Type 45 destroyer

[StobieWan]

so if each cell can hold 4 missiles.. that means 192 ceptor missiles abit obsessive.
they should have made them more adaptable so longer range anti air missiles could also be carried.

The CAMM cells at the front and in the centre line near the funnel (48 in total) are dedicated CAMM launch cells - and they're carried through from the Type 23 - CAMM uses a soft launch profile via a gas generator. The reasoning behind that is to provide local area defence for the ship and any vessels it's escorting in it's immediate vicinity.

They could have selected A50 silos to take Aster but that'd have meant they were heavier, more expensive and less flexible in terms of positioning them. Take a look at the Seawolf firing gallery on the Type 23 and see if you can find the depth and the margins to put A50 into there - I specify A50 because those are the shortest cells that can take Aster.

I honestly think the type 23 > Type 26 feed through "future legacy" idea is one of the smartest things the RN has come up - it's a large chunk of cost management to get Type 26 into service on budget, on time.

 

[AegisFC]

so if each cell can hold 4 missiles.. that means 192 ceptor missiles abit obsessive.
they should have made them more adaptable so longer range anti air missiles could also be carried.

I suggest you start improving your quality of posts and do a bit of your own research before posting drivel again or you will not be here much longer. First warning.

 

[RobWilliams]

I honestly think the type 23 > Type 26 feed through "future legacy" idea is one of the smartest things the RN has come up - it's a large chunk of cost management to get Type 26 into service on budget, on time.

100% agree, it makes the T26 look better to the Treasury and makes it more likely - potentially - for the RN to be able to wangle a couple more in the future. (Childish optimism mode)

They've been stung by the Type 45, and they've learned the lesson.

 

[AegisFC]

So far, CEC has been kicked up to a Main Gate of 2015. If it's not picked out, I'm getting in the car, driving into London and blowing up the Baltic Exchange all over again as a first step in making my displeasure known...

I can *kind* of forgive it not going in as IOC because CEC with one or two ships is like having one walkie talkie. We've got six Type 45 in the water and now that lack of CEC is starting to irk...

I see your point however mounting CEC on the Type 45's during construction would of been a good move considering most of the area's the RN sees itself operating in for the foreseeable future will have CEC equiped USN assets in the area as well (Tico's, Burkes and Hawkeyes). At the very least it would of given the RN experience with the system and help it to develop tactics and get a feel for the systems capabilities and limitations.

 

[StobieWan]

I see your point however mounting CEC on the Type 45's during construction would of been a good move considering most of the area's the RN sees itself operating in for the foreseeable future will have CEC equiped USN assets in the area as well (Tico's, Burkes and Hawkeyes). At the very least it would of given the RN experience with the system and help it to develop tactics and get a feel for the systems capabilities and limitations.

Yup. Sadly, we got into a 10bn unfunded war in Afghanistan (which last I checked, was landlocked) instead - the focus in the UK has been more and more on the Army and RAF. The amount of cash chucked at UOR's for stuff the Army needed has been astonishing. I'm not complaining per se - it's just a statement of where the budget has been pointed.

Originally, the idea was to put CEC into Type 45 and 23 - which would have allowed for a fairly astonishing leap in capabilities. Type 23 is now *not* scheduled for CEC and the Darings are "TBA" - like I said, I'll be committing acts of random terrorism as well as swearing a lot if it doesn't happen. I wouldn't mind, but we had a pair of trial gear on Type 42 - so we'd tried the stuff out, found it worked very well, then just ...um...ah..well..I dunno It was pretty revolutionary on Type 42 as a trial rig - pair with with an MFR of the versatility of the SAMPSON rig and frankly, if I was a pilot, I'd want my affairs in order before I went up against that lot.

I'd have had CEC on the Darings as IOC if given a choice - it's a cheap feature for what it allows - but I can see why it might have been put off. Here's hoping that it doesn't bite us on the bottom.

Annoyingly, I can even see where it'd have been a huge help to the USN as I am led to believe that SPY-1 and SAMPSON have fairly different feature sets and capabilities such that pairing a Type 45 with a Burke would be significantly better than either platform individually.

<grump>

Hard sell to make however - it's one of those "force multipliers" that are hard to explain in simple terms.

 

[StobieWan]

100% agree, it makes the T26 look better to the Treasury and makes it more likely - potentially - for the RN to be able to wangle a couple more in the future. (Childish optimism mode)

They've been stung by the Type 45, and they've learned the lesson.

Yeah - 26 will be in production a fair while if we get the 13 talked about - there's scope for a batch 2 or whatever with a treble or quad row of A70/A50 cells, improved radar fit and some other changes to run out another 2-4 at relatively low cost. Lower cost than trying to make the MHPC platform into a warfighting one.

 

[swerve]

The sea viper missile system comprised of aster 15 and 30 is both good and bad. its very maneuverable and I'm sure capable at destroying sea skimming missiles and aircraft. but firstly there are range issues. 30 km and 120km is not good enough any-more, especially when sea dart at its best was capable of 150km. but what's most striking to me is that the american ESSM is capable of 50 km and can be quad packed (4 per launcher) whereas aster 15 is single cell only with a max range of 30, its pathetic. the american sm-2 missile and sm-6 (supposedly the equivalent of the aster 30) have ranges of over 200 km and they both occupy one cell launcher.
even the new CAMM sea ceptor missile disappointing, yes it can be quad packed but has a poor range.

