Export potential Type 45 v Arleigh Burke's?

[mark22w]

The question of which is the more powerful AAW Destroyer and the best all rounder has appeared elsewhere which I think interesting in itself. Whereas my interest is in establishing a clearer understanding of strengths and weaknesses for each type, I’d also like to consider the export potential of SAMPSON / S-1850 / PAAMS (Aster30 & Aster15) system when compared with the benchmark that is the US Aegis / SPY1-D / SM2 system. Finally, when considering ‘export’ how likely is it the systems would be downgraded?

The Australian SEA 4000 AWD decision to opt for the US package is a good and recent example. Seperating platform from system as here or 'off the shelf'.

Might the UK (France/Italy) have similar market opportunity? And if so, which nations?

[Grand Danois]

SAMPSON evaluated by Danish Navy (http://ir.baesystems.com/bae/shareholder_info/communications/2005/2005-09-06/)

The Danish Navy is evaluating SAMPSON as a potential Multi-Function Radar for the Air Warfare System for the Danish Patrol Ship Programme. Insyte and Thales Netherlands have been down selected to respond to formal Requests for Quotation by 31 October. Final selection of preferred supplier is planned for early 2006 with contract award by mid 2006.
The competitors are SAMPSON/SMART-L (S-1850 is a derivative) from Insyte and APAR/SMART S MK2 from Thales NL.

Missiles will be either ESSM/SM-2 blk IIIA or ESSM/Aster30 both should work independently of radar choice, the latter with CEA-MOUNT FC radars. The Mk41 VLS system is preferred though due to its versatility.

[Big-E]

The Mk41 VLS system is preferred though due to its versatility.

Yes, but I doubt TASSMs or TLAMs would be part of the deal making an AB less attractive for export. Most countries would probably want PAAMs b/c it's cheaper.

[Grand Danois]

Yes, but I doubt TASSMs or TLAMs would be part of the deal making an AB less attractive for export. Most countries would probably want PAAMs b/c it's cheaper.

The US is already exporting TLAMS for European MK41's. In this case they are not part of the deal. The Navy is pushing the case to the politicians, though.

The question is perhaps how many countries the US would trust enough to export AEGIS to.

[Mercenary]

I'm not sure one can really compare an Aegis MDD to a Type 45 here.

The surface/air search Radar on the American warship is vastly superior in detection range alone. I had a tour of one here a few years ago, where we went down into the heart of the Control Room with all it's 3-dimensional transparent screens, etc. The officer told us the Aegis system can detect surface warships and aircraft out to a maximum range of 300-miles!

And electronic emissons are picked up at 500-miles. He said if the system were accidently left on when the warship were docked portside the Aegis would literally fry every radio tower and electronic device in the city.

My understanding and knowledge is the Type 45 Destroyer's SAM armament loadout is only planned to be 48 total consisting of mix of 16 shorter range Aster 15 and 32 Aster 30s. Compare that to an Arleigh Burke's VLS 106 missiles total of all types! This is for the American DD's after the 25th built, the first 25 carried 90 missiles each which is still almost twice as many as a Type 45 Destroyer. Not all these missiles are SAMs however but probably at least sixty are.

The Type 45 currently does not have any Tomahawk land attack Missiles nor an Anti-ship version either, but it is hoped that the it will eventually deploy Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

It does however will have a much smaller crew complement of around 190 verses an Arleigh Burke class's of 303-327.

The Type 45 also will be able to embark a complement of 60 Royal Marine Commados with a supporting aircraft, the latter probably an EH-101 Merlin.

The Aster 30 SAM is very advanced and super agile designed to destroy anti-ship missiles at a standoff range of 50-miles.

Whereas the American Standard SM-2 MR Block IIIA SAM has about the same range but I believe it's ceiling height is greater = 80,000 feet. The Aster 30 mighthave a lower engagement capability (maybe down under 500-ft off the deck) and if I'm right it has a much faster response time to the target and also upon actual launch itself.

I believe both Destroyer classes have their merits, but for true multi-rolecapabilities the Areigh Burke is superior in weaponary available to it's Mk 41 VLS. This system can fire not only SM-2MR long range SAMs but also quad packs of Evolved Sea Sparrow SAM (great for saturation attacks), Tomahawk land attack and anti-ship cruise missiles (the latter have a range of around 300-miles far exceeds anyother ASM in existence), ASROC anti-submarine rockets, and new VLS Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Whereas the Type 45's VLS currently is only designed for SAM's.

