Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Is there any information on the aims of the upgrade to the type 45,s radar regarding capability?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I have personally found no intent for the UK to upgrade the S1850M as of yet. However, should an upgrade be announced, you can be almost certain it will be focused on improving the capability to provide long-range detection of ballistic missiles. This would align with the UK’s intention to develop the overall BMD capability of the Type 45, though not specific to S1850M (mostly SAMPSON which has been tested in BM tracking exercises and the design itself was developed from a BM-tracking focused radar (MESAR2)).seaspear wrote:Is there any information on the aims of the upgrade to the type 45,s radar regarding capability?
As mentioned in previous posts, Thales Netherlands have developed SMART-L which (in the latest form of SMART-L-MM (also called SMART-L-EWC)) has improved ballistic missile tracking ability.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
ELR was the initial signal-processing based upgrade applied to SMART-L to test its ballistic missile tracking capability in 2006. I believe it was then installed to the De Zeven Provincien class frigates of the Royal Netherlands Navy.NickC wrote:Wikipedia mentions Thales software upgrade to the SMART-L, Extended Long Range (ELR) Mode and the SMART-L Early Warning Capability, (EWC), maybe either basis of the Thales S1850M overhaul?NickC wrote:My understanding is that SMART-MM/N, multi-mission/navy antenna is totally new, fully digital AESA using new gen GaN silicon transmit receiver modules, also with its dual axis tech, what Lockheed calls dual polarisation, dual‐pol radar sends and receives both horizontal and vertical pulses providing a much more informative two‐dimensional picture of what is out there, Lockheed uses it in the new SPY-7 for CSC and F-110 frigates, Thales also use dual axis in their other new radars eg NS100 - T31.
GaN silicon can take ~5+ times more power than previous gen silicon that enables it to pump out more RF energy, will need larger generators, assuming GaN ~40% efficient in creating RF energy that leaves 60% as heat to be cooled needing larger chillers to control temp of the antenna.
Would think very unlikely S1850M antenna could be upgraded, presuming it was the back end computers software upgraded.
EWC was a culmination of the ELR upgrade and a front-end antenna upgrade to an AESA array. As far as I’m aware SMART-L-MM and SMART-L-EWC are the same radar where ‘SMART-L-MM’ is essentially a rebrand. MM is currently being fitted to the De Zeven Provincien class.
Supposedly the S1850M is capable of receiving the EWC/MM upgrade (or some modification of it). Though as others have mentioned it may be easier to purchase new systems entirely.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
It's a little confusing when the datasheet is shown states the latest long-range radar installed
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overhaul/
if maintenance was just replacement of parts becoming obsolete etc. that should been stated ,its why I asked about increased capability.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overhaul/
if maintenance was just replacement of parts becoming obsolete etc. that should been stated ,its why I asked about increased capability.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I’d imagine this is just more marketing wish-wash as the article itself and interviews both reference it as S1850M.seaspear wrote:It's a little confusing when the datasheet is shown states the latest long-range radar installed
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overhaul/
if maintenance was just replacement of parts becoming obsolete etc. that should been stated ,its why I asked about increased capability.
It should be noted that BAE also claims to have fitted the ‘latest version’ of the SAMPSON radar, despite the fact there is essentially only one operational ‘version’ (bar a few software upgrades/minor potential changes). I’m assuming it’s the same case for S1850M unless confirmed otherwise.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
There's photos online showing a new/upgraded Sampson being delivered to a T45 under refit. May have just been refurbished or maybe more was done.ETH wrote:I’d imagine this is just more marketing wish-wash as the article itself and interviews both reference it as S1850M.seaspear wrote:It's a little confusing when the datasheet is shown states the latest long-range radar installed
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overhaul/
if maintenance was just replacement of parts becoming obsolete etc. that should been stated ,its why I asked about increased capability.
It should be noted that BAE also claims to have fitted the ‘latest version’ of the SAMPSON radar, despite the fact there is essentially only one operational ‘version’ (bar a few software upgrades/minor potential changes). I’m assuming it’s the same case for S1850M unless confirmed otherwise.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
My guess is that it was just a refurbishment that couldn’t have taken place on the ship itself. BAE has suggested a SAMPSON BMD upgrade in 2024.Ron5 wrote:There's photos online showing a new/upgraded Sampson being delivered to a T45 under refit. May have just been refurbished or maybe more was done.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
EhhETH wrote: a SAMPSON BMD upgrade in 2024.
WE really aspire to be back in the First League
... it is (so far) only a suggestion, though
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)
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Developing ship-borne BMD has long been an aspiration of the Royal Navy, just never realised.ArmChairCivvy wrote:EhhETH wrote: a SAMPSON BMD upgrade in 2024.
WE really aspire to be back in the First League
... it is (so far) only a suggestion, though
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yes, and if you read the Joint Ops Doctrine (has been waiting for the CEPP update for yonks; have not checked on that lately),ETH wrote: Developing ship-borne BMD has long been an aspiration of the Royal Navy,
The t45 investment was justified as a carrier (air power) replacement by claiming that the range bubble of the SAMs would be equally valid over land (covering the landed amphibious force)
... which of course was a blatant lie (the get the investment thru)
BUT the Abm capability is a must
- or we may decide to take a step down; from WChamps , to European Champions League
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)
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
The RN has shown Sampson successfully tracking BM during exercises with trial software updates. No doubt these updates will be deployed to the fleet in general when testing is complete.ETH wrote:Developing ship-borne BMD has long been an aspiration of the Royal Navy, just never realised.ArmChairCivvy wrote:EhhETH wrote: a SAMPSON BMD upgrade in 2024.
