UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4660
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby SKB » 01 May 2015, 12:25

Edit by The Armchair Soldier:

Please Read Before Posting:
To prevent important news items from being bogged down by general discussion, we have decided to split this topic. This topic will now be used for news only. You are encouraged to post news in this thread - as well as discuss it - but please do not allow your discussions to meander onto other topics and keep speculation to a minimum.

For general discussion, please use the newly-created Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion topic. Within that topic, you may discuss the Type 45 more broadly, as well as the current and future escort fleet in general.

Please Private Message an administrator if you need further clarification on these changes.

_________________________________________________________________

Original post by SKB:

Image
^ HMS Daring (D32), first of the Type 45 class.

Introduction
The Type 45 destroyer, also known as the D or Daring-class, is an advanced class of guided missile destroyers built for the Royal Navy. The class is primarily designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare and is built around the PAAMS (Sea Viper) air-defence system utilising the SAMPSON AESA and the S1850M long-range radars. The first three destroyers were assembled by BAE Systems Surface Fleet Solutions from partially prefabricated blocks built at different shipyards, the remaining three were built by BAE Systems Maritime – Naval Ships. The first ship in the Daring class, HMS Daring, was launched on 1st February 2006 and commissioned on 23rd July 2009.

The Type 45 destroyers were built to replace the Type 42 destroyers that had served during the Falklands War, with the last Type 42 being decommissioned in 2013. The National Audit Office reported that, during an "intensive attack", a single Type 45 could simultaneously track, engage and destroy more targets than five Type 42 destroyers operating together. After the launch of Daring on 1 February 2006 Admiral Sir Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, stated that it would be the Royal Navy's most capable destroyer ever, as well as the world's best air-defence ship. The reduction in the number to be procured from twelve, then to eight and eventually down to six (in 2008) was controversial.

Development
The UK had sought to procure a new class air-defence destroyers in collaboration with seven other NATO nations under the NFR-90 project, the project later collapsed due to varying requirements of the different countries involved. The UK then joined France and later Italy in the Horizon-class frigate programme; however, differing national requirements, workshare arguments and delays led to the UK withdrawing on 26 April 1999 and starting its own national project. On 23 November 1999 Marconi Electronic Systems or MES was confirmed as prime contractor for the Type 45 project. Seven days later MES and British Aerospace merged to form BAE Systems, making the latter the prime contractor.

The Type 45 project has been criticised for rising costs and delays, with the ships costing £6.46 billion, an increase of £1.5 billion (29%) on the original budget. The first ship entered service in 2010, rather than 2007 as initially planned. In 2007, the Defence Select Committee expressed its disappointment that the MoD and BAE had failed to control rising costs.

Construction
The Type 45 destroyers take advantage of some Horizon development work and utilise the Sea Viper air-defence system and the SAMPSON radar. The ships are built by BAE Systems Maritime – Naval Ships, originally created as BVT Surface Fleet by the merger of the surface shipbuilding arms of BAE Systems and VT Group. These two companies previously built the ships in collaboration. BAE's two Glasgow shipyards and single Portsmouth shipyard are responsible for different "blocks". BAE's Govan yard is responsible for Block A (stern to edge of helicopter hangar). The Scotstoun yard builds Blocks B/C (a 2600 tonne section which contains the Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines, starts with the helicopter hangar to the bridge section) and Block D (bridge section itself). BAE's Portsmouth shipyard were responsible for Blocks E/F (bridge to the bow) and the funnels and masts. For ships 2 to 6 blocks A-D are assembled in the Ships Block and Outfit Hall of the Govan shipyard, and taken fully outfitted to the Scotstoun berth. The masts and funnels were also fitted before launch.

For the first-of-class, Block A was assembled at Govan and moved to Scotstoun, where it was mated to Block B/C, which was already fitted with the WR-21 turbines and machinery. Block D, also assembled at Scotstoun, was fitted to these three blocks. The bow sections (E/F) were mated at Portsmouth and taken by barge to Scotstoun. These were the final blocks to be attached. At this point the hull was launched into the Clyde and towed to the Scotstoun Dry Dock where the masts and funnels were fitted (the masts are partially outfitted with equipment, for example the mast for the S1850M radar is sent from Portsmouth to Thales Nederland to be fitted with radar equipment). Once this is complete, the remaining equipment is fitted: radar arrays, bow-mounted sonar, propellers, missile equipment and 4.5-inch gun.

This modular construction arrangement was agreed in February 2002. However, when the original contract for three ships was signed in July 2000, BAE Systems Marine was to build the first and third ships, and Vosper Thornycroft (now VT) was to build the second.

By the end of 2010, all six Type 45 destroyers had been launched; with the first two in commission and the remainder fitting out. In 2012, with all destroyers structurally complete and production lines closed. Duncan, the last of the Type 45 destroyers, was commissioned at Portsmouth Naval Base on 26 September 2013, and entered service in 2014 after trials and training.

The Daring class are the largest escorts ever built for the Royal Navy in terms of displacement.

In 2009, delivery of the ships' Aster missiles was delayed due to a failure during testing. A subsequent investigation revealed a manufacturing fault with a single batch of missiles and delivery of the Aster 30 is back on schedule.

