The Danish Ivar Heuitfeld class fregat which type 31 is based on, has 16 Harpoon, 24 ESSM missiles in addition to a 32 cell MK41 VLS with currently SM-2 missiles. The navy is looking into aquiring SM-6 and Tomahawk as well.
@@bjorn2625Don’t listen to him, and your fellow Dane is correct about the type 31 it’s hull is based on the Ivan Heuitfeld Class hull, and it’s a fine design.🇬🇧🤝🇩🇰
@Britishempirewillneverdie Hey Brexit loving genius... The Type 31 is based on the Ivar Heuifeld design. You don't think your country was that smart that it could design a ship that well and that inexpensively with engines and propellers shafts that don't fail.
According to the MOD, the UK had the 3rd largest military budget in the world, considerably outspending Russia for example. And yet, we never seem to get any meaningful capability for this; underarmed ships, aircraft carriers with very few if any aircraft, a small number of tanks with most in maintenance, only 40 MLRS, no real artillery, the RAF has over twice as many propeller aircraft and gliders for training and aerobatics displays as it has front line aircraft. The number of F35s is only double the size of the Battle of Britain memorial flight. Something feels seriously wrong with the purchasing arm of the MOD - we have the companies available to us to produce excellent equipment, but everything is late, over budget, and reduced effectiveness. It's not the nuclear deterrent that is taking up the money - we spend considerably more on hotels for asylum seekers than on our nuclear deterrent. The whole Trident program could have been purchased with one years Foreign Aid. So why the lack of equipment? I am not complaining about the MODs budget - I would increase it - but the armed forces personnel (and the taxpayer) deserve much better bang for the buck. We always seem to end up with no real "teeth".
There was no point in ordering more F-35's earlier until it could be delivered ready to carry and use our own weapons [I believe it requires Block4 upgrades [which includes upgrade of the hardware]. Like most new things the F-35 development programme had its delays, and that has affected our original envisaged ordering rate.
@@heinedenmark That maybe so , but at the time of the UK ordering the Type 31 the UK ones were only to be fitted with sea ceptor cells (anti-aircraft/missile). Now they are to be fitted with MK41 (strike capable cells).
It always makes me laugh when they talk about whether they have the money for it. It’s the public’s money so ask us if we would like to spend it and I’m sure the answer would be yes. The amount of our money the government wasted over covid could have bought our a current navy 5 times over.
@@graveperil2169 You can do both. The money we’re talking about here is a drop in the ocean. We’re an island nation the most important thing we need to secure our interests around the globe is our navy. They spent £310-410 billion on covid measures. Our aircraft carries which are the most expensive asset of our navy are £3-4 billion. They say they don’t have the money yet when given the excuse they spent the equivalent of over 136 aircraft carriers worth of it.
@@oldgreggscreamybaileys6618 sure you can do both but then you dont fix the potholes we are over spending by £87.4 billion year either way "ask us if we would like to spend it and I’m sure the answer would be yes" is open to question
@@graveperil2169 the long and short of it is they need to stop wasting our money. Stop telling us there isn’t any then finding obscene amounts of it when it suits them and they can make a bunch of their friends billionaires. We could be on the edge of a global conflict yet they’re still trying to penny pinch, they never learn anything from history. If anything kicked off by the time we have production lines in place the war would be over. The government is useless, the majority of politicians in general are useless.
@@graveperil2169 when we need the navy again we won't be able to suddenly buy one - and that's if anyone accepts the idea that we aren't using it right now to protect our interests.
Doesn’t mean we’re purchasing anything to go in them. They also should be fitted with a “tail” for ASW we don’t have enough ships to have specific ships for specific things, all ships should be fitted for everything
You mean build Burke type destroyers? Even these are getting outdated., Needs much more electrical power, more tonnage to support even more than 96 VLS, energy weapons, radar and soft kill systems. ASW would mean silencing the ship even further to reduce noise signature. Can build such a ship for less than $2B USD more like 2.5B and then you have to factor in the costs of missiles. 128 VLS at say 4M per missile cell for missiles could mean north of $500M just for these. Ad in 16 or 32 more on deck missiles for anti ship and you're looking at $600M just for the major missiles.
I know. It's almost like it's a sin to complement British achievements. These are going to be good ships and will strengthen the RN fleet ...I don't understand the negativity
I hope to god y’all make enough of these to where the Royal navy can independently put both queen Elizabeth and prince of whales to sea and always have the ships needed to escort while maintaining a similar strength of frigates to operate independently.
