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

[MikeKiloPapa]

The article goes on about the ship assisting in theatre ballistic missile defence ???

Indeed, I wonder at the credibility of such statements. Whilst the radar and combat management system are up to the task.

Actually i dont think they are. As good as SAMPSON is, being a first generation AESA, it is stil a relatively low power radar . I doubt it can achieve the ranges needed to perform effective BMD, without significant hardware changes. As in basically a whole new radar( just like the SMART-L EWC is a new design with nothing but the name in common with its predecessor)

Even the american SPY-1 radar, with its massive MW range output, has to concentrate all its energy in a single very narrow beam to reach the required>600km range. That "pencil beam" also means that it is very good at tracking and delivers accurate target firing data..., but it either needs to know where(what part of the sky) to look for a ballistic missile or be queued by an external early warning sensor , because it is poor at searching. Hence the development of the even more powerful AMDR.

As far as the combat management system is concerned, i also doubt that the standard CMS-1 installation has BMD capability , simply because its such a massive software modification. In AEGIS it required a completely new baseline CMS and not just a simple software upgrade. I know someone who develops BMD software , in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, for a non-AEGIS combat management system ...and according to him it , instead of just being an application or extension of the existing CMS, it too requires an all new installation.

[indeid]

The article goes on about the ship assisting in theatre ballistic missile defence ???

I thought that the software for the BMD modes was an experimental load, not part of the operational fit. That said if someone is happy to take the risk I imagine a change could be made while deployed.

BMD is a tough ask, and not just AAW with bigger ranges and speeds. One radar is going to struggle, and different bands are better for certain tasks. S Band is good for the tracking and discrimination bit, although needs to be told where to look. It's not going to set up a massive search fence to do initial detection, UHF is likely best for that.

There will be a compromise in the middle bands, but you'd hope that the initial detection would come from a sensor a long, long way above the surface.

Here's to a safe voyage.

[matt00773]

The article goes on about the ship assisting in theatre ballistic missile defence ???

Indeed, I wonder at the credibility of such statements. Whilst the radar and combat management system are up to the task.

Actually i dont think they are. As good as SAMPSON is, being a first generation AESA, it is stil a relatively low power radar . I doubt it can achieve the ranges needed to perform effective BMD, without significant hardware changes. As in basically a whole new radar( just like the SMART-L EWC is a new design with nothing but the name in common with its predecessor)

Even the american SPY-1 radar, with its massive MW range output, has to concentrate all its energy in a single very narrow beam to reach the required>600km range. That "pencil beam" also means that it is very good at tracking and delivers accurate target firing data..., but it either needs to know where(what part of the sky) to look for a ballistic missile or be queued by an external early warning sensor , because it is poor at searching. Hence the development of the even more powerful AMDR.

As far as the combat management system is concerned, i also doubt that the standard CMS-1 installation has BMD capability , simply because its such a massive software modification. In AEGIS it required a completely new baseline CMS and not just a simple software upgrade. I know someone who develops BMD software , in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, for a non-AEGIS combat management system ...and according to him it , instead of just being an application or extension of the existing CMS, it too requires an all new installation.

"low power radar" - what do you think AESA is? SAMPSON uses the latest GaN/GaAs technology which has a low power requirement to project beams a long way - it doesn't need any hardware changes. SAMPSON can match/exceed the beam projection of the SMART-L radar on T45 which has a range of over 800kms.

You can't compare SAMPSON with SPY1D(V) as it's on a completely different level technologically and has outperformed it many times in ballistic missile tracking tests. SPY1D(V) can't get anywhere near 600km projection as you state. The future SPY6(V) radar is a more comparable radar and that won't be in service until the 2020s.

[ArmChairCivvy]

SAMPSON uses the latest GaN/GaAs technology which has a low power requirement

Catch up coming at speed: Saab shipped their first one for naval use in 2016 (customer not disclosed), Japan just launched a warship that gets one, and going down in size - if it is low power, size only matters for what mast height can be achieved (?) - the ozzie frigates will get one, as is the NCS- based USN frigate competitor specced with (who knows if it ever will get realised).

[MikeKiloPapa]

SAMPSON uses the latest GaN/GaAs technology

It uses GaAs T/R modules.....when SAMPSON was developed GaN modules was still a full decade away. At the time the most powerful S-band T/R element available was about 25 Watt peak power....SAMPSON having 2600 of those( in each face) means a combined output of ~65kW ....a far cry from the 5-6 MW of SPY-1D(V) ....Yes as an AESA ,SAMPSON has about 10 times the duty cycle of the SPY radar giving it performance like a 650kW PESA....even if Roke Manor had managed to double the output of the GaAs elements it would still fall short of the brute force of SPY-1. SAMPSON is of course much more sensitive than the older US radar which is why it achieves good range on "low" power.

which has a low power requirement to project beams a long way - it doesn't need any hardware changes.