Characteristics
The Type 45 destroyers are 152.4 m (500 ft) in length, with a beam of 21.2 m (70 ft) and a draught of 7.4 m. (24.3 ft) This makes them significantly larger than the Type 42 they replace, displacing approximately 8,500 tonnes compared to 5,200 tonnes of the Type 42. The Type 45 destroyers are the first British warships built to meet the Lloyd's Register's Naval Ship Rules for hull structure requiring design approval by Lloyd's Register for the principal structural arrangements of the vessel. BAE Systems is the Design Authority for the Type 45, a role traditionally held by the UK Ministry of Defence. The design of the Type 45 brings new levels of radar signature reduction to the Royal Navy. Deck equipment and life rafts are concealed behind the ship's superstructure panels, producing a very "clean" superstructure somewhat similar to the French La Fayette-class frigates. The mast is also sparingly equipped externally. Speculation by the press suggests that this design gives the ship the radar cross-section of a small fishing boat.

The Daring class is notable for being the first Royal Navy vessels to include gender-neutral living spaces to accommodate male and female crew members; communal shower and heads facilities have given way to individual cubicles, and six-person berths for junior ratings are far more flexible in accommodating a mixture of male and female sailors. Men and women will continue to sleep in separate spaces, in common with most other navies.

Propulsion
The Type 45 is fitted with an innovative integrated electric propulsion (IEP) system. Historically, electric-drive ships have supplied power to their electric motors using DC, and ship's electrical load, where necessary at all, was either separately supplied or was supplied as DC with a large range of acceptable voltage. Integrated electric propulsion seeks to supply all propulsion and ship's electrical load via AC at a high quality of voltage and frequency. This is achieved by computerised control, high quality transformation and electrical filtering. Two Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbine alternators and two Wärtsilä 12V200 diesel generators provide electrical power at 4,160 volts to a high voltage system. The high voltage supply is then used to provide power to two GE Power Conversion advanced induction motors with outputs of 20 MW (27,000 hp) each. Ship's services, including hotel load and weapons system power supplies, are supplied via transformers from the high voltage supply at 440 V and 115 V. The benefits of integrated electric propulsion are cited as:

The ability to place the electric motors closer to the propeller, thus shortening the shaftline, obviating the need for a gearbox or controllable pitch propellers, and reducing exposure to action damage.

The opportunity to place prime movers (diesel generators and gas turbine alternators) at convenient locations away from the shaftline, thus reducing the space lost to funnels, while at the same time improving access for maintenance and engine changes.

The freedom to run all propulsion and ship services from a single prime mover for much of the ship's life, thus dramatically reducing engine running hours and emissions.

Key to the efficient use of a single prime mover is the choice of a gas turbine that provides efficiency over a large load range; the WR-21 gas turbine incorporates compressor intercooling and exhaust heat recovery, making it significantly more efficient than previous marine gas turbines, especially at low and medium load.

The combination of greater efficiency and high fuel capacity give an endurance of 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h).[34] High power density and the hydrodynamic efficiency of a longer hull form allow high speeds to be sustained. It has been reported that Daring reached her design speed of 29 knots (54 km/h) in 70 seconds and achieved a speed of 31.5 knots (58 km/h) in 120 seconds during sea-trials in August 2007.

In January 2016 the Ministry of Defence acknowledged the propulsion system was experiencing reliability issues, previously reported as nothing more than "teething troubles". A staggered refit was also announced, which will involve cutting into the ships hull and fitting additional generation capacity. The reliability issues lead to occasional near-complete power generation failures, temporarily disabling propulsion, weapons and navigational systems.

Advanced Air Defence
The Type 45 destroyers are primarily designed for anti-air warfare with the capability to defend against sophisticated targets such as fighter aircraft, drones as well as highly maneuverable sea skimming anti-ship missiles travelling at supersonic speeds. The Royal Navy describes the destroyers' mission as being "to shield the Fleet from air attack".

The Type 45 destroyer is equipped with the sophisticated Sea Viper (PAAMS) air-defence system utilizing the SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function radar and the S1850M long-range radar. The PAAMS system is able to track over 2,000 targets and simultaneously control and coordinate multiple missiles in the air at once, allowing a large number of tracks to be intercepted and destroyed at any given time. This makes the PAAMS system particularly difficult to swamp during a saturation attack, even against supersonic targets. The US Naval War College has suggested that the SAMPSON radar is capable of tracking 1,000 objects the size of a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound (Mach 3), emphasising the system's capabilities against high performance stealth targets.

A core component of the PAAMS air-defence system is the Aster missile, composing of the Aster 15 and Aster 30. MBDA describe Aster as a "hit-to-kill" anti-missile missile capable of intercepting all types of high performance air threats at a maximum range of 120 km. The Aster missile is autonomously guided and equipped with an active RF seeker enabling it to cope with "saturated attacks" thanks to a "multiple engagement capability" and a "high rate of fire". Presently the Daring-class destroyers are equipped with a 48-cell A50 Sylver Vertical Launching System allowing for a mix of up-to 48 Aster 15 and 30 missiles.