@@miraphycs7377 The Constellation Class Frigates are based on France and Italy's FREMM design. The US opted to use an existing design for its new frigates after the cluster**** procurement of the Zumwalt class Destroyer and the Freedom class LCS.
Aside from US and China, modern warship are crippled by budget constraints and that is why destroyers and frigates carry so few missiles. These missiles are expensive and most countries can't afford many of them.
He was the most irritating man to listen to he couldn't string two words together without a pause or an um or an err . He didn't seem to know what he was talking about.
ACTUALLY, on a more recent video (Feb 2024) the closing remark re the promised fit of 32 X Mk41 VLS cells from the outset on the T31 frigates, was as follows. " Potentially, with future ships in class incorporating the Mk41 during the construction phase. The earlier designed vessels would then have the Mk41 fitted at a later date, during the capability upgrade phase undertaken half way through the initial service life. Usually around 10 TO 12 years" [IE; the 1st batch of five which in reality will be the ONLY ones ever built for the RN, will not get Mk41 VLS during build but only be completed half-armed i.a.w. the London elite's usual FFBNW con.] I say "con" because, In truth, experience shows that any weapon system not actually installed on a new RN ship during construction but which is only described as "Fitted For But Not With", is never fitted later on, at all. (Just look at the T45 destroyers!) Furthermore, the phraseology quoted above sounds very like the weasel-worded lies that our loathsome Political and Civil Service elites emit routinely to confuse the public and row back on their own undertakings. So where did it come from?? Because anyone who doesn't want these alleged T31 GPFs to still actually emerge merely as giant, massively under-armed OPVs unfit for any real combat role, would be well advised to ask!
The construction on these ships as was planned, has slipped about three yeas. (So Far) Also,the Royal Navy has planned for a smaller number if frigates and destroyers then it has now by about five, in ten years!! All ready the Royal Navy is too small.
I'd love to know where this black hole for UK taxpayers money is we're taxed more than ever yet have next to nothing to show for it, it seems like the only thing that increases with our money is another battalion of civil service bureaucrats and senior managers we're so top heavy in this country that the whole thing should have toppled over years ago
The MK 41 Launcher is over 35 years old! For example I served on a US Spurance class destroyer in the 80's that had a 61 cell mk 41 launcher. that ship is now retired out after long and excellent service.
@@raywhitehead730 Actually no one knows how many missiles of any sort have been bought let alone ordered. So your argument fails there. Now if you go and take 10 minutes and research you will find that both the T31 Frigate with 32 x Mk 41 VLS tubes and the T26 with 48 x Sea Ceptor VLS plus 24 x Mk 41 VLS are as well armed as any modern Frigate and even most Destroyers. Plus the T45 Destroyers are also having 24 x Sea Ceptor VLS fitted during their upgrades in addition to their 48 x Sylver VLS weapons.
Es algo muy común cuando creas algo o te fundametas en principios junto alos principios de una sociedad buscas y leas junto los mismos que van sobre los mismos mundamentos en la vida
@karenfletcher4392 in between the mission bays, directly between the two masts. In some of the graphics in the video you can see 12 sea captor launchers (GWS 35) there (they look like little mushrooms on the deck) but instead of 12 GWS 35, they will get 32 mk41s.
The Royal Navy warships, existing frigates and destroyers, should have been built from new with these larger |Vertical Launch System silos / cells, both Type 23 Frigates and Type 45 Destroyers too. Let alone now going to fit these MK.41 Vertical Missile System, to new Type 26 Frigates, maybe in the new Type 31 Frigates, plus even in the new Type 32 Frigates for the Royal Navy. Along with will be installed high numbers of these Mk.41 VLS silos/cells, in the future new Type 83 Destroyers too! However ,there is still the question the UK Conservative Government and all present MP's or future Government and future MP's after 2024 General Election. This being will the Royal Navy, have the warships and submarines, plus auxiliary support vessels and a fully F-35B Carrier Air Wing's (36 F-35B each) too? That able to deploy two British Aircraft Carriers Battle / Strike Groups, to different conflict zones in different parts of the world at the same time, yes or no? While there is another Destroyers, Frigates, Off-shore Patrol Vessels, Mine Countermeasures Vessels, plus Fishery / Border protect Navy Vessels, to meet the Royal Navy's other domestic, European, Commonwealth and Nato Commitments too, yes or no? Which at present, seems a very tall order, for the Royal Navy and the MoD to meet at present, or could meet in the near to medium future. We could be talking of the Royal Navy having such capabilities, maybe around 2050, if UK Government start committing necessary fund now. Though by then the Royal Navy will have to start thinking about its next Aircraft Carriers around 2050 too, with the aim of replacing the two Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier by 2060 at the earliest or at the latest by 2070! Along with by 2050 to 2060 also looking at replacing the Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 Frigates too, let alone replacing the Royal Navy's present day SSN's or newer SSGN's and even their newer four SLBN's that have not come into service until 2030's by then too? That a lot of warships, aircraft carriers and submarines, all need replacing between 2060 to 2080 at the end of this century, the UK Government and MoD plus RN need to think about! While the likes of the Chinese Navy, will have grown has even bigger in number of warships and submarines, also these Chinese warships and submarines will be even better state of the art combatant's too, so be more of a threat to the Royal Navy as well. Then where will a future rebuilt Russian Navy to face and deal with maybe too, or face other countries Navy power be too? Is the UK Government and the MoD properly looking at future threats and requirements, the Royal Navy will have to deal with in, say just 20 to 30 years, or 40 to 50 years, let alone in the next 10 years? The MoD has never been very good at reviewing future threats to UK Defence and Security, just look at the conflicts and wars the UK has got involved, that is in since the end of World War Two. Or just since the 1980's to the present day, that only just in the last 43 years, we gone from the 1982 Falklands War to the 2022 Ukraine War, kind of says it all!
