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

[Ron5]

So, when we can expect start of work on first Type 45?

Already started, there have been lots of changes that have been retrofitted fleet wide over the years, they have been mostly fixing defects in the propulsion system. The power management system was built incredibly shitly, but its since been rectified, which is why we haven't seen black outs for a while.

The final modification is a significant change to the system architecture, which is suppose to be implemented by 2020.

With all of those mods, and increased training, the T45's will finally be a truly robust warship.

You're missing the point of SB's question.

[Ron5]

Not sure if there's a meaningful differentiation between NSM & JSM. I suspect NSM is the Norwegian acronym and JSM is the US.

Some sources say JSM is air launched and NSM is surface, but it's the identical missile with different boosters.

One very noticeable disadvantage of the deck launchers is their complete absence of any stealth. Just rectangular boxes on struts. Would stick out a bit on a t 26.

[bobp]

Just rectangular boxes on struts.

Are not these rectangular boxes on struts, placed at an angle. If so then they would reflect most of the directed RF energy away from its source. Though admittedly they will not be invisible. Perhaps a coating of RAM material would help.

[shark bait]

Differences are the shape, the software, and the communications hardware.

[Ron5]

Just rectangular boxes on struts.

Are not these rectangular boxes on struts, placed at an angle. If so then they would reflect most of the directed RF energy away from its source. Though admittedly they will not be invisible. Perhaps a coating of RAM material would help.

Struts are flat to side, boxes are flat to front. Looks rather agricultural.

albright_3-73.jpg

Screen-Shot-2015-04-09-at-1.02.20-PM.png

[shark bait]

The T45 is hardly a stealthy beast, it has a big ass radar buzzing away on top all the time.

Couple of deck launchers wouldn't hurt.

Have to say deck launched is preferable for cruise missiles. Save the vertical silos for the surface to air missiles, that's where being vertically launched really matters.

[Ron5]

Differences are the shape, the software, and the communications hardware.

Well if it's JSM in the canister, it looks just the same shape as NSM in a launcher unless these pictures are mislabeled:

20.jpg

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

^ Isn't that the proposed sub-surface launcher???

[S M H]

Having done a R.A.D.A.R. plot on a type 45 admittedly when they were doing work up. I thought that I was tracking a customs cutter it was not until the ships navigation lights became visible that that it was not a small vessel. The destroyer past some 200mtrs away on our port side only then in the back light of the land could you see what she was . With the navy's harpoons not being upgraded they will effectively be useless on any decent adversary. I'm positive that we could screen the boxes. As for the ramp they could be manufactured with round sections. The best option would be to replace the gym with strike length silos. But that's unlikely. But for once I wish I could be proved wrong.

[shark bait]

There's the difference, had to change it slightly to make it fit internally, still doesn't fit in the B. Can also see boosted vs air launched.

Also had to change the comms hardware to make it talk to the F35.

Small changes, but the two aren't interchangeable. Seems like it would be nice to go full circle and just add a booster the JSM so the same hardware can do both jobs.

[Ron5]

Found a v nice presentation that cleared up my confusion. Here's one relevant slide:

Basically JSM is a NSM shrunk to fit an F-35A weapons bay. Biggest visual change is ventral to side air intakes.

Yes, submarine launched variant based on smaller JSM to make it fit in torpedo tubes.

NSM - JSM.jpg

[Ron5]

Ha ha, SNAP!

Says here JSM changes will be retrofitted back into larger NSM so your wish will be granted.

Also JSM will be qualified for F-35A external carriage. They hung one on a F-35B and it fitted so write a check to Lockheed and it could be qualified for UK aircraft. Of course, MBDA and froggies would be upset ....

I'm thinking the long JSM booster in yr photo is for VLS?

[bobp]

If the JSM/NSM has a Link 16 capability does that mean it could be fired by a T45 and gain mid course guidance from another source eg a F35? Thinking over the Horizon targeting.

[Ron5]

I think it does makes that possible.

[bobp]

Yes I believe its the case actually just edited my post to read JSM/NSM as the JSM is Aircraft launched.

[shark bait]

That's a tactic we'll see exploited more and more as platforms like the F35 try to maintain their low observability, or to assist drones that don't have the payload. Critical feature for a modern missile.

[Ron5]

Just been reading Norman Friedman's latest: Fighters over the Fleet. Highly recommended.

Anyhow, aircraft control of over the horizon ship launched missiles to shoot down incoming bombers was discussed in USN think tanks in the 1950's.

Yep, 1950's. Before ACC & Bob were even born!

[Enigmatically]

The T45 is hardly a stealthy beast, it has a big ass radar buzzing away on top all the time.

Which (as is often the case) is to miss the main benefit for stealth design on warships. It isn't about avoiding detection.

I said history showed its importance. All bar one* of the successful defences against ASMs has been via decoying/distracting it away. That it is a lot easier if your ship is stealthy to the sensor on the missile.

* I say one because there is not as far as I can see a shred of evidence available at present to suggest that the USS Mason had a successful hard kill recently. Most likely cause was that the threat missile just fell in the sea, with a smaller probability that it was a successful soft kill

[ArmChairCivvy]

Yep, 1950's. Before ACC & Bob were even born!

Have you checked the facts? I think I catch you out too often for your liking

[MikeKiloPapa]

* I say one because there is not as far as I can see a shred of evidence available at present to suggest that the USS Mason had a successful hard kill recently. Most likely cause was that the threat missile just fell in the sea, with a smaller probability that it was a successful soft kill

The USS Mason was in fact attacked on three separate occasions , by multiple Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles fired from the coast of Yemen.

http://www.stripes.com/news/aegis-defen ... n-1.433974

https://news.usni.org/2016/10/10/destro ... cked-yemen

https://news.usni.org/2016/10/15/cno-ri ... -off-yemen

In at least one of these incidents, several witnesses reported seeing an explosion , likely indicating a missile intercept.

[Enigmatically]

I am aware of the 3 incidents. In the first 2 the USN have confirmed that the threat missile just flew into the sea.

In the last incident they fired off 2 SM-2s and an ESSM missile and decoys, and they have been unable to confirm whether any of those affected the threat destruction. I think there are indications (though not proof) that the threat flew into the sea. Any explosion seen could have been from the threat exploding when it hit the sea, or any of the 3 missiles fired by Mason exploding. That does not mean that there was a successful intercept. And there are reasons to suggest that there was not

[Old RN]

Does this mean that a Aegis/Standard combination failed in the area defence (or even point defence) mode against an old Soviet style SSM?

[bobp]

[quote="Yep, 1950's. Before ACC & Bob were even born![/quote]

Sorry Ron I was born in 1949 dear sir.

[Spinflight]

Does this mean that a Aegis/Standard combination failed in the area defence (or even point defence) mode against an old Soviet style SSM?

The ship wasn't hit so difficult to say it failed. Whether it would have succeeded against munitions that didn't fail does appear to be in some question though.

[MikeKiloPapa]

I am aware of the 3 incidents. In the first 2 the USN have confirmed that the threat missile just flew into the sea.

Yes, after the Mason deployed countermeasures, ...on both occasions.

In the last incident they fired off 2 SM-2s and an ESSM missile and decoys, and they have been unable to confirm whether any of those affected the threat destruction.

I'm guessing they are more unwilling than unable, to confirm anything at this point.

I think there are indications (though not proof) that the threat flew into the sea..

Such as ?

That does not mean that there was a successful intercept.

It doesn't mean there wasn't either

And there are reasons to suggest that there was not

Again, please enlighten us ?