In addition to its anti-air warfare role, PAAMS offers additional ballistic missile defence capabilities. In March 2013 the United States Naval Institute reported that the Royal Navy along with the United States Missile Defense Agency will explore the potential of the Daring class providing ballistic missile defence in Europe along with United States Navy Aegis equipped destroyers. In May 2014, it was reported by Jane's Information Group that the United Kingdom is committing more funds to explore the capabilities of the SAMPSON multi-function radar and the Type 45 destroyer in a ballistic missile defence role. This followed a successful live firing event hundreds of miles north of Kwajalein Atoll in the Western Pacific Ocean, where Daring demonstrated the ability to "detect at the earliest opportunity" and track "through to intercept" two medium-range ballistic missiles. BAE systems reportedly told Jane's that the SAMPSON multi-function radar "exceeded expectations in all respects". An "Experiment Concurrency and Cueing (TECC)" event for the Type 45 is planned for late 2015.

Because of the marked increase in capabilities delivered by the Type 45 destroyers in relation to their predecessors, the exceptionally high price per ship, and the large amount of public attention they have attracted, defence analysts and correspondents commonly refer to the Daring class as being the "most advanced" or "most powerful" air-defence destroyers in the world. Likewise, the ships' builders BAE Systems claim; "Able to detect and track hundreds of targets simultaneously, the Type 45 Destroyer is recognised as the most advanced anti-air warfare vessel in the world." Nick Brown the editor-in-chief of Jane’s International Defence Review was quoted by The Huffington Post (a US online news aggregator and blog) saying, "It’s [Type 45 destroyer] certainly one of the most advanced air defence ships in the world... The US Aegis system is similar, but Sea Viper is more advanced."

Weapons, Countermeasures, Capabilities and Sensors

Anti-air warfare
The Sea Viper air-defence system:
* SAMPSON active electronically scanned array multi-function air tracking radar, capable of tracking hundreds of targets (range 400 km).
* S1850M 3D long-range air surveillance radar, capable of tracking up-to 1,000 targets (range 400 km).

A 48-cell A50 Sylver Vertical Launching System for a mix of up-to 48:
* Aster 15 missiles (range 1.7–30 km).
* Aster 30 Block 0 missiles (range 3–120 km).

The Type 45 does not have a formal theatre ballistic missile defence (TBMD) capability but its potential for such a role is being assessed.[49] Land-based Aster 30 Block 1 missiles have intercepted short-range ballistic missiles[50] and trials of a land-based SAMPSON modified for BMD were planned for early 2012. It is said that the first ship, Daring, is engaged in ballistic defence trials with the US Missile Defence Agency (MDA) in as part of a major research and development programme.

Guns
* 1× BAE Systems 4.5" Mark 8 Mod 1 naval gun. As of November 2011 the Mk8 Mod 1 is scheduled to remain in service until the 2030s, with a Mod 2 upgrade along the way to address obsolescence. The limitations of the 4.5" gun mean it is likely that the Type 45 will receive a new gun before then, the same Medium-Calibre Gun System (MCGS) that is being procured to meet the Maritime Indirect Fire System (MIFS) requirement of the new Global Combat Ship. The MCGS will almost certainly be either the Otobreda 127/64 LW or the BAE Mk45 Mod 4 5"/62; a tender for the Type 26 guns was issued in November 2012. In 2015, the Mark 45 was selected for the Type 26 frigate.
* 2× Oerlikon 30 mm guns on single DS-30B mounts.
* 2× Phalanx 20 mm caliber close-in weapons systems (CIWS).
* 2× 7.62 mm miniguns.
* up to 6× General Purpose Machine Guns.

Aviation
The flight deck of the Type 45 is large enough to accommodate aircraft up to the size of a Chinook helicopter. It has hangar space for either one Merlin HM1 or two Lynx helicopters. Both types have a dipping sonar, sonobuoys and radar; the Merlin carries four anti-submarine Sting Ray torpedoes whilst the smaller Lynx HMA8 carries either two Sting Ray or four Sea Skua anti-ship missiles. From 2015 the Lynx will be replaced in RN service by the AW159 Wildcat whose weapons will include the Lightweight Multirole Missile and FASGW(H) missile.

Anti-ship, submarine and land-attack
* It was revealed through a FOIA request in August 2013 that four of the six Type 45 destroyers would receive Harpoon launchers recycled from the last four decommissioned Type 22 frigates. On 2 March 2015, Duncan set sail on her maiden deployment equipped with Harpoon anti-ship missiles. On 23 March 2015, the crew of Diamond were reunited with their ship following a refit, which included the installation of Harpoon. HMS Daring is currently undergoing maintenance to receive Harpoon missiles.
* The Type 45 has a bow-mounted medium-frequency Ultra/EDO MFS-7000 sonar but its main anti-submarine weapon is its helicopter(s). As of August 2013 there are no plans to fit anti-submarine torpedo tubes.
* The 4.5" Mark 8 Mod 1 naval gun has an anti-ship and naval gunfire support (NGS) role.