THE " Q.E. - I I , " " HER MAJESTY'S , " STRATEGIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE FLEET , AND AN EXTENSION OF " HER MAJESTY , " " QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND , " " BRITISH ROYAL NAVY . " TO BE REMEMBERED ALWAYS AND IN MEMORY OF , " HER MAJESTY , " " QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND " " APRIL 21 , 1926 " - " SEPTEMBER 08 , 2022 " " 2023 "
hasn't the Ukraine war shown us that all big ships are vulnerable to missile attack and drone attack ... will any of these ships survive long enough to actually fire their missiles ?
Incompetence and lack of training sink ships irregardless whether your under missile attack or your ship hitting a coral reef which russia and sadly the european navy have.
You should further research the sinking of the Moskva and see how and why it happened so easily if you want to make claims. The Russian navy should not be viewed and/or treated as a standard model.
This is something I just learned, and it makes me wonder why anybody would use these vertical launched missiles - you can't reload them at sea ! It has to be done with a large crane to lift the empty launcher tubes out & set new, full ones in. They say that it's impossible to do at sea. That's just crazy IMHO.
At sea replenishment really isn't an issue, the VLS has a much greater ROF, capacity and variety compared to the earlier magazine, arm launched missiles. It makes the ships much more powerful and when you have a friendly port in almost every location in the world it is the best option.
It isn't impossible to do at sea because the US Navy did it for decades. It is just extremely difficult and at the end of the day the US Navy did a cost benefit analysis and decided that the space took it by the crane to reload them at sea was better used by more missiles.
These should have been fitted to the Type 45. They would still have been able to use the French missiles. But the French launcher is too small for the bigger US missiles. The benefits include anti-ballistic missiles, and harpoon. The mk41 also allows quad packs of smaller missiles (i.e. 4 missiles in one launcher tube.
That isn’t true. Sylver silos are the same size as Mk41. We installed A50 on T45, 5m long and the same length as tactical Mk41. A70 silos are the same length as these strike length silos. Benefits of Sylver is cold launch. Benefits of Mk 41 is more variety of missiles although we would have to drop Aster and go American.
Unfortunately a vast amount of our defence budget contracts, goes to shareholders of the Companies building our arms. Then take into account the Billions wasted on projects like Ajax. We may have a large defence budget, but the waste and back handers soon syphon that away.
The only reason the Uk has such a small force of warship, tanks and aircraft is mainly for sales contracts. The Uk is now unable to protect our own country let alone help one of our NATO or Commonwealth countries.
I am I the only person left on the internet that has no idea what all these emoji looking things are supposed to mean? Man covering his face, three men covering their faces? What does that convey?
Please consider the fack that the Treasury has saddled the defence budget with the huge pension plan of the armed services , which writes down a substantive sum which is steadily increasing . It is called financial engiñeering . Pensioners live longer which equates to less ships . The only answer is to move the liabilitys across to the country's public pension scheme thereby freeing up substantive amounts .
@Grave Peril no it’s not you muppet. Secrets were leaked there but it’s nothing those nations didn’t know already. The only people who didn’t know are civilians.
mk. 41 is already an obsolete vls system. The dimension too small to fit longer range air defense missile (especially anti-hypersonic), ballistic and hypersonic cruise missiles.
