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

[Tony Williams]

The MOD funded a study into adding SM-3 to the Type 45 in late 2014. That seems to be the direction of travel for if / when a BMD development is funded.

OK, thanks. How messy. If they wanted to adopt the US system, they might as well have done it from the start...

[marktigger]

so is Aster going to be replaced by SM3 or is SM3 supplementing ASTER?

[Halidon]

so is Aster going to be replaced by SM3 or is SM3 supplementing ASTER?

In the context of this discussion, supplementing. SM-3 is a an exo-atmospheric BMD-only weapon while the present Aster family are AAW weapons with limited terminal BMD capability. To fully replace Aster, the RN would need to buy additional models of Standard. At this time, that's unlikely for political and industrial reasons. But SM-3 may be/likely is a more attractive solution than going through the time and expense of developing an Aster which can match its performance, given the relatively large cost to do that development work.

[marktigger]

but with Standard in service with the RN I wonder how quickly pressure would begin from US govt and Raytheon to change over?

[ArmChairCivvy]

SM-3 is a an exo-atmospheric BMD-only weapon // while the present Aster family are AAW weapons with limited terminal BMD capability.

As Gabby was saying, the challenge is to get the existing sensors & CMC run in multiple modes simultaneously.
The two weapons can coexist and have different uses (as per above; SM-3 was co-developed with Japan, btw).
- so if we get it and the Meteor with a Japanese seeker head, then there would be quite a bit of cross-fertilisation happening. The press release for the bilateral co-op agreement of course focussed on small arms, to put every one off the trail, so to say.

[Gabriele]

It will now be interesting to see what happens next in the BMD arena regarding Type 45. Another trip to the Pacific might pop up soon enough if the simultaneous AAW - BMD software is ready and they are serious about testing it.

Regarding SM-3, it would be in addition to Aster, as has been said. It requires adding the 16 MK41 cells that the Type 45 can fit.
As a bonus, that would open the door not just to SM-3, but to the addition of other systems over the life of the ship, from Tomahawk (it would require fitting the mission-planning back end too) to the rest of the Standard family, including potentially the very impressive SM-6, which as of budget 2017 is being given an anti-surface mode as well, giving the US Navy, for the first time ever, a long range, highly supersonic option against ships. Earlier Standard missiles had an anti-surface mode too, but due to their guidance it was a much shorter range, much less impressive capability.

[Tony Williams]

Regarding SM-3, it would be in addition to Aster, as has been said. It requires adding the 16 MK41 cells that the Type 45 can fit.
As a bonus, that would open the door not just to SM-3, but to the addition of other systems over the life of the ship, from Tomahawk (it would require fitting the mission-planning back end too) to the rest of the Standard family, including potentially the very impressive SM-6, which as of budget 2017 is being given an anti-surface mode as well, giving the US Navy, for the first time ever, a long range, highly supersonic option against ships. Earlier Standard missiles had an anti-surface mode too, but due to their guidance it was a much shorter range, much less impressive capability.

Only 16 VLS for SM-3, Tomahawk, SM-6 etc seems inadequate. So, if they want to take this route it would obviously be an advantage to replace the Aster VLS with MK41 to provide maximum flexibility in terms of weapon choice.

In other words, they should have specified the MK41 and associated US missiles from the start, and never got involved with Aster.

[Gabriele]

In other words, they should have specified the MK41 and associated US missiles from the start, and never got involved with Aster.

It is reportedly what the Royal Navy wanted all along...

[Engaging Strategy]

It is reportedly what the Royal Navy wanted all along...

Unsurprising really, although I suppose a decade ago Aegis & Mk.41 looked like it was getting a bit long in the tooth.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Some sovereignty, pls

We have already outsourced the CMC, the missiles and (even though hardly ever mentioned) the reactor design. So we do the boats, the nuclear warheads, ...

If we did not even have the capability (together with the rest of Europe) to build any sort of BMD, would that be a good place to be in?

I am all for it that we retain/ build the capacity to design - even if part of the build in the end is let go, let's say in favour of an existing and tested missile (and harvesting the economies of scale for the eventual cost of having the capability in service).

[Jdam]

Can you get Sea Viper in the MK41? or is it something else like there no real benefit from combining the two systems?

[Halidon]

SM-3 is a an exo-atmospheric BMD-only weapon // while the present Aster family are AAW weapons with limited terminal BMD capability.

As Gabby was saying, the challenge is to get the existing sensors & CMC run in multiple modes simultaneously.
The two weapons can coexist and have different uses (as per above; SM-3 was co-developed with Japan, btw).
- so if we get it and the Meteor with a Japanese seeker head, then there would be quite a bit of cross-fertilisation happening. The press release for the bilateral co-op agreement of course focussed on small arms, to put every one off the trail, so to say.

Don't underestimate the challenge of developing the actual exo-atmospheric kill vehicle and the booster stack for it to ride on. That's where the appeal of SM-3 lies with the RN, by the time they are in a buying mood the Block IIA will be something they can essentially buy off the shelf.

[Halidon]

Can you get Sea Viper in the MK41? or is it something else like there no real benefit from combining the two systems?

MBDA and Lockheed have a program to integrate all the MBDA missiles (Aster, CAMM, Scalp) with Mk41.

