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

[Spinflight]

Why rip Aster cells out?

There is space for a few Mk41 strikes and the two are compatible.

[Aethulwulf]

Why rip Aster cells out?

There is space for a few Mk41 strikes and the two are compatible.

The case for ripping out the Sylver cells and replacing them with Mk41 cells is that in the space occupied by the current 48 Sylver cells you could fit 80 or possibly 96 Mk41 cells. In depends on whether you think the T45 is too lightly armed with air defence missiles.

[PAUL MARSAY]

Type 45 only has one role , and that is capital ship escort and for that role she needs more missile cells . I like aster but not sylver if we could get 90 cells in the place of sylver and harpoon I,d be saying do it now .

[marktigger]

Type 45 only has one role , and that is capital ship escort and for that role she needs more missile cells . I like aster but not sylver if we could get 90 cells in the place of sylver and harpoon I,d be saying do it now .

or what ever other role it is required to carry out be that C3I, NGFS, Picking up refugees, chasing smugglers/pirates. This fixation they are solely their and the Royal Navy's sole purpose is to power project is total bollocks! The Royal Navy is there to carry out the will of the British Government ONE of its missions may be to project power but it is not its Sole Mission!

[PAUL MARSAY]

I am thinking of the way the Americans operate , their Tico,s are the goalkeepers and the Burke,s are the do all things . In our case the type 45's are the goalkeepers and Type 26 or type 31 are the do all things ships but I do agree all our ships carry out missions they are assigned if they are needed.

[shark bait]

The only reason the T45 exist is to provide air defences to the fleet. All the other auxiliary taskings are just make busy work.

With only 2 T45 available all of our T45 resources will be focused on protecting a carrier group so we should focus on making them as good as possible at that job.

[PAUL MARSAY]

Agreed 100% Sharkbait , the only reason they are sent off on other taskings is that the carriers arnt yet at sea

[abc123]

A question: So, in comparison with the Horizon-class ( France & Italy ) how do the Type 45 fare?

[Gabriele]

A question: So, in comparison with the Horizon-class ( France & Italy ) how do the Type 45 fare?

Better radar; same missiles and number of VLS; less CIWS coverage (3x 76mm on the italian ones, with guided ammunition, give formidable cover well beyond the Phalanx's reach; the french has only 2 76mm and no guided ammo upgrade for now); less reliable propulsion; no torpedo tubes installed; worse sonar; it has a medium calibre gun and the Horizon do not; same number of SSM (just 4 of the Type 45 have SSM, though).

[abc123]

A question: So, in comparison with the Horizon-class ( France & Italy ) how do the Type 45 fare?

Better radar; same missiles and number of VLS; less CIWS coverage (3x 76mm on the italian ones, with guided ammunition, give formidable cover well beyond the Phalanx's reach; the french has only 2 76mm and no guided ammo upgrade for now); less reliable propulsion; no torpedo tubes installed; worse sonar; it has a medium calibre gun and the Horizon do not; same number of SSM (just 4 of the Type 45 have SSM, though).

So you think that 76mm is better than Phalanx?

Horizons have torpedo tubes installed? Do Horizons can get any additional VLS tubes in front of current silo?

[Gabriele]

The 76 is better than Phalanx for sure. Greater lethality, greater accuracy in CIWS use with guided ammo, greater interception range which keeps more hot missile fragments away from your ship in case of successful interception of the incoming missile. The US have developed RAM and tend to mix Phalanx and RAM wherever possible to have that same kind of effects, combining the best of the two worlds.

Horizons have torpedo tubes installed, yes. 2 twin installations, although italian destroyers have fitted only two tubes, one per side. 2 are fitted for but not with.
And there is space for a couple more VLS modules in front of current silo, yes.

[abc123]

The 76 is better than Phalanx for sure. Greater lethality, greater accuracy in CIWS use with guided ammo, greater interception range which keeps more hot missile fragments away from your ship in case of successful interception of the incoming missile. The US have developed RAM and tend to mix Phalanx and RAM wherever possible to have that same kind of effects, combining the best of the two worlds.

Horizons have torpedo tubes installed, yes. 2 twin installations, although italian destroyers have fitted only two tubes, one per side. 2 are fitted for but not with.
And there is space for a couple more VLS modules in front of current silo, yes.

So, in your opinion, 3 x 76mm is a good compromise in comparison with say 1 x 127 mm and 2 x Phalanx?

About more VLS, so there's a free space below the deck to house additional VLS modules?

[Gabriele]

As on Type 45, there is space ahead of the current silo for more launch modules.

3x 76mm make a lot of sense for an escort that has to take down incoming air and surface threats. With their rate of fire and now with guided ammo, they can put up a solid wall of steel. The italian FREMM ASW, meant as a pure escort, similarly has two 76mm guns, rather than 1x 76 and 1x 127 like the GP variant.

[shark bait]

I have always liked the arrangement our European friends chose for their 'destroyers'. I would advocate us following something similar and allocating more space to missiles.

Like Gabriele states, for a pure AAW escort that will be in very high demand it starts to make sense. There will be very little availability for it to provide NGFS for example.

[ArmChairCivvy]

The US have developed RAM and tend to mix Phalanx and RAM wherever possible to have that same kind of effect

Does that happen a lot? I seem to remember that in designing RAM the quick interchangeability between their mounts was a consideration (which is more of a "choosing between them according to the threat picture" line of thinking as opposed to "both-and").

[Gabriele]

On the big ships, Phalanx and RAM always coexist. On the destroyers, for a while they have fitted not one nor the other, but now they are going back on that decision like they are going back on ASW.

[SKB]

Any chance in hell that more T45's would/could be built?