@@stupidburp china's vls for example has a height of 9m allowing it to carry regular ballistic and potentially hypersonic weapons. Not only that because it is also wider, theoretically the quad-packed essm air defense like weapon in this vls would have a 100km range not far off of sm-2 although china doesn't field such weapon at this point in time.
Mk 41 can use all the US standard naval missies and ESSM's with one capable of hitting targets in low earth orbit, they aren't large enough for offensive hypersonic missiles though that's for the next class of US destroyers.
I am so pleased for you. Personally I do not pray to my God for material help. Obtaining sufficient material help is down to me. I pray for spiritual help which allows me to be clear minded and more able to obtain the material things in life that we need! God bless you.
''sea lord''🤣🤣😂😂😂the only meaningful thing remaining for the UK navy are these over the cloud names,well let that ''sea lord'' go and be dropped in the middle of the sea and let us see if the sea will bow down to him
"First Sea Lord" damn, that's one awesome title.
It’s definitely going to be the coolest looking frigate on the high seas.
Love British Navy ❤ Hello from Latvia ❤
Our navy has been downsized for years and now it’s time to build it back up to a formidable force again.
That's going to a challenge with the snowflakes we have now.
Gorgeous-looking ship. Completely badass
The Danish Ivar Heuitfeld class fregat which type 31 is based on, has 16 Harpoon, 24 ESSM missiles in addition to a 32 cell MK41 VLS with currently SM-2 missiles. The navy is looking into aquiring SM-6 and Tomahawk as well.
you are really showing your ignorance, beside being a bombastic fool! @Britishempirewillneverdie
@Britishempirewillneverdieare you ok mate?
@Britishempirewillneverdieyou're an absolute tool. The Type 31 is indeed based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class air defence frigate.
@@bjorn2625Don’t listen to him, and your fellow Dane is correct about the type 31 it’s hull is based on the Ivan Heuitfeld Class hull, and it’s a fine design.🇬🇧🤝🇩🇰
@Britishempirewillneverdie Hey Brexit loving genius... The Type 31 is based on the Ivar Heuifeld design. You don't think your country was that smart that it could design a ship that well and that inexpensively with engines and propellers shafts that don't fail.
According to the MOD, the UK had the 3rd largest military budget in the world, considerably outspending Russia for example. And yet, we never seem to get any meaningful capability for this; underarmed ships, aircraft carriers with very few if any aircraft, a small number of tanks with most in maintenance, only 40 MLRS, no real artillery, the RAF has over twice as many propeller aircraft and gliders for training and aerobatics displays as it has front line aircraft. The number of F35s is only double the size of the Battle of Britain memorial flight. Something feels seriously wrong with the purchasing arm of the MOD - we have the companies available to us to produce excellent equipment, but everything is late, over budget, and reduced effectiveness.
It's not the nuclear deterrent that is taking up the money - we spend considerably more on hotels for asylum seekers than on our nuclear deterrent. The whole Trident program could have been purchased with one years Foreign Aid.
So why the lack of equipment? I am not complaining about the MODs budget - I would increase it - but the armed forces personnel (and the taxpayer) deserve much better bang for the buck. We always seem to end up with no real "teeth".
I keep hoping for the secret moon base to be made public
You'll never persuade the British public to give up public spending on other things to fund a bigger defence budget
@@peterchapman4729 Foreign Aid budget. Asylum seeker hotel budget.
There was no point in ordering more F-35's earlier until it could be delivered ready to carry and use our own weapons [I believe it requires Block4 upgrades [which includes upgrade of the hardware]. Like most new things the F-35 development programme had its delays, and that has affected our original envisaged ordering rate.
@@peterchapman4729 being an island with nukes its not a defence budget it an attack budget
Its all very well having this system technology etc.
It still come down to numbers ..
It's more ships we want especially from the threat of Russia and China.
The Type 31 also having the MK41 launcher is new.
The Danish version of the Type 31, has a 32 cell MK41 launcher.
@@heinedenmark That maybe so , but at the time of the UK ordering the Type 31 the UK ones were only to be fitted with sea ceptor cells (anti-aircraft/missile). Now they are to be fitted with MK41 (strike capable cells).
I was on a US Spurance Class destroyer, now retired, in the 80's, that had a 60 cell mk z41 launcher. So how is it new?
@@cluckingbells Okay..
@@raywhitehead730 New for UK..
this is such good news. about time our RN got more lethality to do what they need to do.