WE really aspire to be back in the First League
... it is (so far) only a suggestion, though
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Nice attempt at rewriting history but the discussions in Parliament regarding the T45's ability to provide air defense was in the context of justifying the withdrawal of the carriers. Not as a means of justifying the T45 acquisition. That was thought to be obvious given the retirement of the T42's.ArmChairCivvy wrote:The t45 investment was justified as a carrier (air power) replacement by claiming that the range bubble of the SAMs would be equally valid over land (covering the landed amphibious force)
... which of course was a blatant lie (the get the investment thru)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
We are in violent agreement. But the point I made comes straight from the updates made to the Joint Operating Doctrine (i.e acknowledging planning constraints coming with the deletion of carriers)... so seems like you have not read it? I agree that the discussions in the Parliament come in more bite-sized chunks, put perhaps the mentioned doc drilled a tad deeperRon5 wrote:Nice attempt at rewriting history but the discussions in Parliament regarding the T45's ability to provide air defense was in the context of justifying the withdrawal of the carriers. Not as a means of justifying the T45 acquisition.
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)
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
HMS Dragon with a new mast on the bow, ready for Ex Formidable Shield.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Click to enlarge, then again to zoom close in:
Hmm. Interesting mast, right behind the main gun. Not permanant is it?
I also noticed Dragon's artwork needs some attention, its losing it's rear left ankle and toes!
Hmm. Interesting mast, right behind the main gun. Not permanant is it?
I also noticed Dragon's artwork needs some attention, its losing it's rear left ankle and toes!
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
It looks similar to the mast that was fitted to one of the earlier shots of QNLZ doing sea trials which (I think) was measuring wind speeds, although I don't know why it's doing this here!SKB wrote: Hmm. Interesting mast, right behind the main gun. Not permanant is it?
I also noticed Dragon's artwork needs some attention, its losing it's rear left ankle and toes!
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Wind speed depending on strength will move any shell or bullet eg 4.5" 46 lb shell, considerable distance off line especially at longer ranges, spotting fall of shells will alow correction of aim, presuming initial measuring of wind speed will help in getting on target earlier, Field Artillery units have a dedicated Surveyor/Meteorological crewmember with kit responsible for monitoring weather conditions and patterns.Defiance wrote:It looks similar to the mast that was fitted to one of the earlier shots of QNLZ doing sea trials which (I think) was measuring wind speeds, although I don't know why it's doing this here!SKB wrote: Hmm. Interesting mast, right behind the main gun. Not permanant is it?
I also noticed Dragon's artwork needs some attention, its losing it's rear left ankle and toes!
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
If you look at what it’s positioned next to a certain conclusion can be made.Defiance wrote:It looks similar to the mast that was fitted to one of the earlier shots of QNLZ doing sea trials which (I think) was measuring wind speeds, although I don't know why it's doing this here!SKB wrote: Hmm. Interesting mast, right behind the main gun. Not permanant is it?
I also noticed Dragon's artwork needs some attention, its losing it's rear left ankle and toes!
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1714
- Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Midway between the 4.5” and the VLS.
Whatever conclusion you may have come to it may be or may not be correct. I know what I think that it MIGHT be for. Time will tell (perhaps).
Whatever conclusion you may have come to it may be or may not be correct. I know what I think that it MIGHT be for. Time will tell (perhaps).
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Do you guys want me to contact Thales NL to get to the bottom of this ? (I can't promise I would write a story but at least we would get a definite answer)seaspear wrote:It's a little confusing when the datasheet is shown states the latest long-range radar installed
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overhaul/
if maintenance was just replacement of parts becoming obsolete etc. that should been stated ,its why I asked about increased capability.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
That would certainly be very helpful if you could.xav wrote:Do you guys want me to contact Thales NL to get to the bottom of this ? (I can't promise I would write a story but at least we would get a definite answer)seaspear wrote:It's a little confusing when the datasheet is shown states the latest long-range radar installed
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -overhaul/
if maintenance was just replacement of parts becoming obsolete etc. that should been stated ,its why I asked about increased capability.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Ok so THALES NL told me the operations on the radar were just "refurbishment", no upgrade, no improvement.
They added that these radars were produced 15 years ago. Some old parts (not in production anymore) may have been replaced with new ones for obsolescence reasons... which could be considered as an "upgrade" by some but this was not the goal of the operation.
They added that these radars were produced 15 years ago. Some old parts (not in production anymore) may have been replaced with new ones for obsolescence reasons... which could be considered as an "upgrade" by some but this was not the goal of the operation.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Many thanksxav wrote:Ok so THALES NL told me the operations on the radar were just "refurbishment", no upgrade, no improvement.
They added that these radars were produced 15 years ago. Some old parts (not in production anymore) may have been replaced with new ones for obsolescence reasons... which could be considered as an "upgrade" by some but this was not the goal of the operation.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
So the type 45,s radar is confirmed as fifteen years old without any previous upgrades,the question might be is this still cutting edge?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
This is just the S1850M/SMART-L long range radar not Sampson. However it too is of a similar age.seaspear wrote:So the type 45,s radar is confirmed as fifteen years old without any previous upgrades,the question might be is this still cutting edge?