Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Physically possible, yes. Financially possible, no.
The good thing about IEP is its much more flexible and offer options to add more juice and stabilise the problems.
The good thing about IEP is its much more flexible and offer options to add more juice and stabilise the problems.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Please justify the statement that the T45 is the most advanced BMD platform in the world.Tinman wrote:You really are starting to become a troll.Ron5 wrote:The Type 45 is the most advanced BMD platform in the world ??????arfah wrote:All T45's are at their home port.
http://news.sky.com/story/all-royal-nav ... t-10516991
Reasons why.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/despite ... erational/
Give me a break. Pinocchio George is getting a great run for his money from the Pinocchio MoD.
When will the lying stop?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
stop quoting me in your conversationRon5 wrote:Please justify the statement that the T45 is the most advanced BMD platform in the world.Tinman wrote:You really are starting to become a troll.Ron5 wrote:The Type 45 is the most advanced BMD platform in the world ??????
Give me a break. Pinocchio George is getting a great run for his money from the Pinocchio MoD.
When will the lying stop?
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Yes. I managed to use the edit feature too.Ron5 wrote:Huh? You supplied the quote. Obviously all your fault.
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Ron5 wrote:
Please justify the statement that the T45 is the most advanced BMD platform in the world.
Well, I read both articles and one said they're the most modern AAW ships in the World, can you quote the bit that says they're the most advanced?
Semantics, yes, but it could read differently however you want to read it, or maybe have a bee in your bonnet about it.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Little J wrote:Don't know if its been asked and I've missed it but, can they replace the engine - if they wanted to swop the WR21's for MT30's - is that physical possibility? Thinking more of a future upgrade sort of thing rather than fixing current problems.
the gas turbine is staying it the diesel generators bein up graded
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Like I said, was thinking of the future... Say if they wanted to standardise on MT30 for whole of the naval fleet for example.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Size of Missile Silo
There has been some debate in the past about the space requirements for Sylver A50 or A70 VLS modules. The normally quoted footprint is 2.6m x 2.3m, which compares favourably with the LM Mk41's footprint of 3.2m x 2.1m. But on ship installations, while the Mk41 modules are fitted flush against each other, Sylver modules always appear to leave a significant gap.
I have been reading the Type 45 Destroyer Haynes manual, written by Prof Jonathan Gates who was part of the T45 design team. In it he states that the original design had the Sylver launchers in three pairs running athwartships before being changed to two sets of three running fore and aft. This original arrangement can be seen in a BAE video from ten years ago (about 3min 20 sec in) https://youtu.be/TQKrjYwbvgc
He also states that that the Sylver launchers require an operational maintenance envelope of 0.8m on both sides and at one end which gives a stated footprint of 4.2m x 3.1m. Finally, in addition to the growth space forward of the current silo, he states that there is a void beneath the current Sylver A50 launchers that would allow six Mk41 strike length launchers to be substituted.
Based on the original layout, the size of the current silo is 8.4m x 9.3m, of which 8.4m x 6.2m could be strike length. Forward of this area is a further 8.4m x 3.1m empty space which could also take strike length launchers.
Swapping out all the Sylver modules for Mk41 modules would allow for quite an increase in missile load numbers.
There has been some debate in the past about the space requirements for Sylver A50 or A70 VLS modules. The normally quoted footprint is 2.6m x 2.3m, which compares favourably with the LM Mk41's footprint of 3.2m x 2.1m. But on ship installations, while the Mk41 modules are fitted flush against each other, Sylver modules always appear to leave a significant gap.
I have been reading the Type 45 Destroyer Haynes manual, written by Prof Jonathan Gates who was part of the T45 design team. In it he states that the original design had the Sylver launchers in three pairs running athwartships before being changed to two sets of three running fore and aft. This original arrangement can be seen in a BAE video from ten years ago (about 3min 20 sec in) https://youtu.be/TQKrjYwbvgc
He also states that that the Sylver launchers require an operational maintenance envelope of 0.8m on both sides and at one end which gives a stated footprint of 4.2m x 3.1m. Finally, in addition to the growth space forward of the current silo, he states that there is a void beneath the current Sylver A50 launchers that would allow six Mk41 strike length launchers to be substituted.
Based on the original layout, the size of the current silo is 8.4m x 9.3m, of which 8.4m x 6.2m could be strike length. Forward of this area is a further 8.4m x 3.1m empty space which could also take strike length launchers.
Swapping out all the Sylver modules for Mk41 modules would allow for quite an increase in missile load numbers.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
I think that's highly desirable, add some CAMM modules mid ship, and fill the front with the lots of MK41 (integrating Aster 30). We would then reach over 100 missiles ready to fire, which would probably mitigated the inability to reload at sea.Aethulwulf wrote:Swapping out all the Sylver modules for Mk41 modules would allow for quite an increase in missile load numbers.
