This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.
This is the post excerpt.
This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.
At the SNP conference last weekend, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon insisted she was “more certain than ever before” of achieving her dream of Scottish Independence. For now she urged members to focus on “winning the argument” rather than pushing too soon for another vote. Here we look at how Nicola’s ‘dream’ would actually be a nightmare for UK security as a whole. The RN would arguably be the single British institution to suffer most, with both its main submarine base and shipyards under threat.
Theresa May has blocked another referendum for now but her weak and unpopular government, stoked by Anglo-Scottish divisions over Brexit, fuels SNP hopes they will get one day get their way. There is limited enthusiasm for another referendum amongst the public in Scotland but opinion on independence remains almost evenly split, exactly the same as the 2014 referendum result, 55 / 45% against. A swing in public opinion of just over 5% is not unimaginable. Should Jeremy Corbyn ever make it into Downing Street, his hard-left, anti-Trident views would conveniently dovetail with those of the SNP. (although the Labour party claims to officially be against independence and pro-Trident). Corbyn’s personal foreign policy instincts are essentially to align with actors who are the adversaries of Britain and the United States. Independence would probably destroy or severely hamper Trident and the nuclear submarine enterprise where US-UK relations are especially close, which would suit the SNP, Corbyn (and Putin).
Surveys done in 2016 show only 20% of the British public completely oppose Trident, although the figure in Scotland is higher at 38%. Perhaps this is unsurprising as the Scottish public is fed a much stronger diet of SNP propaganda that inflates its costs, exaggerates risks and ignores its benefits. Overall there is still broad public support for the British nuclear weapons and the case for retaining our ultimate insurance policy is strengthening further as the post-Cold War consensus is ebbing away. Scottish independence would see the enforced removal of the Trident nuclear missile submarines from their base at Faslane. Such an upheaval also threatens the 6,700 Royal Navy and civilian workers at Faslane and even if a suitable deep water base could be found in England or Wales, as we examined in a previous article, the Trident submarine replacement program is already at the very limits of what the defence budget can bear. The costs of relocating facilities could well put an end to the UK nuclear deterrent on financial grounds. The loss of Faslane would also require the seven Astute class attack submarines to be re-located to Devonport, together with attendant costs.
If you follow the Glasgow-based UK Defence Journal on social media, you can witness the considerable time they spend correcting misunderstandings and deliberate falsehoods about Trident, shipbuilding on the Clyde and the aircraft carrier project that emerge on a daily basis. In the war of disinformation, the cybernats are entrenched in their position and unwilling to let facts get in the way of their view that London has “cheated” Scotland of its fair share of defence contracts. Not only is this view incorrect, but in their polarised view of the world, no time is given to understand the nuances and complexities of defence issues.
The SNP website proclaims “Scottish shipyards have been sold down the river by the Tories”. It is true that the Tories have underfunded the navy and we are not building enough warships overall, but the idea that Scotland is not getting its fair share of the work is absurd. English yards have been allowed to close while, apart from submarines, all new UK warship construction is now done north of the border. Although the number has been reduced from the planned 13 ships, the BAES Clyde shipyard is in possession of the richest warship contract in Europe, building the 8 Type 26 frigates. The deliberately slow pace of Type 26 construction guarantees work for the highly skilled Clyde workforce for the next two decades, very few shipyards in the world have this kind of certainty.
The Clyde and Rosyth have had the lion’s share of work involved in the construction of the QEC aircraft carriers, the largest ships ever built for the RN. The QEC project is an extraordinary example of engineering from across all parts of the UK, supporting 4,000 Scottish workers, despite this, the Scottish Government has almost entirely ignored this British success as it does not fit with their grievance narrative. Should Babcock win the Type 31e Frigate competition, there will be further work for Rosyth and Ferguson Marine on the Clyde. The SNP is right to challenge the government on its flawed policy to allow foreign yards to compete to construct the Fleet Solid Support Ship. A UK-only competition could offer the prospect of more work for Rosyth.
In the event of independence, the RN would find its primary shipbuilder is now in a foreign country. Britain has never built its warships abroad both for security and economic reasons. Whether the Treasury would allow billions of Pounds to be spent on the Type 26 in ‘foreign’ yards is very doubtful. Chaos and uncertainty would ensue over how and where the RN would build its warships, potentially severely decimating the frigate programme. Enormous expense and upheaval would be involved in re-establishing English construction facilities. There would be inevitable job losses in Glasgow and Rosyth and the shipbuilding needs of an independent Scotland would be negligible in comparison to those of the Union.
