needed to support the Harpoon Block 1C missile, with four of the destroyers effectively fitted with launchers and missiles taken from the prematurely withdrawn Type 22 Batch 3 frigates.

In addition, a 2012 graphic in a Royal Navy presentation which provided some insight into what programs are included in the famous 10-year Budget Plan, includes an important voice of expenditure detailed as “GWS60 Harpoon sustainment program”, meaning an upgrade and life-extension for the missile currently in service. There is no detail (yet) about the extent of the upgrade, nor an indication of the extent of the life-extension the missile is going to get, but I believe it is fair to assume that the aim of the Sustainment Program would be to delay the OSD for Harpoon all the way to 20230 – 2036.

The 2036 date is not casual: on the current planning assumptions, 2036 is the year in which the last of the Type 23 frigates, armed with Harpoon, leaves active service.

The graphic, which is the only information we have at the moment, does not provide precise numbers on the amount of money that will be devoted to the various programs, but provides a visual indication of when the most of the expenditure is planned, and that is between the 5^th and 9^th year of the 10-year budget. Since the budget covers the period 2011/2012 to 2021/2022, the Harpoon sustainment program should be in full swing in the second half of the current decade. 

This graphic shows the plans the Royal Navy has made for the allocation of its portion of the Core Budget in the 10 years plan. This expenditure is "uncommitted", as there are not yet contracts signed about these programs, but the work is ongoing and the money is allocated. The expenditure for Type 45, CVF and Type 26 is not shown in this graphic as they all are part of the Committed core budget.

NOTE: for an in-depth analysis of the workings of the 10-year budget and of the above graphic, see my earlier article.

The graphic also shows the Future Maritime Fires System expenditure, roughly starting from the fourth year of the Budget. The main item of FMFS is the new medium gun to be fitted to the Type 26 frigates, and in fact, in compliance with the general indication coming from the graphic, the selection of the new 127 mm gun (either the Oto Melara/Babcock 127/64 Lightweight or the MK45 Mod 4 127/62 from BAE/United Defense) is expected next year. There is no telling, at the moment, if FMFS also includes the purchase of new missiles: while missiles (and even the Fire Shadow loitering ammunition) are all part of the study, there is no evidence suggesting that they are part of the funded program in addition to the new main gun. The relatively small amount of money suggested by the graphic makes me think that, for the moment, the budget just covers the guns.

It is anyway in the FMFS voice that the long-running requirement for a Future Surface to Surface Guided Weapon has been likely folded into. The british requirement is indicated under the very generic acronym SSGW (surface to Surface Guided Weapon) and has been around, in a shape or another, from the early 90s. An SSGW system was part of the Type 45 planned mission fit, but was notoriously written off from the list of requirements for the AAW destroyers for the time being. The detailed requirements are not known, but according to some sources, the ambition included developing a rocket boosted-weapon for long range anti-submarine attack as well as providing an anti-ship and land-strike missile. The anti-submarine rocket would restore a capability the Royal Navy has missed for decades, ever since the old IKARA system was retired from service without a replacement. Comparable weapons of this kind in the world include the American ASROC and the Italian MILAS: these rocket-propelled torpedoes enable a frigate to immediately attack a submarine contact at ranges of over 30 kilometers, even if the helicopter is unavailable. They are a good solution for the need to hit time-critical targets at range without having to send the helicopter in the air all the time, and they are good at filling the many gaps in helicopter coverage that come up in a rolling 24 hours period. The Type 23 and 26, which will relay on the big Merlin helicopter for ASW work, and that carry a single such machine, would appear to badly need such a gap-filler, since a single helo can’t be in the air all the time, and obviously can’t be expected to be always in the right place at the right moment. Despite this consideration, it is fair to assume that it will be really tough for the royal navy to develop or even just adopt this kind of very single-role, highly-specialized weapon.

Certain is, instead, the requirement for a genuinely multi-role missile capable to hit enemy warships but also able to strike targets well inland. The new missile will be vertically launched, and it is behind the selection of Strike Length cells on the Type 26. 
The idea seem to be that the old MK8 Mod 1 gun and the old Harpoon missile will be around as long as the Type 23 is in service, which under current plans means 2036. At that point (or by that point) the new Medium Gun can be expected to be retrofitted to the Type 45 to standardize the fleet back on a single main gun type, and the 45s could finally receive their own Strike Lenght cells, losing Harpoon in exchange for new capability. 
There is also the chance that MK41 cells make their debut on Type 45 much earlier than 2030, if the ongoing assessment of the T45s as anti-ballistic missile platforms evolves into a program for the acquisition of kinetic ABM capability.  

With the RAF and with France

The only new anti-ship missile there is currently talk of, is the UK-France Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon (FC ASW). And to say the truth, it is not like there is much talking going on about it in the open. This new weapon was conceived under the framework of the UK/French joint Declaration on Defence and Security Co-operation agreed at Lancaster House in November 2010, but only came to the light in early 2012, when the governments of France and United Kingdom disclosed its existence and announced that a two-year seed contract had been awarded to MBDA in December 2011. The contract was signed by the French Direction générale de l'armement (DGA) with MBDA UK and MBDA France, on behalf of both countries.

Currently, we are at a very early stage: the contract covers initial studies over the concepts, technologies and system options that could be employed to bring to life the new weapon, or family of weapons, which is destined to replace cruise land attack and anti-ship missiles currently in service.

In practice, Storm Shadow, Harpoon and Exocet would all be replaced with the weapon(s) that come out of this joint development. Perhaps even Tomahawk would be replaced by this new missile.

In the first quarter of this year, a first selection was made between the concepts emerged so far, with around six being brought forwards for further study and development. The approaches being considered to make this new weapon survivable and lethal against ever improving air defence systems (mostly of Russian design) essentially come down to stealthness and to very high speeds, with Mach 3 having been mentioned more than once in recent MBDA concept works, such as PERSEUS and, more recently HOPLITE.

The aim of the joint project is to prepare the new weapon (or family of weapons) in service sometime between 2030 and 2035. 

Among the requirements that this new weapon will have to satisfy, there’s clearly the capability to be launched from vertical cells on warships, from airplanes and almost certainly from submarine’s torpedo tubes as well.

Being intended also as a Storm Shadow replacement, the FC ASW project is part of the Selective Precision Effect At Range programme of the RAF, as Capability 5.