However like everything, no money. T45's also need new engines and a new gun would be nice too.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
If my sums are correct there is space on T45 for either 12 or 14 8-cell Mk41 VLS modules, of which at least 6 could be strike length. This gives a total number of cells as either 96 or 112. (Although this would add quite a bit of weight.)shark bait wrote:I think that's highly desirable, add some CAMM modules mid ship, and fill the front with the lots of MK41 (integrating Aster 30). We would then reach over 100 missiles ready to fire, which would probably mitigated the inability to reload at sea.Aethulwulf wrote:Swapping out all the Sylver modules for Mk41 modules would allow for quite an increase in missile load numbers.
Given their small size and lack of need to manage rocket efflux, I believe at least 48 CAMM could also be mounted on the aft end of the roof of the T45 hanger. However, instead I think you would get a better bang for your buck by fitting CAMM to the 2 QECVs and the 2 LPDs.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Not yet, as far as i know. LM and MBDA entered into an agreement about 3 years ago so that MBDA missiles and the Mk41 launchers could be jointly promoted, with the initial priority given to CAMM integration. In the long run I don't think there any technical barriers to Aster missiles using Mk41.Ron5 wrote:Are Asters qualified for Mk 41's?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Very interesting
The reason why I bring this up is that ( where the gym is now) there was space reserved for a much larger mag than is currently the case. The first few T45s were to enter service with the guns they now have (and it is looking likely that the upgrade to anything else is way off) and then ALL of the class were to be retrofitted with the TMF. Luckily the details of the cancelled project have not been taken down from the BAE website (pasting them below), but the timing for the change of the silo arrangement is interesting as it would seem to have happened before the official cancelling of the TMF project?
"The Barrow facility is involved in testing a demonstrator 155mm naval gun which adapts AS90 mobile land based gun technology for use at sea. This Phase 3 is a full scale Technology Demonstrator Programme, with a trials gun mount and firing trials at Eskmeals range in Cumbria.
A key driver for the programme is to examine the feasibility of using standard 155mm modular charge ammunition in a naval environment. This would provide commonality with land-based ammunition stocks, thereby leveraging existing development efforts and driving down cost.
Here are the advantages of a British made 155mm naval gun.
For a relatively small investment - the UK would retain it's own Artillery design and manufacturing capability and ensure that the RN ships would be fitted with a UK designed, manufactured and supported Gun system.
Far greater terminal effect, increase in Range and Accuracy, (REDUCED COST PER ENGAGEMENT)
Common projectile with UK Land forces means cheaper Ammunition (REDUCED THROUGH LIFE COST)
Combining AS90 Ordnance and 4.5" Mod 1 Mount, 70% re-use of material leading to a much reduced UPC, (REDUCED ACQUISITION COSTS - Value for money)
Same "Foot-print" as 4.5" Mk 8 Guns means simple retro-fit is possible- No need for a costly re-fit if RN decide to fit to T45 Hulls
Technology benefits could also be transferred to other Artillery pieces, I.e. Laser Ignition and Barrel Thermal Management could be employed on AS90
In a nut-shell - Cheaper to buy, cheaper to run - and far more effective, (All of this supported by the several OA studies completed over the past 10 years)"
as the T45s were (initially) to receive the navalised RA gun (and more importantly, the mass produced rounds for it).Aethulwulf wrote:the Type 45 Destroyer Haynes manual, written by Prof Jonathan Gates who was part of the T45 design team. In it he states that the original design had the Sylver launchers in three pairs running athwartships before being changed to two sets of three running fore and aft
The reason why I bring this up is that ( where the gym is now) there was space reserved for a much larger mag than is currently the case. The first few T45s were to enter service with the guns they now have (and it is looking likely that the upgrade to anything else is way off) and then ALL of the class were to be retrofitted with the TMF. Luckily the details of the cancelled project have not been taken down from the BAE website (pasting them below), but the timing for the change of the silo arrangement is interesting as it would seem to have happened before the official cancelling of the TMF project?
"The Barrow facility is involved in testing a demonstrator 155mm naval gun which adapts AS90 mobile land based gun technology for use at sea. This Phase 3 is a full scale Technology Demonstrator Programme, with a trials gun mount and firing trials at Eskmeals range in Cumbria.
A key driver for the programme is to examine the feasibility of using standard 155mm modular charge ammunition in a naval environment. This would provide commonality with land-based ammunition stocks, thereby leveraging existing development efforts and driving down cost.
Here are the advantages of a British made 155mm naval gun.