The SNP does at least recognise the importance of the maritime domain to the UK, Scotland alone has a longer coastline than China. They are rightly critical of Westminster’s failure to invest in maritime forces, in particular, the axing of the Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft and the lack of patrol vessels. Unfortunately, their position is undermined by the fact a newly independent Scotland would face financial problems and even if the SNP had the political appetite, it would be unlikely to increase defence spending above the 2% of GDP it currently enjoys. The SNP claim axing Trident is a big part of the answer to making its public spending plans work. The average annual cost of the entire Trident enterprise is around £2Bn per year, releasing Scotland’s £200m ‘share’ would not make a big difference to their public finances as a whole. It would also take around a decade and cost around £10Bn to decommission Britain’s nuclear weapons infrastructure.
The SNP frequently complains that “no major warships are based in Scotland”. It is true the frigates and destroyers are based in Portsmouth and Devonport but the lack of numbers already leaves the English bases arguing over their share of the shrinking fleet. In an ideal world where the RN had sufficient escort numbers, some would be based in Scotland but in the current financial climate, another frigate base cannot be justified. The support infrastructure for each class of ship would have to be duplicated and it also would complicate manning issues. Escorts have not been based in Scotland (Rosyth) since the late 1980s but surface ships now maintain a frequent presence in Scottish waters. For example, at the time of writing HMS Westminster has been operating from Faslane as the Towed Array Patrol Ship (TAPS) around Scotland and in Arctic waters for several weeks while HMS Diamond was patrolling in the North Sea and visited Invergordon last week.
Overall armed forces personnel numbers have declined in Scotland but this is just a reflection of the national picture, just ask the people living in the Plymouth area about the shrinking defence estate. Despite the threat of independence, considerable investment continues at Faslane which will shortly become the RN’s sole submarine base. Further investment and new jobs are being created at RAF Lossiemouth to support the new P-8As. £10M has been spent on recommissioning the Remote Radar Head at Saxa Vord in the Shetlands to improve coverage of the airspace over the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea. A resurgent Russian navy has seen a renewed focus on naval operations in the North Atlantic, GIUK gap and the Arctic which increases Scotland’s strategic importance for NATO.
According to defence policy formulated before the 2014 referendum, the ‘Scottish Navy’ will consist of two frigates, four mine countermeasures vessels and a ‘command platform’ all taken from the Royal Navy. There is also vague talk of talk of constructing OPVs and auxiliary support ships ‘shared with the UK’. The new navy is supposed to number about 2,000 personnel, initially to be drawn from Scots already serving in the RN. This assumes that Scots serving in the RN will be allowed to transfer when required by Scotland and that they would actually want to leave one of the world’s foremost navies to serve in this baby navy. As a hasty paper exercise it is easy to create a navy based on what the SNP considers to be its share of RN assets. Whether this division should be done on the basis of GDP, head of population or even length of coastline is another discussion, but the devil is in the detail. Taking a couple of frigates and basing them in Scotland may sound simple, but like most defence assets they require a complex logistics and support tail. Ammunition and spares are managed by a UK-wide system run by the MoD and a sophisticated training pipeline is needed to produce competent crews, not something that can be replicated easily.
The Royal Navy is a globally-deployed force reaching overseas to support the wider interests of the UK. The SNP’s vision of defence appears to be rather more parochial, although it vainly hopes to have some wider relevance through NATO. Perhaps understandably turned off by Britain’s problems in recent overseas interventions, they see defence as something that can be done purely in their own backyard. This is a failure to recognise an independent Scotland would still be as reliant on global maritime trade as the UK. Unable to project power overseas they would simply be passing the burden of protection on to navies of other nations or hoping for the best.
As well as making dubious assumptions that an independent Scotland could remain in the EU, the SNP also expects to be able to join NATO. After adopting an aggressive anti-nuclear stance and having just paralysed the nuclear forces of a founding NATO nation, whether Scotland would be welcomed to join the alliance is highly doubtful. In reality, both Scottish and UK security would be weakened by independence, most significantly because whether Scots recognise or approve of it or not, the nuclear deterrent that protects us would be gone. Taking other assets from an already over-stretched RN to build a Scottish waters fleet will simply undermine the ability to support the wider interests of both countries. For example, it may be useful and symbolic to have a few more minehunters in Scottish waters for contingencies, the reality is that the threat of mines in the Persian Gulf is a much more immediate threat to Scottish economic interests. It is obvious is that Scotland would be heavily reliant on London’s co-operation for its defence forces to have any credibility, at least for the first decade post-independence. In the meantime they would need to be making considerable investments in duplicating support infrastructure just to field this small force. London will have the advantage in many of the negotiations and perhaps some of the damage could be mitigated, eg the RN could keep its frigates it return for Scottish forces making use of training and support facilities in England.