SPEAR Capability 4 is about the mid-life upgrade and life extension of Storm Shadow. This project, which once again is jointly sustained with France, should start soon enough and aims to keep the missile relevant and effective out to the 2030s. France confirmed in its own White Paper, released earlier this year, that the joint work on Storm Shadow (Scalp, in French service) will be funded.

Together with the Harpoon sustainment programme, this seem to be intended to “hold the ground” before the new system developed under the Capability 5 headline does arrive.

Sylver or MK41?

I first of all invite you to give a look at the following presentation about MK41, which will give you a much better idea of what a VLS system is and how it works: presentation by Mark Zimmerman. 

With the Type 26 frigate, we are back to a debate which never really ended ever since it was opened by the attempts of the Royal Navy to get MK41 VLS systems for the Type 45, attempts that were frustrated by European political considerations and by the worries connected to the possible costs and technical challenges of integrating the European Aster missile in a VLS cell made in America.

The problem is now back on the table for the Type 26, and a decision has not yet been taken.

It is clear that, if the Royal Navy has no real hopes to get a missile into the Strike Length cells before SPEAR Capability 5 comes of age, going Sylver A70 might make sense: since the FC ASW missile is developed jointly with France, compatibility with the Sylver VLS system will be a requirement from the very first moment. The French have adopted the Sylver A70 on their new FREMM frigates, and the same launcher will be expected, in the future, to welcome the new missile. It is to be seen, though, if this is enough of a justification for going again with the Sylver line of VLS systems.

In the short term, in fact, Sylver A70’s only weapon is the Scalp Navale cruise missile, ordered in 250 pieces by the French armed forces. This “European Tomahawk” seems not as capable as the Tomahawk itself, especially the most recent TLAM Block IV, while it is much more expensive, as is to be expected for a new weapon, which has not been (and perhaps never will be) produced in the same huge numbers as the Tomahawk. France is planning to purchase some 250 missiles in four separate orders. 50 missiles will be encapsulated for torpedo firing from the new nuclear attack submarines of the French fleet, with entry in service in 2017, while the rest will be for vertical launch from the A70 VLS cells on the FREMM frigates. The expected cost is 910 million euro, and done the math, the Tomahawk is a much, much cheaper option for the Royal Navy.

Of course, the A70 cells can also be used to embark Aster missiles, but it is a bit of a waste since these only need five meters deep cells (the A50 module) and not the full seven meters of the A70 VLS module.

Until SPEAR 5 eventually happens, the only use of A70 cells eventually fitted to Type 26 would be as launchers for the Scalp Naval: but there is no reason at all to justify the purchase of a more expensive, less capable “clone” of Tomahawk, establishing two separate logistic lines.

Adopting the MK41 Strike Lenght VLS used by the US Navy, instead, opens the door to the possible integration in the Type 26 combat system of a huge variety of weapons, including the full range of surface to air missiles employed by the Americans, plus Tomahawk, ASROC and, in a not distant future, the new LRASM anti-ship and strike missile.

Adopting the MK41 would, in my opinion, offer the greatest insurances for the future. As it is destined to remain the launcher of choice of the US Navy for many more decades, the MK41 won’t be short of support and will be the launcher for which the greatest number of weapon systems will be certified. The sole fact of being fully ready to employ the Tomahawk Block IV is an important consideration, as the TLAM has effectively become the weapon of choice in all military operations. The Royal Navy tried to secure funding for the addition of MK41 cells and vertical launch Tomahawks on the Type 45s already in the early 2000s: the attempt was unsuccessful back then, but there are good chances that it would be successful in a new try.

Gaining the capability to fire Tomahawks from surface ships as well as from submarines would mean having more platforms fully capable to influence events ashore, well inland. It would simplify planning, as it would be much easier to bring a launcher platform in the area of a crisis, and it would not tie a precious nuclear submarine into a “launch box”, a small area of sea where the SSN stations and waits for the order of launching a missile against targets ashore. In the future, the small, precious fleet of SSNs could be needed to cover many other tasks, so avoiding the limbo of the “launch box” would help meeting the other commitments.

There is also an important financial factor at play: an SSN is an expensive launch platform, which is not always necessary. Against an enemy with capabilities as limited as Libya’s, there was no real need to covertly deliver strike missiles from an undetectable submarine: a cheaper surface ship could have done the job almost as safely.

Again, the Tomahawk capsule for torpedo tube firing adds several hundred thousand dollars to the price of every single missile, compared to the Vertical launch variant used on ships from MK41 cells.

Strike Lenght cells aren't an easy fit: they go down into the ship for 7 to 9 meters, so they can't be fitted everywhere.

Lockheed Martin has introduced the very smart idea of the ExLS insert, which is an "adaptor" which can be slid into MK41 cells, with the electronics and canisters made for missiles not initially thought for MK41. An ExLS with quadpack is being validated for use with CAMM. The ExLS can also be used, in some cases, as a stand-along launching system. An ExLS Standalone with three CAMM cells is being jointly developed by LM and MBDA.

The first test ejection of a CAMM missile from a MK41 cell fitted with ExLS module.

Ultimately, Tomahawk has proven to be a highly useful, highly requested and highly useable conventional strike weapon. When TLAM was first purchased, specifically for use on submarines, the british armed forces didn’t think they would end up using it so much, so often. TLAM was almost conceived as a conventional arm of the policy of submarine-based deterrence, but operational experience has proven that it is far more than just that, as Dr. Lee Willett wrote in his essay “TLAM and british strategic thought”. The introduction of the Tactical Tomahawk, the Block IV, has only made the TLAM even more useable, and further improvements are being jointly developed by the US and the UK, including the Joint Multi-Effect Warhead System, which couples fragmentation effect with enhanced bunker-busting capability, making the missile capable to engage pretty much any kind of target. Importantly, TLAM is evolving to be able to engage even relocatable and moving targets, with Third Party In-Flight Retargeting capability already demonstrated, also during HMS Astute’s TLAM firing trials in the US.

There is every reason to consider an expansion in the number of Tomahawks available to the MOD (thought to remain at a total of around 60 to 65 rounds) and, critically, in the number of launch platforms. 

A Tomahawk is launched from a MK41 cell on a US Navy warship. Notice the blast of the rocket venting upwards and wooshing out of the opening in the middle of the launch module. CAMM removes this complexity by adopting the ingenious Cold Launch feature: a piston powered by compressed air ejects the missile and shoots it around 100 feet into the air before the Sea Ceptor's rocket ignites. CAMM, however, is an exception, not the rule: the other missiles need a VLS system, complete with the exhaust system.

