Type 31 GPFF

[THO88]

In the most recent budget for 2023, the USN announced they're early decommissioning all but 6 of the Freedom Class LCS variant

Does that mean that the Independence Class trimaran is considered to be more useful?

The Freedom class has an issue with the combining gear that is very expensive to fix. The decision to decommission most of the class hinges primarily on this. For a ship with limited capability in conventional naval warfare, It’s better to cut the losses and focus on traditional assets ie new Constellation class frigate

The USN is keeping 15 of the independence class active and they will exclusively operate the MCM mission module, replacing the Avenger class. At the end of the day the USN spent an extravagant amount of money on a minesweeper that can go 40 knots

 

[MadRat]

Seems odd with respect to a thread speaking about UK ships and the idea of 5" guns coming up. It would seem more appropriate to suggest 4.5" guns in their case.

Its incredible that a 57mm gun is considered adequate to replace 76mm guns. Sounds way too good to be true. Now if they are using Brimstone or Hellfire to engage targets that a 76mm would have been tasked to defeat, it makes perfect sense. But 57mm is a far cry from the 76mm when it comes to raw capabilities. And certainly neither is remotely able to replace a 4.5" main gun. But missiles can do it. It will cost loads of money, but they can do it.

 

[TomS]

Seems odd with respect to a thread speaking about UK ships and the idea of 5" guns coming up. It would seem more appropriate to suggest 4.5" guns in their case.

Its incredible that a 57mm gun is considered adequate to replace 76mm guns. Sounds way too good to be true. Now if they are using Brimstone or Hellfire to engage targets that a 76mm would have been tasked to defeat, it makes perfect sense. But 57mm is a far cry from the 76mm when it comes to raw capabilities. And certainly neither is remotely able to replace a 4.5" main gun. But missiles can do it. It will cost loads of money, but they can do it.

The RN has already specified 127mm (5-inch) guns for the Type 26. The 4.5" suffers from being largely unique to the RN and not having the possibility of benefiting from ammunition developments elsewhere, such as Vulcano.

This idea that 76mm is vastly superior to 57mm just doesn't hold up. Effective gunnery ranges are similar and the higher RoF of the 57mm Mk2 means their "throw weight" is similar. Both have the option of guided rounds.

And the notion that 4.5" is a dramatically better weapon than either is questionable for the T31's missions. Certainly for NGFS (though 127mm is better still), but for either AAW or counter-FIAC (small swarming boats) the 4.5" or 127mm would not be my choice at all.

 

[THO88]

Seems odd with respect to a thread speaking about UK ships and the idea of 5" guns coming up. It would seem more appropriate to suggest 4.5" guns in their case.

Its incredible that a 57mm gun is considered adequate to replace 76mm guns. Sounds way too good to be true. Now if they are using Brimstone or Hellfire to engage targets that a 76mm would have been tasked to defeat, it makes perfect sense. But 57mm is a far cry from the 76mm when it comes to raw capabilities. And certainly neither is remotely able to replace a 4.5" main gun. But missiles can do it. It will cost loads of money, but they can do it.

The new Type 26 is getting a 5” gun, same as on the USN Arleigh Burke class DDG. I always wondered why the RN chose this over their traditional 4.5” gun which has been their standard medium caliber gun predating WW2.

I wish I can remember were I read this but the side by side comparison of the 57mm to 76mm is pretty similar with the 57mm outperforming in many areas due to its high rate of fire.

 

[MadRat]

Maybe here:

Sweden 57 mm/70 (2.25") SAK Marks 1, 2 and 3 - NavWeaps

www.navweaps.com

Ship Class Used On	Mark 1 Sweden: Hugin, Spica I and Spica II classes Finland: Helsinki class Mark 2 Sweden: Spica III Canada: Halifax class Mark 3 Finland: Squadron 2000 class Mexico: Oceànica class United Kingdom: Type 31 Frigate USCG: Bertholf class (Maritime Security Cutter, Large) USN: Freedom (LCS-1) and Constellation (FFG-62) classes

Compare to: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_30mm_BushmasterII.php These 30 mm weapons replaced the 57 mm Bofors guns planned for the USS Zumwalt DDG-1000 class. This weapon can be converted to fire 40 mm rounds with a change of barrels and minor changes to the feeder assembly. This conversion can be performed by the ship's crew.