About time! Though the T45s have STILL missed out.
we need like 50 of them at least
12 would give good global coverage, the rest should be type 26
@@kennybuckley6185 we should have at least 12 type 45 destroyers right now as well
It always makes me laugh when they talk about whether they have the money for it. It’s the public’s money so ask us if we would like to spend it and I’m sure the answer would be yes. The amount of our money the government wasted over covid could have bought our a current navy 5 times over.
or do you use it to shorten the NHS waiting list and save lives its been 40 years since we needed the navy
@@graveperil2169 You can do both. The money we’re talking about here is a drop in the ocean. We’re an island nation the most important thing we need to secure our interests around the globe is our navy. They spent £310-410 billion on covid measures. Our aircraft carries which are the most expensive asset of our navy are £3-4 billion. They say they don’t have the money yet when given the excuse they spent the equivalent of over 136 aircraft carriers worth of it.
@@oldgreggscreamybaileys6618 sure you can do both but then you dont fix the potholes we are over spending by £87.4 billion year either way "ask us if we would like to spend it and I’m sure the answer would be yes" is open to question
@@graveperil2169 the long and short of it is they need to stop wasting our money. Stop telling us there isn’t any then finding obscene amounts of it when it suits them and they can make a bunch of their friends billionaires. We could be on the edge of a global conflict yet they’re still trying to penny pinch, they never learn anything from history. If anything kicked off by the time we have production lines in place the war would be over. The government is useless, the majority of politicians in general are useless.
@@graveperil2169 when we need the navy again we won't be able to suddenly buy one - and that's if anyone accepts the idea that we aren't using it right now to protect our interests.
Can Sea Lords really walk on water?
😂 Did in my time ⚓️
@@robertkane3649 Thought so...
Absolutely
Winston is back !!!! ⚓️🛳🇬🇧
With a bunch of bootnecks carrying him 😂
A very capable asset if we go for the fitted with, not fitted for version. We also have to buy enough of them for them to be affective.
Awesome🇬🇧
It's about Time this country was built on it's Navy. We have to build more to defend our island. We have the money.
Doesn’t mean we’re purchasing anything to go in them. They also should be fitted with a “tail” for ASW we don’t have enough ships to have specific ships for specific things, all ships should be fitted for everything
Like the Russians do.
You mean build Burke type destroyers? Even these are getting outdated., Needs much more electrical power, more tonnage to support even more than 96 VLS, energy weapons, radar and soft kill systems. ASW would mean silencing the ship even further to reduce noise signature. Can build such a ship for less than $2B USD more like 2.5B and then you have to factor in the costs of missiles. 128 VLS at say 4M per missile cell for missiles could mean north of $500M just for these. Ad in 16 or 32 more on deck missiles for anti ship and you're looking at $600M just for the major missiles.
More missiles long range brilliant masters in engineering stealthy defence's 64 tomahawks long-range very good strong defence 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Strange How negative you all are anyone Would think you hate your own country the new frigates are among the best in the world
I know. It's almost like it's a sin to complement British achievements. These are going to be good ships and will strengthen the RN fleet ...I don't understand the negativity
You can fit a launcher but will there be any missiles in the launcher?
The MK 41 VLS system is hardly new and is used by many nations, the Royal Navy is just catching up with the times.
No it isn’t, it’s had the Sylver VLS for years on the Type 45 that is just as capable if not better. The change to MK 41 VLS is about standardisation.
@@csm2455 Isn't "standardisation" synonymous with "catching up with the times"?
Yes, like someone else in the comments say, they've used the 41's in the 1980's
I hope to god y’all make enough of these to where the Royal navy can independently put both queen Elizabeth and prince of whales to sea and always have the ships needed to escort while maintaining a similar strength of frigates to operate independently.
They can already do that.
@@Retrosicotte No we can't
for me , only f110, type 26, fremn frigates are worth to build in nowadays
mogami frigates? constellation? russkies gorshkov is pretty capable too...
@@miraphycs7377 but only these are pretty :D
@@miraphycs7377 The Constellation Class Frigates are based on France and Italy's FREMM design. The US opted to use an existing design for its new frigates after the cluster**** procurement of the Zumwalt class Destroyer and the Freedom class LCS.
Aside from US and China, modern warship are crippled by budget constraints and that is why destroyers and frigates carry so few missiles. These missiles are expensive and most countries can't afford many of them.
He was the most irritating man to listen to he couldn't string two words together without a pause or an um or an err . He didn't seem to know what he was talking about.
ACTUALLY, on a more recent video (Feb 2024) the closing remark re the promised fit of 32 X Mk41 VLS cells from the outset on the T31 frigates, was as follows.