I'm sorry, but physics says it does....the only way to achieve the ranges we are speaking of on a low power requirement is by using continuous wave illumination instead of the Pulses used by SAMPSON.....Which like SPY , has to focus its energi in a narrow beam( or beams...more accurately described as "Chirps" because they are NOT continuous) to achieve longer range, at the expense of volume search capability. I'm guessing that is how SAMPSON gets to its +400km instrumented range.
A good example would be to compare an X-band CWI fire control director/radar like STIR or Saabs 1,5 kW CEROS 200 which has the same or better range as the much more powerful APAR x-band AESA radar.

SAMPSON can match/exceed the beam projection of the SMART-L radar on T45 which has a range of over 800kms.

No it doesn't....Granted...the S1850 version is a little more powerful than the SMART-L on which it is based( S1850 has a different front end with slightly higher output T/R modules) but it has no where near twice the 400km instrumented range of SMART-L. My guess is 450-480km at best.
As for SAMPSON having a +800km range ?....LOL!!

You can't compare SAMPSON with SPY1D(V) as it's on a completely different level technologically

That is true

and has outperformed it many times in ballistic missile tracking tests.

Doubtful....extremely doubtful.

SPY1D(V) can't get anywhere near 600km projection as you state.

I have several AEGIS CMS experts stating otherwise....since 5-600km is the minimum range required for timely detection and engagement of SRBM and MRBM and AEGIS/ SPY-1D(V) equipped Arleigh Burkes have conducted several succesful intercepts against representative targets, i am inclined to believe them rather than you.

The future SPY6(V) radar is a more comparable radar and that won't be in service until the 2020s.

It isnt at all comparable....well its also an AESA but that is about it really.....AMDR is on a different technological level and many many times as powerful as SAMPSON....Even in its reduced 14 foot array form it has more than twice as many T/R elements (5328 to be exact)
and each of those is able to handle at least 5 times the output of the corresponding GaAs element in SAMPSON, because it utilizes GaN as a semiconductor material which can tolerate much more heat and work at higher voltages than Gallium Arsenide.

[ArmChairCivvy]

since 5-600km is the minimum range required for timely detection and engagement of SRBM and MRBM

CEC is already "old hat" for the USN, but the fact that we backed away from the development path to distributed shooters is quite worrying. After Sampson being upgraded (I hear the budget is not much for that so don't hold your breadth), putting the right missiles on T45s (and T26s?) is like a baby step, but the stride needs to be taken first.

[Ron5]

The article goes on about the ship assisting in theatre ballistic missile defence ???

Indeed, I wonder at the credibility of such statements. Whilst the radar and combat management system are up to the task.

Actually i dont think they are. As good as SAMPSON is, being a first generation AESA, it is stil a relatively low power radar . I doubt it can achieve the ranges needed to perform effective BMD, without significant hardware changes. As in basically a whole new radar( just like the SMART-L EWC is a new design with nothing but the name in common with its predecessor)

Even the american SPY-1 radar, with its massive MW range output, has to concentrate all its energy in a single very narrow beam to reach the required>600km range. That "pencil beam" also means that it is very good at tracking and delivers accurate target firing data..., but it either needs to know where(what part of the sky) to look for a ballistic missile or be queued by an external early warning sensor , because it is poor at searching. Hence the development of the even more powerful AMDR.

As far as the combat management system is concerned, i also doubt that the standard CMS-1 installation has BMD capability , simply because its such a massive software modification. In AEGIS it required a completely new baseline CMS and not just a simple software upgrade. I know someone who develops BMD software , in conjunction with Lockheed Martin, for a non-AEGIS combat management system ...and according to him it , instead of just being an application or extension of the existing CMS, it too requires an all new installation.

Have you missed the news reports when on multiple occasions inn exercises the Sampson has demonstrated the capabilities you say it cannot have?

And yes, it was with experimental software loads.

And no, there s no official UK budget for BMD. It's being done on shoestring R&D budgets.

Long and interesting Janes article on this recently.

[matt00773]

SAMPSON uses the latest GaN/GaAs technology

It uses GaAs T/R modules.....when SAMPSON was developed GaN modules was still a full decade away. At the time the most powerful S-band T/R element available was about 25 Watt peak power....SAMPSON having 2600 of those( in each face) means a combined output of ~65kW ....a far cry from the 5-6 MW of SPY-1D(V) ....Yes as an AESA ,SAMPSON has about 10 times the duty cycle of the SPY radar giving it performance like a 650kW PESA....even if Roke Manor had managed to double the output of the GaAs elements it would still fall short of the brute force of SPY-1. SAMPSON is of course much more sensitive than the older US radar which is why it achieves good range on "low" power.

which has a low power requirement to project beams a long way - it doesn't need any hardware changes.

