Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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.
Make 2 common launchers accross the fleet for vertically launched missiles.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
yeah, but that costs a lot, and all the T45 budget is eaten up by the propulsion upgrade.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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.
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: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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.Poiuytrewq wrote:Why not build another 2 or 3 AAW Destroyers based on Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead140?
If shit really hits the fan, just borrow one of the many AAW ships in NATO.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yes but it's 3 Burkes plus a Tico.shark bait wrote: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.Poiuytrewq wrote:Why not build another 2 or 3 AAW Destroyers based on Iver Huitfeldt/Arrowhead140?
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.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Does the RN need more than 6 destroyers to protect 2 carriers?Poiuytrewq wrote: random NATO AAW frigate to fill in for a T45 because we didn't build enough
@LandSharkUK
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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 !
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 !
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Lost two, three damaged (two badly)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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....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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
What's the relevance of that? The SeaSlugs got expended in shore bombardment... in the end.SKB wrote:fought the Falklands war with 8 destroyers (1x T82, 5x T42, 2x County Class)
-a few more SeaWolf might have worked wonders; whereas the older Cats were dogs
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)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
How much did the specialised carrier escort get to engage?fought the Falklands war with 8 destroyers (1x T82
- a blow by blow accout, pls. Just one little blow
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)
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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
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
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Six T45's is enough to protect both QE's.shark bait wrote:Does the RN need more than 6 destroyers to protect 2 carriers?Poiuytrewq wrote: random NATO AAW frigate to fill in for a T45 because we didn't build enough
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.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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.shark bait wrote:And those aircraft carry how many missiles each?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."
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.
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…
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…
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Agreed.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
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…
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…
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
The fleet is the carrier group.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.
What formations will the navy have beyond the carrier groups?
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4068
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
How can you ensure the safety of the Amphibious Task Group if your T45's are 200nm away with the CSG?shark bait wrote:The fleet is the carrier group.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.
What formations will the navy have beyond the carrier groups?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
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.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I thought that there was additional space for a silo between the gun and current silos. Would putting a VLS there solve the problem and provide 32 CAMM?jimthelad wrote: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.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Why does it need to clear the mast/sampson? If the target is directly behind the ship the missile can easily turn after launch.jimthelad wrote: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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
That is what it does. Plenty of vids around, to show at what height that happens (and the actual rockets, after the siphon effect wears off, ignite).tomuk wrote: the missile can easily turn after launch.
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)