Type 45 destroyer

[Palnatoke]

1805

PAAMs is the good thing about the 45s. PAAMs is the thing that mark the Type45 amoung the, at least on paper, best AAWs in the world and, at least on paper, it's better than AEGIS.

PAAMs is also one of those things that a country like the UK, just has to surport so that europe maintains this cabability of making something extraordinary, that won't be reversed engineered in China and then mass produced for a couple of bowls of rice. And as I said before if you can make PAAMs then building the hull is not the biggest challenge.

You mentioned the Absalon class. Now this ship is not comparable to T45s or the other AAW frigates coming out of europe. But the in-construction derivved class of AAW frigates of Hvitfeldt class will be. They will sport a combination of (variable) guns, Harpoons, ESSM, SM2 together with an APAR-Smart-L sensor suite. (like the dutch and german ships). Furthermore the ships will through their VLS system be suitable for f.ex. a cruisemissle upgrade and can easely be equiped with a 127mm gun and have fair cababilities in ASW warfare. So the ship has a multirole option build in.
The initial idea were, to my understanding, to have the area air defense and, using extended range ammo, the 127mm surporting landforces some 100 km inshore, the Abs would then act as a gun (127mm)/ light assult (two helis)/surport ship. Quite ambitious for a small navy like the danish.

These ships will, like the Abs, also be very cheap, as a consequvence of superior project management, handling of industrial processes as well as the excellent handling of a private-public relationship. And importantly a low risc aproch to the delicate systems. F.ex. the thales APAR radar will be/is being fitted in working condition to the mast module in Holland by thales and that module will be fitted to the ship back in Lindø under the supervision of Thales (so if there is something wrong, Thales is to blame and will pay) same approch with the VLS and it was the same approch when the main gun of the ABS class were fitted.


.

 

[Palnatoke]

I think we do need to keep the capability to build the hulls but you have a point about a sort of command economy. I do think we need to thing strategically and focus on the areas that ahve ALL three of the following:
Truely strategic
We have the capability or can develop the capability to build as good as the rest (not necessarily best in class)
We have an internal demand or export demand that is substainable across the economic cycle.

I would really value everyones open minded view of this as if you apply all three of these you come to some interesting answers try it MBT, SSBN

MBT we only need 250? how long do they last? we have limited current export success answer buy in?
SSBN, we can only operate 4, no export potential, is it really strategic we build them, if there was a global conflict we wouldn't build more...answer why don't we get the French to build for us as they have same problem?

But one thing we must do is what the German/Italians agreed with the U212a an exacting counter trade deal, ie the French buy equivalent in our core areas, not a JV where they alwasy shaft us?

Ship building;

UK defense does not have a volumne that allows you to maintain a healthy shipbuilding industry. you can keep a few highly specialized yards afloat, but these yards are at a disadvantage if they cannot (which is the case) compete on a international commercial market. Other competiative yards that compete on the large volumne international commercial market will have quite different means and incentiatives to keep themslves efficient.
But, You can keep them afloat, but that comes at a high price.

Now you could speculate that UK yards could make a dent in an international weapons market, though they are confronted with at least two disadvantages: 1) Since the UK doesn't buy warships abroad (which it can't because it HAS to spend it's budget at home to keep domestic yards afloat) why should, say the french, buy ships of you?
2) Why should your yards be able to compete on that market? Don't you think that the, say, germans who can compete on the commercial market would have some advantages in that game as well?

 

[1805]

My point about the Absalon class was that I like the multi role capability of the ships and I think there is a Deadnought moment where you could combine T45 capability with this type of ship. I think for minimal impact on cost actually maybe cheaper than a two ships.

I do like the Sampson radar which I think we could have combined with SM2/ESSM VLS and maybe this is the type of kit we should major and use in counter trade with countriesso we can have a strong position in these industries.

The RN has clout in naval cycles well some and if we buy a piece of kit it will encourage sales. What price would the french scarific for 4 SSBN built in French yards, buy Excocet if they buy Spearfish and RR engines. I see radar, gas turbines, torpedos being key areas well for starter

 

[kev 99]

KEV

Plz entertain the following possibility:

Maybe the economical demise of the DDR (former east germany) was rooted not in lazy germans, but in the possibiity that you can't run an industry from a desk in a goverment office. That you can't have an healthy industry that every year is asked to produce N left shoes, K right shoes divided into J shoe sizes - Production numbers carefully estimated by the office of statistics.