Countermeasures
* The Seagnat decoy system allows for the seduction and distraction of radar guided weapons, through active and passive means. An infrared countermeasure device is planned for future retrofits.
* Airborne Systems's Naval Decoy IDS300 floating naval decoy system (corner reflectors).
* Surface Ship Torpedo Defence System (SSTD) active torpedo decoy system.

Communications and other systems
* Fully Integrated Communications System (FICS45) - a combined external and internal communications system supplied by Thales and Selex ES Ltd.
* In 2012, the UAT Mod2.0 digital Radar Electronic Surveillance system was fitted to Daring and Diamond as part of a £40m contract with Thales UK that will see UAT Mod2.1 fitted to the other Type 45's.
* METOC Meteorology and Oceanography: The Metoc system by BAE Systems comprises the Upper Air Sounding System using launchable radiosondes by Eurodefence Systems Ltd and Graw Radiosondes (Germany) joint venture, as well as a comprehensive weather satellite receiving system and a bathymetrics system. These sensors provide each vessel with a full environmental awareness for tasks such as radar propagation, ballistics and general self-supporting meteorological and oceanographic data production.

Additional capabilities
* Type 45 has sufficient space to embark 60 Royal Marines and their equipment.
* The type 45 destroyers are designed with the configuration and capacity to be tasked in a flagship role.

Provision for but not fitted with
There is provision for another 12 strike-length VLS tubes forward of the existing VLS. These could be Mk 41 tubes for Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles (TLAM) and LRASM, or Sylver A70 for the MdCN derivative of Storm Shadow


Ships Of The Class
Six ships have been ordered, and transfer of custody of the first happened on 10 December 2008. The MOD's initial planning assumption was to procure twelve ships (essentially a like-for-like replacement of a similar number of Type 42s), with the size of the second batch to be determined between 2005 and 2010. However this was reduced to eight ships in the 2003 defence white paper entitled Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities. It was reported in December 2006 that the last two could be cut. In July 2007, Ministry of Defence officials stated that they "still planned to build eight Type 45 destroyers" and that "the extra two ships were still included in planning assumptions". This plan was officially abandoned on 19 June 2008 when the Minister for the Armed Forces, Bob Ainsworth, announced in Parliament that options for the seventh and eighth destroyers would not be taken up. The continual scaling back of the project, first from twelve to eight, and subsequently to six ships, has been criticised for leaving the Royal Navy with insufficient ships to meet its requirements.

On 9 March 2007, The Independent reported that Saudi Arabia was considering buying "two or three" Type 45s. On 7 September 2007 it was reported that Saudi Arabian officials had been invited to observe Daring's sea trials.


1. Daring (D32) Launched 1st February 2006. Commissioned 23rd July 2009.
2. Dauntless (D33) Launched 23rd January 2007. Commissioned 3rd June 2010.
3. Diamond (D34) Launched 27th November 2007. Commissioned 6th May 2011.
4. Dragon (D35) Launched 17th November 2008. Commissioned 20th April 2012.
5. Defender (D36) Launched 21st October 2009. Commissioned 21st March 2013.
6. Duncan (D37) Launched 11th October 2010. Commissioned 26th September 2013.

Type: Guided missile destroyer
Displacement: 8,000 to 8,500 t (8,400 long tons; 9,400 short tons)
Length: 152.4 m (500 ft 0 in)
Beam: 21.2 m (69 ft 7 in)
Draught: 7.4 m (24 ft 3 in)
Propulsion: 2 shafts integrated electric propulsion (IEP):
2 × Rolls-Royce WR-21 gas turbines, 21.5 MW (28,800 shp) each
2 × Wärtsilä 12V200 diesel generators, 2 MW (2,700 shp) each
2 × Converteam electric motors, 20 MW (27,000 shp) each
Speed: In excess of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range: In excess of 7,000 nautical miles (13,000 km) at 18 kn (33 km/h)
Crew Complement: 191 (accommodation for up to 235)
Sensors and
processing systems:

SAMPSON multi-function air tracking radar (Type 1045)
S1850M 3-D air surveillance radar (Type 1046)
Raytheon Integrated Bridge and Navigation System
2 × Raytheon AHRS INS
(MINS 2)
2 × Raytheon I-band Radar
(Type 1047)
1 × Raytheon E/F-band Radar
(Type 1048)
Ultra Electronics Series 2500 Electro-Optical Gun Control System (EOGCS)
Ultra Electronics SML Technologies radar tracking system
Ultra Electronics/EDO MFS-7000 sonar
Electronic warfare
and decoys:

UAT Mod 2.0 (2.1 planned)
AN/SSQ-130 Ship Signal Exploitation Equipment (SSEE) Increment F cryptologic exploitation system
Seagnat
Naval Decoy IDS300
Surface Ship Torpedo Defence
Armament: Anti-air missiles:
Sea Viper air defence system.
1 × 48-cell Sylver A50 VLS, for a combination of 48:
Aster 15 missiles (range 1.7-30 km)
Aster 30 missiles (range 3-120 km)
Anti-ship missiles:
2 × quad Harpoon launchers
Guns:
1 × BAE 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval gun
2 × Oerlikon 30 mm guns
2 × Phalanx CIWS
2 × Miniguns
6 × General purpose machine guns
Aircraft carried: 1-2 × Lynx HMA8, armed with;
4 × Sea Skua anti ship missiles, or
2 × anti submarine torpedoes
or
1 × Merlin HM1, armed with;
4 × anti-submarine torpedoes
Aviation facilities:
Large flight deck
Enclosed hangar

BAE Type 45 promotional video

sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby sea_eagle » 07 May 2015, 00:09

Type 45 midlife upgrades from 2025?