Ship Class Used On	USN San Antonio LPD-17 Freedom LCS-1 Zumwalt DDG-1000 EFV (Armored Fighting Vehicle for the US Marines) Britain Type 23 Frigates

 

[Yellow Palace]

The new Type 26 is getting a 5” gun, same as on the USN Arleigh Burke class DDG. I always wondered why the RN chose this over their traditional 4.5” gun which has been their standard medium caliber gun predating WW2.

The 4.5" Mark 8 has been getting increasingly long in the tooth and difficult to support, as well as falling behind with ammunition developments because the UK is the only country using that calibre. I believe there are also supply chain issues with 4.5" ammunition.

The RN has wanted to go to a USN 5" gun since the 1950s purely on the supply chain issue, but hasn't been able to for various reasons. With the other factors taken into consideration, a new gun was going to be required anyway, and a 5" was the only logical choice. Leonardo bid against BAE Systems with their own 127mm gun; the 4.5" wasn't even considered.

 

[Cordy]

The new Type 26 is getting a 5” gun, same as on the USN Arleigh Burke class DDG. I always wondered why the RN chose this over their traditional 4.5” gun which has been their standard medium caliber gun predating WW2.
The 4.5" Mark 8 has been getting increasingly long in the tooth and difficult to support, as well as falling behind with ammunition developments because the UK is the only country using that calibre. I believe there are also supply chain issues with 4.5" ammunition.

The RN has wanted to go to a USN 5" gun since the 1950s purely on the supply chain issue, but hasn't been able to for various reasons. With the other factors taken into consideration, a new gun was going to be required anyway, and a 5" was the only logical choice. Leonardo bid against BAE Systems with their own 127mm gun; the 4.5" wasn't even considered.

Not sure correct, the RN did invest in a 155mm variant of the 4.5" Mk8 to use the standard NATO artillery 155mm shells, cancelled to save £10 million in aftermath of the 2009 financial crash

Wikipedia - The Ministry of Defence investigated a proposal from BAE Systems to adapt the 4.5 inch system to accept the heavier calibre 155 mm (6.1 inch) gun barrel and breech from the AS-90 self-propelled gun.[8] This "155mm Third Generation Maritime Fire Support" (155 TMF) would introduce a common gun calibre for the British Army and Royal Navy, helping with ammunition logistics, and encouraging joint Army-Navy development of extended range and precision guided shells.[9] A £4m contract was awarded to develop a prototype, and firing trials were scheduled for 2009[10] with delivery in 2014,[4] but the project was cancelled in the cuts implemented following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Not sure correct, the RN did invest in a 155mm variant of the 4.5" Mk8 to use the standard NATO artillery 155mm shells, cancelled to save £10 million in aftermath of the 2009 financial crash

The 155mm TMF might have been a candidate system, but it was cancelled before the Global Combat Ship design cycle really got going. By the time definite decisions about the gun were being made, the 155mm was off the table.

Even then, I think 127mm probably has more going for it, commonality with other NATO navies probably being more valuable in practice than commonality with the British Army.

 

[Tony Williams]

On the face of it the 155mm TMF was a brilliant idea, combining the existing 4.5 inch mounting with existing artillery barrels. It did run into a problem, though: the RN requires the propellant charge to be contained within a metal cartridge case for fire prevention reasons, but the 155mm uses caseless ammo. Modifying either the ammo or the gun would have been costly, and lost many of the economies of the proposal.

 

[Foo Fighter]

If the caseless ammo is contained in a two layered 'bin' with an inert gas it will be just as safe. Chieftain used a water jacket but the idea is the same. A powder form works too as any breach reduces the available oxygen and therefor increases safety.

 

[Tony Williams]

I think there could be a problem with the mechanical handling of the propellant charge, which I presume is somewhat fragile compared with a metal cartridge case.

 

[TomS]

This weapon can be converted to fire 40 mm rounds with a change of barrels and minor changes to the feeder assembly.