The adoption of MK41 cells on Type 26 would be the solution. It would also be a reliable parachute for the Royal Navy, was something to happen with the development or procurement of SPEAR Capability 5: with the weapon potentially more than two decades away from entering service, I don’t think the RN can shape the new ships to be only focused on the hope of getting this particular European product. Was the program to die in future budget cuts, and the Royal Navy had fitted Sylver cells, the alternatives would be very few: the Navy would most likely end up having to fork out new money to try and adapt an American missile to the Sylver system.

Since MBDA and Lochkeed Martin are now collaborating to integrate European weapons in the MK41 launcher, starting with the Sea Ceptor missile, also known as CAMM, I believe there is every reason to go with the proven MK41. After signing an agreement last May, the two companies have very rapidly made tangible progress, and demonstrated in early September a first ejection sequence from an ExLS quadpack inserted in a MK41 cell.

Considering that the Type 26 design is still to be completed, and keeping in mind that SPEAR Cap 5 is many years away, there is all the time to make sure that the missile can fit into the MK41 cells when the day comes. This would ensure the best capability for the new frigate, both in the near term and in the long term.

Anti-ship capability: timeframes do not match

Tomahawk is a ready-to-go solution available to give the Type 26 a punch against land targets, from day one at entry in service, if the MOD will want and find the money for it. There is also the option of adapting the Fire Shadow loitering munition for vertical launch, MBDA says. Fire Shadow only has a range of some 150 km, but it can loiter over a target area for six to ten hours, sending imagery intelligence back to the ship and denying an area to the enemy by being ready to strike as soon as one shows up. It would be a great capability to have, although completely different in nature from the long-range reach offered by the cruise missile.

What about anti-ship capability in the fleet, though?

A new vertical-launch missile, especially if large enough to require strike length cells (which means tubes with a depth under deck that ranges between 7 and 9 meters, meaning some three deck levels) could never be fitted to the Type 23 frigates, which just do not have the space for such a VLS system.

If the missile is longer than around 5 meters, it won’t fit the Sylver A50 cells employed on the Type 45 destroyers, either, but the Type 45’s VLS silo has been built to a design and size values that make it possible to add a further 16 cells to the current 48, and all the cells (newly-fitted and existing ones) could be Strike Length if the need was identified.

The Harpoon currently in use is not a Vertical Launch missile. It can only be fired by the well known stacks of tube launchers employed on the Type 23s. The Royal Navy uses quadruple launchers, but the canister-launchers can also be stacked in couples, or even used singularly. The Type 45 destroyer has been built with space and fittings arrangements for mounting a couple of quadruple Harpoon launchers behind the Aster missile silos, and four of the six vessels will receive their fit of Harpoons in the next future, the MOD has confirmed.

Observation of the current Type 26 design, however, suggests that it is not possible to install the conventional stacks of canister launchers (used not just by Harpoon, but by the likes of Exocet, Otomat TESEO, PRBS-15 and Naval Strike Missile). Observing the images and the models showcased so far, there does not seem to be any adequate allocation of space for the installation of the launchers. On the Type 26, the typical locations in which such an installation normally happens (amidship between radar mast and funnel, or, in british style, behind the main gun/ VL missile silo) do not appear to be properly dimensioned and kept clear of obstacles. In particular, the space between the sensors mast and funnel does appear to be really too restricted. And effectively, the conventional launcher for anti-ship missiles was last seen in the very first concept pictures for Type 26: as the design progressed, they vanished.

The twin quadruple launchers commonly used by current-generation western anti-ship missiles were clearly shown on the very first Type 26 design. Soon, they vanished.

Today's Type 26 has changed a lot, and improved a lot.

The current arrangements of the ship's spaces and armament suggest that the Royal Navy wants to make the big step with the new frigate, moving entirely to vertical launch weaponry.

While the decision to move fully to vertical launch makes perfect sense, the Royal Navy is going to find itself in trouble because of timeframes that do not match.

The Type 26 frigate will, under current plans, begin to entry into service from around 2021, and will then replace, one for one, the Type 23s at a rhythm of roughly one per year all the way out to 2036.

With the Harpoon apparently incapable to move from the Type 23 retiring to the Type 26 entering in service in replacement, the number of royal navy ships fitted with an anti-surface capability will shrink dramatically from the third T23 onwards (assuming that the Harpoons removed from the first two Type 23s would move on to the last two Type 45 destroyers).

With the risk of having to wait until 2030 or 2035/36 before a new missile is inducted, the Type 26 could be without an anti-surface weapon for over a decade, and the Royal Navy could go down to as few as six or seven vessels fitted with such a capability, before a replacement comes with SPEAR Cap 5.

Alternatives?

In theory, there are alternatives to a Type 26 without anti-ship capability for a decade. Going MK41 with the VLS cells would keep the door open for adoption of the LRASM, for example, which the US Navy is developing and trialing right now as a solution to its own Harpoon problem. The US Navy is, in many ways, are already in trouble for an acute shortage of anti-ship capability on its surface vessels. The old Harpoon is seen as increasingly outdated and ineffective against modern decoys and missile defences, and the number of ships fitted with it in the American fleet is much lower than one would think: attempts to develop a vertical launch Harpoon never went ahead, and the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyers have not been fitted with Harpoon launchers ever since the Flight IIA production lot started.

The US Navy is, in many ways, in the situation that the Royal Navy seems doomed to experience in the 2020s, and is trying to take swift action with LRASM to remove this dangerous gap in capability.

The alarming fact is that the US Navy at least still has submarine-launched and air-launched Harpoon. The Royal Navy lost the first capability in 2003, and the second in 2009/10, when the Nimrod, last british air platform with a heavy anti-ship missile, was withdrawn from service.

Unfortunately, even the adoption of MK41 cells does not automatically remove the anti-ship missile problem: it is hard to imagine the Royal Navy having the money for a substantial investment in an interim anti-ship missile, while simultaneously having to keep spending on Harpoon and on the development of SPEAR Cap 5.

A large ship-launched anti-ship missile is an important capability, but a bit of a niche one, which hasn’t seen much use in the operations the RN has been a part of. Seeing how complex it is to get funding even for an expanded Tomahawk arsenal, despite it being used all the time, arguing for more investment for the anti-ship niche is likely to be a desperate, hopeless struggle.

