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
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 13 Dec 2018, 07:54

abc123 wrote:"one of Duncan's sailors saying they felt the message could have been a warning to the ship while another said: "They had 17 aircraft, we have 48 missiles - I think we're going to win that one."

And those aircraft carry how many missiles each?

I've always been a little uneasy with the capacity, it's difficult, but a determined emery could saturate the system. Two runs similar to the Russians demonstration to Duncan could probably do the trick.

Again, this highlights the need for a carrier.
@LandSharkUK

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

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

Postby seaspear » 13 Dec 2018, 09:23

If the ships were in danger of iron bombs and strafing from aircraft there would be no problem ,but aircraft and land based launchers with salvos of hyper sonic missiles becomes more mathematically challenging

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Dec 2018, 09:26

Again for me it highlights the need to dump Aster 15 and go to CAMM on the Type 45 18 of the 48 A50 cells would allow 72 CAMM to be carried along with 30 Aster 30 would give each type 45 102 missiles

andrew98
Member
Posts: 142
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby andrew98 » 13 Dec 2018, 10:22

How about a refit to 64+ mk41 cells, and 4 x triple ExLS cells. Could then have 64+ Aster 30's and 48 CAMM.
Make 2 common launchers accross the fleet for vertically launched missiles.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 13 Dec 2018, 10:29

yeah, but that costs a lot, and all the T45 budget is eaten up by the propulsion upgrade.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Dec 2018, 10:58

Why not build another 2 or 3 AAW Destroyers based on Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead140?

Another 2 or 3 goalkeepers to supplement the single T45 in the CSG would be a welcome boost.

If these goalkeepers were a T31 variant which also included GP and ASW versions all the better.

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Dec 2018, 11:13

MBDA say they can quad pack CAMM into a A50 cell I know this has not been proven yet but I feel it should be looked into it could make type 45 a truly mighty AAW platform

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 13 Dec 2018, 11:42

Poiuytrewq wrote:Why not build another 2 or 3 AAW Destroyers based on Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead140?

When would a RN task group need more than three destroyers? Our american friends typically assign a destroyer squadron of three Burkes to a carrier group, I doubt the RN need more.

If shit really hits the fan, just borrow one of the many AAW ships in NATO.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Dec 2018, 13:09

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Why not build another 2 or 3 AAW Destroyers based on Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead140?

When would a RN task group need more than three destroyers? Our american friends typically assign a destroyer squadron of three Burkes to a carrier group, I doubt the RN need more.
Yes but it's 3 Burkes plus a Tico.

It's up for debate as to how to best configure the UK CSG but it needs to be made up of four escorts plus a SSN in my view. If a single T45 is all that can be realistically provided then what should provide of the rest of the escort screen?

If the T45 has a problem, is 2 or 3 Artisan/CAMM equipped frigates good enough to protect the CSG? I don't think so.

A lot of attention has been given to an ASW T31, maybe a AAW version should also be considered to work in tandem with a T45 within the CSG.

The idea that we just gather up any random NATO AAW frigate to fill in for a T45 because we didn't build enough of them is not acceptable in my opinion. Britain must be able to provide a full CSG if necessary on its own.

Allies supporting our CSG is one thing. Allies having to form the core of it is simply not good enough.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 13 Dec 2018, 13:49

Poiuytrewq wrote: random NATO AAW frigate to fill in for a T45 because we didn't build enough

Does the RN need more than 6 destroyers to protect 2 carriers?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 5299
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

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

Postby SKB » 13 Dec 2018, 14:08

RN fought the Falklands war with 8 destroyers (1x T82, 5x T42, 2x County Class)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_n ... klands_War

A single T45 can track/engage the same number of targets than 5x T42. So, 6x T45 = 30x T42 !

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1477
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

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

Postby Caribbean » 13 Dec 2018, 14:14

Lost two, three damaged (two badly)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

serge750
Member
Posts: 332
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

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

Postby serge750 » 13 Dec 2018, 14:29

Tempest414 wrote:MBDA say they can quad pack CAMM into a A50 cell I know this has not been proven yet but I feel it should be looked into it could make type 45 a truly mighty AAW platform


I wonder how much it would cost to intergrate Quad packed CAMM into 4 x Aster cells? I.E 16 CAMM in exchange for 4 x Aster, maybe a good compamise....

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Dec 2018, 14:32

SKB wrote:fought the Falklands war with 8 destroyers (1x T82, 5x T42, 2x County Class)


What's the relevance of that? The SeaSlugs got expended in shore bombardment... in the end.
-a few more SeaWolf might have worked wonders; whereas the older Cats were dogs :(

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 13 Dec 2018, 14:34

fought the Falklands war with 8 destroyers (1x T82


How much did the specialised carrier escort get to engage?
- a blow by blow accout, pls. Just one little blow :eh:

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Dec 2018, 15:08

for me there are three projects that would make the British carrier group and the RN a global force

1) Add CAMM to the Type 45s to give a load out of 100 + AAW missiles. As I now see type 45s only role as Carrier escort

2 ) Build 5 Carrier group only ASW frigates. This would release the Type 26s to be true global combat ships and if needed amphib group escorts

3 ) more F-35bs under FAA to allow 2 air-wings

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Dec 2018, 15:33

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote: random NATO AAW frigate to fill in for a T45 because we didn't build enough

Does the RN need more than 6 destroyers to protect 2 carriers?
Six T45's is enough to protect both QE's.