" Potentially, with future ships in class incorporating the Mk41 during the construction phase. The earlier designed vessels would then have the Mk41 fitted at a later date, during the capability upgrade phase undertaken half way through the initial service life. Usually around 10 TO 12 years"
[IE; the 1st batch of five which in reality will be the ONLY ones ever built for the RN, will not get Mk41 VLS during build but only be completed half-armed i.a.w. the London elite's usual FFBNW con.]
I say "con" because, In truth, experience shows that any weapon system not actually installed on a new RN ship during construction but which is only described as "Fitted For But Not With", is never fitted later on, at all. (Just look at the T45 destroyers!)
Furthermore, the phraseology quoted above sounds very like the weasel-worded lies that our loathsome Political and Civil Service elites emit routinely to confuse the public and row back on their own undertakings. So where did it come from??
Because anyone who doesn't want these alleged T31 GPFs to still actually emerge merely as giant, massively under-armed OPVs unfit for any real combat role, would be well advised to ask!
The construction on these ships as was planned, has slipped about three yeas. (So Far) Also,the Royal Navy has planned for a smaller number if frigates and destroyers then it has now by about five, in ten years!! All ready the Royal Navy is too small.
Australian Navy must work hard to get longer range hypertonic missiles Lazer guidance for protecting all people in Australia
variety - explain please
Wella buh dayum
Passing grade
Sorry but I couldn't listen to Mr Childs for very long. What an appalling speaker and he didn't seem to clued up from the little I could stand.
Um..umm...aaarrr...
I love to join royal navy nobody take me to join😢
Finally
Not completed yet. A bit like Aston Martin road cars "We are spending blah blah with brilliant cutting edge blah blah" and we get a small revamp.
I'd love to know where this black hole for UK taxpayers money is we're taxed more than ever yet have next to nothing to show for it, it seems like the only thing that increases with our money is another battalion of civil service bureaucrats and senior managers we're so top heavy in this country that the whole thing should have toppled over years ago
Background musak spoils so many talks
The MK 41 Launcher is over 35 years old! For example I served on a US Spurance class destroyer in the 80's that had a 61 cell mk 41 launcher. that ship is now retired out after long and excellent service.
A launcher is not a missile. Doesn't matter how old the launcher is , its just got to have up to date missiles and radar to launch them.
So what? Its only a square tube fitted with fireproof release systems. Its what goes in them that is important.
True, but regardless of the missile, the Royal Navy has programmed less, Got that , fewer missiles for
the fleet, will have fewer.
@@raywhitehead730 Actually no one knows how many missiles of any sort have been bought let alone ordered. So your argument fails there.
Now if you go and take 10 minutes and research you will find that both the T31 Frigate with 32 x Mk 41 VLS tubes and the T26 with 48 x Sea Ceptor VLS plus 24 x Mk 41 VLS are as well armed as any modern Frigate and even most Destroyers. Plus the T45 Destroyers are also having 24 x Sea Ceptor VLS fitted during their upgrades in addition to their 48 x Sylver VLS weapons.
The wheel was invented in the 4th millennium B.C ...We still use them 🤔
Es algo muy común cuando creas algo o te fundametas en principios junto alos principios de una sociedad buscas y leas junto los mismos que van sobre los mismos mundamentos en la vida
Where is the mk41 launchers going?
Amidships
In the mission bays? Instead of sea ceptor or in addition to?
@karenfletcher4392 in between the mission bays, directly between the two masts. In some of the graphics in the video you can see 12 sea captor launchers (GWS 35) there (they look like little mushrooms on the deck) but instead of 12 GWS 35, they will get 32 mk41s.
harder and deeper eh 😂
The Royal Navy warships, existing frigates and destroyers, should have been built from new with these larger |Vertical Launch System silos / cells, both Type 23 Frigates and Type 45 Destroyers too.
Let alone now going to fit these MK.41 Vertical Missile System, to new Type 26 Frigates, maybe in the new Type 31 Frigates, plus even in the new Type 32 Frigates for the Royal Navy.
Along with will be installed high numbers of these Mk.41 VLS silos/cells, in the future new Type 83 Destroyers too!
However ,there is still the question the UK Conservative Government and all present MP's or future Government and future MP's after 2024 General Election.
This being will the Royal Navy, have the warships and submarines, plus auxiliary support vessels and a fully F-35B Carrier Air Wing's (36 F-35B each) too?
That able to deploy two British Aircraft Carriers Battle / Strike Groups, to different conflict zones in different parts of the world at the same time, yes or no?