That's another under looked asset is American DD's are still armed with ASROCs so as not to rely on Helo' and ship launched ASW Torpedos. Helicopters can't land nor take off in wind speeds above about 35-mph...safely and certainly not with armament. Hence if an Attack Sub is in the immediate area an ASROC capable warship equals survival.

Japan's Aegis equipped KONGU and non-Aegis Murasame class missile DD's are also armed with VLS ASROCs.

[contedicavour]

Thanks Mercenary for the data you provided in your post.

On your point about ASROC, ASW missiles are a strong asset. France and Italy developed a similar system called MILAS capable of launching a MU-90 light torpedo some 30km away. The system is operational on the Italian "De la Penne" DDGs and will be on the French and Italian Horizon DDGs.

On the range of the latest AEGIS radars, my understanding is that although it is superior to the EMPAR (Horizon) or SAMPSON (T45) systems, British, French and surely Italian destroyers use also a very-long-range air-serch radar to back up the EMPAR/SAMPSON. The Alenia radar is credited with over 300 nautical miles range (at least for high-altitude targets the size of bombers).

Last but not least, since we're talking export potential on this thread, the US has taken a huge lead with SM-2 VLS (Japan, upgrade of Australian Perrys, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Spain...) and export versions of AEGIS (Japan, Spain, Norway...). PAAMS systems have been sold to Saudi Arabia and Singapore and are likely to be sold to Greece (which could buy the FREMM type frigates), Turkey (air warfare destroyer programme), and later on some Latin American and South-East Asian navies.

cheers

[KAPITAIN]

So far only japan has made a full aegis ship austrailia is buying or has bought aegis (correct if wrong) but the way to go is aegis without it your obsolete (quote Big E) i think the type 45 would attract alot of customers simply because of the royal navys history and also built to last reputation.

American ships do carry a certain stigma to them its not bad but alot of people will go for the RN ship's but it realy does depend on that countrys needs, i mean why buy a big destroyer thats going to cost billions when all you need is three frigates that would cost the same?

[Big-E]

So far only japan has made a full aegis ship

Actually PLAN has two operational AEGIS ships.


American ships do carry a certain stigma

And what stigma might that be?

[KAPITAIN]

PLAN has aegis where in gods name did they get that did they steal it?

Mod Edit: Infammatory statement has been deleted by Moderator. One more outburst like that and Ill see to it that you are banned forthwith.

Admin Edit: Further to above. You've been on here long enough to know the rules about debate and comment. The comment you originally made and that was subsequently deleted by another Mod was highly inapprop.

[Big-E]

PLAN has aegis where in gods name did they get that did they steal it?

AEGIS has been around for decades, it was innevitable that they would figure it out eventually, why couldn't the technology driven Russians figure it out?



Also the stigma is basicaly the americans invade countrys purely for thier own gain and what not and the fact there a bunch or nosey tykes and think they are all it because they have a few ships and that they are invincible.

(ive put it nicely and this is not to offend anyone its what alot of people in britian acctualy think about america)

A few ships? try a few hundred major combatants. No one in Great Britain nor the world is stupid enough to think that they or any other nation can compare to the USN who fields 12 (13 counting reserve) supercarrier (AEGIS capable) battlegroups and a fully operational nuclear silent service. Not to mention the landing capabilities of the USMC and her expeditionary forces. You might sink one carrier but their are a dozen to replace it. Its not that the USN is invincable, its just too big to be overwhelmed. If what you stated is thought about the USN then these people you talk to are ignorant of the facts, either that or their in denail, most probably jealous.:o

[gf0012-aust]

PLAN has aegis where in gods name did they get that did they steal it?

The PLAN doesn't have Aegis. What they have is a PAR system which the general public are calling Aegis as they have no idea what they're talking about.

It would be just as incorrect to say that they have PAAMs - which is also based around an Aegis concept.

In all of the excited conversation that occurs around this issue, there is the basic fundamental issue that nothing in the PLANs PAR deployed systems do they demonstrate CEC capability etc....

eg, the Singaporeans and the Israelis have developed PAR systems - and yet nobody refers to them as "Aegis".

Its an unfortunate description that continues to get currency because no one is correcting the error. It is however a gross error of description.

[rickusn]

This is outrageous:

"Also the stigma is basicaly the americans invade countrys purely for thier own gain and what not and the fact there a bunch or nosey tykes and think they are all it because they have a few ships and that they are invincible."