The point is that, if you do like the DDR you are going to end up with neither the bad nor the good; you are going to end up with nothing.

You need to adapt, always maximizing your efforts in areas in which you have comparative advantages. If britain aren't good at building hulls (that's fair to assume, glancing over the order book of british yards) maybe brits should leave that to others and instead concentrate your efforts in areas were you are at your best.

To build "a hull" of a type 45 is not rocket sience (though, to build a hull cheaply might be), but to build a system like PAAMS etc. is rocket science. So maintaining the cabability to design and construct the difficult stuff, is enough. EVERYBODY can build the hulls (though not everybody can build them cheaply). So keep the engine manufactors, the arms manufactors. the radar guys, the pump maker, the safty equipment manufactor etc. and leave to troublesome work of flicking the iron together to people that are good at that.

Which, btw, also ramms a thick stick through the "We need to be able to build or own warships" since much of the RN weaponry is foreign devised, designed and sometimes also foreign produced. Aster comes to mind, which is a french/Itallien designed missile. Harpoon is another example.

None of which makes any difference to the point I was making, the British Government wants to keep the ability to build warships, it is doing so by running its ship yards at minimum capacity, none of the arguments I have presented argued for or against this. Your argument is based solely on economics, but the decision has been made solely on political grounds.

The argument about weapon systems is an interesting point because the Government has made almost the opposite choice; develop some systems and buy in others because of the economics of weapons development; its hard to get enough clever people and it costs too much money to do everything yourselves.

So what we have here is a Government that has decided to keep ship production in house because its relatively easy to do but expensive, and only retain some capability in weapons development because its less easy to do and considerably more expensive. The alternative is to do neither and retain very little capability at all.

PAAMs is also one of those things that a country like the UK, just has to surport so that europe maintains this cabability of making something extraordinary, that won't be reversed engineered in China and then mass produced for a couple of bowls of rice. And as I said before if you can make PAAMs then building the hull is not the biggest challenge.

Certainaly agree that we should fully support PAAMS and continued upgrades for it, sadly I don't even think that's on the radar (pardon the pun), right now, money is too tight.

@1805 - Yes there is a lot that is wrong with the British procurement process, most of which lies very near the top; a Government that has four defence ministers in 4 years, one of which is only part time is conducive to a consistent policy, then there's the MOD itself..........

 

[Palnatoke]

1805

Consider this.

There is always a transaction cost. If I provide you with a service, I would charge you both my cost, my profit and a transaction cost. But if you hire me, you could elimate the transaction cost by bringing me "in-house".

Firm A, has one customer, namely customer C.

Don't you think that it would be advantageous for customer C, to simply buy Firm A (elimating the transaction cost)???

Now consider the following; assume a situation in which the only significant customer of remaining large british yards are the british state. Wouldn't it be advantageous for the state to buy the yards? (if you answered yes to the above, you should also answer yes here) .

Question:
Do you think that a state owned shipbuilding industry is desirable?

 

[1805]

The RN does have the largest warship spend outside the US & Japan for a developed nation and labour cost are actually not greater in the UK than German. There are some issues with UK ship building but this can be overcome if we use our RN construction wisely. Spain does have labour advantage but the main cost is systems. Japan build ships at a fraction of the cost but this is because they buy in systems they have operated Aegis for c15 years. I am sure the T45 will be better along as you didn't want a fight in the last 15 years!

 

[Palnatoke]

"So what we have here is a Government that has decided to keep ship production in house because its relatively easy to do but expensive, and only retain some capability in weapons development because its less easy to do and considerably more expensive. The alternative is to do neither and retain very little capability at all."

No, because a country like britain should be able to stay competiative in making complex or delicate systems like arms or engines etc.
Fact is that Britain is competiative in such systems.

But raw shipbuilding is not something that you are competiative in - a claim that is echoed by the complete demise of once mighty british shipbuilding.

British shipbuilding (in a large sense) can survive as a buisness f.ex. as subcontractors. A british ship engine firm can survive as sub contractors to, say, a german yard.

 

[1805]

if you a subcontracting you might as well go cheaper than German, Spain. I think for exports we can be competitve, at the RN can help sell, I think we should return to a sort of "prize" money bonus paid to captains for securing sales on their trips. German yards don't compete that mcuh on cost. The U212a/214 is design excellence. UK has had fair exports but not with RN designs and this should be a strength

 

[Palnatoke]

The RN does have the largest warship spend outside the US & Japan for a developed nation and labour cost are actually not greater in the UK than German. There are some issues with UK ship building but this can be overcome if we use our RN construction wisely. Spain does have labour advantage but the main cost is systems. Japan build ships at a fraction of the cost but this is because they buy in systems they have operated Aegis for c15 years. I am sure the T45 will be better along as you didn't want a fight in the last 15 years!