Separation would weaken both nations, undermine global credibility while duplicating costs to both country’s taxpayers. For the RN breaking up the Union would be disastrous from both an operational and support perspective, further weakening an over-stretched service. Historically many Scotsmen have served with distinction in the British armed forces. Their engineering and shipbuilding prowess was at the heart of naval power and this still holds true today, albeit on a lesser scale. Scotland already rightly has a great deal of independence over its domestic affairs but we are stronger and safer together, both economically and strategically. Those in Westminster also need to work harder to demonstrate that Scottish interests are best served by remaining in the Union, greater investment in RN would certainly help this cause.
HMS Queen Elizabeth sailed from Portsmouth this morning to conduct a second set of rotary-wing flying trials. Her sailing had been delayed by a few days after a defect with the power system emerged. This was quickly rectified and the delay will not affect her overall programme for this year.
She has been alongside for the last 13 weeks for a “Capability Insertion Period” during which time engineers have been working hard to upgrade her systems and carry out planned maintenance tasks. This included painting the non-slip coating on sections of her deck – something planned to be done in stages, every time she’s alongside.
30 BAE Systems engineers have sailed with the ship and will continue to carry out work onboard during the 2-3 weeks away. Their focus working on setting-to, testing and fine-tuning systems to support the F-35 flying trials which will be conducted later this year.
The first four 617 Squadron F-35s arrived in the UK this week and many have assumed they will join quickly the ship but operational aircraft will not embark on the ship until late 2019 at the earliest. 617 Squadron will receive the remaining aircraft to bring it up to its strength of around 12 aircraft by the end of 2018. Its initial focus will be flying from RAF Marham on land-based training, aiming for formal Initial Operating Capability (IOC/Land) to be declared in by December. Specially instrumented F-35s will be the first to land on board QE when the ship is off the Eastern Seaboard of the US in the autumn.
Phase 1 helicopter trials with the Merlin and Chinook were a success, Apache and Wildcat have yet to be cleared to operate and it is assumed they will participate in the phase 2 trails. The flying serials are used to write the Ship Helicopter Operating Limits (SHOL) which define the safe operating envelope for each aircraft type flying from the QEC carriers.
QE will return home sometime in July to begin preparations for the trip to the United States. QE is due to visit New York, probably in September and will be escorted on the deployment by Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose. Press reports that F-35s will perform a demonstration landing on board QE in Portsmouth for the visit Donald Trump on 13th July should be taken with a very large pinch of salt!
from Save the Royal Navy https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/hms-queen-elizabeth-sails-for-part-ii-helicopter-trials/
On 6th June, MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Luke Pollard opened a Westminster Hall Parliamentary debate on the base-porting of Type 26 frigates. A cloud of uncertainty hangs over the future of Devonport and the MoD is under pressure to make an early decision on the basing arrangements for the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates.
In an earlier article, we looked at the overall issues that Devonport faces. Worries over the future of the amphibious ships, a reduction in Royal Marine numbers and the end of submarine basing increases the pressure for frigates to be homeported in Plymouth.
Earlier this year it was announced the base-porting of the Type 23 frigates would be rationalised so that the 8 ships fitted with the towed array sonar tail will all be Devonport-based. The 5 that have a crew gym in the space where the towed array should be, and referred to as general purpose, will be Portsmouth-based. Making Devonport the centre of ASW excellence makes sense and would point to the 8 specialist Type 26 ASW ships replacing the Type 23s in Devonport.
Portsmouth’s future is very much more certain as the home to two large aircraft carriers, the 6 Type 45 destroyers and the 5 new OPVs. On the debit side, HMS Protector moved from Portsmouth to be a Devonport-based ship in 2016 (but as she spends several years away at a time this is of limited benefit to Plymouth). The rationalisation of the Type 23s will also see Devonport gain one frigate at Portsmouth’s expense. There remains an unpleasant possibility that this balance could be upset by the Modernising Defence Review, if the RN is forced to axe a couple of Type 23s in order to keep other assets.
