Type 45 destroyer

[harryLPF]

disappointing

as usual the Mod fails to meet its so called target of quality not quantity.
The type 45 destroyer is one of the most costly and most ineffective warships in Europe.
currently HMS daring is deployed in the Falkland islands. yet she carries no anti-ship missiles, hell I don't even think she's been fitted with CIWS(phalanx). all royal navy ships should be general purpose and then specialise in a warfare field such as air defence with the type 45 (if you can even call the type 45 a specialist air defence destroyer).

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.

What the Mod needs is an extension on the CAMM similar to the american standard missile range. its needs a set of anti-air missiles from short range quad packed (0-50km) to medium ranged missile (0-150km), a long range missile (0-400km) and then possibly an anti ballistic missile. and all need to be capable of being VLS launched. expensive I know, but the aster family on-board type 45 is not adequate. and if the MOD cant produce its own anti-air missile family then we should quite simply adopt the american standard missiles comprising of ESSM, sm-6 and sm-3 for ballistic defence.

on a final note. the harpoon missile is no longer acceptable 0-80km range what a joke. the MOD should develop its own surface strike missile comprising of a medium and long range anti-ship and surface strike missile 0-500km and 0-1000km to be fired from VLS not quad packed.

The type 26 frigate is much more improved, but its only as good as the missiles it carries.

 

[RobWilliams]

as usual the Mod fails to meet its so called target of quality not quantity.
The type 45 destroyer is one of the most costly and most ineffective warships in Europe.
currently HMS daring is deployed in the Falkland islands. yet she carries no anti-ship missiles, hell I don't even think she's been fitted with CIWS(phalanx). all royal navy ships should be general purpose and then specialise in a warfare field such as air defence with the type 45 (if you can even call the type 45 a specialist air defence destroyer).

HMS Dauntless is deployed to the South Atlantic, it's spent months working down West Africa. Daring is back in the UK after being replaced by Diamond East of Suez.

The Lynx she carries can carry 4 Sea Skua missiles for ASuW

"If you can even call the type 45 a specialist air defence destroyer", that's a rather silly comment. The Darings were specifically designed for AAW as the SAMPSON/Sea Viper combination shows.

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.

What the Mod needs is an extension on the CAMM similar to the american standard missile range. its needs a set of anti-air missiles from short range quad packed (0-50km) to medium ranged missile (0-150km), a long range missile (0-400km) and then possibly an anti ballistic missile. and all need to be capable of being VLS launched. expensive I know, but the aster family on-board type 45 is not adequate. and if the MOD cant produce its own anti-air missile family then we should quite simply adopt the american standard missiles comprising of ESSM, sm-6 and sm-3 for ballistic defence.

According to RN, at it's best Sea Dart was ~128km, almost double the range when it came into service, but that was it's maximum at the edge of it's service life. Compared to the 120km of the initial Sea Viper's service life. So I wouldn't start scoffing at the Asters if I were you.

From the USN official website, the range of ESSM is "classified", so moot point.

You seem to be confusing the definitions of short and medium range surface to air missiles.

All your justifications of Aster being "not adequate", only appear to be 'it's not as good as what the Americans have!' which is a silly argument. How about we scrap the QEs because they wont be as big as a Nimitz or Ford?

if you actually look at the performance of the system (then in comparison to what the RN had before), then things are a bit different.

on a final note. the harpoon missile is no longer acceptable 0-80km range what a joke. the MOD should develop its own surface strike missile comprising of a medium and long range anti-ship and surface strike missile 0-500km and 0-1000km to be fired from VLS not quad packed.

The type 26 frigate is much more improved, but its only as good as the missiles it carries.

This is already a potential for the future, TLAM or the MdCN from MBDA. All of which have the qualities you emphasise. Or Perseus in the far future circa 2030.

I find it hard to understand why in your opinion the T26 is an improvement, seeming as you've just spend a fair chunk of your time slagging off a far superior AAW system inc. radar than the T26 will have mounted in the form of CAMM.

 

[Anixtu]

currently HMS daring is deployed in the Falkland islands. yet she carries no anti-ship missiles, hell I don't even think she's been fitted with CIWS(phalanx).

Your rant gets off to a bad start. Of the first three objective statements, two are false, which a bit of basic research could have told you. Well done.

 

[StobieWan]

as usual the Mod fails to meet its so called target of quality not quantity.
The type 45 destroyer is one of the most costly and most ineffective warships in Europe.
currently HMS daring is deployed in the Falkland islands. yet she carries no anti-ship missiles, hell I don't even think she's been fitted with CIWS(phalanx). all royal navy ships should be general purpose and then specialise in a warfare field such as air defence with the type 45 (if you can even call the type 45 a specialist air defence destroyer).

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.