No one thinks it violates any rules?

Nonsense.

[KAPITAIN]

With respect sir, i was asked a question i gave the answer in the simplest and also non rude way.

It was not intended to cause any flaming or what ever i just asked a question, the answer i gave was not my personal belief just the belief of a majority around me.

Everyone must accept that you cannot make everyone happy and everyone has an opinion not everyone likes the american's but its part of life critism is the only way to learn use it adapt it and make it better its a way forward.

This post is not to cause any ill feeling it was an answer to a question, other than that lets drop this and get back to the topic in hand.

Regards

[WebMaster]

Kapitain, you are entitled to your opinion but as long as you say it with some form of respect to the other party. What you said/wrote is rude and is far from respect. You may not like American Government policies but to generalize like that is totally unacceptable.

"nosey tykes" ??? Largest and most advance navy in the world has just "few ships" ??? Very nice of you.

Please make sure that you do not pass such lose and irresponsible comments in the future. You will be respected when you do not violate respect of others or their countries. Also, work on your spelling, at least when making posts.

May want to have a look here as well:

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/rules.php

Thanks Rick.

Thanks ane enjoY!

[KAPITAIN]

I understand that sir however this is not my personal view i do agree with most american policiys, but not all as we all do, from what ive seen the americans have done some good in the world, and also have a very professional navy.

i was asked a question to which i answerd to the best of my ability and i feel that i could not word it any better.

Thankyou

[Big-E]

i was asked a question to which i answerd to the best of my ability and i feel that i could not word it any better.


You still have yet to answer the question. I did not expect a geo-political response to the question of the quality of an Aerleigh Burke Flight II/A destroyer. I was looking for evidence of poor sea-keeping, bad-software, poor missile performance... something tangable.

[KAPITAIN]

Well when the type 45 puts to sea and we get our first reports il be obliged to comment, however i do think the burkes are very good DDG but in ways the type 45's could be better.

[Big-E]

Well when the type 45 puts to sea and we get our first reports il be obliged to comment, however i do think the burkes are very good DDG but in ways the type 45's could be better.

Like how?

[KAPITAIN]

In thier over all hull design and the use of composites who knows it might turn out a flop or sucsess we dont know untill it is tested properly.

I think they are both good warships obviously each has drawbacks faults and flaws because you cant get everything 100% right, but how can we compair these two ships one has been out for a decade or more the other is not even built fully.

[gf0012-aust]

In thier over all hull design and the use of composites who knows it might turn out a flop or sucsess we dont know untill it is tested properly.

I think they are both good warships obviously each has drawbacks faults and flaws because you cant get everything 100% right, but how can we compair these two ships one has been out for a decade or more the other is not even built fully.

The AB's are legacy hulls of the Tico's which are legacy hulls of the Spruances - arguably considered to be the most modern contemp ASW platform ever built.

The hulls are therefore a tried and proven shape that has over 35 years of testing and development. The only major difference being length as their role changed on requirement.

I find it hard to believe that someone would make a throw away statement about a design of this capability - which has been instrumental in influencing PAR equiped skimmers, which has spawned the Kongos and is highly placed to be the future AWD for the RAN - as being questionable in success.

Outside of the early Darings - which are a different generation altogether - please point out any other naval design in the last 40 years where the vessel has gone from premium ASW platform, air warfare cruiser, air warfare destroyer, CEC asset, command asset and battlemanagement asset in its own right. The Daring was also never going to be able to morph into a cruiser - as the beam was just not going to cut it. The AB's are legacy products of 4 discrete ship classes - also of 2 role types, ie Cruisers and Destroyers. Thats before mission design is discussed.

In fact no other single platform can lay claim to being produced in the same volume, been produced in over 6 different combat roles, produced independantly overseas, and been deployed in literally in every recognised bluewater space concurrently.

That hullshape currently serves worldwide in 16 discrete fleets for 3 different nations in every bluewater spot on the globe.

success and seaworthiness are far from being debateable.

[Big-E]

The PLAN doesn't have Aegis. What they have is a PAR system which the general public are calling Aegis as they have no idea what they're talking about.

It would be just as incorrect to say that they have PAAMs - which is also based around an Aegis concept.

In all of the excited conversation that occurs around this issue, there is the basic fundamental issue that nothing in the PLANs PAR deployed systems do they demonstrate CEC capability etc....

eg, the Singaporeans and the Israelis have developed PAR systems - and yet nobody refers to them as "Aegis".