One solution could come, once more, via Tomahawk. The solution could be the Maritime Interdiction Multimission capability proposal, also known as Multi Mission Tomahawk. The MMT would introduce a moving-target seeker and an upgraded data link to the Tomahawk Block IV, turning it into an hunter-killer weapon capable to locate and pursue moving targets including warships out at sea.

The MMT idea has been around since 2009, and has been briefly brought back in the spotlight in August 2012, when the US Navy and Raytheon were reported as “close” to going ahead with the development of an anti-ship capability package for the TLAM Block IV.

Early data for the “Maritime Interdiction” missile, released by the US Navy, assumed that the modified Block IV would be able to search for targets in an area of 30 square nautical miles, accounting for possible errors in the position of the target supplied by third-party directors and, of course, for the movement of the target at speeds of up to 30 knots. The range of the missile for such a complex anti-ship engagement would be around 500 nautical miles. The navigation system, the data link and seeker would have to be reinforced to ensure the missile can find its target even through jamming and decoys.  

The Multi-Mission Tomahawk was intended to be US Navy Interim Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare solution, but as of April 2013 the US Navy seems to have abandoned the Tomahawk Block IV conversion, while DARPA-funded work on the Lockheed Martin LRASM A (a weapon derived from the JASSM cruise missile) is ongoing, with a successful test on August 27 that involved launch from a B-1 bomber against a barge loaded with empty containers acting as target. The missile hit the containers as expected. Preliminary work to demonstrate launch from MK41 vertical cells was completed on September 4, and next year, LRASM should be fired twice from MK41 VLS cells, demonstrating its ship-launch capability. A submarine-launch variant could follow.

For the Royal Navy, a Tomahawk solution would have been easier to acquire, because it wouldn’t have been a total departure from established logistics and knowledge basis, and it would have fitted in the idea of expanding TLAM attack capability, as the missile retains full utility as a long range land strike weapon, indeed adding greater capabilities against complex, mobile targets.

The Tomahawk solution could still happen, though: the US Navy is still working on choosing its next move. LRASM could be chosen without a competition, but Raytheon and Boeing are ready with their own proposals if the pentagon decides to give a chance to other systems.

Sea Ceptor for everyone?

If the anti-ship segment of the RN capability is close to extinction, there is at least some relief in the Anti-Air missile arena. With an order placed for the production of CAMM Sea Ceptor missiles, the Royal Navy can now work to get it on all relevant platforms.

In March this year, a study should have been concluded, on the costs connected with eventual installation of Sea Ceptor on the new Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. There is no open-source evidence of the results of the study, nor can we realistically expect to see an investment made any time soon to fit the missile system, but it remains an option. The carriers are fitted with the Long Range Radar and with the Artisan 3D radar (Type 997 in RN service), both of which could feed targeting information to the missiles, which are, differently from Sea Wolf, fire-and-forget and would pursue their targets autonomously after being launched, with the aid of information relayed from the ship via secure Data Link.

The first platform that will get the Sea Ceptor in current planning is the Type 23 frigate. The first vessel should swap Sea Wolf for the new CAMM during a refit in 2016. The ship has not yet been identified. The work to be carried out will involve the removal of some five tons of Sea Wolf cabinets and old electronics, plus the two guidance radars, in exchange for a far more modern, smaller and lighter data link system.

The missile silo on the bow will be modified with the removal of the 32 Sea Wolf tubes and the installation of CAMM electronics. The Sea Ceptor missiles will be fitted in quadpacks into 12 sealed wells to protect the canisters from the sea water washing over the deck. The number of missiles carried will be boosted to a maximum of 48.  

On Type 23, the CAMM will be feed data on the targets by the Type 997 radar, which is due to replace the earlier Type 996 over the coming years, with HMS Iron Duke having received the first-of-class fit already.

The Sea Ceptor fit will then be physically moved out of the Type 23s as they are withdrawn from service, and installed on the new Type 26. The images and models shown so far about the new frigate show that the 48 air-defence missiles will be distributed in rows of 6 canister-launchers each, with four such rows arranged in the bow missile silo and a further four rows aft of the funnel mast.

The canister-launchers are weather-proof as they have been developed to be used (from around 2020) by the Army as replacement for the elderly Rapier, so they do not appear to have additional protection: on the Type 26, they are installed high enough in the superstructure to be protected by the sea spray without having to be sealed into enclosed wells like on the Type 23.

The Type 997 radar will also move on from T23 to T26.

Around 2016 there will also be the chance to transform a potential problem in an opportunity. The Royal Navy has decided that it will withdraw from service the Goalkeeper CIWS system, to standardize instead on the Phalanx (36 mounts + 5 new on order). This is due to the fact that the number of Goalkeeper mounts in the fleet by then will have fallen dramatically in number, due to HMS Illustrious bowing out in 2014 with her three mounts, leaving the sole Albion and Bulwark with a total of four mounts (although Albion’s ones have already been removed as she was put into reserve and mothballed).

In 2016 it is planned that the two LPDs will trade places in the fleet, with HMS Albion being refitted and regenerated to return into active service, while HMS Bulwark enters her own period of mothball (unless the SDSR, as I personally hope, allocates the 20 or so million a year needed to operate the second LPD as well).

The LPDs should both receive their Type 997 radar during the next refits, and they can be expected to be fitted with a couple of Phalanx CIWS in replacement of Goalkeeper.

The opportunity I see, however, is that of fitting the bow CIWS on top of the deckhouse, instead of on top of the small superstructure used by Goalkeeper. There might be some problem since the two manned GAM-BO1 20mm light guns for surface close defence are located up there as well, but it should not be an insurmountable issue. The GAM-BO1 are arguably well in need of being replaced by the DS30M remotely operated 30mm gun mounts being adopted throughout the fleet, as well.

Phalanx has no under-deck penetration, while the much larger Goalkeeper turret takes one deck of space. By removing Goalkeeper and relocating the frontal CIWS, the LPDs would have a little bit of precious free space on the bow for the fitting of CAMM missile cells.

This would of course have a cost, but it would massively increase the survivability of the LPDs against all kind of threats: the Royal Navy is fully aware of how vulnerable these large ships can be, especially when docked down for landing craft operations. Air attacks, swarm attacks with FIACs and missiles are all very serious threats, and CAMM would counter them all (the missile has a secondary anti-surface attack capability, good against fast and suicide attack boats).  

The LPD problem that could be an opportunity: replacing Goalkeeper

The small superstructure on the bow, currently occupied by Goalkeeper's under deck segment, offers precious space that could be used to fit CAMM cells.