What the Mod needs is an extension on the CAMM similar to the american standard missile range. its needs a set of anti-air missiles from short range quad packed (0-50km) to medium ranged missile (0-150km), a long range missile (0-400km) and then possibly an anti ballistic missile. and all need to be capable of being VLS launched. expensive I know, but the aster family on-board type 45 is not adequate. and if the MOD cant produce its own anti-air missile family then we should quite simply adopt the american standard missiles comprising of ESSM, sm-6 and sm-3 for ballistic defence.

on a final note. the harpoon missile is no longer acceptable 0-80km range what a joke. the MOD should develop its own surface strike missile comprising of a medium and long range anti-ship and surface strike missile 0-500km and 0-1000km to be fired from VLS not quad packed.

The type 26 frigate is much more improved, but its only as good as the missiles it carries.

How are you spotting a sea skimming missile at those ranges ? The Standards were built around keeping high flying Soviet era missile carrying bombers away from the carrier groups. Right now I'd take something with shorter legs, but faster and with better end game manoeuvrability - which describes SeaViper nicely.

To be honest, I don't think your comments are very grounded in reality.

 

[RobWilliams]

How are you spotting a sea skimming missile at those ranges ? The Standards were built around keeping high flying Soviet era missile carrying bombers away from the carrier groups. Right now I'd take something with shorter legs, but faster and with better end game manoeuvrability - which describes SeaViper nicely.

To be honest, I don't think your comments are very grounded in reality.

Indeed, and considering what a T45 can do next to a Type 42, it's a very very high step up in capability. That's something more people should do IMO, rather than looking at the toys everyone else has, before they moan they should compare it to what they had before.

Apparently the USN is rather impressed with what the Darings can do, Rear Admiral Walter Carter commanding CSG12 (USS Enterprise) said the following about Diamond.

Bravo Zulu to HMS Diamond on an outstanding performance. You have integrated brilliantly and I am looking forward to working with you again in Carrier Strike Group 12.

But I do agree with him that the RN does need to have a more GP feel to it's ships, considering the hull numbers.

Now all we need are 3 - 4 AAW T-26 and we're laughing

 

[AegisFC]

as usual the Mod fails to meet its so called target of quality not quantity.
The type 45 destroyer is one of the most costly and most ineffective warships in Europe.

Go have a look at what the Type 45's cost then go look at what similar AAW ships cost. They are in the same ballpark cost wise but with the added benifit of a supurb engineering plant and better crew berthing facilities and lots of room for growth.

currently HMS daring is deployed in the Falkland islands. yet she carries no anti-ship missiles, hell I don't even think she's been fitted with CIWS(phalanx). all royal navy ships should be general purpose and then specialise in a warfare field such as air defence with the type 45 (if you can even call the type 45 a specialist air defence destroyer).

Phalanx is a bolt on/bolt off system and isn't needed for every deployment better ships going to the Persian Gulf have them than against a South American country that barely has a functioning navy and air force.
Also I love how you capitalize HMS but not the ship name.

 

[StobieWan]

Right now, to really cap off the AWD side, CEC would just be my best Christmas present! Yes, I'd like to see something of a surface to surface capability, amongst other things but CEC <please>


And I dare say the USN would have been a lot more impressed with Diamond if we'd had it right now. That'd be dream team combination.

 

[RobWilliams]

Right now, to really cap off the AWD side, CEC would just be my best Christmas present! Yes, I'd like to see something of a surface to surface capability, amongst other things but CEC <please>


And I dare say the USN would have been a lot more impressed with Diamond if we'd had it right now. That'd be dream team combination.

Definitely, it's important to remember that it's not dead exactly, just not seen as an imperitive capability in the eyes of the MOD. Hopefully some of the 8bn 'spare' in the next decade will be handed over for it. (I think it's 8bn in the decade anyway).

Considering how well Diamond appears to have integrated without CEC, imagine just how well it would with CEC. Might have a tango with a Ford class so we'll have that to look forward too

 

[AegisFC]

How are you spotting a sea skimming missile at those ranges ? The Standards were built around keeping high flying Soviet era missile carrying bombers away from the carrier groups. Right now I'd take something with shorter legs, but faster and with better end game manoeuvrability - which describes SeaViper nicely.

To be honest, I don't think your comments are very grounded in reality.

Yes but Standard has evolved nicely over the decades and it and the over all combat systems that use it has evolved to meet newer threats and it is to the point where the shape is the same but all the guts are much different.

Right now, to really cap off the AWD side, CEC would just be my best Christmas present! Yes, I'd like to see something of a surface to surface capability, amongst other things but CEC <please>
And I dare say the USN would have been a lot more impressed with Diamond if we'd had it right now. That'd be dream team combination.

Not getting CEC was a massively idiotic decision. The more I learn about it the more I am impressed with that system.

