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

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 12 Jul 2015, 18:28

I agree with the above as it would up the capability against a swarm attack (even though individually each new missile, even if it were a CAMM/ SeaCeptor, would be less capable than an Aster).

Gabriele · Post by **Gabriele** » 12 Jul 2015, 19:12

The Aster 30 Block 1 NT (New Technology) is not yet in development, and the UK does not seem to want to join, anyway. It seems to be a France - Italy try, if it progresses. Even if it goes ahead, its ABM capability is intended to be relatively limited, and useable against medium range ballistic threats only.

Aster Block 2 is even more of a shot in the dark which might or might not come around sometime.

The MOD has conducted a study on SM-3 integration on Type 45 (via fitting MK41 in the growth space), and it would probably be most desirable to go this way, if any ABM way at all.

We should hear more about the state of Type 45 radar and ABM mission system capability, since in October this year there is an ABM event planned, alongside the US Navy, in the Hebrides. It should involve a Type 45 with an upgraded ABM mission software load which enables simultaneous AAW and ABM. The software load trialed in the Pacific in 2013 on HMS Daring required the AAW functionality to be switched off to focus on ABM only.

WhitestElephant · Post by **WhitestElephant** » 12 Jul 2015, 19:24

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I agree with the above as it would up the capability against a swarm attack (even though individually each new missile, even if it were a CAMM/ SeaCeptor, would be less capable than an Aster).

I wonder if it would be feasible to mount CAMM atop the hangar and fill the 48-cell vls with Aster 30, rather than quad packing CAMM.

Post by **RetroSicotte** » 12 Jul 2015, 19:29

...how would it go on top of the hanger, may I ask?

WhitestElephant · Post by **WhitestElephant** » 12 Jul 2015, 20:31

RetroSicotte wrote:...how would it go on top of the hanger, may I ask?

I don't know anything about these sorts of things, really just thinking out load. But I was thinking of something modular perhaps.

How much space do we have aft of the bridge, doesn't have to be the hangar.

sea_eagle · Post by **sea_eagle** » 12 Jul 2015, 20:39

RetroSicotte wrote:...how would it go on top of the hanger, may I ask?

I like the suggestion from WhitestEephant. The CAMM system as planned for the Type 26 has a silo of 24 missiles located aft. Since CAMM is a cold launched system, unlike Aster & Mk41, there are no hot gases produced and no exhaust vents required.

The CAMM system launches the missile about 100ft into the air angled so as to clear the ship and then the turbo on the missile lights up. It is a very simple system and much smaller than the Aster. I don't see any reason why the T45 couldn't fit 24 somewhere aft.

I just don't think it will be a priority item when there isn't enough money to go around.

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 12 Jul 2015, 21:15

If you look at the second to last and third to last photos here

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE ... uncher.htm

the Netherlands and Chile have pretty much acted along those lines. OK, the VLS are to the sides of the hangar, not on top of it, but pretty close.

Now, an even better idea (??) is to eliminate the helo function altogether (T45s are not premium ASW ships by any measure) and make space in the aft for some "propper" land-attack VLS tubes.

Post by **RetroSicotte** » 12 Jul 2015, 21:48

sea_eagle wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:...how would it go on top of the hanger, may I ask?
I like the suggestion from WhitestEephant. The CAMM system as planned for the Type 26 has a silo of 24 missiles located aft. Since CAMM is a cold launched system, unlike Aster & Mk41, there are no hot gases produced and no exhaust vents required.

The CAMM system launches the missile about 100ft into the air angled so as to clear the ship and then the turbo on the missile lights up. It is a very simple system and much smaller than the Aster. I don't see any reason why the T45 couldn't fit 24 somewhere aft.

I just don't think it will be a priority item when there isn't enough money to go around.

The issue is those missiles still have to go somewhere and have a vertical impact of deck penetrating manners. Cold launch or not, there's no room at the top of the hanger for that. Look at the Italian Horizons tgo see the hull shenanigans you need to even fit a small(ish) gun up there.

I have had a good walk around a Type 45 to my pleasure once, and I can't think of anywhere else they could go on the design.

seaspear · Post by **seaspear** » 12 Jul 2015, 21:53

Gabriele wrote:The Aster 30 Block 1 NT (New Technology) is not yet in development, and the UK does not seem to want to join, anyway. It seems to be a France - Italy try, if it progresses. Even if it goes ahead, its ABM capability is intended to be relatively limited, and useable against medium range ballistic threats only.

Aster Block 2 is even more of a shot in the dark which might or might not come around sometime.

The MOD has conducted a study on SM-3 integration on Type 45 (via fitting MK41 in the growth space), and it would probably be most desirable to go this way, if any ABM way at all.

We should hear more about the state of Type 45 radar and ABM mission system capability, since in October this year there is an ABM event planned, alongside the US Navy, in the Hebrides. It should involve a Type 45 with an upgraded ABM mission software load which enables simultaneous AAW and ABM. The software load trialed in the Pacific in 2013 on HMS Daring required the AAW functionality to be switched off to focus on ABM only.