There is no doubt that the Plymouth has suffered a big reduction in the size of its defence estate and in personnel numbers over the last 20 years, on an even greater scale than Portsmouth. The 5 GP Type 23s that will soon all be Portsmouth-based will go out of service first and are the first Type 31s are supposed to be available ahead of the first Type 26s. Basing the Type 31s in Portsmouth seems like the obvious choice and would approximately preserve the status quo. The projected fleet operating doctrine suggests that one or more of the Type 31s are likely to be permanently forward-deployed more often than the Type 26 so would spend much less time in their home port.
Luke Pollard was joined by other MPs from the Plymouth area; Gary Streeter, Johnny Mercer and Kevin Foster. There is strong cross-party support making the case for Devonport’s future. Valid points were made about the suitability of Devonport with good access to the Atlantic and decades of investment in infrastructure and facilities. As well as the civilian jobs, many naval personnel (and ex-naval personnel) and their families live in the Plymouth area, contributing to the economy and social fabric of a region that suffers from being distant from the economic driver of the South East.
The debate raised issues specific to Plymouth but the needs of the navy should be paramount and balanced with the view from Portsmouth. Luke Pollard argues the case for the Navy with greater clarity and understanding than the majority of MPs but over-stated his case by demanding “We need a commitment to make all the Type 26s and the Type 31s Devonport based as well”. While he may be entitled to fight for his constituents, the decisions must be made in the context of the needs of the whole surface fleet. Former Portsmouth City Council Leader, Donna Jones has made similar sweeping demands in the past calling for all 13 frigates to be based in the city. It was rather surprising that no Portsmouth MPs managed to attend the debate while a few Scottish and DUP MPs with an interest in defence were present.
The Type 26 is very much a BAE Systems’ product and they are likely to win the contract to support the ships in service. BAES have a considerable presence in Portsmouth where they support the surface fleet there and it would suit them to have the Type 26 in Portsmouth. Babcock own the dockyard at Devonport (as opposed to the Naval Base area which is MoD-owned) and are rivals to BAES in many areas of the UK defence business. Should the Type 26s be based in Devonport, either the support contract would have to go to Babcock or BAES would need to establish its own facilities in the Dockyard. The Type 31 competition currently hangs in the balance but it is quite possible that these frigates could be Babcock products which would dovetail nicely with their support facilities in Plymouth. It may appear that Type 26 is a natural fit for Devonport with the Type 31 home-ported in Portsmouth but the arrangements for supporting these vessels in service may add complications.
Guto Bebb, Minister for Defence Procurement, was on hand to answer some of the questions raised. Most surprisingly, he said something his boss the Defence Secretary has resolutely refused to say until now. Responding to another question about the future of the LPDs, rather irritably he said: “The honourable gentleman should be aware that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are safe until 2033 and 2034 – that’s the decommissioning dates for both vessels.” If this was not a major gaffe then he has pre-empted the results of the MDP and confirmed these ships are safe from cuts. Such a statement was so unexpected that it has not yet been widely reported in the media – perhaps some are reluctant to believe it.
Guto was fulsome in his praise for the passion of the Plymouth MPs and, very encouragingly has promised that a decision on the future of the Type 26 basing will be made before the end of 2018. This should at least help Plymouth make plans for its future economy. It should be remembered that the needlessly extended Type 26 construction programme will not see HMS Glasgow in the water until 2025 and be arriving in her homeport for the first time in late 2026.
Sadly the Minister also repeated the falsehood that everyone hoped had passed out of use when Michael Fallon and Harriet Baldwin moved on. “We have a growing Royal Navy for the first time in decades” he claimed. By any measure, this is patently not true. He is right to point to a major new equipment plan and that the defence budget is rising by 0.5% above inflation. Unfortunately, the equipment plan is around £20Bn short and defence inflation runs well above the main inflation rate. Despite new construction, the number of vessels in the RN service is declining and there are considerable gaps in equipment and capabilities.
Luke Pollard should be commended for securing this debate and doing much to highlight the plight of the navy. All things considered, it would be something of a surprise if the Type 26 frigates are not Devonport-based. Any other decision would probably seal the fate of the naval base, a disaster for the RN and the resulting fall-out would be political dynamite.
from Save the Royal Navy https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/will-the-type-26-frigates-be-based-in-devonport/
After sensibly postponing the trip for 24 hours due to bad weather, yesterday the first four UK-owned F-35Bs touched down at RFA Marham after a trans-Atlantic flight from the United States. Despite the postponement, the jets have arrived two months ahead of the original schedule and those involved in the programme deserve to be congratulated. These aircraft of 617 Squadron will form part of the initial main armament for the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and will be the cornerstone of the UK carrier strike capability. The MoD has provided some outstanding imagery and video which tells the story of their arrival.