I'm sorry, but physics says it does....the only way to achieve the ranges we are speaking of on a low power requirement is by using continuous wave illumination instead of the Pulses used by SAMPSON.....Which like SPY , has to focus its energi in a narrow beam( or beams...more accurately described as "Chirps" because they are NOT continuous) to achieve longer range, at the expense of volume search capability. I'm guessing that is how SAMPSON gets to its +400km instrumented range.
A good example would be to compare an X-band CWI fire control director/radar like STIR or Saabs 1,5 kW CEROS 200 which has the same or better range as the much more powerful APAR x-band AESA radar.

SAMPSON can match/exceed the beam projection of the SMART-L radar on T45 which has a range of over 800kms.

No it doesn't....Granted...the S1850 version is a little more powerful than the SMART-L on which it is based( S1850 has a different front end with slightly higher output T/R modules) but it has no where near twice the 400km instrumented range of SMART-L. My guess is 450-480km at best.
As for SAMPSON having a +800km range ?....LOL!!

You can't compare SAMPSON with SPY1D(V) as it's on a completely different level technologically

That is true

and has outperformed it many times in ballistic missile tracking tests.

Doubtful....extremely doubtful.

SPY1D(V) can't get anywhere near 600km projection as you state.

I have several AEGIS CMS experts stating otherwise....since 5-600km is the minimum range required for timely detection and engagement of SRBM and MRBM and AEGIS/ SPY-1D(V) equipped Arleigh Burkes have conducted several succesful intercepts against representative targets, i am inclined to believe them rather than you.

The future SPY6(V) radar is a more comparable radar and that won't be in service until the 2020s.

It isnt at all comparable....well its also an AESA but that is about it really.....AMDR is on a different technological level and many many times as powerful as SAMPSON....Even in its reduced 14 foot array form it has more than twice as many T/R elements (5328 to be exact)
and each of those is able to handle at least 5 times the output of the corresponding GaAs element in SAMPSON, because it utilizes GaN as a semiconductor material which can tolerate much more heat and work at higher voltages than Gallium Arsenide.

Indeed, SAMPSON utilises GaAs and not GaN - couldn't remember of the top of my head previously. One thing to point out though is that whilst GaN can use higher frequency and produces less heat than GaAs, it also produces more distortion which itself requires a level of processing.

I don't understand why you're making a point about the power of the SPY1D(V) radar as if its a good thing. The amount of power it needs to project to its 350km limit is absolutely horrendous. Using the radar at full power reduces the range of Arleigh Burke ships from 5500nm to around 3000nm. In fact in a typical deployment for carrier air defence two ships work together using only two panels each. Arleigh Burke's record against ballistic missiles and indeed even standard missile intercepts leaves a lot to be desired...

You also seem to be confusing PESA beam/scan capability with that of an AESA radar. SAMPSON technology is such that multiple functions can be carried out simultaneously through various algorithms - long and medium range search, surface search and high-angle search, and tracking modes can be all be done at the same time.

You're right about the capabilities of the SPY6 radar - and this is indeed pretty awesome technology, but that is not operational yet and Burkes will still require the SPS-67 radar to deal with sea skimmer missiles.

S1850 has a range of 450km for air defence and over 1000km for ballistic missiles for your information.

Getting back to the original point - T45 can easily provide BMD capability if it had the right missiles installed.

[seaspear]

The Samson system as used on the Daring class is as I understand it able to receive upgrades to its software increasing its capabilities in range ,I have not read of any of these upgrades since its launch ,most sites still state its range of 400 kilometres ,there is the Smart-lewcs version by the Dutch providing a much greater range ,The R.N has also expressed an interest last year in the block INT Aster 30 for the ships providing an increase in range for threats ,this research is currently funded by the French air force and Italian navy ,there is of course the block 2 Aster 30 exo-atmospheric capable of a 3000 range but this is not coming out till the 2020,s
Basically Samson can be upgraded to increase its capabilities as can Aster 30 on the Daring class destroyers , If there is a published program for the ships of this class to have a continual upgrade in capabilities for Sampson could someone please post it , it would likely be needed for the next generation of Aster 30 in providing long range anti theatre ballistic missile defence

[ArmChairCivvy]

400 - 450 - 1000km...
https://mostlymissiledefense.files.word ... .png?w=600
- includes the points for detection and tracking

[indeid]

since 5-600km is the minimum range required for timely detection and engagement of SRBM and MRBM

CEC is already "old hat" for the USN, but the fact that we backed away from the development path to distributed shooters is quite worrying. After Sampson being upgraded (I hear the budget is not much for that so don't hold your breadth), putting the right missiles on T45s (and T26s?) is like a baby step, but the stride needs to be taken first.