Compare the volume of the commercial ship building market, with the millitary shipbuilding market, and understand that the big money is in the commercial market.

Spain's navantia (spelling?) is goverment owned and without saying a bad word of our spanish brothers I think that's all we need to say about the "succes" of navantia. Same goes with Itally's Finmechanica (spelling?)

Germany and Holland have a viable shipbuilding industry that specialise in complex ships. France has some commercial industry focused on even more specialized ships (luxury liners etc). Germany and France are leading millitary exporters. Why these countries can make it work and british yards can't is a question for the brits. Personally I suspect that inadequate industrial policies by british goverments is to blame.

 

[kev 99]

No, because a country like britain should be able to stay competiative in making complex or delicate systems like arms or engines etc.
Fact is that Britain is competiative in such systems.

But raw shipbuilding is not something that you are competiative in - a claim that is echoed by the complete demise of once mighty british shipbuilding.

British shipbuilding (in a large sense) can survive as a buisness f.ex. as subcontractors. A british ship engine firm can survive as sub contractors to, say, a german yard.

Britain is competitive in some of the areas that we wish to compete in, others we are not competitive because larger producers like the US can exercise economies of scale that we cannot dream of, still others we choose not to compete in at all because we can't afford to support it.

Warship production only needs to be competitive if export customers are being sought, otherwise its just a form of subsidy to keep a capability and workers in jobs, its not economically ideal but it does keep people doing useful things and not sat on their backsides all day collecting benefits, and of course much of the money spent on these ships does come back to HM treasury in Corporation and Income tax. This is the model that the UK has been maintaining for years, like I said its not really ideal and it may change in the future as the FSC programme is being designed with exports in mind (or so we are told), but then only time will tell.

Britain does still export naval vessels, there are a couple of programmes that are ongoing at the moment, so its not all bad news for British ship building.

Personally I suspect that inadequate industrial policies by british goverments is to blame.

Absolutely the case, but you could also make the case that its a failure to promote the value of engineering as a whole, Germany is very strong in this area, we're not and its seem by many as an Industry with no money in it, teenagers are often discouraged by this as a result.

 

[Palnatoke]

With regard to shipbuilding you need not fear the US.

Warship production only needs to be competitive if export customers are being sought, otherwise its just a form of subsidy to keep a capability and workers in jobs, its not economically ideal but it does keep people doing useful things and not sat on their backsides all day collecting benefits, and of course much of the money spent on these ships does come back to HM treasury in Corporation and Income tax. This is the model that the UK has been maintaining for years, like I said its not really ideal and it may change in the future as the FSC programme is being designed with exports in mind (or so we are told), but then only time will tell.

Well, maybe you can go where DDR stumbled :

My humble suggestion is to build your ships in, say germany with nice buy back deals for competiative british subcontractors in that way you maybe keep your subcontractors and cabability to build warships in european NATO. It would not only be a shame but also questionable to buy your ships in China.
Biut ofcourse the pockets of the tax payers are deep, and if you insist on wasting tax payers money by funding a uncompetiative domestic shipbuilding cabability then ofcourse; carry on.

 

[kev 99]

With regard to shipbuilding you need not fear the US.



Well, maybe you can go where DDR stumbled :

I'm aware of the US ship building industry not exactly being the most efficient or value for money.

My humble suggestion is to build your ships in, say germany with nice buy back deals for competiative british subcontractors in that way you maybe keep your subcontractors and cabability to build warships in european NATO. It would not only be a shame but also questionable to buy your ships in China.
Biut ofcourse the pockets of the tax payers are deep, and if you insist on wasting tax payers money by funding a uncompetiative domestic shipbuilding cabability then ofcourse; carry on.

THE MARS project for the RFA is almost certainly going to be built abroad with fitting out in UK yards, system integration mostly I would say. There's three contenders including South Korea, Italy and one other.

 

[Palnatoke]

THE MARS project for the RFA is almost certainly going to be built abroad with fitting out in UK yards, system integration mostly I would say. There's three contenders including South Korea, Italy and one other.

Sounds like a good idea, to me.

 

[1805]

Actually I do support buying some ships in foriegn yards but only if we get value back which is more than just work for people, but builds our strategic capabilites. ie engines, torpedos, radar, (its amazing how few we do have strength).