Its an unfortunate description that continues to get currency because no one is correcting the error. It is however a gross error of description.

How do you know what she can do? Just b/c we look at photos doesn't mean we can accurately predict her capabilities. We have yet to go inside her CIC and don't know the software of the system. At this point these statements are just premature.

[gf0012-aust]

How do you know what she can do? Just b/c we look at photos doesn't mean we can accurately predict her capabilities. We have yet to go inside her CIC and don't know the software of the system. At this point these statements are just premature.

You've lost me a bit, what bit of my response are you talking about? If its the PLAN, then I'm basing comments based around various people sources I deal with. If its re the Singaporeans and/or the Israelis, then we do have some solid discussion on it.

In fact we do know that for approx 6 months the PLAN was filling those array panels with concrete - just like the early russian derivatives of PAR when they were trying to sort them out.

Senior people within the PLAN have also been at pains to point out that "its like Aegis".

The grandaddy of Aegis was circa 1965 on a deployed vessel - so its not as if other countries haven't had time to try and come up with a derivative of their own.

I'm also basing my opininion on the fact that very recently I worked in an area that dealt with milspec cabling for testing - and we know the quality of PLAN interconnects and cables, Just on issues of reflection they were appalling. If you used those harnesses for a sophisticated C4I system then the results would be all over the shop.

[Big-E]

In fact we do know that for approx 6 months the PLAN was filling those array panels with concrete - just like the early russian derivatives of PAR when they were trying to sort them out.

Senior people within the PLAN have also been at pains to point out that "its like Aegis".

I'm also basing my opininion on the fact that very recently I worked in an area that dealt with milspec cabling for testing - and we know the quality of PLAN interconnects and cables, Just on issues of reflection they were appalling. If you used those harnesses for a sophisticated C4I system then the results would be all over the shop.

Is your conclusion that PLANs attempts will go the way of the Russian Gorshkov phased array radar?

[gf0012-aust]

Is your conclusion that PLANs attempts will go the way of the Russian Gorshkov phased array radar?

In short - no. I think they'll go to an Israeli hybrid. If you look at all of chinas platform development in EW or Weaps, they basically go with an early russian design, improve it and then look for external improvements. you can see that in their design philosophy for EW/AW and their "5n" series vessels.

they've already migrated away from the russian philosophy of designing each warship to be a mini arsenal ship - and they've moved away from ad-hoc designs where PLS systems dominate due to poor design briefs.

I'm more interested to see whether they build their own Sovremeny class vessel - as that will show where their design philosophies really are influenced.

I'd almost argue that they've designed the "5n's" around UK/French/Israeli solutions with a US weapons philosophy (VLS) and a Russian emphasis (lots of VLS ie, more than a western equiv in launcher count on equiv sized vessel)

all IMHO though.

[aaaditya]

In short - no. I think they'll go to an Israeli hybrid. If you look at all of chinas platform development in EW or Weaps, they basically go with an early russian design, improve it and then look for external improvements. you can see that in their design philosophy for EW/AW and their "5n" series vessels.

they've already migrated away from the russian philosophy of designing each warship to be a mini arsenal ship - and they've moved away from ad-hoc designs where PLS systems dominate due to poor design briefs.

I'm more interested to see whether they build their own Sovremeny class vessel - as that will show where their design philosophies really are influenced.

I'd almost argue that they've designed the "5n's" around UK/French/Israeli solutions with a US weapons philosophy (VLS) and a Russian emphasis (lots of VLS ie, more than a western equiv in launcher count on equiv sized vessel)

all IMHO though.

but isnt there a eu ban on sale advanced defence technology to china.besides iam sure that due to their close relationship with usa ,israel will not sell any advanced defence technology to china,particularly after the phalcon fiasco,also iam sure if they supply any modern ew system to china,in the event of a war between usa and china ,israel will definitely give clasified information about the system sold to china to enable usa to successfully jam them.

[gf0012-aust]

but isnt there a eu ban on sale advanced defence technology to china.besides iam sure that due to their close relationship with usa ,israel will not sell any advanced defence technology to china,particularly after the phalcon fiasco,also iam sure if they supply any modern ew system to china,in the event of a war between usa and china ,israel will definitely give clasified information about the system sold to china to enable usa to successfully jam them.

the EU ban is a joke. Its been circumvented so many times by COTs solutions and agricultural clauses that it only keeps out overt sales.