In theory, yes, the 30mm Bushmaster gun can be modified to fire 40mm Supershot, which is basically just the 30x173 round necked out to 40mm. But this isn't comparable to a full-sized 40mm like the Bofors L70. And it would depend on someone actually committing to develop 40mm Supershot ammunition, which hasn't happened yet. The US Army did adopt 30mm in the Stryker upgun but seems content to go straight to 50mm for future vehicles. And the USN and USMC seem to be happy with 30mm with airburst munition rounds.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I think there could be a problem with the mechanical handling of the propellant charge, which I presume is somewhat fragile compared with a metal cartridge case.

There were proposals toward the end of the project to have fixed charges in a metal cartridge case.

 

[TomS]

I think there could be a problem with the mechanical handling of the propellant charge, which I presume is somewhat fragile compared with a metal cartridge case.

There were proposals toward the end of the project to have fixed charges in a metal cartridge case.

Basically firing everything as Super and accepting some really inefficient trajectories for short-range firing?

 

[THO88]

Maybe here:

That wasn't it but navweps.com is an excellent website. If you open up the pages for both the 76mm and 57mm on separate monitors, you can get a pretty good gist of the difference in parameters.

The 4.5" Mark 8 has been getting increasingly long in the tooth and difficult to support, as well as falling behind with ammunition developments because the UK is the only country using that calibre. I believe there are also supply chain issues with 4.5" ammunition.

The RN has wanted to go to a USN 5" gun since the 1950s purely on the supply chain issue, but hasn't been able to for various reasons. With the other factors taken into consideration, a new gun was going to be required anyway, and a 5" was the only logical choice. Leonardo bid against BAE Systems with their own 127mm gun; the 4.5" wasn't even considered.

This makes a lot of sense. Reminds me of how the British Army is continuing to use the rifled 120mm for their MBTs while the rest of NATO switched to the smoothbore 120mm decades ago. They finally caved in with the Challenger 3.

On the face of it the 155mm TMF was a brilliant idea, combining the existing 4.5 inch mounting with existing artillery barrels. It did run into a problem, though: the RN requires the propellant charge to be contained within a metal cartridge case for fire prevention reasons, but the 155mm uses caseless ammo. Modifying either the ammo or the gun would have been costly, and lost many of the economies of the proposal

Something to consider is that the 5 inch 62 cal is a dual purpose naval gun designed to engage air, sea and land targets. As a modified artillery cannon, the 155mm TMF would have had degraded ability versus naval targets and as far as I know, zero capability to engage air targets. Again, I wish I could remember where I read this but to highlight a similar case, the 155mm AGS for the USN Zumwalt class were unable to engage surface targets within a certain number of miles from the ship due to the minimal gun depression.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Maybe here:

That wasn't it but navweps.com is an excellent website. If you open up the pages for both the 76mm and 57mm on separate monitors, you can get a pretty good gist of the difference in parameters.

The 4.5" Mark 8 has been getting increasingly long in the tooth and difficult to support, as well as falling behind with ammunition developments because the UK is the only country using that calibre. I believe there are also supply chain issues with 4.5" ammunition.

The RN has wanted to go to a USN 5" gun since the 1950s purely on the supply chain issue, but hasn't been able to for various reasons. With the other factors taken into consideration, a new gun was going to be required anyway, and a 5" was the only logical choice. Leonardo bid against BAE Systems with their own 127mm gun; the 4.5" wasn't even considered.

This makes a lot of sense. Reminds me of how the British Army is continuing to use the rifled 120mm for their MBTs while the rest of NATO switched to the smoothbore 120mm decades ago. They finally caved in with the Challenger 3.

On the face of it the 155mm TMF was a brilliant idea, combining the existing 4.5 inch mounting with existing artillery barrels. It did run into a problem, though: the RN requires the propellant charge to be contained within a metal cartridge case for fire prevention reasons, but the 155mm uses caseless ammo. Modifying either the ammo or the gun would have been costly, and lost many of the economies of the proposal

Something to consider is that the 5 inch 62 cal is a dual purpose naval gun designed to engage air, sea and land targets. As a modified artillery cannon, the 155mm TMF would have had degraded ability versus naval targets and as far as I know, zero capability to engage air targets. Again, I wish I could remember where I read this but to highlight a similar case, the 155mm AGS for the USN Zumwalt class were unable to engage surface targets within a certain number of miles from the ship due to the minimal gun depression.