For a relatively small investment - the UK would retain it's own Artillery design and manufacturing capability and ensure that the RN ships would be fitted with a UK designed, manufactured and supported Gun system.
Far greater terminal effect, increase in Range and Accuracy, (REDUCED COST PER ENGAGEMENT)
Common projectile with UK Land forces means cheaper Ammunition (REDUCED THROUGH LIFE COST)
Combining AS90 Ordnance and 4.5" Mod 1 Mount, 70% re-use of material leading to a much reduced UPC, (REDUCED ACQUISITION COSTS - Value for money)
Same "Foot-print" as 4.5" Mk 8 Guns means simple retro-fit is possible- No need for a costly re-fit if RN decide to fit to T45 Hulls
Technology benefits could also be transferred to other Artillery pieces, I.e. Laser Ignition and Barrel Thermal Management could be employed on AS90
In a nut-shell - Cheaper to buy, cheaper to run - and far more effective, (All of this supported by the several OA studies completed over the past 10 years)"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
if BaE could have been trusted to make it work but at the time you had nimrod saga and the MoD trying to balance budgets so things had to be sacrificed.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
The 8.4m x 3.1m space forward of the current silo was intended for either strike length missile launchers or room to allow for a 155mm main gun magazine. Given that the T26 has chosen a 5" gun, there is zero chance that T45 will ever now have a 155mm main gun.Aethulwulf wrote:Size of Missile Silo
Based on the original layout, the size of the current silo is 8.4m x 9.3m, of which 8.4m x 6.2m could be strike length. Forward of this area is a further 8.4m x 3.1m empty space which could also take strike length launchers.
Swapping out all the Sylver modules for Mk41 modules would allow for quite an increase in missile load numbers.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Agree with the post, and even getting the above, as an upgrade to the T45s, might be towards the end of the T26 build run. I am (silently) making the assumption here that the T31s will get recycled guns from the T23s... if they are to be "affordable" rather than a replay of the T26 saga.Aethulwulf wrote:Given that the T26 has chosen a 5" gun
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
If the T45 could be fitted with 112 Mk41 cells, I'd suggest they should be filled with:
•64 x Aster 30
•24 x Aster 15
•24 x SM-3 Block II
I think TLAMs can be better left to the T26, leaving the T45 to concentrate on AAW. Similarly, I would not load the Mk41 with any anti-ship missiles but replace the current Harpoons with NSM. This is based on the need for the T45s to remain protecting the centre of any task group, whereas the T26 will be operating further out with greater freedom of movement.
•64 x Aster 30
•24 x Aster 15
•24 x SM-3 Block II
I think TLAMs can be better left to the T26, leaving the T45 to concentrate on AAW. Similarly, I would not load the Mk41 with any anti-ship missiles but replace the current Harpoons with NSM. This is based on the need for the T45s to remain protecting the centre of any task group, whereas the T26 will be operating further out with greater freedom of movement.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
Capability-wise and tactis-wise I agree, but I am a bit lost as for why would you part-fill tubes/silos, relative sizes given here (although Mk41 and SM3 do not figure directly):
http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpeng ... -VLS-1.jpg
http://u0v052dm9wl3gxo0y3lx0u44wz.wpeng ... -VLS-1.jpg
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
The Mk41 modules on T45 would have to be a mixture of strike length and tactical length. In my fantasy missile load out only the SM-3 would require strike length. For 24 missiles, that's just three 8-cell modules. But recognising that threat pictures change (and I might not always be right) I'd suggest that the T45 be fitted with at least 6 strike length Mk41 modules, and the rest tactical length Mk41's.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: 23 Jul 2016, 22:46
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
SM-3 Block Ib is in service now and SM-3 Block IIb is already under test and due in service in the next couple of years I think.
Aster BMD with both Aster 30 NT block I and Aster 30 Block II are many years behind in development than SM-3. I have no objection to Aster BMD, but at the moment it is not even certain to deliver.
Aster BMD with both Aster 30 NT block I and Aster 30 Block II are many years behind in development than SM-3. I have no objection to Aster BMD, but at the moment it is not even certain to deliver.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
The former is "field upgradeable" ie. by the RN resources and could soon provide a protective (albeit small) umbrella against ballistic ship-killer missiles. Block II? we had this discussion on some other thread and among those who think it is unlikely to materialise I wasn't alone.Aethulwulf wrote:Aster BMD with both Aster 30 NT block I and Aster 30 Block II
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN)
so lets just waste millions of quid rip aster out and replace it with SM3 because its the latest fashion!
funny i was talking to a guy at yeovilton who believes Aster BDM it will happen and he works in the industry was promoting CAMM
funny i was talking to a guy at yeovilton who believes Aster BDM it will happen and he works in the industry was promoting CAMM