As part of ‘project Anvil’, around £550m has been invested in RAF Marham to get the base ready for the F-35. The base has seen an upgrade in facilities, resurfaced runways and the addition of new landing pads to accommodate the jet’s ability to land vertically.
“Ever since aircraft first operated to and from ships, the Royal Navy has been at the forefront of maritime aviation and the arrival of our first F35Bs in the UK today, flown by both RAF and Fleet Air Arm pilots, is another important milestone on the way to restoring our place as leaders in the field of aircraft carrier operations.” First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Philip Jones
Commander UK Carrier Strike Group, Cdre Andrew Betton speaks about F-35B arrival in UK.
The competition for the Type 31e frigate programme is now between two contenders. The BAE Systems/Cammel Laird Leander and the Babcock/Team 31 Arrowhead-140. Here we provide a basic comparison of the two options.
The competitive design phase contracts have been awarded and both designs are likely to evolve further before the Type 31 competition winner is announced in the first quarter of 2019. The chart below shows an overview of the essential characteristics of the two contenders. It should be noted that weapons and sensor fit (in the middle band) are all optional and the final selection may, or may not, include the equipment listed. With a very tight budget of £250M per ship, funding for the weapons fit maybe dependent on how efficiently the hulls can be constructed.
The Arrowhead-140 design announced last month has certainly raised the bar. For some time even before the birth of the Type 31e, there have been those advocating the adoption of the successful Danish Stanflex modular system as the basis for cheaper warships. As a proven, in-service and affordable design, it is even being suggested the Arrowhead could be a contender for the US Navy’s FFG(X) competition. It will be interesting to see if BAE Systems responds with a revised Super Leander, given the ‘on-paper’ inferiority of Leander to Arrowhead-140.
£15.18 (Hardback) £11.70 (Kindle)
2018 has seen the release of 3 separate new titles with a big focus on Royal Navy submarines. After The Deadly Trade comes On Her Majesty’s Nuclear Service, a fascinating personal memoir from Eric Thompson, a submarine engineer officer who served from 1961-1998.
This is an intensely enjoyable read, one man’s journey in the navy from schoolboy to commander of Faslane Naval base. The majority of naval officer memoirs are written by those who commanded ships or submarines but Eric Thompson was a naval engineer and leader, but never a CO. The book provides an alternative perspective on stories that overlap with other recent titles, in particular, Dan Conley’s Cold War Command which also covers the troubled development of RN torpedoes. There is also much discussion about the merits and failures of commanders that Thompson served under, echoing some of the leadership themes of Ryan Ramsey’s SSN14.
Thompson was initially reluctant to become an engineer but his eyesight ruled out a career in the warfare branch. He studied for 5 years at RENC Manadon before graduating to join the fleet as a submarine electrical officer. He modestly glosses over his obvious ability with the complexities of naval and nuclear engineering which are mastered only by an elite minority.
His first appointment in conventional submarine HMS Otter nearly ended his career, undermined by a bullying captain and unsupportive wardroom, Thompson attempted to resign. Further appointments to conventional boats – the elderly HMS Andrew and then HMS Osiris turned his career around, inspired by officers who understood real leadership and were keen to help and nurture others.
At the time those serving conventional submarines were seen very much as the second XI as the nuclear submarine fleet became the RN’s priority and Thompson feared being left behind. However, he developed a passion to improve the RN’s hopeless anti-submarine torpedoes which left the whole fleet almost toothless. He made the naval appointer’s day by requesting to go to Faslane to work on torpedo development. Although it was a frustrating process complicated by commercial pressures, Civil Service politics, bad weather and unhelpful locals he played a part in the eventual success of Tigerfish. The modern and highly effective Spearfish that arms today’s submarines owes a lot to the work done by this team.
Thompson later trained as nuclear propulsion specialist and then served in HMS Conqueror on demanding missions in Soviet waters. Unwilling to take up a job in Chatham, he resigned from the navy and spent a very uncomfortable period working out his notice. During this time he played a part in the recovery of HMS Warspite when she suffered an engine room fire whilst alongside in Liverpool in 1976. (The most serious incident the RN’s nuclear fleet has ever experienced).