 

[RobWilliams]

Yes but Standard has evolved nicely over the decades and it and the over all combat systems that use it has evolved to meet newer threats and it is to the point where the shape is the same but all the guts are much different.

That's the sort of idea I was trying to tell to the original poster, who was saying how ineffective and useless Sea Viper was with it's measly 120km range.

Give it some time, it'll mature very nicely.

Not getting CEC was a massively idiotic decision. The more I learn about it the more I am impressed with that system.

IIRC (I think it was Stobie who told me about this) it was trialled on 2 Type 42 destroyers, and one had it's radar totally jammed but still got a confirmed hit on the target using a radar picture provided by the other T42.

I do hope i've got the details right, but that's remarkable.

 

[AegisFC]

IIRC (I think it was Stobie who told me about this) it was trialled on 2 Type 42 destroyers, and one had it's radar totally jammed but still got a confirmed hit on the target using a radar picture provided by the other T42.

I do hope i've got the details right, but that's remarkable.

I work at a facility with a CEC set and I've talked to sailors who were on the USN trials ships and everything I've heard has been impressive, it has the potential to be a game changer that isn't talked about very much.

 

[RobWilliams]

I work at a facility with a CEC set and I've talked to sailors who were on the USN trials ships and everything I've heard has been impressive, it has the potential to be a game changer that isn't talked about very much.

I suppose it's just generally thought that Link 16 does the job perfectly fine and CEC just isn't - really - neccesary.

Which is a shame for the RN, IIRC one of the reasons the Government used to justify the drop in T45 numbers was that CEC would pick up the slack, but i'm not 100% on that.

 

[harryLPF]

HMS Dauntless is deployed to the South Atlantic, it's spent months working down West Africa. Daring is back in the UK after being replaced by Diamond East of Suez.

The Lynx she carries can carry 4 Sea Skua missiles for ASuW

"If you can even call the type 45 a specialist air defence destroyer", that's a rather silly comment. The Darings were specifically designed for AAW as the SAMPSON/Sea Viper combination shows.

using lynx helicopters for anti submarine warfare is something which should be seen as a back-up, with now a days sophisticated sonar deployed on ships means weapon systems such as ASROCK missiles are much better suited for hunting submarines allowing a submarine to be destroyed whilst remaining 40 km away from it, a lynz helicopter is at risk from air defence weapon systems from enemy ships/land. this is something the MOD hasn't learnt yet. although I do believe we had a similar system on type 21 frigs.




According to RN, at it's best Sea Dart was ~128km, almost double the range when it came into service, but that was it's maximum at the edge of it's service life. Compared to the 120km of the initial Sea Viper's service life. So I wouldn't start scoffing at the Asters if I were you.

From the USN official website, the range of ESSM is "classified", so moot point.

You seem to be confusing the definitions of short and medium range surface to air missiles.

All your justifications of Aster being "not adequate", only appear to be 'it's not as good as what the Americans have!' which is a silly argument. How about we scrap the QEs because they wont be as big as a Nimitz or Ford?

if you actually look at the performance of the system (then in comparison to what the RN had before), then things are a bit different.

What i'am saying is that the 48 cells on the type 45 could be filled with combat proven missiles with superior range such as the ESSM/sm-3/sm-6, and make better use of those limited cells with the quad packed essm.





This is already a potential for the future, TLAM or the MdCN from MBDA. All of which have the qualities you emphasise. Or Perseus in the far future circa 2030.

I find it hard to understand why in your opinion the T26 is an improvement, seeming as you've just spend a fair chunk of your time slagging off a far superior AAW system inc. radar than the T26 will have mounted in the form of CAMM.

The type 45 destroyer has a 48 cell VLS. the type 26 has 24 strike cells for cruise missiles and 56 cells for anti air missiles. its ironic that the type 26 would be able to carry more aster 15/30 missiles than the type 45 ever could. give the type 26 the same radar and its a better AAW ship than the type 45. the type 26 is an improvement because it has a medium calibre gun and capability for cruise missiles which the type 45 does not, making it a ship with one purpose therefore useless when we've got so little hulls. all the royal navy surface combatants must be general purpose and then specialise especially when we've got so little of them.

 

[StobieWan]

I work at a facility with a CEC set and I've talked to sailors who were on the USN trials ships and everything I've heard has been impressive, it has the potential to be a game changer that isn't talked about very much.

I don't know *much* about it but the thing that flipped my switch on it was being brought to understand that you can generate composite tracks between two or more ships or indeed, anything with a radar set - such that you can share out a synthetic track where none of the platforms individually has a track but pooling their information all platforms have a solid hit.