While there is another Destroyers, Frigates, Off-shore Patrol Vessels, Mine Countermeasures Vessels, plus Fishery / Border protect Navy Vessels, to meet the Royal Navy's other domestic, European, Commonwealth and Nato Commitments too, yes or no?
Which at present, seems a very tall order, for the Royal Navy and the MoD to meet at present, or could meet in the near to medium future.
We could be talking of the Royal Navy having such capabilities, maybe around 2050, if UK Government start committing necessary fund now.
Though by then the Royal Navy will have to start thinking about its next Aircraft Carriers around 2050 too, with the aim of replacing the two Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier by 2060 at the earliest or at the latest by 2070!
Along with by 2050 to 2060 also looking at replacing the Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 Frigates too, let alone replacing the Royal Navy's present day SSN's or newer SSGN's and even their newer four SLBN's that have not come into service until 2030's by then too?
That a lot of warships, aircraft carriers and submarines, all need replacing between 2060 to 2080 at the end of this century, the UK Government and MoD plus RN need to think about!
While the likes of the Chinese Navy, will have grown has even bigger in number of warships and submarines, also these Chinese warships and submarines will be even better state of the art combatant's too, so be more of a threat to the Royal Navy as well.
Then where will a future rebuilt Russian Navy to face and deal with maybe too, or face other countries Navy power be too?
Is the UK Government and the MoD properly looking at future threats and requirements, the Royal Navy will have to deal with in, say just 20 to 30 years, or 40 to 50 years, let alone in the next 10 years?
The MoD has never been very good at reviewing future threats to UK Defence and Security, just look at the conflicts and wars the UK has got involved, that is in since the end of World War Two.
Or just since the 1980's to the present day, that only just in the last 43 years, we gone from the 1982 Falklands War to the 2022 Ukraine War, kind of says it all!
Who’s the Second Sea Lawwdddd? 😂
He exists! He’s the Royal Navy’s number two and handles all manpower and shore establishment issues.
Next question?
Vice Admiral Martin Connell is the Second Sea Lord and Deputy Chief of Naval Staff.
Captain Birdseye 🤣
I doubt the Navy will have the money.
Sure cash rich Ukraine can lend us 200billion.
Chief of defence staff is navy now I’m sure they’ll find it somewhere
It will be chickens coming out them
"hit harder and deeper"........... lol THATS WHAT SHE SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!! waahahahahaha
Yeah to you waahahahaha
⚓⚓⚓
What Royal Navy? There is no more Royal Navy.
THE " Q.E. - I I , " " HER MAJESTY'S , " STRATEGIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE FLEET , AND AN EXTENSION OF " HER MAJESTY , "
" QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND , " " BRITISH ROYAL NAVY . "
TO BE REMEMBERED ALWAYS AND IN MEMORY OF ,
" HER MAJESTY , " " QUEEN ELIZABETH THE SECOND "
" APRIL 21 , 1926 " - " SEPTEMBER 08 , 2022 " " 2023 "
hasn't the Ukraine war shown us that all big ships are vulnerable to missile attack and drone attack ... will any of these ships survive long enough to actually fire their missiles ?
Incompetence and lack of training sink ships irregardless whether your under missile attack or your ship hitting a coral reef which russia and sadly the european navy have.
No, it shows us Russian are idiots who use junk equipment.
Moskva barely even fought back meaning it was a lack of training.
Ur comparing a modern frigate to an old russian cruiser that had its radar turned off at the worst time.
You should further research the sinking of the Moskva and see how and why it happened so easily if you want to make claims. The Russian navy should not be viewed and/or treated as a standard model.
This is something I just learned, and it makes me wonder why anybody would use these vertical launched missiles - you can't reload them at sea ! It has to be done with a large crane to lift the empty launcher tubes out & set new, full ones in. They say that it's impossible to do at sea. That's just crazy IMHO.
At sea replenishment really isn't an issue, the VLS has a much greater ROF, capacity and variety compared to the earlier magazine, arm launched missiles. It makes the ships much more powerful and when you have a friendly port in almost every location in the world it is the best option.
@@rupe2629 well when you're out of ammo, you become a target with no defensive capabilities !
@@billotto602 If you and your flotilla were out of ammo you would have just sunk an entire airforce and the war would be over in most scenarios
@@rupe2629 Bless you, you need to educate yourself on naval warfare my friend
It isn't impossible to do at sea because the US Navy did it for decades. It is just extremely difficult and at the end of the day the US Navy did a cost benefit analysis and decided that the space took it by the crane to reload them at sea was better used by more missiles.