Israels designs are already apparent in the early AWACs, UAV's and the initial support for missile designs.

you've obviously missed the newsflash earlier this year when Israel was locked out of some development work and technology briefings due to concerns about their security and their relationship with china. ;)

[Big-E]

besides iam sure that due to their close relationship with usa ,israel will not sell any advanced defence technology to china

Are you serious???

[contedicavour]

Even when the Chinese will come up with a functioning planar array radar, what about the missiles on board ? They have copies of shortrange French crotale, their Sovremenny have non-VL SA-N-7 and 17 with max range around 35km... not comparable to SM-2s or Aster-30s.

cheers

[Big-E]

Even when the Chinese will come up with a functioning planar array radar, what about the missiles on board ? They have copies of shortrange French crotale, their Sovremenny have non-VL SA-N-7 and 17 with max range around 35km... not comparable to SM-2s or Aster-30s.

cheers

They are not SA-N-7s or the crotale copies. They are their version of the much longer range SA-N-6 Grumble (S-300) 90km+.

[contedicavour]

They are not SA-N-7s or the crotale copies. They are their version of the much longer range SA-N-6 Grumble (S-300) 90km+.

I wasn't aware the latest DDGs had Grumble missiles aboard !!
Now that's starting to be a problem... :(
How many DDGs (-52C I guess) are there with Grumble confirmed aboard ?

cheers

[Big-E]

I wasn't aware the latest DDGs had Grumble missiles aboard !!
Now that's starting to be a problem... :(
How many DDGs (-52C I guess) are there with Grumble confirmed aboard ?

cheers

We can't confirm it, but the launch cells match the size of a Russian Grumble so it just goes to figure.

[HK_Thoughtful]

Okay...well I have a question, a bit off topic but along the same lines. Concerning the export versions of the Aegis Combat System, who do the exports compare with those systems found on current USN destroyers...I mean I know they are down-graded packages but does anyone know by what degree? Or is this a something that can't be revealed?

[Big-E]

Okay...well I have a question, a bit off topic but along the same lines. Concerning the export versions of the Aegis Combat System, who do the exports compare with those systems found on current USN destroyers...I mean I know they are down-graded packages but does anyone know by what degree? Or is this a something that can't be revealed?

What export versions?

[contedicavour]

Okay...well I have a question, a bit off topic but along the same lines. Concerning the export versions of the Aegis Combat System, who do the exports compare with those systems found on current USN destroyers...I mean I know they are down-graded packages but does anyone know by what degree? Or is this a something that can't be revealed?

Good question... I've seen scaled down versions such as the SPY-1F for the new Spanish and Norwegian frigates, but the fact that they've been scaled down is just a consequence of the lower size/tonnage of these frigates vs the much larger Burke or Ticonderoga. To what extent this lowers the 300-mile range of the AEGIS system on the USN I'm not sure... I'll try to find out.

cheers

[RA1911]

Good question... I've seen scaled down versions such as the SPY-1F for the new Spanish and Norwegian frigates, but the fact that they've been scaled down is just a consequence of the lower size/tonnage of these frigates vs the much larger Burke or Ticonderoga. To what extent this lowers the 300-mile range of the AEGIS system on the USN I'm not sure... I'll try to find out.

cheers

According to the official pages of the Norwegian armed forces its range is 200 nautical miles.
Ref. in norwegian: http://www.mil.no/fregatter/start/fakta/sensorer/

In other news, ship nr.3 of a total of 5 was set afloat a couple of days ago (April 28th).

[contedicavour]

According to the official pages of the Norwegian armed forces its range is 200 nautical miles.
Ref. in norwegian: http://www.mil.no/fregatter/start/fakta/sensorer/

In other news, ship nr.3 of a total of 5 was set afloat a couple of days ago (April 28th).

Ah-ha there we have the data, thanks RA1911 :)
Does your country's navy plan to include SM-2 one day in the Nansen's VLS or will it remain with ESSM only ?

cheers

[RA1911]

Ah-ha there we have the data, thanks RA1911 :)
Does your country's navy plan to include SM-2 one day in the Nansen's VLS or will it remain with ESSM only ?

cheers

As far as I know there are no current plans for doing this, so I wouldn't hold my breath :)

[HK_Thoughtful]

Alright--Thanks for the reply and the help and when I said export versions of the Aegis, I meant the versions used by navies other than the USN. Sorry for the mix-up.