Quad packing is a way of fitting as many small missiles as possible into a big silo. It's particularly useful if you have big silos for big missiles, & you want to supplement the big missiles with something smaller without fitting small launchers. The trade off is that you have a lot of empty space in your big (expensive, heavy) silos, because the small missiles aren't only slimmer, but also shorter.

BTW, the Sylver VLS launchers that only take one Aster 15 are slimmer & lighter than the VLS launchers that can take four ESSM, so you don't actually get four ESSM into the same volume & weight as one Aster 15. ESSM also has limitations on number of targets which can be engaged, due to its semi-active guidance, & may be less agile than Aster. What you gain on one, you may lose on the other.

CAMM is a much smaller missile than ESSM, & weighs about a third as much. It also needs less shipboard equipment, & is less restricted in how many targets can be engaged simultaneously. You can therefore carry a lot more CAMM than ESSM, or have a lot more weight & space free for other uses.

Range & quad packing are not the only desirable features of a SAM.

 

[the concerned]

Why do people keep complaining about having just 6 aaw destroyers. Who are we fighting,if you put 2 destroyers in waters only the biggest forces would have sufficent equipment to overwhelm these and if we were going against anyone that big it would be part of a coalition so they wouldn't be alone. think in a couple of years the RN would be capable of deploying a capable CV plus say 2 aaw's plus 2 world class frigates and a ssn . i'm asking who is capable of taking that force on.The only thing i would like to see is once CAMM is operational do away with the Aster 15 and just put 30's on the destroyers or develop Aster to engage ballistic missiles.

 

[StobieWan]

The major grief is how hard the hulls get worked - with six in the water and an expected five of them to be working at any one time, they'll start wearing thin. If we could get another pair, but stick with the same commitments, they'd last longer.

 

[AndrewMI]

The major grief is how hard the hulls get worked - with six in the water and an expected five of them to be working at any one time, they'll start wearing thin. If we could get another pair, but stick with the same commitments, they'd last longer.

I would hope that we can develop a specialist class of (anti) piracy and (anti) narcotics ship to take the pressure off the T45 and T26 escorts.

 

[swerve]

Any OPV(H) can do that, and also do fishery protection & various other tasks. All it needs, apart from the helicopter, is a gun big enough to overmatch anything a pirate or drug smuggler might have (doesn't need a big gun), room for a squad of marines or some suitably trained sailors, pintle mountings for MGs & rests for sniper rifles, & somewhere secure to hold any prisoners.

The only thing i would like to see is once CAMM is operational do away with the Aster 15 and just put 30's on the destroyers or develop Aster to engage ballistic missiles.

We have Aster 15 in stock. It'd be wasteful to throw them away.

Aster 30 has been developed to engage short range ballistic missiles, & MBDA is working on a missile to engage longer range BMs, compatible with Sylver & PAAMS. We'd need to modify the Type 45 radars & CMS to use even the anti-SRBM Aster 30, but I think it may be only software changes. SMART-L (basically the same as S1850M, but adapted to work with Standard) has already been modified by Thales Nederland to allow it to track BMs, & the modifications tested. They should carry over to S1850M easily.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yeah - 26 will be in production a fair while if we get the 13 talked about - there's scope for a batch 2 or whatever with a treble or quad row of A70/A50 cells, improved radar fit and some other changes to run out another 2-4 at relatively low cost. Lower cost than trying to make the MHPC platform into a warfighting one.

I really do hope they squeeze a few more out, even if it's 1 - 2 more that'd still be very helpful.

Maybe if Brazil gets involved then they might be more inclined to order some more, as the unit cost would be driven out further.

That's something, if Brazil gets involved, has there been any numbers thrown around what they want for their future frigate, i.e numbers bought split into built for them/license build?

Still can't emphasise enough why I reckon a Type 26 or two packed with Asters would be a smashing addition to the Type 45s. With the appropriate adjustments of course.

 

[StobieWan]

SMART-L (basically the same as S1850M, but adapted to work with Standard) has already been modified by Thales Nederland to allow it to track BMs, & the modifications tested. They should carry over to S1850M easily.

I've read that modifications in software for the S8150 are under going tests with that in mind - can't find the link but it was definitely a UK effort to get that piece of the puzzle in place for Type 45.

 

[RobWilliams]

I've read that modifications in software for the S8150 are under going tests with that in mind - can't find the link but it was definitely a UK effort to get that piece of the puzzle in place for Type 45.

It's a shame that didn't get sorted out further, might've persuaded the Saudis to order a couple before production ended.

 

[swerve]

That's something, if Brazil gets involved, has there been any numbers thrown around what they want for their future frigate, i.e numbers bought split into built for them/license build?