 

Moving Phalanx on top of the deckhouse could be a problem because of the old GAM-BO1 gun mounts. Imagine doing this with a Phalanx mounts a few meters away, buzzing and taking aim and perhaps opening fire. The GAM-BO1 could and should really be replaced by the unmanned 30mm mounts as on the rest of the fleet

On the export front, there is some initial sign of interest from Italy. The Italian army will need to replace its Skyguard batteries in the near future, and CAMM is seen as an attractive option. MBDA Italy and MBDA UK could end up collaborating on the land variant of CAMM, with MBDA Italy looking at the command and targeting system, introducing elements of the SPADA 2000 air defence batteries. For sure, CAMM is a very interesting missile system, with a great potential and very good chances of gaining international success. 

Royal Navy surface fleet: the coming years

In a break from the Army 2020 saga which has for quite some time now been the main focus, i've wanted to work on some interesting new documents i've found, to put some order in the current plans of the Royal Navy surface fleet for the future, starting from the Type 26 design, which is maturing quickly. 

Type 26 frigate

“There will be no more destroyers or frigates. There will be combat ships.”

The quote is from Cmdr. Ken Houlberg, Royal Navy who, until August 2012 , was the Capability Manager for Above Water Surface Combatants at the MOD. As such, he was the man in charge of the ongoing plans to design and build the new Type 26 Global Combat Ship  and, equally important, the developing plans for the Type 23 Capability Sustainment Programme.

We have to keep in mind, after all, that the last Type 23 is only expected to bow out of service in 2036: for many more years, the 23s will continue to be a fundamental part of the fleet, and for well over a decade they’ll serve alongside their successors. 

Another point he made is also absolutely worth highlighting: “These ships will be the spine of the Royal Navy. But they will be expendable. The day we make our escorts so expensive that they become strategic assets is the day I suggest we got it wrong.”

The Royal Navy is fully aware that the costs of the Type 26 frigate program must be kept on a tight leash: there must be no escalation. Either they are affordable, or the fleet will be in deep trouble.

The Royal Navy is trying to be considerably careful about what it asks for. It has been very openly admitted that, if 80% of the Type 45 destroyer was about innovation and revolution for the fleet, the Type 26 will be 80% about careful evolution of capabilities already available. The expectation is that several important elements of the ship’s equipment will cross-deck from Type 23 frigates decommissioning, in fact.

There have been doubts and disappointments voiced over this approach, and the validity of the whole Type 26 has been contested by some commentators, but personally I believe this is actually a completely valid approach. Besides, the emerging Type 26 frigate promises to deliver major improvements and great capability despite the relative “conservative” design philosophy.

Commander Houlberg, speaking in October 2012, shared some details on the MOD-endorsed Type 26 design: no shocking revelation, but several welcome confirmations of data you’ve already had the chance to read on this blog.

First of all, the Mission Deck, which originally was to be located in the stern but actually moved upwards, to Deck 1, adjacent to the helicopter hangar. Despite the move, Houlberg confirms that it remains a large reconfigurable space, with an available volume for 11.5 TEU containers and/or boats (up to four 11.5 meter boats) and unmanned surface and sub-surface vehicles. This confirms data which is also reported on the BAE Global Combat Ship website, but which appeared doubtful and possibly outdated. Now we know that it is not the case: the Mission Bay remains as part of the design, and continues to offer considerable amounts of useful space for the embarkation of mission modules of all kinds, such as a containerized field hospital or accommodation modules for an additional 84 troops, or command and control facilities. Crucially, this space will be available to carry air, surface and underwater unmanned vehicles which, in a future not too far, could be an absolutely crucial component of the ship’s combat system. 

The above image, courtesy of http://navy-matters.beedall.com/, shows a now old Thales concept of reconfigurable hangar and Mission Space, which was proposed for the Future Surface Combatant, now Type 26 Global Combat Ship. The image is still relevant, as it helps giving an idea of what the current hangar + mission bay arrangement could be like. 

 

We do not yet have a map or graphic representation of the current Mission Bay layout. I’ve made a guess already some time ago, but I hope we will be given some official indication in the future.

The move from stern to Deck 1 is reportedly due to several factors: the need for a wide, spacious mission bay conflicted with other requirements that the Royal Navy prioritized. Above all, acoustic quietness of the hull design, which has been the most pressing requirement all along. In addition, the free head available in the stern area was going to be very limited, and the low freeboard needed for boat operations via stern ramp was in conflict with stringent damage control requirements.

Last, but not least, the stern boat ramp and mission space conflicted with the installation of the towed torpedo decoy and of the 2087 towed sonar, introducing some serious challenges.

The move to Deck 1, on the other hand, implies boat operations will be more complex than they would have been with a ramp available in the stern. The decision was nonetheless made to go ahead with the move, meeting the challenges of boat launch and recovery with two motion-stabilized davits, port and starboard.

Houlberg is confident that the Type 26, also thanks to such free, mission-reconfigurable space, will be future-proof, and able to eventual employ railguns and direct energy weapons such as lasers. In the shorter term, the ships are expected to have 48 CAMM missiles in bespoke vertical launch cells, plus up to 24 large missiles including potentially a mix of anti-submarine, anti-ship and land attack weapons. These will be carried in 24 “Strike Length” cells, readily available for use with the Tomahawk and with a future Harpoon replacement. There will be two Magazine Torpedo Launcher Systems, as on the Type 23s, and the ship is planned to do away with the MK8 Mod 1 medium gun, to take aboard a modern, powerful 127 mm gun instead, which will also have the advantage of commonality with most allied navies, from US to Italy. The ship will have the capacity to embark a couple of CIWS systems for self defence, and it will also carry a couple of light guns for surface defence, plus a couple of miniguns and four GPMGs. 

This NavyRecognition photo shows the BAE Systems Type 26 model as showcased at Euronaval last year. I've evidenced the main features of the weapon system.

 

The type of VLS system is not yet decided, by BAE confirmed last January that the Type 26 is designed to be fitted with either the MK41 Strike Length or with the equivalent Sylver A70 cells.

The “RN Type 26 design” exploits the Cold Launch feature of the CAMM missile to locate 24 missile cells in the funnel mast, but this arrangement is not available for use with conventional, Hot Launch missiles due to risks and problems connected to heat and exhausts. Customers, however, which were to buy the Type 26 but require a different air defence weapon, could be given other options, such as different, large array of cells on the bow, or perhaps even a second missile silo in the space that the british variant uses for the Mission Bay.