These should have been fitted to the Type 45. They would still have been able to use the French missiles. But the French launcher is too small for the bigger US missiles. The benefits include anti-ballistic missiles, and harpoon. The mk41 also allows quad packs of smaller missiles (i.e. 4 missiles in one launcher tube.
And Tomahawk..
That isn’t true. Sylver silos are the same size as Mk41.
We installed A50 on T45, 5m long and the same length as tactical Mk41.
A70 silos are the same length as these strike length silos.
Benefits of Sylver is cold launch. Benefits of Mk 41 is more variety of missiles although we would have to drop Aster and go American.
@@Louis-ej1lx Some people are so stupid. They need to research what they are talking about before they comment
"new"
Better manufacturer alot of them y'all going to need them.
My thoughts about royal Navy when size doesn't matter 😅
Don't bother thinking you'll get a headache
Unfortunately a vast amount of our defence budget contracts, goes to shareholders of the Companies building our arms. Then take into account the Billions wasted on projects like Ajax. We may have a large defence budget, but the waste and back handers soon syphon that away.
The only reason the Uk has such a small force of warship, tanks and aircraft is mainly for sales contracts. The Uk is now unable to protect our own country let alone help one of our NATO or Commonwealth countries.
😂
🤦🏻♂️
🤦🏼♂🤦🏼♂🤦🏼♂
I am I the only person left on the internet that has no idea what all these emoji looking things are supposed to mean? Man covering his face, three men covering their faces? What does that convey?
The same as you, I have no idea ?
Please consider the fack that the Treasury has saddled the defence budget with the huge pension plan of the armed services , which writes down a substantive sum which is steadily increasing . It is called financial engiñeering . Pensioners live longer which equates to less ships . The only answer is to move the liabilitys across to the country's public pension scheme thereby freeing up substantive amounts .
Well you blew up 007!!!
Next Putin the putrid!!
After that?
Maybe Sunak an co.❤❤❤
Tell the world the navy's capacities so that our enemies can defeat us .. good move
A child's comment, fits your profile name.
Do you think the world gathers its info on its enemies through UA-cam? lol
@@Brookspirit in part yes, I understand that the war thunder site is also a good place to pick up secrets
@Grave Peril no it’s not you muppet. Secrets were leaked there but it’s nothing those nations didn’t know already. The only people who didn’t know are civilians.
mk. 41 is already an obsolete vls system. The dimension too small to fit longer range air defense missile (especially anti-hypersonic), ballistic and hypersonic cruise missiles.
SM6
@@stupidburp china's vls for example has a height of 9m allowing it to carry regular ballistic and potentially hypersonic weapons. Not only that because it is also wider, theoretically the quad-packed essm air defense like weapon in this vls would have a 100km range not far off of sm-2 although china doesn't field such weapon at this point in time.
Mk 41 can use all the US standard naval missies and ESSM's with one capable of hitting targets in low earth orbit, they aren't large enough for offensive hypersonic missiles though that's for the next class of US destroyers.
All talk , no action . A lot of mabe , in the future , could be , proposed. Not going to happen.
I am so pleased for you. Personally I do not pray to my God for material help. Obtaining sufficient material help is down to me. I pray for spiritual help which allows me to be clear minded and more able to obtain the material things in life that we need! God bless you.
UK military needs more than this if warmonger Sunak and his rat pack government keep throwing weapons at Zelensky to prolong his war with Russia.
''sea lord''🤣🤣😂😂😂the only meaningful thing remaining for the UK navy are these over the cloud names,well let that ''sea lord'' go and be dropped in the middle of the sea and let us see if the sea will bow down to him
Congratulations you have won dumbest comment of the day. 👏
@@Villain1874 ''sea lord''bwahahahaha,UK has become such a joke
@@briant5685 Just like your dumb comment(s) little one 😘
@@briant5685keep speaking English, you good little subject
@@briant5685the title of first sea lord existed before most non European countries did.
A SUK could take one out in minutes. Pointless toy boat!
Ok bot
The Fascist UK ALWAYS has money for weapons
You need a history lesson if you think the UK is Fascist
If they had really tried, they could’ve found somebody more incoherent and boring to explain everything.
😂
maybe to get money from nato, or other navies support financial, knownledge, technology. a kind of goods exchange
some countries got the money or can fabricate all kind of missles,ect. some dont have the people to crew a navy,ect.
Australian Navy must work hard to get longer range hypertonic missiles Lazer guidance for protecting all people in Australia
Its all very well having this system technology etc.
It still come down to numbers ..