Is six T45's enough to protect the entire fleet? No clearly not.

We have lost our strength in depth. If the CSG is completely reliant on a single T45 and something was to happen to that T45, the CSG would be in big trouble against peer opposition very very fast. Relying on T23/T26 with a CAMM/Artisan combination is not the same as relying on 2 or 3 Burkes.

To be clear, I am suggesting we really need 8 or ideally 9 dedicated AAW vessels as we didn't build enough T45's. If we are going to have to rely on Iver Huitfeldt type vessels to fill the gaps why not just build 2 or 3 if we are going to end up building Arrowhead 140's for the T31 anyway.

An T45/Arrowhead 140 AAW combination could be pretty effective especially if equipped with Aster30/CAMM. In effect that's what the French are doing with the FTI with its Aster 15/30 capability.

Digger22
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 27 May 2015, 16:47
Location: England

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

Postby Digger22 » 13 Dec 2018, 16:32

Surely high end Destroyers in small numbers allow a potential enemy to focus their efforts on these few units, regardless how good they are, once they're gone they're gone. Just as we targeted and hunted German surface raiders.

inch
Member
Posts: 541
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Postby inch » 13 Dec 2018, 16:34

The only thing skb is that 1xt45 can't be in 5 places that 5 t42 could be even if it can track and shoot as meny missiles as 5 t42 , meaning we are just too few and spread too thinly in my view and if they damaged as many destroyers as happened in Falklands war that's just about our total destroyer force out of action or lost

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 1199
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

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

Postby Tempest414 » 13 Dec 2018, 17:56

I think we need to start with the simple things ( in terms of capability) like adding CAMM to type 45 if we can bring the AAW missiles up to 100 + this in terms of weapons would double the capability of the ships we have. As thing stand each T45 can carry 48 missiles and as said if we dropped Aster 15 and quad packed CAMM into 18 of the 48 A50 cells this would give us 72 CAMM and 30 Aster 30 and total of 102 missiles per ship. So in terms of the Carrier group if it went to sea with 2 T45s and 2 T26s as planned it could be carrying 20 fast jet 300 AAW missiles and 12 phalanx which in my book could be hard hitting

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

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

Postby abc123 » 13 Dec 2018, 18:04

shark bait wrote:
abc123 wrote:"one of Duncan's sailors saying they felt the message could have been a warning to the ship while another said: "They had 17 aircraft, we have 48 missiles - I think we're going to win that one."

And those aircraft carry how many missiles each?

I've always been a little uneasy with the capacity, it's difficult, but a determined emery could saturate the system. Two runs similar to the Russians demonstration to Duncan could probably do the trick.

Again, this highlights the need for a carrier.


I have to say that I'm worried about training level of the RN personell IF said statement was really issued by any member of HMS Duncan's crew. :think:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

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

Postby abc123 » 13 Dec 2018, 18:09

Tempest414 wrote:I think we need to start with the simple things ( in terms of capability) like adding CAMM to type 45 if we can bring the AAW missiles up to 100 + this in terms of weapons would double the capability of the ships we have. As thing stand each T45 can carry 48 missiles and as said if we dropped Aster 15 and quad packed CAMM into 18 of the 48 A50 cells this would give us 72 CAMM and 30 Aster 30 and total of 102 missiles per ship. So in terms of the Carrier group if it went to sea with 2 T45s and 2 T26s as planned it could be carrying 20 fast jet 300 AAW missiles and 12 phalanx which in my book could be hard hitting


Agreed.
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5741
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

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

Postby shark bait » 13 Dec 2018, 18:48

Poiuytrewq wrote:Six T45's is enough to protect both QE's.

Is six T45's enough to protect the entire fleet? No clearly not.

The fleet is the carrier group.

What formations will the navy have beyond the carrier groups?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1464
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Poiuytrewq » 13 Dec 2018, 19:23

shark bait wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:Six T45's is enough to protect both QE's.

Is six T45's enough to protect the entire fleet? No clearly not.

The fleet is the carrier group.

What formations will the navy have beyond the carrier groups?
How can you ensure the safety of the Amphibious Task Group if your T45's are 200nm away with the CSG?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 336
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby jimthelad » 13 Dec 2018, 20:00

The problem for CAMM on T45 is throw height. It cant clear SAMPSON on its mast if it is on the forward silo. Same for QE class. In the former it needs to be behind the first GT trunk or on the hangar roof. QE would need to be on the after island probably.


Return to “Royal Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eski and 35 guests