BAE Systems is offering potential customers a variety of solutions, including a different, integrated mast with AEGIS-type radar aerials. Discussions on Type 26 collaboration have been started with a variety of possible customers including Canada and Turkey, but the most interested are Brazil and Australia. BAE has recently confirmed that a number of Brazilian engineers are involved in the over 300-strong team working on refining and finalizing the Type 26 design, while the UK and Australia have signed defence collaboration deals which include quite a focus on the possibility of walking together down the Global Combat Ship route.

The main gun is set to be either the BAE/United Defense 127/62 MK45 Mod 4 or the Oto Melara 127/64 Lightweight. The first gun has the backing of BAE Systems and is the latest variant of the standard US Navy gun, while the second is possibly the most advanced medium gun in the world and is in use or has been selected for future use by Italy, Germany and others. France is also interested in eventually acquiring the 127/64 LW for at least some of its FREMM frigates, after the experience in Libya in 2011 suggested that the 76mm gun is not really sufficient for what is going to be the main surface combatant in the future fleet.

Oto Melara is bullish on the possibility of achieving an historic win in the UK with the 127/64, and they have chosen an important british partner to work with: Babcock.

Routinely, the ships will embark either a Merlin or a Wildcat helicopter, plus, it is expected, at least one unmanned aerial vehicle, probably rotary wing. It is quite likely that the hangar, like that of the Type 45, will have actually have room for a couple of Wildcats.

The crew will number just 118, thanks to greater automation, but there will be accommodation for 190, leaving space for 72 more personnel. These will be “Capability Teams” of specialists operating in the most diverse roles: it could include anything from Royal Marines to Helicopter Flights to operators of unmanned vehicles and other capability modules.

The ship in addition will have an unprecedented logistic autonomy of 60 days, giving her roughly twice the endurance of a the Type 23’s.   

The Type 26 for the Royal Navy will be built with a CODLOG propulsion arrangement, expected to combine a single gas turbine and four high speed diesel electric engines connected to two electric motors. Rolls Royce confirms It has been contacted, and will make its bid: it is widely expected that its latest “lightweight” MT30 gas turbine will be selected for the Type 26.

Wärtsilä is the favorite for the contract for the supply of the diesels, but the main factor in the choice is to be, again, the ability to run quietly, as the Type 26 will do its ASW work on diesel propulsion. Converteam is  very likely to provide the electric motors.

The Type 26 aims to have the capability to cruise at up to 18 knots with diesel-electric propulsion, and there is a requirement to sprint to speeds above 28 knots using the gas turbine in direct drive.

It remains intended that 13 Type 26 ships will be built, with 8 configured for ASW missions and 5 as “General Purpose” vessels. The hulls will be the same, but the GP won’t be fitted with the towed sonar 2087 and other expensive ASW kit.

This already happens with the Type 23 fleet, with only 8 ships having been fitted with the advanced 2087 towed sonar.

The first Type 26 should enter service in 2021, and afterwards the building rhythm would be of one ship per year, until all Type 23s are replaced. By the end of this year, the team working on the Type 26 design is expected to grow beyond 400, active in Portsmouth, Filton and Scotstoun.

Surface Fleet programs in the Core Budget

An October 2012 presentation from DE&S contains very important information about the Surface Fleet programs featured in the Core budget. As we know, the document released to Parliament about the 10 Years Equipment Programme was extremely poor of details and basically named no programs other than the big ones already contracted for. Practically nothing was said about the large number of smaller programs that sit both in the Committed and in the Uncommitted Core Budget.

It must be remembered, in fact, that only a part of the Core Budget is already contractually committed. Around one half of the Core Budget is currently “uncommitted”: planned to be used for programs that still haven’t reached the point of contract signature. In the early years, up to 80% of the core budget is already contractually bound, but the balance changes rapidly: by 2015, it is roughly a 50:50 balance between committed and uncommitted, and towards the 2020s the balance is 20:80. This excludes the famous 8 billion “headroom”, planned to be available mostly after 2016/17. 

The 10 year Equipment Budget

 

For the Surface Fleet, the core budget for the next 10 years is as follows: 

 

10 year Core Uncommitted budget for warships

 

KIC stands for Key Industrial Capability. These KIC points are agreed levels of national shipbuilding capability that have to be preserved under the terms of the Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA) signed by the MOD with industry. The contract workings are complex to explain, but there are agreed levels of work that the MOD must ensure for the restructured national shipbuilding industry, otherwise a KIC threshold is broken and the MOD is forced to pay to preserve capability. 

RT997 is the new Type 997 radar, more commonly known as Artisan 3D. It is due to become the new standard 3D radar for the fleet, and it will be present on the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers as well as on Type 23, LPDs, HMS Ocean and Type 26. 

Do not be scared by the absence of CAMM/Sea Ceptor from the list, as its costs are part of another budget voice, the "Complex Weapons" one. 

The list of programs relative to warships includes:

Future Inshore Patrol Capability: this program, which from the graphic seems to benefit from a quite large budget (although exact values aren’t disclosed), is connected to the P2000 patrol boats. It might be a replacement for them, or, perhaps more likely, a program of improvements to their capability.

The fitting of armor, better weapon mounts and other improvements to HMS Tracker and HMS Raider, which have been removed from University taskings and assigned to Force Protection duties might have more than a little something to do with this budget voice. 

HMS Raider and HMS Tracker have been removed from University duties and upgraded to better serve in the Force Protection role.

 

 It is not clear if there is any link between this program and the Royal Marines’s requirement for a new, deployable Force Protection Craft.

Surface Combatant Common Core Combat System (SC4S): a Royal Navy effort to evolve combat systems in service across the fleet to build around a common core. Commonality will drive costs down and simplify adoption of fleet-wide improvements and additional capability modules. HMS Ocean, in her currently ongoing refit, will be the first vessel in the fleet to receive a Shared Computing and Network Infrastructure which will be progressively rolled out on the other vessels as well, with the LPDs to follow, before the escorts.

Naval Mode S Interrogators: continued roll out of the Successor IFF technology, with passage from the MK XII (first rolled out in 2003) to the latest MK XIIA Mode 5.

New Navigation Radar (NASAR: NAvigation and Situational Awareness Radar): this program is about the replacement of the aging Type 1007 navigation radar. A competition for the NASAR requirement was started as far back as 2009, with the aim of putting the new radar in service from 2012. Delays followed, and in a 2011 debate in the House of Commons it was disclosed that the ISD is now indicated in 2016.