[Big-E]

Wow, that frigate is going to be a nightmare to run. 50 officers to 30 sailors with a bunch of contractors running around telling the pros their not doing their jobs properly. I think they need to rethink the manning requirements of these vessles or nothing will get done.:grab

[Grand Danois]

Wow, that frigate is going to be a nightmare to run. 50 officers to 30 sailors with a bunch of contractors running around telling the pros their not doing their jobs properly. I think they need to rethink the manning requirements of these vessles or nothing will get done.:grab

The crews of the new ships will be made up of 120 personnel in total, 50 of which will be officers, 40 contracted personnel and 30 conscripted sailors. The vessels will have room for 146 people on board.

This is a translation error of the webpage (http://www.mil.no/fregatter/start/english/). "Contracted" refers to professional military personnel as opposed to conscripts.

Cheers

:)

[perfectgeneral]

SAMPSON exceeds the range of the 'long range' legacy radar from the PAAMS deal. It also has all those LPI, multi target tracking, etc. tricks of a well developed AESA radar. Don't underestimate it.

As to the hull. BAE systems have drawings to extend or shorten the hull to customer requirement. One design is for a 20% longer design. This would probably make it a light cruiser.

Personally I think that later models of the Daring class should switch to a Mk41 launcher. The sylver/Aster set-up is ideal for hitting the seaskimmers that the crows nest mounted SAMPSON can pick up a long way out.

The AB is good, but the Daring aims to be a better AAW destroyer. Plenty of room for more production. Come buy some.

[Grand Danois]

Good question... I've seen scaled down versions such as the SPY-1F for the new Spanish and Norwegian frigates, but the fact that they've been scaled down is just a consequence of the lower size/tonnage of these frigates vs the much larger Burke or Ticonderoga. To what extent this lowers the 300-mile range of the AEGIS system on the USN I'm not sure... I'll try to find out.
cheers

I know it is probably redundant, but the Spanish F100s use the AN/SPY1D. ;)

[Sea Toby]

It seems to be all of the nations wanting such capability have already planned to acquire it. The Japanese, South Koreans, Australia, Spain, and Norway have chosen Aegis; the British Sampson; the France and Italy Horizon; Germany and the Netherlands APAR. What Taiwan will eventually do with the Kidds is an open book. America has also started to dump some of its Spruances, with lots of Mk 41 cells to Turkey and Pakistan.

Therefore, I don't see many sales of the Sampson abroad in the next decade, nor many more Aegis systems either.

[Grand Danois]

APAR was chosen for Japans Destroyer/Helo carrier, so they will operate both...

[contedicavour]

APAR was chosen for Japans Destroyer/Helo carrier, so they will operate both...

I wasn't aware of this. Seems strange, with their modern SPY AEGIS radars I don't understand why they would select APAR (just as costly as buying yet another AEGIS off-the-shelf from the US) ? Especially if the new DDH will have only ESSMs for AAW. APARs are designed to guide SM-2 III ... :confused:

cheers

[contedicavour]

It seems to be all of the nations wanting such capability have already planned to acquire it. The Japanese, South Koreans, Australia, Spain, and Norway have chosen Aegis; the British Sampson; the France and Italy Horizon; Germany and the Netherlands APAR. What Taiwan will eventually do with the Kidds is an open book. America has also started to dump some of its Spruances, with lots of Mk 41 cells to Turkey and Pakistan.

Therefore, I don't see many sales of the Sampson abroad in the next decade, nor many more Aegis systems either.

If the Canadian government found the money to replace their old Trump DDGs then replacement DDGs could carry Sampson or EMPAR. Or APAR ... wow they have a lot of choice in Ottawa ;)
Next, the Brazilian or the Indian Navies could be interested later on. They both lack modern AAW radars.

cheers

[Sea Toby]

Canada could easily ask Bath Iron Works again to work with one of their shipyards to build Arleigh Burkes or the smaller Australian equivalent. The last time Canada built frigates it needed the help of Bath Iron Works to straighten out their mess. Then again, Canada could purchase the ships from an American yard, especially if they can get offsets of another American defence program.

Canada's defence budget is just as tight as every other nation.

However, I have this suspicion that Canada won't build new DDGs, being very happy to upgrade their City class frigates instead, of which they have 12. Priority should be on their new Multi-role replenishment ships/sealift ships, and getting their Upholder submarines up to spec.

On the other hand if Canada sold three or four of their City class frigates to another nation, like the Netherlands have done, I can see a purchase of three or four DDGs to replace them.