Depending on Fire Control, I see no reason why a 155mm Gun could not engage aerial targets. It's slower rate of fire of 12 rpm would mean it wouldn't be as effective as 20rpm gun like the 4.5" Mk 8 or 5"/54 Mk 45, but both the 4.5" Mk 8 and 5"/54 Mk 45 were already optimised for shore bombardment and reliability, as when they were designed in the 1960s, the use of medium-calibre naval guns in the anti-aircraft role had already fallen out of fashion, combined with a desire to improve reliability, as a result of the experience with with weapons like the 40rpm 5"/54 Mk 42, the 60rpm 5"/70 QF Mk N1, the 20rpm 6" QF Mk N5, and the 90rpm 3"/70 QF Mk N1 and Mk 37 mountings.

The AGS mounting had enough depression to ensure that the barrel could be contained within its low-observable shroud, so I seriously doubt that it would have insufficient depression to engage close-in targets, albeit where the arcs of fire would not be obscured by the superstructure, low-observable shrouds and hull.

Even the Vertical Gun System could engage targets at close range, albeit not in a time-critical manner, all that would be required was to fire that shells straight upwards into the stratosphere, before having them come directly down.

 

[MadRat]

Honestly, if you retain a gun solely for shore bombardment, why not place it on a rail system to store in the structure? Seems like a poor use of deck space to feature at some prominent fixed point. Accept that the army-based gun will never be a quick reacting weapon with a high rate of fire by traditional naval standards. Accept that your army-based gun doesn't need the full-spherical articulation of the traditional deck gun. Accept that an army-based gun is more likely a daylight gun saved for targets of opportunity, when 4-5 crew members can be funneled from other duties to run the system.

When it is needed then have a door open, slide it out, lock it into place to fire off the port or starboard. Reloads could be shuttled back and forth from the gun hangar using a motorized robot or rail system. That would retain the minimal exposure of rounds to the sea conditions, and allow your reloads to be stored in protected magazines without the need of a complicated feed system. Relegating the gun to storage might reduce its utility as a fire support system, but it is already poor in that role due to the gun being designed for the army-based shoot and scoot role. And they added the handicap of shooting from a pitching deck, which is further degrading its practical accuracy.

Using a stored gun dramatically reduces your system's footprint on the deck except when its actually in use. And in some cases, the gun might never even need to be on the ship for the trip, so you can use that gun hangar for other purposes. Heck, maybe the rail system can be used interchangeably with an MLRS system. An auxiliary ship can always tote a fresh one over with a crane while the ship is deployed if it becomes necessary.

If the ship needs quick-firing weapons for point defense then its difficult to argue against missile and rapid-fire cannon that are much more compact than a deckgun.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Using a stored gun dramatically reduces your system's footprint on the deck except when its actually in use.

It actually increases the footprint, weighs more, and adds complexity, because in addition to the deck footprint (which needs to be kept clear in any case) you also need:

• Superstructure volume for the 'gun hangar'
• Clear deck between the 'gun hangar' and the firing position
• The machinery needed to move the entire gun mount between its two positions
• Two sets of seats for the gun
• A more complex ammunition handling system

In exchange for all this, you're proposing a system that is less responsive, has lower availability, and has less effect on target. There are excellent reasons why virtually every modern warship either has an uncrewed, power-operated gunhouse on the foredeck, or else no main gun at all.

 

[timmymagic]

Depending on Fire Control, I see no reason why a 155mm Gun could not engage aerial targets.

Given the US have already used the 155mm to shoot down cruise missiles in tests I'd say it already can. In fact the larger shell would make it more useful than smaller calibres (a whole lot easier than cramming guidance, wing kits, bursting charges etc. into a 57mm, 76mm or even a 5 inch shell). Add in range and the sheer energy it can impart to a sub-calibre round, plus the assumption that slinging prox fused ammo at aerial targets from large calibre weapons isn't seen as credible these days, you could make a fair case that 155mm has a much brighter future ahead of it than other smaller calibres in that role.

A MADFIRES or ORKA from a 155mm gun is going to have far greater range, speed at intercept, warhead size.....plus be a whole lot cheaper than one from a 57mm gun..

ABMS Demo Proves AI Chops For C2 - Breaking Defense

"Tanks shooting down cruise missiles is awesome -- video game, sci-fi awesome," Air Force acquisition czar Will Roper told a small group of reporters.

breakingdefense.com

 

[MadRat]

Using a stored gun dramatically reduces your system's footprint on the deck except when its actually in use.