The announced kit for the T26 includes the US Mk45 5″ gun, the US Mk41 missile silo and the Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine fitted to the carriers.

What do people think about a mid-life upgrade to the T45 to include these from 2025 when the T45 will be 15 years old and the T26 are being built?

I assume the gun upgrade will go ahead to keep commonality across the fleet and finally give the RN a 5″ gun across the fleet.

Would it be be cost effective to replace the T45 Rolls Royce WR-21 and standardise on the MT30 planned for the QE carriers and the T26 frigate? The WR-21 looks like ending up as a dead end even if it is a good design. (A suitably downrated MT30 as we don't need the T45 to do 40+ knots!)

Where does the choice of the Mk41 silos for the T26 leave the RN? Would they add 16 to the T45 and then have mixed silos? Would the better choice be to replace Sylver altogether and fit Mk41 assuming Aster missiles are converted to fit Mk41?

Could the T45 adopt the CAMM (Sea Ceptor) missile in separate cannisters similar to the T26 to free up the main silo to hold 48 x Aster30 and say 24 CAMM cannisters?

Hopefully there will be some money around for defence in 10 years time. Always optimistic!

sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby sea_eagle » 07 May 2015, 00:31

A very informative article about the WR-21 gas turbine from 2003. Of course times have moved on with Rolls Royce introducing the MT30 repackaged to fit onto naval ships.
https://nippon.zaidan.info/seikabutsu/2 ... _os203.pdf

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby RetroSicotte » 07 May 2015, 00:56

sea_eagle wrote:Type 45 midlife upgrades from 2025?

The announced kit for the T26 includes the US Mk45 5″ gun, the US Mk41 missile silo and the Rolls Royce MT30 gas turbine fitted to the carriers.

What do people think about a mid-life upgrade to the T45 to include these from 2025 when the T45 will be 15 years old and the T26 are being built?

I assume the gun upgrade will go ahead to keep commonality across the fleet and finally give the RN a 5″ gun across the fleet.

Would it be be cost effective to replace the T45 Rolls Royce WR-21 and standardise on the MT30 planned for the QE carriers and the T26 frigate? The WR-21 looks like ending up as a dead end even if it is a good design. (A suitably downrated MT30 as we don't need the T45 to do 40+ knots!)

Where does the choice of the Mk41 silos for the T26 leave the RN? Would they add 16 to the T45 and then have mixed silos? Would the better choice be to replace Sylver altogether and fit Mk41 assuming Aster missiles are converted to fit Mk41?

Could the T45 adopt the CAMM (Sea Ceptor) missile in separate cannisters similar to the T26 to free up the main silo to hold 48 x Aster30 and say 24 CAMM cannisters?

Hopefully there will be some money around for defence in 10 years time. Always optimistic!


Aster going to Mk41 is a virtual impossibility. It's an enormous amount of waste in order to do it, unfortunately, as they already function and fire now. That'd be a lot of money to do...the exact same thing.

If they are gonna remanufacture them then yes the guns would be "easy." The engines I honestly think is a little unnessesary, given they can already do 30+ knots as is. (If anything, T26 is slower!) The VLS additions though, I believe is around 12 Mk41 strike length slots could be fitted in with a little arrangement.

Exactly what they'd put in them though? Well, 8 of them almost assuredly to be the "future ASM", whatever it ends up being. What do you do with just 4 remaining slots? Well, CAMM could fit 16 missiles, permitting more Aster-30, as you specified. Could you phase out Aster-15 then? But then Aster-15 is allegedly better at interception than CAMM...but then CAMM can strike surface targets so who knows.

User avatar
desertswo
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:03
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby desertswo » 07 May 2015, 01:19

That's a lot of questions to which I have no real answers. I will tell you this though, I swear by the MK-45 5" 54/62 cal gun. It's great in three surface warfare missions; AAW, ASuW, and NGFS. A lot better in AAW than most people realize.

You know what I was never comfortable about with regard to the Daring-class? Realizing that her primary mission is fleet area air defense, that hull is big enough to support Tomahawks for the land attack mission as well. The Ticonderogas and Burkes are also considered to be air defense platforms, but pack a punch for strike warfare as well. Don't get me wrong, Daring and her sisters are great ships as is, but I think they could have been an even fiercer adversary with Tomahawk capability.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."

sea_eagle
Member
Posts: 154
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby sea_eagle » 07 May 2015, 01:37

Hi desertswo have enjoyed your many comments on mp.net thank you for contributing - you have made me laugh many times with your straight forward 'this is how it is' approach! :lol: I am a civvie so tread carefully on these forums, tend to lurk more than comment. :roll:

With our much smaller armed forces we can't do everything like the US. It seems to me that with only 6 T45 these should focus on the air defence role. Hence my suggestion to use the CAMM cold launched missile replacing the similar short range Aster15. This would increase the number of longer range Aster30 missiles to a full complement of 48 with perhaps 24 short range CAMM located outside the hot silos.