This upgrade is it like the upgrade the Japanese navy had to its functionality so the ship could defend itself against conventional missiles as at the same time ABM

jimthelad · Post by **jimthelad** » 12 Jul 2015, 22:48

RetroSicotte wrote:...how would it go on top of the hanger, may I ask?

It has been looked, the hangar roof is stressed as a future 'growth enabled space'. 1 company to my knowledge has 2 designs. 1 a retractable navalised army mount with 2 x 12 fire units and the other a 2x 36 parallell vls array. Some intransigence on behalf of BAe to offer a team to liase slowed things into budgetary hell and so it is shelved.

seaspear · Post by **seaspear** » 14 Jul 2015, 23:48

For some time the Daring class has been claimed as the best air warfare destroyer ,but there have not been any announced developments of this ships ability in this regard ,the U.S.N has proposed installing amdr to its flight 11 Arleigh Burkes giving it a substantive increase in its air warfare capability and potential for its use as electronic jamming against opponents the same way the F35 can .

SKB · Post by **SKB** » 28 Aug 2015, 02:10

HMS Daring (D32)

HMS Dauntless (D33)

HMS Diamond (D34)

HMS Dragon (D35)

HMS Defender (D36)

HMS Duncan (D37)

SKB · Post by **SKB** » 11 Sep 2015, 14:23

^ Image by Chris Gunns

^Image by Trevor Carpenter

'HMS Portsdown Hill', Portsmouth. Permanantly 110m above sea level!

Its actually called the MISC, the Maritime Integration and Support Centre. Built by BAE on land leased from Qinetiq near Fort Southwick, Portsdown Hill to test and trial the command and control systems of the T45 before the ships were built. Regarded by locals as 'a bit of an eyesore'

Dahedd · Post by **Dahedd** » 11 Sep 2015, 15:16

Could they move that facility "down south" ?

I'm sure it would be of great use on a certain island in the South Atlantic.

Lugzy · Post by **Lugzy** » 11 Sep 2015, 15:43

Dahedd wrote:Could they move that facility "down south" ?

I'm sure it would be of great use on a certain island in the South Atlantic.

I'm sure it would , shame we only have one spare tbh , I wonder if the facility could be used as a back up air traffic control centre in an emergency ? Maybe that's a silly question my apologies in advance lol

ArmChairCivvy · Post by **ArmChairCivvy** » 11 Sep 2015, 15:58

I think we will rather see a couple of these AMB radars down there, instead:
http://saab.com/region/saab-australia/a ... mb-radars/

arfah · Post by **arfah** » 11 Sep 2015, 16:09

............

Dahedd · Post by **Dahedd** » 11 Sep 2015, 17:48

Tbf I was also thinking we could have multiples for UK defence. Up in Shetland, outer Hebrides, RAF Buchanan old site beside Peterhead, coastal n/ireland, Scily Isles etc. Static Aster 45 positions as well.

It would never happen & I guess ground based air defences are a sitting duck for cruise missiles.

SKB · Post by **SKB** » 18 Sep 2015, 00:05

HMS Duncan trialing the new Wildcat

YouTube · Post by **The Armchair Soldier** » 20 Oct 2015, 18:03

No Type 45 involved in the At Sea Demonstration ABM exercise currently taking place - what a wasted opportunity:

Gabriele · Post by **Gabriele** » 20 Oct 2015, 22:37

The Armchair Soldier wrote:No Type 45 involved in the At Sea Demonstration ABM exercise currently taking place - what a wasted opportunity:

HMS Dauntless was supposed to take part. If it hasn't, we have to assume it is broken. Again.

It was supposed to test a new software load building on that used by HMS Daring in 2013 in the Pacific. Back then, tracking a ballistic target required shutting down the AAW capability. Today was meant to demonstrate simultaneous AAW and BMD tracking.

IF, and i repeat IF, no Type 45 made it to the exercise, it is a major failure.

jimthelad · Post by **jimthelad** » 20 Oct 2015, 22:59

Hate to break this to you guys but there is T45 beam on in the main frame of the post but not in the line astern view

shark bait · Post by **shark bait** » 20 Oct 2015, 23:10

Is that not a Horizon-class frigate?

Can't see a gun on the front, and the exhaust stack looks a little strange.

Gabriele · Post by **Gabriele** » 20 Oct 2015, 23:11

jimthelad wrote:Hate to break this to you guys but there is T45 beam on in the main frame of the post but not in the line astern view

Nope, no Type 45 in sight anywhere. The one you are seeing is the Horizon-class "Andrea Doria" of the italian navy. Somewhat similar, but if you look closely you'll easily spot the differences... starting with the absence of the MK8 gun turret.

Lugzy · Post by **Lugzy** » 23 Oct 2015, 17:45

Bit of a mystery tbh , it seems forces Tv are reporting today that HMS Dauntless was taking part in the exercise but according to the Royal Navy hms Dauntless is still along side in Portsmouth , plus there's a nice video covering the ships involved in the bmd exercise on the link below , it only shows 7 ships instead of the 8 reportedly taking part no type 45 to be seen , and your right gab / shark it's a Italian navy horizon class in the picture ,

http://forces.tv/22099952

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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