[Whiskyjack]

One of the major issues of new DDGs is not only the cost of building them, but the cost of the load out! A current model Arleigh Burke has 96 VLS tubes, what would the cost be to fill all of those tubes, say a mix of 64 ESSM (16), 40 SM-2/3 and 40 Tomahawks (assuming that Canada, Australia had the Tomahawk) you are talking a lot of money( US$100m?).

On this topic the RAN will probably be looking at a platform able to carry 56-64 tubes, will it be fitted with all or will it be fitted with 40-48 with room to upgrade if deemed necessary?

[Cootamundra]

One of the major issues of new DDGs is not only the cost of building them, but the cost of the load out! A current model Arleigh Burke has 96 VLS tubes, what would the cost be to fill all of those tubes, say a mix of 64 ESSM (16), 40 SM-2/3 and 40 Tomahawks (assuming that Canada, Australia had the Tomahawk) you are talking a lot of money( US$100m?).

On this topic the RAN will probably be looking at a platform able to carry 56-64 tubes, will it be fitted with all or will it be fitted with 40-48 with room to upgrade if deemed necessary?

Good point mate, you don't always account for the arming of the warship in cost discussions. From what I've read the new AWDs would be built with all their VLS in place (64 tubes). The Libs have quietly been reversing the "built for but not with" ANZACs. The AWDs will however have room for expansion at a later date, but I think this is more to do with advances in technology as opposed to not fitting them out properly in the beginning. We won't know of course until we see which design wins.

[tphuang]

I wasn't aware the latest DDGs had Grumble missiles aboard !!
Now that's starting to be a problem... :(
How many DDGs (-52C I guess) are there with Grumble confirmed aboard ?

cheers
they use HQ-9A on 052C and RIF-M on 051C
the radar on 051C is tombstone and on 052C are 4 huge APAR panels.
The slant range for HQ-9A is said to be 200 KM.

[contedicavour]

One of the major issues of new DDGs is not only the cost of building them, but the cost of the load out! A current model Arleigh Burke has 96 VLS tubes, what would the cost be to fill all of those tubes, say a mix of 64 ESSM (16), 40 SM-2/3 and 40 Tomahawks (assuming that Canada, Australia had the Tomahawk) you are talking a lot of money( US$100m?).

On this topic the RAN will probably be looking at a platform able to carry 56-64 tubes, will it be fitted with all or will it be fitted with 40-48 with room to upgrade if deemed necessary?

Makes sense. No European DDG or AAW-FFG carries more than 48 VLS tubes, although several (as the Horizons) have ample space to add up to 32 more tubes. With 48 Asters of SM-2 IIIs there's enough to eliminate an entire squadron of fighter-bombers :rolleyes:

[contedicavour]

they use HQ-9A on 052C and RIF-M on 051C
the radar on 051C is tombstone and on 052C are 4 huge APAR panels.
The slant range for HQ-9A is said to be 200 KM.

Thks for the data ! Do we have confirmation from industry sources of the sale of APAR aegis-type technology to China ? or is it a local copy ?
One last question, if the HQ-9A is a local copy of Grumble, how did the Chinese manage to extend the range to 200km if the Russian missiles have a range of 100km maximum (naval version) ?

cheers

[tphuang]

Thks for the data ! Do we have confirmation from industry sources of the sale of APAR aegis-type technology to China ? or is it a local copy ?
One last question, if the HQ-9A is a local copy of Grumble, how did the Chinese manage to extend the range to 200km if the Russian missiles have a range of 100km maximum (naval version) ?

cheers
This article is helpful:
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.97/pub_detail.asp

The APAR on 052C is developed by lab 14 (aka nriet), the same lab developed the AESA radar on KJ-2000. How much help it got is up for speculations.

HQ-9 series is not a local copy of Grumble, that's HQ-15. HQ-9A is an indigenous project that got help from the Russians and possibly some stolen American technology. The long ranged missile for Rif-M has a range of 150 KM, which is at the level of s-300pmu1. Kanwa mentionned that the pla testing showed HQ-9A showed better performance than pmu1 (not sure true or not), but I would think hq-9a would have to be at least that level to attract sales from pla. Point is that a slant range of 200 KM is quite possible. Actually, it was found by Golly on SDF on one of his Finnish naval magazines.

[contedicavour]

This article is helpful:
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.97/pub_detail.asp

The APAR on 052C is developed by lab 14 (aka nriet), the same lab developed the AESA radar on KJ-2000. How much help it got is up for speculations.