[GibMariner]

Could this be a reason why HMS Daring hasn't deployed yet? http://www.asdnews.com/news-67401/Real- ... _Ships.htm

An analytical tool known as System Information Exploitation, or SIE, is capable of processing 'big data' - tens of thousands of equipment data samples per second. The information is securely sent for immediate assessment and diagnosis from the ship to shore.

The system has been trialled successfully on board several of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers and is now due to be installed on HMS Daring as part of the roll-out programme. It is the first time that any navy in the world has installed this technology on a warship.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I would not discredit the assumption. as the information processing architecture is a blade server park onboard, shared across all information processing tasks and easily upgraded as for capacity (forgetting the story on which version of MS operating systems the mission control... just one of the processing tasks... is predicated on).

[Engaging Strategy]

Any chance in hell that more T45's would/could be built?

In a word? No.

[shark bait]

That would be a terrible idea.

[Ron5]

I had a couple of hours to spare this afternoon so I thought I'd dig back into the UK's National Audit Office reports to see if there were any hints of the WR21 troubles from way back when they were being built and tested. There was one, more about that later.

My overwhelming impression from all the reports, including the 2009 special report into the Type 45 program made because of the programs terrible performance, was that very, very, little attention was paid to the ship and its propulsion system actually operating successfully. There's lists and more lists and still further lists of risks and of risk exposures and risk mitigation plans. But I can be darned if I can find one that identifies the ship's brand new immature IEP system, and brand new immature prime engine, using brand new immature technology, as being a risk let alone being a risk that needs special attention.

Some sound bite/talking points:

1. NAO did some independent research into what it should cost to build an AAW destroyer of this capability. They concluded 643 million each. Bae built them for 649 million i.e. less than 1% more.

2. Their independent estimate of development costs was 170 million per ship against an actual cost of 299. A 129 million extra which given the torrid history of the Horizon & PAAMS programs should probably not surprise us.

3. Bae as prime contractor was on a very strict contract that penalized late or over cost performance. However they were not responsible for the WR21 program which was managed by the MoD. The WR21 was late and caused Bae to miss schedule dates. Bae sued the MoD and won 300 million.

4. None of the Key User Requirements listed in the reports mentioned ship performance other than range (in no specific climate) and ship availability i.e X% available for sea duty over a period of Y months. Again, no climate specifications were mentioned.

As I said up front, one hint. For one ship, in the hand over documentation, the marine engineering report rated poor. The comments said there were short term problems with propulsion that had correction programs in hand. This would be a report written by the RN.

Not good. Considering the whole special NAO report into the T45 written on well filled 30 pages of text, tables & diagrams, doesn't mention IEP, WR21, propulsion system or anything close. Lots on PAAMS & Aster tho.

I'd hazard a guess that nothing much has been learned to be applied to any further classes. But maybe there will be an MoD report that reveals everything, warts and all, that will be shared with the world. Yeah right.

[ArmChairCivvy]

But I can be darned if I can find one that identifies the ship's brand new immature IEP system,

You need to look at the comments column (far right) on the 2007 NAO Major Reports appendix; spread sheet format, ie. printed straight out of "real" documents, cut and pasted together from many
- annoying stuff normally (either does not get included?, or) is removed from the next year's edition. Does by no means need to mean that it has been resolved

I had the same kind of trouble finding the IFF (compatible with the US fighters that is) travails of the Tornados. One can more easily see what it meant operationally, both in the Gulf and in Yugoslavia, than the root cause being mentioned.

[Ron5]

But I can be darned if I can find one that identifies the ship's brand new immature IEP system,

You need to look at the comments column (far right) on the 2007 NAO Major Reports appendix; spread sheet format, ie. printed straight out of "real" documents, cut and pasted together from many
- annoying stuff normally (either does not get included?, or) is removed from the next year's edition. Does by no means need to mean that it has been resolved

I had the same kind of trouble finding the IFF (compatible with the US fighters that is) travails of the Tornados. One can more easily see what it meant operationally, both in the Gulf and in Yugoslavia, than the root cause being mentioned.

Can't find it. Got a page number?

The one thing that really chaps my hide is the removal of UPC (cost of buying one item exclusive of R&D cost) from the most recent reports.

Reason is fairly obvious: UPC is an easy way to trip the MoD up in a lie e.g. "T45's cost more than a billion pounds each against a target of 600 million, therefore we are not buying any more". Leading the dear departed Penny Morduant to announce to a mystified USN that the T45's were the most expensive warships ever built. In fact as shown by the NAO, the T45's were being produced at an average of 649 million each. A figure that was reducing with every ship built. A figure that translated to (a then) $900 million. If the USN could get AB's for that price, they'd buy a couple hundred on the spot. The one billion figure was produced by amortizing the R&D cost over the 6 ships built. Seeing that money had already been spent over the previous few decades, it had zero influence on the cost of buying new ships.

It's all Treasury lies and BS.

Another thing, look in these old reports and project after project has the Treasury add in lines of increased cost for "cost of capital". Adds up to tens of millions added expense for the T45's. Total, total, BS. For those not familiar with the concept, "cost of capital" is the amount of interest you would have earned if you had invested the money instead of spending it.

You know, like when you figure the cost of your new car, you always remember to add in the 5% interest you would have earned if you had instead put the money into Microsoft stock. So a $50,000 car kept for 10 years, becomes $80,000+.

I think the NAO finally blew the whistle on this Treasury scam. The sad part is that it wasn't that clever but it was clever enough to fool the MPs. I wonder what other scams lie buried.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I think I have posted it (the remark, and how it was not followed up with for so many years) on this same thread... which by now runs into 45 pages