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

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]

Destroyers' weaponry and export potential

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.

 

[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.