Short of people to crew the Polaris submarines, Thompson was offered a rare second chance to stay in the RN and serve aboard HMS Revenge. While the MEO of Revenge, she suffered a major steam leak and he was awarded an MBE for his actions that saved the boat from the disastrous consequences of having to terminate a nuclear deterrent patrol.
After coming ashore for good, Thompson spent time at the MoD, conducting further torpedo development work and finishing as a Commodore in command of the nuclear submarine base at Faslane, where diplomatic and political understanding were as important as technical skills.
An clear thread that comes through in his story is a very strong relationship with a loving and supportive wife that gave him a confidence and bedrock that helped him endure tough times. On at least two occasions he put his naval career on the line for sake of his wife and family but managed to bend the Navy to his will, benefiting from being an experienced engineer which are always in short supply.
Thompson is an articulate and strong advocate of the nuclear deterrent which he gave a large part of his life to serving. The book devotes several pages of the closing chapter to making the case for Trident and its successor. Speaking about the CND protestors camped out around Faslane, he says:
“In the base we regarded ourselves as the true peace camp; theirs was a protest camp… As a member of the Armed Forces I was not allowed to engage in political activities, but boy did I want to remind the protestors that we had been at peace since 1945 thanks to our Nuclear Deterrent”.
This is a compelling story of a man’s life with high, lows and plenty of humour. Another recommended read for anyone interested in submarines, life in the navy or the Cold War period.
£15.18 (Hardback) £11.70 (Kindle)
from Save the Royal Navy https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/on-her-majestys-nuclear-service-book-review/
Today Babcock unveiled the Arrowhead 140, a revised design as their candidate for the Type 31e frigate competition. The design reduces some of the potential programme risks as it is based on the Iver Huitfeldt hull form currently in-service with the Royal Danish Navy.
The Babcock-led “Team 31” consortium now includes Thales, OMT, BMT, Harland and Wolff and Ferguson Marine and are in a very competitive fight with The BAE Sytems/Cammel Laird “Leander”. The tight deadlines and ambition of the Type 31e project carries considerable risk, BAE Systems experience and existing intellectual property put them in a leading position. By selecting the proven Iver Huitfeldt design as a baseline, this lowers the risk factor attached to the Team 31 bid.
The previous Babcock Arrowhead concept was only a very basic outline design, perhaps a placeholder until the new design had been refined. Arrowhead 140 is entirely different and considerably larger than other Type 31 designs at almost 140m in length with a displacement of approximately 5,700 tonnes. Babcock says the wide beam ship is easier to design, build and easier to maintain. Going big does not add dramatically to construction costs but improves platform stability, facilitates better helicopter operations in bad weather, whilst enhancing crew comfort.
The Iver Huitfeldt class using the Danish Navy’s StanFlex modular mission payload system and have space for up to 6 interchangeable “modules”. It is assumed Arrowhead will not be equipped with Stanflex modules but there is plenty of space available and can be configured to customer requirements. The Iver Huitfeldt class are primarily air defence ships and are propelled by 4 diesel engines in a CODAD configuration. Cheap and simple to maintain but rather noisy and not ideal for ASW although there is potentaily space to add silencing measures. The Type 31e is expected to be a general purpose emphasis, but many would like the RN version offer some ASW capability, potentially using off-board USVs and UUVs.
The detailed configuration for the Arrowhead 140 is unclear at this stage but there is space for 4 mission boat/bays with VLS missile silo amidships between the bays. A large hangar would be capable of embarking a Merlin.
Thales’ will provide their Tacticos combat management system which has fully open architecture, it has been in service for 25 years and exported to 24 navies globally. Tacticos and its in-service support package can be tailored to customers’ needs over the lifetime of the platform, although would be an entirely new system in Royal Navy service. The ship will incorporate iFrigate technology which offers digitally-enabled maintenance and self-diagnosis.
Team 31 say construction will be done using 4 collaborating shipyards, blocks will be built at Babcock Appledore in North Devon, Ferguson Marine on the Clyde, Harland & Wolff in Belfast with the final assembly and integration done at Rosyth. This is in line with the National Shipbuilding Strategy’s goal to generate a genuine resurgence in shipbuilding across the UK but also ensures there would still be capacity for parallel programmes such as the FSS project. More than 100 companies that could be involved in the supply chain for Arrowhead 140 have already attended a suppliers’ conference.