Export potential Type 45 v Arleigh Burke's?

[perfectgeneral]

Type 45 Daring class

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 ...

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

 

[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

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 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 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