It actually increases the footprint, weighs more, and adds complexity, because in addition to the deck footprint (which needs to be kept clear in any case) you also need:

• Superstructure volume for the 'gun hangar'
• Clear deck between the 'gun hangar' and the firing position
• The machinery needed to move the entire gun mount between its two positions
• Two sets of seats for the gun
• A more complex ammunition handling system

In exchange for all this, you're proposing a system that is less responsive, has lower availability, and has less effect on target. There are excellent reasons why virtually every modern warship either has an uncrewed, power-operated gunhouse on the foredeck, or else no main gun at all.

You are being absurd. Placing a gun in the structure for safe housing already accepts the fact you have a spade not a steamshovel. An integrated gun requires a housing that goes around the gun. Better to keep open deckspace and retain the option to not carry a gun. The integrated gun is there 100% of the time. And more complex handling system? Disimilar and manual labor may be involved, perhaps, but not a more complex mechanism.

 

[Hood]

Folks can we please keep on topic. This thread is about the Type 31 frigate, not about hypothetical gun stowage concepts. That kind of discussion is best placed for the theoretical section of the forum.

 

[THO88]

Depending on Fire Control, I see no reason why a 155mm Gun could not engage aerial targets. It's slower rate of fire of 12 rpm would mean it wouldn't be as effective as 20rpm gun like the 4.5" Mk 8 or 5"/54 Mk 45, but both the 4.5" Mk 8 and 5"/54 Mk 45 were already optimised for shore bombardment and reliability, as when they were designed in the 1960s, the use of medium-calibre naval guns in the anti-aircraft role had already fallen out of fashion, combined with a desire to improve reliability, as a result of the experience with with weapons like the 40rpm 5"/54 Mk 42, the 60rpm 5"/70 QF Mk N1, the 20rpm 6" QF Mk N5, and the 90rpm 3"/70 QF Mk N1 and Mk 37 mountings.

The AGS mounting had enough depression to ensure that the barrel could be contained within its low-observable shroud, so I seriously doubt that it would have insufficient depression to engage close-in targets, albeit where the arcs of fire would not be obscured by the superstructure, low-observable shrouds and hull.

Even the Vertical Gun System could engage targets at close range, albeit not in a time-critical manner, all that would be required was to fire that shells straight upwards into the stratosphere, before having them come directly down

I agree dual purpose, medium caliber naval guns have been increasingly relegated to a secondary role in AA and ASuW warfare (and optimized for shore bombardment) but their use in multiple naval engagements since the start of the modern jet and missile era still validates their utility. There's a reason nearly every warship bigger than a corvette still carries at least one gun above 57mm.

Coupled to the proper fire control and radar, I have no doubt the L31 155mm gun could engage air targets but at the end of the day it's still a 39 caliber howitzer with high firing arcs, optimized for sustained bombardment of land targets. It will never match a dedicated naval gun like the 5" 62 cal Mk 45 in engaging enemy ships and missiles/aircraft. You can fit a shotgun with a scope and load it with slugs but it still won't be a good assault rifle.

I googled the 155mm AGS minimum range and couldn't find anything, but I know I read it somewhere. I misspoke about the gun depression which for the AGS is -5 degrees, more than enough to engage relatively close targets. The only supporting evidence I could find is that the rocketed assisted Mk 171 ERGM for the 5" 62cal has a minimum range of 13 nm. The main round (LRLAP) developed for the 155 mm AGS was also rocket assisted, so maybe this is a characteristic of this type of shell

**Edit**

I just read more about the 155mm TMF at (http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_61-52_future.php) and there was a modification called the fourth generation maritime fire support weapon (FMF) which used a longer 52 cal barrel and would have produced muzzle velocities on par with the 5" / 62.

 

[JohnR]

What has surprised me is the 'secondary' gun. Why adopt the Bofors 40mm rather than the 40mm CTA developed for the army?

 

[starviking]

What has surprised me is the 'secondary' gun. Why adopt the Bofors 40mm rather than the 40mm CTA developed for the army?

I’d guess the 40 mm Bofors would have had most naval integration matters ironed out.