We only have Tomahawk on the T-class and Astute class SSN submarines. I definitely believe this is a limitation since you want to have an SSN with the freedom to move. I think when the new T26 comes into service they should be fitted with Tomahawk in the 24xMk41 silos. This would significantly enhance our total capability to launch Tomahawk from SSN and T26. Of course if we put CAMM on the T45 we could easily add 12xTomahawk and keep 32xAster30 if needed.

User avatar
desertswo
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:03
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby desertswo » 07 May 2015, 02:12

sea_eagle wrote:Hi desertswo have enjoyed your many comments on mp.net thank you for contributing - you have made me laugh many times with your straight forward 'this is how it is' approach! :lol: I am a civvie so tread carefully on these forums, tend to lurk more than comment. :roll:

With our much smaller armed forces we can't do everything like the US. Ib Hence my suggestion to use the CAMM cold launched missile replacing the similar short range Aster15. This would increase the number of longer range Aster30 missiles to a full complement of 48 with perhaps 24 short range CAMM located outside the hot silos.

We only have Tomahawk on the T-class and Astute class SSN submarines. I definitely believe this is a limitation since you want to have an SSN with the freedom to move. I think when the new T26 comes into service they should be fitted with Tomahawk in the 24xMk41 silos. This would significantly enhance our total capability to launch Tomahawk from SSN and T26. Of course if we put CAMM on the T45 we could easily add 12xTomahawk and keep 32xAster30 if needed.


Understood, but look at how the T-45s are currently being employed. They really are being used in that "Jack of all trades" role like we use the Burkes, but lacking one of the major tools in Jack's bag; the Tomahawk needed for the other guy's attitude adjustment.

I must admit that as a great admirer of the RN through history, I'm very frustrated by her current state. As an island nation the RN and RAF should be as robust as they need to be, and not the pawns of a bunch of gits in Parliament who wouldn't know a jack staff if it bit them in their soft arses.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1881
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby Gabriele » 07 May 2015, 08:38

If they only lacked Tomahawk... Type 45 lacks much of anything beyond the Aster missiles and AAW sensors fit. Adding Harpoon (on just 4 of 6 ships) will make them slightly better, but one rather really awful thing is the cheap, low standard hull sonar.
I cringe every time i read a Type 45 has "trained against submarines". With just that very modest hull sonar, they might as well say it has played the part of the floating target.

And yes, i know every surface ship is a target in the eyes of submariners... but a Type 45 is likely to be a particularly easy target.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
WhitestElephant
Member
Posts: 391
Joined: 06 May 2015, 10:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby WhitestElephant » 07 May 2015, 11:38

I think it would be a logical move to replace Aster 15 with CAMM on the Type 45. While it is true that CAMM isn't the high-end solution as Aster 15, its looking to be a pretty damn good missile nonetheless. With SAMPSON to cue the CAMM on target and then its own active radar, it will be bloody good at its job.

The current missile load out appears to be something like 32 x Aster 30 and 16 x Aster 15. With CAMM's quad-packing capability, we could have 40 x Aster 30 and 32 x CAMM. A much more health load out, and with that many CAMM we could literally throw them at hostile targets ensuring a kill. With only 16 x Aster 15, i'd image one would have to be very austere in their usage.

CAMMs surface engagement capability would also make it ideal against asymmetric threats, of FAC swarm attacks etc

A question: Whats the options regarding fitting CAMM + CAMM canisters aft of the bridge like Type 26? This way we could fill all 48 AS50 silos with Aster 30.

I echo Gabs concerns about the lack of a high-end hull sonar. Lets hope T45 has adequate countermeasures and maneuverability to avoid torpedoes.
Though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are. - Lord Tennyson (Ulysses)

User avatar
desertswo
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:03
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby desertswo » 07 May 2015, 14:32

Gabriele wrote:If they only lacked Tomahawk... Type 45 lacks much of anything beyond the Aster missiles and AAW sensors fit. Adding Harpoon (on just 4 of 6 ships) will make them slightly better, but one rather really awful thing is the cheap, low standard hull sonar.
I cringe every time i read a Type 45 has "trained against submarines". With just that very modest hull sonar, they might as well say it has played the part of the floating target.

And yes, i know every surface ship is a target in the eyes of submariners... but a Type 45 is likely to be a particularly easy target.


WhitestElephant wrote:I think it would be a logical move to replace Aster 15 with CAMM on the Type 45. While it is true that CAMM isn't the high-end solution as Aster 15, its looking to be a pretty damn good missile nonetheless. With SAMPSON to cue the CAMM on target and then its own active radar, it will be bloody good at its job.

The current missile load out appears to be something like 32 x Aster 30 and 16 x Aster 15. With CAMM's quad-packing capability, we could have 40 x Aster 30 and 32 x CAMM. A much more health load out, and with that many CAMM we could literally throw them at hostile targets ensuring a kill. With only 16 x Aster 15, i'd image one would have to be very austere in their usage.