Now, parking CEC on a Type 45, great, wonderful. But where I get more excited yet is the thought of getting CEC onto Type 26 - that'd make a massive difference to the ability of say, a pair of Type 26's to escort and self protect as they'd be effectively almost doubling the effectiveness of those Artisan 3D sets where they overlap.

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...

 

[StobieWan]

The type 45 destroyer has a 48 cell VLS. the type 26 has 24 strike cells for cruise missiles and 56 cells for anti air missiles..

No..It...Doesn't.

Type 26 has 48 cells dedicated for CAMM - they're too short, too narrow and not stressed to cope with the launch of Aster...


The only cells on the Type 26 that can take Aster are the strike cells sitting behind the CAMM silos and the Phalanx.

Your batting average so far isn't great.

 

[RobWilliams]

The type 45 destroyer has a 48 cell VLS. the type 26 has 24 strike cells for cruise missiles and 56 cells for anti air missiles. its ironic that the type 26 would be able to carry more aster 15/30 missiles than the type 45 ever could. give the type 26 the same radar and its a better AAW ship than the type 45. the type 26 is an improvement because it has a medium calibre gun and capability for cruise missiles which the type 45 does not, making it a ship with one purpose therefore useless when we've got so little hulls. all the royal navy surface combatants must be general purpose and then specialise especially when we've got so little of them.

What Stobie said. CAMM launchers can't use Asters.

Depending on the 24 cells in the main silo, those could fire Asters (T26 is being offered in an AAW config) but for a GP/ASW frigate, this is inadvisable. Unless of course the RN procured some extra in AAW configuration (a course of action i'd prefer), I wouldn't expect - or agree with - launching Aster from the Type 26 main missile silo.

IIRC The Type 45 will get a medium calibre gun eventually too in a future refit, at least I think this is the case. I'd love someone to confirm/deny.

Now, parking CEC on a Type 45, great, wonderful. But where I get more excited yet is the thought of getting CEC onto Type 26 - that'd make a massive difference to the ability of say, a pair of Type 26's to escort and self protect as they'd be effectively almost doubling the effectiveness of those Artisan 3D sets where they overlap.

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...

It'd be a VERY good leg up for the Type 26 in AAW and ASuW (at least, i think ASuW would benefit) + would give the RN plenty more bang for their buck, especially in a future UK CBG scenario.

Personally, I believe we should be making more of an effort to integrate with the USN considering there will be less USN assets this side of the mainland in the future so we'll be working with them more to make up the numbers.

 

[harryLPF]

No..It...Doesn't.

Type 26 has 48 cells dedicated for CAMM - they're too short, too narrow and not stressed to cope with the launch of Aster...


The only cells on the Type 26 that can take Aster are the strike cells sitting behind the CAMM silos and the Phalanx.

Your batting average so far isn't great.

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.

 

[Anixtu]

using lynx helicopters for anti submarine warfare is something which should be seen as a back-up,

He said ASuW. That is Anti-Surface Warfare.

Merlin is the primary ASW helicopter. Merlin reaches further than ASROC. Every navy of note in the world uses ASW helicopters. ASROC cannot hunt a submarine on its own. Merlin can.

although I do believe we had a similar system on type 21 frigs.

You may be thinking of Ikara on the Leander class.

combat proven missiles with superior range such as the ESSM/sm-3/sm-6

Please detail the occasions on which the noted missiles were proven in combat.

The type 45 destroyer has a 48 cell VLS. the type 26 has 24 strike cells for cruise missiles and 56 cells for anti air missiles. its ironic that the type 26 would be able to carry more aster 15/30 missiles than the type 45 ever could.

No. The T26 design presented so far has 48 single-purpose cells for Sea Ceptor. It could carry a maximum of 24 Aster missiles if it was fitted with a Sylver VLS, or if Aster was integrated with Mk41.

the type 26 is an improvement because it has a medium calibre gun and capability for cruise missiles which the type 45 does not,

T45 has a medium calibre gun. I am surprised you haven't noticed it. It's the gunny looking thing on the front in all the photos. It also has space reserved for an additional VLS which could be used for cruise missiles, much as T26 could carry cruise missiles.

 

[Anixtu]

so if each cell can hold 4 missiles.. that means 192 ceptor missiles abit obsessive.

They can't. Sea Ceptor is one missile per dedicated cell. It quadpacks in Sylver or Mk41.

they should have made them more adaptable so longer range anti air missiles could also be carried.

They can be. In the other VLS. If you really want to. It may be that the CAMM VLS could be ommitted and the Sylver/Mk41 VLS extended, perhaps by 1.5x or 2x.

 

[RobWilliams]

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.

48 missiles total.

48 canisters, 1 missile per launch canister = 48 missiles.

They're perfectly adequate for FLAADS, and AFAIK a much better missile than Seawolf. IIRC CAMM has something around 3x the range of Seawolf.