HQ-9 series is not a local copy of Grumble, that's HQ-15. HQ-9A is an indigenous project that got help from the Russians and possibly some stolen American technology. The long ranged missile for Rif-M has a range of 150 KM, which is at the level of s-300pmu1. Kanwa mentionned that the pla testing showed HQ-9A showed better performance than pmu1 (not sure true or not), but I would think hq-9a would have to be at least that level to attract sales from pla. Point is that a slant range of 200 KM is quite possible. Actually, it was found by Golly on SDF on one of his Finnish naval magazines.

Excellent article indeed, thanks a lot :)
The Chinese DDG fleet is starting to resemble a mix of prototypes however... 2 different versions of Sovremenny, 3 different generations of locally-built DDGs with 3 different AAW missiles, of which only the Shtil has really a proven track record. I'm wondering if the Chinese wouldn't have done better by simply producing locally the SA-N-6 and equipping all DDGs with the same system...

[Whiskyjack]

Makes sense. No European DDG or AAW-FFG carries more than 48 VLS tubes, although several (as the Horizons) have ample space to add up to 32 more tubes. With 48 Asters of SM-2 IIIs there's enough to eliminate an entire squadron of fighter-bombers :rolleyes:


I guess when I look at the Type 45s (not really up to date on the Horizons, so wont comment), I see potential to make them multi-role.

I have read various sources on the web (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html) is a very good source for the RN) that suggest that there is growth potential for the Type 45 to field 64-72 Mk 41 VLS tubes, which would allow for the tomahawk to be included. Of course the Aster would have to be integrated into the Mk 41 and I am not sure if the tomahawk has been integrated into the Type 45 systems. (all this means $$$)

Add another 6 T45s (together with 13 T23s, SSNs and CV(F)) and it would give the RN a true world wide multi-role capability. That would match the USN (1 for 1 not over all) and complement the USN. It would also all0w the RN to conduct operations independently.

[tphuang]

Excellent article indeed, thanks a lot :)
The Chinese DDG fleet is starting to resemble a mix of prototypes however... 2 different versions of Sovremenny, 3 different generations of locally-built DDGs with 3 different AAW missiles, of which only the Shtil has really a proven track record. I'm wondering if the Chinese wouldn't have done better by simply producing locally the SA-N-6 and equipping all DDGs with the same system...
rif-m is expensive, so that's why they only got 2 sets of it. Also, 052C is like a trial product. China is using 170/171 to make HQ-9A more mature, I guess. It's testing a lot of technologies on this. Very risky, but it has to be done to advance the domestic technology base.

[contedicavour]

I guess when I look at the Type 45s (not really up to date on the Horizons, so wont comment), I see potential to make them multi-role.

I have read various sources on the web (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/index.html) is a very good source for the RN) that suggest that there is growth potential for the Type 45 to field 64-72 Mk 41 VLS tubes, which would allow for the tomahawk to be included. Of course the Aster would have to be integrated into the Mk 41 and I am not sure if the tomahawk has been integrated into the Type 45 systems. (all this means $$$)

Add another 6 T45s (together with 13 T23s, SSNs and CV(F)) and it would give the RN a true world wide multi-role capability. That would match the USN (1 for 1 not over all) and complement the USN. It would also all0w the RN to conduct operations independently.

The Royal Navy is probably praying that the Government is reading your post ;) Given budgetary restrictions, the RN has always under-exploited the potential of their DDGs. The T42 were pure AAW-only ships, and I'm almost sure the T45 will suffer the same fate. Since there's enough money for 6-8 T45s, the minimum needed to escort tomorrow's 2 carriers, I doubt they'll be anything more than pure AAW.
You are right however : there is an awful lot of unused space on both the T45 and the Horizons, enough for 32 more VLS that could be used for Scalp naval/Storm Shadow cruise missile with 250+ km range, using the same A50 VLS cells that use Aster 30. This would cost less than MK41 for Tomahawks.

cheers

[contedicavour]

rif-m is expensive, so that's why they only got 2 sets of it. Also, 052C is like a trial product. China is using 170/171 to make HQ-9A more mature, I guess. It's testing a lot of technologies on this. Very risky, but it has to be done to advance the domestic technology base.

Very interesting. If I were Chinese I would be very worried if real conflict were to happen soon, since the main assets of the Chinese Navy are using not completelytested and very expensive technology. Technological development clearly carries a higher priority than military capability.

cheers