CAMMs surface engagement capability would also make it ideal against asymmetric threats, of FAC swarm attacks etc

A question: Whats the options regarding fitting CAMM + CAMM canisters aft of the bridge like Type 26? This way we could fill all 48 AS50 silos with Aster 30.

I echo Gabs concerns about the lack of a high-end hull sonar. Lets hope T45 has adequate countermeasures and maneuverability to avoid torpedoes.


Yeah lack of a more credible ASW array could be an issue if you were to employ them in that role. However, having been the Chief Engineer and lead Tactical Action Officer in a ship that was, for all intents and purposes, the analog to Daring, the Leahy-class guided missile "cruiser" (see below - it was really a "destroyer leader" but with the stroke of a pen they and the follow-on Belknap-class became "cruisers" so that the Congress could say they had funded real cruisers. Sounds kind of familiar, in terms of the games Parliament and MoD are playing, doesn't it?), I got comfortable with our more "modest" capabilities. We didn't even have a main gun, depending instead on the SM-1ER in the surface mode for engaging larger surface contacts (e.g. a frigate or destroyer), and it was demonstrated during Operations Earnest Will and Praying Mantis to be a very capable system when used that way. I frankly trusted it more than I did Harpoon, which is a fine weapon, but it isn't a missile you just pickle when a threat materializes. You have some plotting to do in order to localize the target, then enter that data into the Harpoon fire control system. It takes a couple minutes at least. Meanwhile, if I could light up the target with one of our SPG-55B fire control radars, the target could expect a 26 foot long, Mach 5 telephone pole to try to occupy the same space in the next few seconds.

Image

Anyway, our ASW capability was "modest" as well. We had ASROC and two triple MK-32 torpedo launchers, and could control a helicopter although not house and maintain one, but our sonar was the AN/SQS-23 (Pair). Not a useless system by any means, but one which the USN powers that be opted not improve once they invested in the more powerful AN/SQS-26 and AN/SQS-53 bow mounted systems, and the tactical towed arrays that the follow-on frigates, destroyers, and cruisers (Bronstein, Garcia, Brooke, Knox, Spruance, Ticonderoga, and Arleigh Burke-classes. The 26 and 53 are essentially the same system, with the main difference being that the 53 has digital electronics vs. the analog systems in the 26) had and used with great alacrity. We also had no towed array system. However, we once kept a diesel boat down for 17 hours in the South China Sea, so it wasn't totally lame.

Regardless, if used properly in the "assist" mode with the T-23 or T-26, something we did in Gridley, and something the RN knows how to do, Daring and her sisters are a credible threat with which a submarine must deal.
"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now . . ."

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4660
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]

Postby SKB » 10 May 2015, 18:21

Building the Type 45 Destroyer

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby RetroSicotte » 26 May 2015, 01:46

Something I've wondered for a while. The Type 45 is supposed to take 12 VLS silos extra than what it already has.

So...where on earth do they go? Doesn't much look like room to me on the bow here. Can anyone offer insight to things we may know?

Image

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4660
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby SKB » 26 May 2015, 02:43

Maybe swap the existing silo's out for newer narrower ones giving a larger capacity? *shrugs*

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1881
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby Gabriele » 26 May 2015, 08:00

SKB wrote:Maybe swap the existing silo's out for newer narrower ones giving a larger capacity? *shrugs*


Not 100% sure, but the eventual 16 MK41 cells would slot in front of the existing silo, on the longitudinal direction, differently from the Sylver rows.
The space reservation should be located there. It was meant to be used either for additional VLS, or for the greater space needs of the 155mm TMF gun, which having two-piece ammunition, and larger to boot, would have required more space.

In the first image, i've evidenced the existing missile silo in red. To the front of it, i've highlighted in light blue the compartment that i think is the space for the strike lenght cells. Notice that it retains its shape and footprint going down the decks, and protrudes deeper than the silo already in use. I'm at least 90% sure that must be the space reservation. I don't see any realistic alternative, especially since Sylver, for some reason, is never installed module to module like MK41. There is always a passageway separating the modules along the long side.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby Tiny Toy » 26 May 2015, 08:24

The Sea Ceptor doesn't need dedicated VLS, maybe they will cold launch it from other locations and free up some space for something else?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4599
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby marktigger » 26 May 2015, 09:30

is the ammount of time they are spending alongside falling?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby RetroSicotte » 26 May 2015, 21:54

Gabriele wrote:
SKB wrote:Maybe swap the existing silo's out for newer narrower ones giving a larger capacity? *shrugs*


Not 100% sure, but the eventual 16 MK41 cells would slot in front of the existing silo, on the longitudinal direction, differently from the Sylver rows.
The space reservation should be located there. It was meant to be used either for additional VLS, or for the greater space needs of the 155mm TMF gun, which having two-piece ammunition, and larger to boot, would have required more space.

In the first image, i've evidenced the existing missile silo in red. To the front of it, i've highlighted in light blue the compartment that i think is the space for the strike lenght cells. Notice that it retains its shape and footprint going down the decks, and protrudes deeper than the silo already in use. I'm at least 90% sure that must be the space reservation. I don't see any realistic alternative, especially since Sylver, for some reason, is never installed module to module like MK41. There is always a passageway separating the modules along the long side.