To really make the most of AEGIS BMD getting so called Launch on Remote and then Engage on Remote were key steps, BMD equivalent of CEC I suppose. I'm sure that the MDA has got those nailed by now to achieve some of the ranges quoted.

Updates to current TDLs should make a CEC type capability available at a much reduced cost soon. I've not been convinced we have the sensor/shooter numbers up to now, but assuming F35/Crowsnest implement MADL/JTRS to its full capability across the fleet they will be well on their way.

Previous tests show that the software for Sampson must be fairly mature. Having another sensor would be extremely useful to the USN if they head towards NK.

[ArmChairCivvy]

I've not been convinced we have the sensor/shooter numbers up to now, but assuming F35/Crowsnest implement MADL/JTRS to its full capability across the fleet they will be well on their way.

- I share those thoughts
- the assumption (at least in the public domain) remains open - as for investment and time scales

[indeid]

I've not been convinced we have the sensor/shooter numbers up to now, but assuming F35/Crowsnest implement MADL/JTRS to its full capability across the fleet they will be well on their way.

- I share those thoughts
- the assumption (at least in the public domain) remains open - as for investment and time scales

Agreed, as always how new capability is integrated is the key factor, especially legacy and stuff that is brand spankers.

The numbers grab the headlines, but that's not always the detail which will decide how useful it will be in real life. All the environments need to be able to make the most out of CEPP.

[Gabriele]

Soon there will be another large scale BMD and anti-sea skimmer exercise with the US Navy in the Hebrides. Hopefully a Type 45 will take part and that will tell us a bit more about the work that went on for BMD software. After HMS Daring tracked a ballistic missile in the Pacific, the MOD began working on a software load that would enable simultaneous BMD and AAW work, something that the Burkes took a while to get to. Daring had to focus solely on the BMD staring during her own test.
But the first test in the Hebrides did not generate much in terms of news. To this day i've not been able to understand if the Type 45 in the area took part, or if it developed faults at the topic time and was sidelined. Sadly, the second looks more likely.

Very curious to see what, if any, part the Type 45 plays in the incoming events. https://navaltoday.com/2017/08/24/us-6t ... thern-sea/

[Ron5]

According to Janes, Type 45's have participated in at least two exercise and in both successfully tracked BMD to a firing point. No MoD money has been committed to BMD yet. Also current thinking still has the evolved Aster (with an improved seeker) as the missile of choice.

As for Crowsnest & MDL, a very nice thought, but as ACC says, nothing in public about the possibility although the Crowsnest contract was reworked this year for reasons as yet undisclosed. Yeah, I can be an optimist too.

[sea_eagle]

Very curious to see what, if any, part the Type 45 plays in the incoming events. https://navaltoday.com/2017/08/24/us-6t ... thern-sea/

Just worth a note from that news item

As announced last year by the U.S. Naval Forces Europe commander, Admiral Michelle Howard, the U.S. 6th Fleet will be staging a ballistic missile defense exercise in Scottish waters between September and October.

Admiral Howard is the first woman to hold a rank of 4 star in the USN, quite an achievement. I believe the USN has a limit of 6 Admirals holding this rank.

[indeid]

According to Janes, Type 45's have participated in at least two exercise and in both successfully tracked BMD to a firing point. No MoD money has been committed to BMD yet. Also current thinking still has the evolved Aster (with an improved seeker) as the missile of choice.

As for Crowsnest & MDL, a very nice thought, but as ACC says, nothing in public about the possibility although the Crowsnest contract was reworked this year for reasons as yet undisclosed. Yeah, I can be an optimist too.

.

The T45 work has been funded as a trial, although the intent was there in the SDSR any more funding has to be from the existing RN budget. The UK already funds the running of Fylingdales to contribute to the US BMD system, which the UK receives a feed, and a new BMD radar project started.

The F35 can already use Link16 and message translation between MADL and 16 carried out during the BABEL FISH exercises (great name btw....). You may be right, I imagine it's all being traded out as I type!

[SKB]

[SKB]

[WhitestElephant]

Any idea if a T45 had the opportunity to intercept in the recent anti-air missile exercises?

[RetroSicotte]

No missiles fired.

[indeid]

Any idea if a T45 had the opportunity to intercept in the recent anti-air missile exercises?

If they had a developmental software load in for the BMD tracking I doubt it would be validated for a live launch, even though half of the airspace over the Atlantic was closed off.

Might depend if you can change loads at sea.

[shark bait]

By load do you mean software build?

I next development step was to get the BMD mode working at the same time as its regular area defense mode. I expect they will have taken the opportunity to test both modes simultaneously.

[The Armchair Soldier]

HMS Diamond, Exercise Brilliant Mariner 2017

[Dahedd]

That's a pretty impressive fleet.