Brazil currently has 10 frigates, of which one is a training ship with minimal armament & sensors. The (optimistic) plan is to replace them all with a larger number (IIRC they want at least 15), preferably of a single basic type. They were looking at an initial batch of six, to replace the Niteroi class (Vosper-Thorneycroft built, resembling an enlarged Type 21, commissioned 1976-80), before Dilma cut the budget. The enforced delay has given the T26 a better chance: Italian FREMMs seemed to be the front-runners until then.

 

[spsun100001]

Making the most of the Type 45

There's really no point debating whether we should or shouldn't have gone the T45 route. We have them now (albiet in insufficient numbers) and the key thing is to make the most of them.

Can we stop pretending that the lack of CEC and the long list of fitted for but not with has to do with anything other than saving money? The idea that we always know whether a warship will need a weapon system before it deploys or can come back to have it fitted once trouble breaks out is patently ridiculous.

The Type 22 batch 3 frigate (can't remember which one it was) which was returning home to be scrapped from partol East of Suez had to divert to Libya as conflict escalated there. We had no idea that would happen when she deployed and she had to go with the weapons she had. That's what happens with warships.

With only 19 escorts we cannot have specialist vessels. The bizzare thing is that some of the omissions on the Type 45 would cost little to rectify but make an enormous improvement in their capability.

1) CEC must be fitted. It is a huge force mutliplier. Here is the pretty good article from the telegraph about what it can do:

Cutting missile system leaves warships at risk - Telegraph

2) ASuW capability. Not having embarked SSM's also considerably reduces the ASW capability of the T45 as it has to carry Lynx (which can carry the Sea Skua ASM) as opposed to Merlin which cannot. Even then, Sea Skua is a very good system against small boats but cannot be used against any vessel with a reasonable SAM capability due to the risk to the helicopter.

We should fit Harpoon. It's not the best SSM in the world but we already have them in our inventory (from the decommissioned T22's) and it gives the ship sufficient capability to exert a zone of control around itself from other surface warships and enables it to then embark Merlin giving it a far better ASW capability

Finally, before anyone says where would the money come from, it would come from the £830m earmarked for India in foreign aid over the next three years. Money their Finance minister says they don't want and money that a country planning a space mission to Mars clearly doesn't need.

 

[Volkodav]

From what I have read and been told the Type 45 is a fantastic platformt hat has far exceeded expectations in terms of performance and minimising cost of ownership, you have one great class of ship there. Just remember combat systems develop and evolve but the platform stays pretty much the same, when you have a tight old school platform upgrades are very hard and very expensive, when you have a state of the art platform with plenty of space and reserve stability upgrades are comparatively easier and cheaper. IMHO the only regrets the UK will have in the futre concerning the Darings is not having more of them.

That said the Type 26 is another very nice looking design and based on the performance of the Type 22 and 23 over the years you can only expect to see it become yet another successful multi role warship. I just hope it has more success with export sales.

On ABM there have been some references to US involvement in helping close allies develop the capability. I am not sure on the details but it makes sense.

 

[StobieWan]

It's a shame that didn't get sorted out further, might've persuaded the Saudis to order a couple before production ended.

Well, Aster-30 hadn't demonstrated any ABM capability til fairly recently so it's a chicken and egg situation. If Type 45 had been laid out more like Type 26 in terms of accessibility, it could have been offered with a different version of Sampson that could do interrupted continuous wave illumination, and able to illuminate ESSM, Mk41 silos and therefore, SM3 which could have tied in with the S8150.

As far as I understand it, the Type 45 was offered on the traditional format of "Well, the RN is getting *this* - we can do a slightly different font on the ship number and of course, we'll chuck in a national flag" unfortunately.

Touching on the US assistance for ABM work - that's been in the form of providing for SM3 to work with a simple and easily portable datalink so that pretty much anything that can carry the missile can point it at a target that their radar can see.

 

[swerve]

The US has been co-operating with Japan in developing Standard ABM missiles, & no doubt has provided any necessary information to Thales Nederland to make sure the SMART-L ABM upgrade works with Standard.

I expect that the Franco-Italian Aster 30 block 1 ABM upgrade has probably been done independently of the USA, & the same for the work on the as yet unbuilt so-called Aster block 2 (in reality, a new missile).

[Edit] I see that while I was away eating my lunch, leaving an unfinished post, StobieWan has jumped in.

 

[RobWilliams]

Well, Aster-30 hadn't demonstrated any ABM capability til fairly recently so it's a chicken and egg situation. If Type 45 had been laid out more like Type 26 in terms of accessibility, it could have been offered with a different version of Sampson that could do interrupted continuous wave illumination, and able to illuminate ESSM, Mk41 silos and therefore, SM3 which could have tied in with the S8150.

As far as I understand it, the Type 45 was offered on the traditional format of "Well, the RN is getting *this* - we can do a slightly different font on the ship number and of course, we'll chuck in a national flag" unfortunately.

I really hope the Type 26 is the dawn of a new spectrum of UK defence thinking, that modularity, flexibility with an eye on future upgrade potential are key, it could really bring the UK back into the maritime defence sector.

Interesting MBDA link in regards to Aster 30 Block 2/BMD.

Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles

It'd certainly be a decent card up the T-45s sleeve, being able to counter those sorts of threats.