Your theory was indeed something that came to my mind, but that seems to crush against the gun's traverse. The rear of those turrets open. When I was on HMS Duncan, I didn't get much sense that the gun would properly fit if that space was used.

But of course, I am just an observer. It'd certainly reduce the gun's angle of fire, but it may indeed be possible. Sylver just confuses the hell out of me. It looks like such a space inefficient system.

Very glad we've went with Mk41's for the Type 26 after all then...

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1881
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyers (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby Gabriele » 26 May 2015, 22:43

RetroSicotte wrote:
Gabriele wrote:
SKB wrote:Maybe swap the existing silo's out for newer narrower ones giving a larger capacity? *shrugs*


Not 100% sure, but the eventual 16 MK41 cells would slot in front of the existing silo, on the longitudinal direction, differently from the Sylver rows.
The space reservation should be located there. It was meant to be used either for additional VLS, or for the greater space needs of the 155mm TMF gun, which having two-piece ammunition, and larger to boot, would have required more space.

In the first image, i've evidenced the existing missile silo in red. To the front of it, i've highlighted in light blue the compartment that i think is the space for the strike lenght cells. Notice that it retains its shape and footprint going down the decks, and protrudes deeper than the silo already in use. I'm at least 90% sure that must be the space reservation. I don't see any realistic alternative, especially since Sylver, for some reason, is never installed module to module like MK41. There is always a passageway separating the modules along the long side.



Your theory was indeed something that came to my mind, but that seems to crush against the gun's traverse. The rear of those turrets open. When I was on HMS Duncan, I didn't get much sense that the gun would properly fit if that space was used.

But of course, I am just an observer. It'd certainly reduce the gun's angle of fire, but it may indeed be possible. Sylver just confuses the hell out of me. It looks like such a space inefficient system.

Very glad we've went with Mk41's for the Type 26 after all then...



Currently the gun can turn 360°, but there is no actual usefulness to that, as of course it won't be fiting at the bridge, and not even too close to the bridge wings. If it is anything like the guns on italian warships, the system will automatically prevent the gun from working if it is turned at a certain angle. So I don't think it would make too much difference if the silo was indeed expanded. The door in the back of the turret would still more than open, of course. A very quick Paint job on the Type 45's blueprint gives the result in the image i'll attach to this post.


If you want to see a ship where the 127 mm's back is
    really
close to the VLS cells, you have to look at the italian FREMM GP:

Image

Which isn't too far away from the US's Burke, anyway: Image

Even though in both cases, of course, the silo isn't as high as on the 45s.

I don't think there is any other position where the additional cells could be fitted, and the blueprints available online sure seem to show the space reservation there. When i read that the space would be available for additional VLS or for the 155 mm gun's greater need of under deck space, that convinced me entirely.

I might still be proven wrong all the same, mind you. There is no official, definitive statement that i know of, so i'm keeping at 90% sure, since i'm only guessing from the signs available.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2044
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby RetroSicotte » 26 May 2015, 22:52

You are mostly likely right. Consider it just a concern that I wanted to hear more information about. Thanks for the responses, Gabe.

User avatar
Pseudo
Member
Posts: 929
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Location: Tuvalu

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby Pseudo » 27 May 2015, 02:12

As far as the the gun having a full 360° turning circle, I'd think that their might be some limited utility to the reduced traverse if you're running away and have adversaries on your aft port and aft starboard quarters. Obviously, you'll have had to have exhausted your supply of AShM and gone back in time eighty years, but... :)

jonas
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby jonas » 27 May 2015, 11:34

Gabriele.
I thought the space between the two banks of current sylver silo's was available for use, or is that not the case.

User avatar
GibMariner
Senior Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: 12 May 2015, 14:17

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby GibMariner » 27 May 2015, 11:39

jonas wrote:Gabriele.
I thought the space between the two banks of current sylver silo's was available for use, or is that not the case.


I also thought that would be the case

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1881
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby Gabriele » 27 May 2015, 16:08

jonas wrote:Gabriele.
I thought the space between the two banks of current sylver silo's was available for use, or is that not the case.


Not the first time i heard such a suggestion, and it does seem to make the most sense, at first thought. But I don't think it can actually be used. Currently there are under-deck passage ways for maintenance and checks on the Sylver modules. Even assuming this could be done without, the space appears too tight to fit another row of launchers (MK41 being even a little wider than a Sylver module, so definitely a no) and, for whatever reason, Sylver modules never touch each other on the long side, differently from MK41. In no ship on which they are installed. So the space seems to not be sufficient for Sylver, nor for MK41.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

jonas
Member
Posts: 714
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby jonas » 27 May 2015, 23:11

Thanks for that Gabriele.

User avatar
hovematlot
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 27 May 2015, 17:46
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)

Postby hovematlot » 03 Jun 2015, 21:18

I think Gabriele has got the location for future strike missile silos spot on. I have a friend on HMS Dragon. He tells me there is a very large void space just aft of the gun which is currently used as a gym, and that it's reserved for 'future weapon systems'.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: albedo, Poiuytrewq and 21 guests