NASAR’s objective is to select a Type 1007 replacement to be used across the whole RN and RFA fleets.

The contenders are the Kelvin Hugher SharpEye and the Ultra SCANTER 6000. The SharpEye has been selected for use on the new MARS Fleet Tankers, with each ship set consisting of three such radars. This suggests that the Royal Navy has chosen. Unless they have abandoned the proposition of using a single type of navigation radar for the whole fleet, we should be seeing more orders placed in the coming years, starting with ship sets for the new aircraft carriers.

Future Maritime Radar Electronic Surveillance (FMRES): fleet-wide adoption of the latest fully digital Thales Radar Electronic Support Measures (RESM) already being fitted to the Type 45 destroyers.

There is a series of research and development programs for improved Force Protection of warships against ASW and ASUW threats, from swimmers to fast attack crafts.

Maritime Integrated Defensive Aids Suite (MIDAS): this most interesting, complex programme includes multiple activities and objectives. A variety of new RF and IR decoys is to be developed, and there is also a requirement for protection against laser guided weapons.

The current fixed, six-barrel decoy launchers would also be replaced with a new generation launcher. This specific requirement should be known as DAS-SS. The contenders include the Rheinmetall Multi Ammunition Softkill System (MASS) and the Chemring CENTURION trainable launcher. The CENTURION appears in the slide, but the image does not automatically mean a selection has been made already. For sure, the Royal Navy is genuinely interested, and officers will be present at trials of the system planned for later this year. Chemring also firmly believes that the Royal Navy will eventually buy in: the CENTURION’s website is full of images of Type 45s and RN vessels.

The CENTURION is a stealthy, fully trainable turret launcher with 12 independently aimed launcher tubes capable to fire all existing 130mm decoy rounds, and larger ones as well. It can be loaded with multiple different types of decoy at the same time, and its main advantage is its ability to deliver accurate payload placement to maximise decoy effectiveness, regardless of the ship’s position.

Recently Chemring has signed a deal with Raytheon to work on a weaponized variant of Centurion, which will be able to fire not just decoys, but missiles for the defence of the platform, mainly from Fast Inshore Attack Crafts (FIACs). Missiles proposed include the Javelin, the Griffin and even the TOW. 

Almost certainly part of, or directly related to MIDAS is also the ACCOLADE technology demonstration programme, a joint UK/France effort for the development of a new, active Radar Frequency decoy. The contract dates back to February 2011 and has a value of 14,4 million pounds. Field and sea trials should happen in the coming months, before the demonstration concludes, by May 2014.

Other programs and researches connected to MIDAS aren’t publicized. Some high level research is obviously classified, as the Royal Navy places huge faith and importance in the Soft Kill technology, mindful of the fact that, as of December 2012, from 1967 there have been 241 anti-ship missile attacks in the world. Of these, 128 have been defeated by the ships’ defences, with 127 ASMs tricked by decoys and Soft Kill technology and only one stopped by interception (the Silkworm missile shot down by HMS Gloucester in 1991 during operations in Iraq).

One such research has been revealed recently, unfortunately because the MOD has been unable to continue funding it and has authorized Thales UK to seek new partners willing the fund the next phase among a list of allied countries.

The self-defence system that was to come out of this development program sounds very capable and very promising, but it also sounds like it realistically requires quite a lot of funding to reach maturity and be completed.

The system is described as a meter-high laser turret capable to employ up to four or five lasers in different wavebands. The lasers can be used to dazzle or destroy the electro-optic seeker on incoming anti-ship missiles; engage sensors on the enemy platforms firing the missiles, and even act as a non-lethal defence in asymmetric scenarios, dazzling people with an eye-safe laser.    

The DefenseNews article seem to suggest that MIDAS has been shelved as a whole, but I doubt this is correct. Although new cuts have been announced for the MOD in the budget 2013, they are not expected to bite into the core equipment programme. So, at least for now, it is more likely that MIDAS has entered a new phase (perhaps changing name to another impossible acronym, since the MOD loves doing that) and has selected just a few developments to fund, being unable to ensure money for those at a lower maturity level, such as this laser countermeasure. Hopefully, Thales UK will be able to bring other partners on board, to continue development of this very interesting system, which has, in my opinion, great potential. The MOD would then be able to buy the finished product later on, saving money.

The Automatic Identification System (Warship Automatic Identification System W-AIS) is a situational awareness tool which is being installed on all ships of the Royal Navy. It overlay AIS contact data onto Warship Electronic Chart Display Information System (WECDIS). WEDCIS is introducing advanced digital navigation on Royal Navy vessels, including submarines.

Future Maritime Fires System: this program’s main result is the choice to adopt a new Medium Gun starting with the Type 26 frigate. A 127mm standard NATO gun will replace the MK8 Mod 1.

Other offensive weapon capabilities have been studied and are considered, including “deep” integration of the Fire Shadow loitering ammunition for launch from the Vertical Cells of Type 45 and, in future, of the Type 26. 

Fire Shadow at sea

 

FIAC Target (also FIAC RT, Fast Inshore Attack Craft Realistic Target): purchase of training solutions meant to prepare for defence against swarm attacks carried out by small, fast boats, including suicide crafts. This includes purchase of unmanned target boats.

Type 23 Capability Sustainment Programme: covered further down in this article, it is a program of upgrades meant to keep the Type 23 relevant all the way to exit from active service, in the 2030s.

Maritime Composite Training System: the MCTS is expected to become a more and more important and effective way to train crews on land, using advanced simulations to save money.

GWS60 Harpoon Sustainment Programme: the graphic shows that a lot of money is expected to go into sustaining the Harpoon missile to its OSD. It will be interesting to see what choices are made in this area, and what missile will eventually replace the old Harpoon. The Type 26 is, in fact, expected to employ a Vertical Launch weapon: among candidates that have the RN’s eye there is also the Tomahawk IV “MultiMission Tomahawk MMT”, a US-backed development of the cruise missile to make it capable to engage ships in complex scenarios, including in the littoral.

There is also a joint study with France going on for a future cruise and anti-ship missile, with the MBDA Perseus concept being a first indication of what the general thinking is.

Maritime Engineering Development Programme (MEDP): research and development activities covering all aspects of marine engineering technology, including advancements in All Electric Warship configurations, integrated waste management, upper deck systems, fire-fighting devices, roll stabilization etcetera. 