We do have volume over other developed countries but you are so right about, Government/MOD/defence chiefs lack of clear direction and also the decline of even basic industrial capability.

It is an important strategic point to retain some defence based ship building (and this is worth paying for).

A big grip for me is the lack of continues development of systems we build something and then don't develop. A long time again but why build Sea Eagle if you then by Harpoon (no issue with buying Harpoon but why was money on an airlaunched missle. Why have Sea Wolf and Rapier (they do share some common parts but still)

 

[AndrewMI]

1805

PAAMs is the good thing about the 45s. PAAMs is the thing that mark the Type45 amoung the, at least on paper, best AAWs in the world and, at least on paper, it's better than AEGIS.

PAAMs is also one of those things that a country like the UK, just has to surport so that europe maintains this cabability of making something extraordinary, that won't be reversed engineered in China and then mass produced for a couple of bowls of rice. And as I said before if you can make PAAMs then building the hull is not the biggest challenge.

You mentioned the Absalon class. Now this ship is not comparable to T45s or the other AAW frigates coming out of europe. But the in-construction derivved class of AAW frigates of Hvitfeldt class will be. They will sport a combination of (variable) guns, Harpoons, ESSM, SM2 together with an APAR-Smart-L sensor suite. (like the dutch and german ships). Furthermore the ships will through their VLS system be suitable for f.ex. a cruisemissle upgrade and can easely be equiped with a 127mm gun and have fair cababilities in ASW warfare. So the ship has a multirole option build in.
The initial idea were, to my understanding, to have the area air defense and, using extended range ammo, the 127mm surporting landforces some 100 km inshore, the Abs would then act as a gun (127mm)/ light assult (two helis)/surport ship. Quite ambitious for a small navy like the danish.

These ships will, like the Abs, also be very cheap, as a consequvence of superior project management, handling of industrial processes as well as the excellent handling of a private-public relationship. And importantly a low risc aproch to the delicate systems. F.ex. the thales APAR radar will be/is being fitted in working condition to the mast module in Holland by thales and that module will be fitted to the ship back in Lindø under the supervision of Thales (so if there is something wrong, Thales is to blame and will pay) same approch with the VLS and it was the same approch when the main gun of the ABS class were fitted.


.

It will be good to get PAAMS up and running. Hopefully it will be a system that will be continualy worked on and upgraded as and when. In theory, it sounds great and so long as the baseline is there it can be worked on and improved in the future.

Looking into the long term the only "hole" in the system would be lack of a balistic missile capability. It would be very suprising if this was not being looked at. Whether this is the sort of challenge the PAAMS team can tackle without cross-pond assistance will be interesting.

 

[swerve]

It's being worked on by MBDA, at least for land-based applications, & should be portable to ships. Enhanced Aster 30 for short range ballistic missiles, & a prospective new missile (or maybe just new upper stage with the Aster 30 booster) for longer range ones. The SMART-L radar (of which S1850M is a variant) has been tested against ballistic missiles, & shown to be suitable. This all suggests that an entirely European solution is feasible.

 

[radar07]

the question is, if smart-l or s-1850m can only be used as bmd-early warning radar or if it's able to provide enough data for the entire firing sequence.
smart-l rotates with 12 rpm (=> update rate 5 sec), the s-1850m is quoted to have a "slightly higher rotation speed". does anybody knows it? from type-45 videos i would guess 15 rpm (=> 4 sec update rate).
imho another radar (-> sampson, apar) is needed for the fire control itself.

 

[swerve]

imho another radar (-> sampson, apar) is needed for the fire control itself.

Yes, I think you're right.

 

[AndrewMI]

It's being worked on by MBDA, at least for land-based applications, & should be portable to ships. Enhanced Aster 30 for short range ballistic missiles, & a prospective new missile (or maybe just new upper stage with the Aster 30 booster) for longer range ones. The SMART-L radar (of which S1850M is a variant) has been tested against ballistic missiles, & shown to be suitable. This all suggests that an entirely European solution is feasible.

Thanks. That seems positive. Although there would be a large amount of obsticles to achieving this i imagine, including i imagine larger silo's on the T45. Hopefully the Sampson radar is suitable for the task - presumably with some modifications - so that should see minimal change to the ships systems.

This could be important given Iran's ambitions and potential capabilities.

 

[IPA35]

About the Type-45...

Are they getting CIWS's and ASM's?
It is laughable that they are not planning to install them.