 

[aonestudio]

UK and Poland sign Statement of Intent for the three Arrowhead-140 frigates

The Ministers of UK and Poland signed the Arrowhead-140 Statement of Intent.

www.navyrecognition.com

Landmark agreements strengthen UK-Poland defence relations

The UK will enhance Poland’s military capability and strengthen the defence relationship between the two countries, following the signing of two major defence equipment agreements.

www.gov.uk

 

[Grey Havoc]

Britain spent billions on new frigates in the last five years

The UK has spent billions of pounds on the Royal Navy's new Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, data provided by Alec Shelbrooke, Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, show.

www.navaltoday.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

From October 18th:

UK's Type 31 frigate program hits major milestone

Shipbuilding company Babcock International has revealed that the Royal Navy's Type 31 frigate program reached a major milestone when the team recently moved a 177-tonne hull block into position on the first frigate.

www.navaltoday.com

Shipbuilding company Babcock International has revealed that the Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigate program reached a major milestone when the team recently moved a 177-tonne hull block into position on the first frigate.

According to the company, this activity marks the consolidation of the first grand block, one of eight that will make up the vessel currently being assembled at the Rosyth facility.

“The first grand block consolidation is a significant step towards the successful delivery of the first ship in this pathfinder programme for the UK’s National Shipbuilding Strategy,” Sean Donaldson, Managing Director of Babcock’s Energy and Marine business said.

To remind, in April this year, the construction started on the first Type 31 vessel, HMS Venturer.

[snip]

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601242670470696960

View: https://twitter.com/abe_accord/status/1601242670470696960

Indo Defence 2022: Indonesia prepares to cut steel on first ‘Red White' frigate

Indonesian state-owned shipbuilder PT PAL is preparing to start work on the country's first Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate and will hold a steel-cutting ceremony for the...

www.janes.com

 

[starviking]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601242670470696960

View: https://twitter.com/abe_accord/status/1601242670470696960

Indo Defence 2022: Indonesia prepares to cut steel on first ‘Red White' frigate

Indonesian state-owned shipbuilder PT PAL is preparing to start work on the country's first Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate and will hold a steel-cutting ceremony for the...

www.janes.com

Interesting that they just call it an Iver Huitfeldt, not even an Iver Huitfeldt-derived frigate.

 

[zen]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1601242670470696960

View: https://twitter.com/abe_accord/status/1601242670470696960

Indo Defence 2022: Indonesia prepares to cut steel on first ‘Red White' frigate

Indonesian state-owned shipbuilder PT PAL is preparing to start work on the country's first Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate and will hold a steel-cutting ceremony for the...

www.janes.com

Interesting that they just call it an Iver Huitfeldt, not even an Iver Huitfeldt-derived frigate.

Probably sounds less controversial.

 

[starviking]

Interesting that they just call it an Iver Huitfeldt, not even an Iver Huitfeldt-derived frigate.

Probably sounds less controversial.

Indeed!

 

[jeffb]

Developing the Type 31 frigate | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1617834378562011141

View: https://twitter.com/Babcockplc/status/1617834378562011141

 

[aonestudio]

Babcock in dispute over extra Type 31 Frigate contract costs

Babcock is currently embroiled in a dispute with the Ministry of Defence over increased Type 31 frigate contract costs, with neither side able to agree on who is responsible for covering the additional costs.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[aonestudio]

Type 31 Frigate costs rise by £40 million

The Type 31 manufacturing contract was initially signed in November 2019, and the cost increase has been attributed to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on global supply chains.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1658519503238463500

View: https://twitter.com/HMSVenturerRN/status/1658519503238463500

Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[TomS]

There seems to be possible confirmation that the Type 31s will now be fitted with (not just for) 32 Mk41 VLS cells.

(Edited: added possible, this doesn't seem 100% confirmed)

Royal Navy’s Type 31 frigates to be fitted with Mk41 vertical launch system | Navy Lookout

www.navylookout.com

 

[Hood]

Let's hope so - although he didn't make it explicitly clear whether that was the case.

 

[TomS]

Let's hope so - although he didn't make it explicitly clear whether that was the case.

Fair. But it seems much more positive than it has been previously. I'll edit.

 

[FighterJock]

Any idea as to what the main armament will be? I once heard that the Storm Shadow was once considered for the VLS.