Minewarfare and Hydrographic Patrol Capability: a bit budget is reserved for activities relating to the development of unmanned vehicles for hydrographic and MCM tasks, which will initially be employed on current minesweepers and survey vessels.

Eventually, the MHPC will also deliver a new, multi-purpose ship design to replace the minesweepers and, in time, survey ships Echo and Enterprise. Current indications are for a 2-3000 tons patrol vessel with global range, light armament and the capability to carry the unmanned vehicles needed for stand-off mine clearance and hydrographic survey.

UK Cooperative Engagement Capability (UKCEC): in early 2012 the Royal Navy had hoped to get the go ahead to fit CEC to the Type 45 destroyers, but the request was turned down. There was no money available for the program in the Planning Round, and the news was widely spread over the internet.

However, the graphic, which dates October 2012, confirms that CEC isn’t gone. It is planned to get greater funding from the fourth of the 10 years of the Equipment plan. This sudden increase might indicate fitting of the system to the Type 45s, and the level of spending, which remains high all the way to 2022 (the 10^th year), hopefully means that CEC will find its way on the Type 26 as well.     

Small Boats: the money allocated to RHIBs and other boats in service with the Navy (and Marines?)

Type 23 Capability Sustainment Programme

As we have started to see, quite a lot of capabilities of the Type 26 will come from the modernized Type 23s, which will, in this way, also act as testing beds to refine systems and concepts for their successor.

It is expected that the Type 26 will inherit:

·         The Stingray anti-submarine torpedoes, and very possibly the tubes and launcher systems whole

·         The ARTISAN 3D radar (Type 997 for the Royal Navy), with the first having been fit on HMS Iron Duke during her latest refit.

·         The FLAADS(M) Sea Ceptor system with its CAMM missiles. FLAADS stands for Future Local Area Air Defence System (Maritime). It is planned to start replacing the old Sea Wolf on the Type 23s from 2016. 

·         The towed sonar 2087, with the eight set having been installed recently on the 8^th Type 23 (HMS Portland, Westminster, Northumberland, Richmond, Somerset, Sutherland, Kent, St Albans)

·         Possibly the 30mm guns

In addition, the Royal Navy is working to develop a Common Combat System, with applications across the whole fleet. This evolutionary approach will eventually lead all the way up to the Type 26’s own system.

CAAM missiles will represent a dramatic improvement from the current Sea Wolf system. Fully fire and forget, faster and more agile, the CAAM has a greater useful range (in excess of 25 km, approaching that of the much more expensive Aster 15) and promises to have an anti-surface attack capability as well, with the capability to engage even Fast Attack Crafts.

MBDA shows on its website a video explaining the future refit that will be carried out on the Type 23 warships to move from Sea Wolf to the new system. The current 32 Sea Wolf tubes will be removed and replaced by just 12 cells, arranged in two rows of six, on the Port side of the existing silo. Each of the six cells will contain a quad-pack of CAMM missiles, giving a total of up to 48 weapons embarked. The cells are not Sylver VLS systems, but a much simpler installation enabled by the Cold Launch feature of the new missile.

The starboard half of the current missile silo will become available for other uses, freeing up invaluable space in a ship type that is inexorably approaching the end of its growth margin. The CAMM installation also enables the removal of the two Sea Wolf radar illuminators and of their bulky under-deck equipment, replacing them with much smaller secure Data Link antennas. The all-weather canisters used by the CAMM missile on the frigates are the same that will be used for use on the truck-mounted launcher intended to replace Rapier in the Army, maximizing commonality.

It is a real bargain: more missiles, more capable, AND precious free space suddenly available for other uses. Without the large mass of the Type 911 Sea Wolf radars, it will even be possible to fit Phalanx CIWS systems on top of the bridge superstructure, and/or on top of the hangar. It won’t necessarily happen, but there will be finally space to make it possible. 

But there is even more. Much of what will appear in the coming years on the Type 23s will then be part of the equipment with which the Type 26 begin their service life. The T23 CSP is part of the Royal Navy Core Budget, funded as part of the 10 year plan. However, most of the T23 CSP components currently sit in the Uncommitted portion of the core budget, as contracts haven’t yet been physically signed.

So, what further improvements are planned for the Type 23s?

 

In the red circle, one of the two Type 911 Sea Wolf radar directors. Their removal will free up valuable space. In the blue circle, the GSA.8 sensor turret, that the Navy hopes to replace soon.

The ULTRA Series 2500 EO/IR turret is the likely preferred option, having already been selected for the Type 45s.

The GSA.8 was also used on the Type 22 B3 (two turrets on each ship). The Type 45s entered service with the much more modern and capable ULTRA Series 2500 Naval EO turret. Two turrets are installed, and they are very easily spotted looking at a photo of the destroyer. A single Series 2500 turret could be fitted to the Type 23s to replace the GSA.8, but so far there has not been a contract award.

DAS-SS: the Type 23 is expected to get the new decoy launcher and, of course, the decoys that will emerge from the various MIDAS-related work streams.

The Type 23s can also expect communications improvements, including Data Link 22, which will in the coming years progressively replace the Data Link 11, introducing Beyond Line of Sight capability that DL11 does not offer.

MEWSS/UAT spiral development will roll in progressive improvements to the Electronic Warfare Support Systems, and under Future Maritime Radar Electronic Surveillance (FMRES) the ships will be fitted with the latest fully digital Radar Electronic Support Measures (RESM) already being fitted to the Type 45 destroyers.

And, of course, the Type 23 will indirectly benefit from improvements to the helicopter fleet: the Merlin HM2 with its vastly greater capabilities, the new Wildcat, and, in good time, the new weaponry, from the M3M heavy machine gun to the Future Anti Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW), both Heavy (Sea Skua replacement) and Light (Thales LMM missile, introducing a new capability, particularly effective against small surface targets). 

As we know there is also a Maritime UAV requirement, to be met via UOR, that should, in the coming months, deliver a contractor-owned, contractor-operated unmanned aircraft system. A first Task Line is wanted for a “RFA vessel” which is undoubtedly the Bay-class LSD based in the Gulf, but a second Task Line is wanted for the Type 23 frigates.

Already in 2006, the Royal Navy trialed Scan Eagle aboard, and demonstrated full level 5 control of the UAV from the ship.  

Don’t write the Type 23s off yet, their best days are yet to come.