[ArmChairCivvy]

As Gabby was saying, the challenge is to get the existing sensors & CMC run in multiple modes simultaneously.
The two weapons can coexist

We are in violent agreement: do sw-level upgrades and use existing missile (for the new & special job, exo-atmospheric).

I can see that my typo made the whole construct incomprehensible: when I meant to type Combat Management System, I actually put in Common Missile Compartment (CMC)!

[marktigger]

I hope the upgrade also includes replacing the 4.5 with the new 5inch gun to help ease the logistics of having 2 gun ammunitions and spare parts

[shark bait]

a new gun would make sense, commonality points are always welcome. We have a long list of upgrades for the T45 now.

• engines
• software
• Mk41 VLS
• BMD
• Mk45 gun

Sounds expensive, at least they have ASM for now

[S M H]

I doubt the 4.5 Gun will be replaced until the type 26 frigates are entering service. Then I expect the additional mk 41 silos will also be fitted.

[shark bait]

the engine problems got me thinking, why don't ships use combined cycle gas turbines? There muse be a reason because it seems sensible to me with a IEP, and more efficient and more robust than a regenerator gas turbine.

[Old RN]

The WR21 gas turbine uses a Breyton cycle that promises the same efficiency as a combined cycle gas turbine design using precoolers, intercoolers and recuperator. It is more complex than a standard open cycle gas turbine, and in the case of the WR21 does not appeared to have been as good as hoped. It is notable that the RN has not planned to use the WR21 ln any other class, using the more 'standard' MT30.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Isn't MT30 arrangement more compact as well, so you can make it "standard" within the navy by
- fitting it also onto smaller ships
- fitting more of them onto big ones... even dispersal and thereby avoiding a single point of failure from one hit could be become an option?

[shark bait]

Yes there is no inter cooler or recuperator in the MT30 so no massive heat exchangers to fit in.

I don't understand why they went down the recuperator route in the search for greater efficiency, it's generally accepted using the simpler, well established, combined cycle is better. A combined cycle MT30 could be an impressive machine, powerful and efficient.

[GibMariner]

Type 45 Destroyers: Repairs and Maintenance:Written question - 25148

Asked by Douglas Chapman(Dunfermline and West Fife)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when his Department plans for work to begin on rectifying electrical and propulsion faults on the Daring Class Type 45 Destroyer; which ships such rectification work will involve; and when his Department plans for such work to end for each such ship involved.

Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne

A number of measures to improve the reliability of the Type 45 Power and Propulsion systems have been identified and the ongoing programme to implement these changes continues to deliver positive results, with the majority of work undertaken so far being at Her Majesty's Naval Base, Portsmouth.
In addition, and as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, we are committed to improving system resilience by adding upgraded diesel generators to provide further electrical generation capacity. Alternative technical options and a variety of delivery models are currently being explored with several competing industrial partners. The total cost and timetable for implementing the diesel generator upgrade will be determined at the main investment decision. I am withholding details of our current time and cost estimates as premature disclosure of this information could prejudice the commercial interests of the Department.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -01/25149/

[GibMariner]

Type 45 Destroyers: Repairs and Maintenance:Written question - 25150

Asked by Douglas Chapman(Dunfermline and West Fife)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department will pay out of the public purse for the cost of repairs to the electrical and propulsion systems on the Daring Class Type 45 Destroyers.

Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne

A number of early modifications were implemented under the Type 45 Destroyer Contract for Availability arrangement with BAE Systems, at no additional cost to the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The initial work to prove the concept of upgrading the diesel generators was co-funded by BAE Systems and the MOD. Subject to main gate approval, the upgrade will be funded by the MOD.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -01/25150/

[GibMariner]

Type 45 Destroyers: Repairs and Maintenance:Written question - 25165

Asked by Douglas Chapman(Dunfermline and West Fife)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what work will be required on each of the Daring Class Type 45 Destroyers in the fleet due to electrical and propulsion faults; and what estimate he has made of the cost of such work.

Asked by Kirsten Oswald(East Renfrewshire)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of rectifying faults in the power and propulsion system of the Type 45 Destroyer; and if he will make a statement.

Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne

A number of measures to improve the reliability of the Type 45 Power and Propulsion systems have been identified and the ongoing programme to implement these changes continues to deliver positive results. In addition, and as part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, we are committed to improving system resilience by adding upgraded diesel generators to provide further electrical generation capacity. Alternative technical options and a variety of delivery models are currently being explored with several competing industrial partners.
A number of early modifications were implemented under the Type 45 Destroyer Contract for Availability arrangement with BAE Systems at no additional cost to the Ministry of Defence. The total cost and timetable for implementing the diesel generator upgrade will be determined at the main investment decision. I am withholding details of our current time and cost estimates as premature disclosure of this information could prejudice the commercial interests of the Department.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -01/25165/
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -01/25238/

[GibMariner]

Type 45 Destroyers:Written question - 25152

Asked by Douglas Chapman(Dunfermline and West Fife)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many times Daring Class Type 45 Destroyers underwent total electrical failure in the (a) Persian Gulf, (b) Strait of Hormuz, (c) Mediterranean Sea, (d) Indian Ocean and (e) North Atlantic Ocean.

Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne

In the interests of National Security I am not prepared to release information concerning the type or nature of any failure or defect concerning our operational Units as to do so would allow deductions to be made as to their operational capability and effectiveness.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publi ... -01/25152/