Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Given that T-45 has space for 16 strike length Mk-41 which are 7.7 meters adding 16 A70 in that space would be the way to go as the CAMM could be moved to another part of the ship allowing for a load out of 24 x Aster 30 , 24 x Aster30 Blk-1 , 16 x Aster 30 Blk-2 and 24 x CAMM plus 8 x NSM
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Agree.Tempest414 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 10:06 Given that T-45 has space for 16 strike length Mk-41 which are 7.7 meters adding 16 A70 in that space would be the way to go as the CAMM could be moved to another part of the ship allowing for a load out of 24 x Aster 30 , 24 x Aster30 Blk-1 , 16 x Aster 30 Blk-2 and 24 x CAMM plus 8 x NSM
By the way, I understand all Aster 30 is to be converted into Aster 30 Blk1. Probably then into Blk-1NT (with Ka seeker). Also, Aster 30 Blk2 is "a decade away".
So, it will be "64 x Aster 30 Blk-1/Blk-1NT (or 48 of them + 16 x Aster 30 Blk-2) and 24 x CAMM plus 8 x NSM". Not bad, at all.
If we can squeeze a space for 48 CAMM (space-wize it is doable. It is just a matter of money), it will be "64 x Aster 30 Blk-1/Blk-1NT, 48 x CAMM, and 8x NSM", which I think is nearly perfect. If we "need" to replace 114 mm gun with 57 mm gun to enable 48 CAMM, I am very happy to push for it. More money will be needed, but not so much more crew.
- These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post:
- wargame_insomniac
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
As said all Aster 30 are to be upgraded to Blk-1/1NT but also as said what do we do with the Aster 15 do we bring half of them up to 30 Blk-0 and the other half up to Blk-2 laterdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 11:50Agree.Tempest414 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 10:06 Given that T-45 has space for 16 strike length Mk-41 which are 7.7 meters adding 16 A70 in that space would be the way to go as the CAMM could be moved to another part of the ship allowing for a load out of 24 x Aster 30 , 24 x Aster30 Blk-1 , 16 x Aster 30 Blk-2 and 24 x CAMM plus 8 x NSM
By the way, I understand all Aster 30 is to be converted into Aster 30 Blk1. Probably then into Blk-1NT (with Ka seeker). Also, Aster 30 Blk2 is "a decade away".
So, it will be "64 x Aster 30 Blk-1/Blk-1NT (or 48 of them + 16 x Aster 30 Blk-2) and 24 x CAMM plus 8 x NSM". Not bad, at all.
If we can squeeze a space for 48 CAMM (space-wize it is doable. It is just a matter of money), it will be "64 x Aster 30 Blk-1/Blk-1NT, 48 x CAMM, and 8x NSM", which I think is nearly perfect. If we "need" to replace 114 mm gun with 57 mm gun to enable 48 CAMM, I am very happy to push for it. More money will be needed, but not so much more crew.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I understand ALL Aster darts (regardless of Aster 15 or 30 origin) can be easily converted into Aster 30 blk1 and blk1 NT.Tempest414 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 12:02 As said all Aster 30 are to be upgraded to Blk-1/1NT but also as said what do we do with the Aster 15 do we bring half of them up to 30 Blk-0 and the other half up to Blk-2 later
On the other hand, isn't Aster Blk2 a missile with completely different air-frame?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Someone educate me here, Isn't the 30 just a 15 with a boaster for longer range?
The 15 will be out of a job when CAMM is installed, you will want to fill those Syler cells with the 30.
The 15 will be out of a job when CAMM is installed, you will want to fill those Syler cells with the 30.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yes and I believe that's the plan.
- These users liked the author Ron5 for the post:
- donald_of_tokyo
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Mmmm T45's are pretty well packed. Not sure that much space top side is available.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 11:50 f we can squeeze a space for 48 CAMM (space-wize it is doable. It is just a matter of money)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
How about, in the wall of the Sylver VLS's deck-house? How about at the top of boat alcove? How about around the anchor capstan area (like RAN did with their FFG7 class, adding Mk 41 VLS for ESSM near the bow?).Ron5 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 13:51Mmmm T45's are pretty well packed. Not sure that much space top side is available.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 11:50 f we can squeeze a space for 48 CAMM (space-wize it is doable. It is just a matter of money)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: 20 Nov 2021, 19:12
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I know that the T45 were always designed to be Fitted For But Not With Mk41 VLS cells, and that indeed this spare space was known on the ships as Mk41 Gym.
I had understood that this Mk41 space was recently announced to be used instead to fit 24 CAMM, so that all the Sylver VLS could be upgraded to Aster 30 (rather than current mix of Aster 15 and Aster 30). From what I can gether, this addition of CAMM is NOT being done at the same time / concurrently with T45;s PIP improvement, and that therefor this would be carried out at another future refit.
So the RN does have a bit of time to decide if the CAMM can be situated anywhere else. But given that 8 NSM Canisters are also being added, I do worry that would have the space and/or top weight for BOTH Mk41 and CAMM?
However it does give us the prospect of the T45s operating in the near future with far greater reliability and higher at sea days (following PIP improvement), whilst also finally and belatedly being uparmed appropriately against a variety of threats. I just hope we can do both before we need them to counter Russia and/or China.
I had understood that this Mk41 space was recently announced to be used instead to fit 24 CAMM, so that all the Sylver VLS could be upgraded to Aster 30 (rather than current mix of Aster 15 and Aster 30). From what I can gether, this addition of CAMM is NOT being done at the same time / concurrently with T45;s PIP improvement, and that therefor this would be carried out at another future refit.
So the RN does have a bit of time to decide if the CAMM can be situated anywhere else. But given that 8 NSM Canisters are also being added, I do worry that would have the space and/or top weight for BOTH Mk41 and CAMM?
However it does give us the prospect of the T45s operating in the near future with far greater reliability and higher at sea days (following PIP improvement), whilst also finally and belatedly being uparmed appropriately against a variety of threats. I just hope we can do both before we need them to counter Russia and/or China.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
I doubt there's sufficient depth available at the deckhouse, the hull is pretty V shaped there. Same for the anchor space.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 14:07How about, in the wall of the Sylver VLS's deck-house? How about at the top of boat alcove? How about around the anchor capstan area (like RAN did with their FFG7 class, adding Mk 41 VLS for ESSM near the bow?).Ron5 wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 13:51Mmmm T45's are pretty well packed. Not sure that much space top side is available.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 11:50 f we can squeeze a space for 48 CAMM (space-wize it is doable. It is just a matter of money)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
We don't need the "sufficient depth". Just make it a little taller. That is how RAN installed the Mk41 VLS on their FFG7 class.Ron5 wrote: ↑20 Feb 2023, 13:42I doubt there's sufficient depth available at the deckhouse, the hull is pretty V shaped there. Same for the anchor space.donald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑19 Feb 2023, 11:50How about, in the wall of the Sylver VLS's deck-house? How about at the top of boat alcove? How about around the anchor capstan area (like RAN did with their FFG7 class, adding Mk 41 VLS for ESSM near the bow?).
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
There is some spare space around the front of the hangar AIUI where the torpedo tubes and magazines were going to go. I'm not sure if the space is suitable for CAMM though.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Quad packing 8 cell VLS would give you 32 plus as said up thread if we fitted 2 x A70 in the space set aside for Mk-41 type 45 could carry 64 Aster 30 Blk-1/ Blk-1NT and later a load out of 48 Aster 30 x Blk-1NT and 16 x Blk-2
Now if we fitted the A70 cells and paid to quad pack CAMM in the A50 cells we could see type 45 with a load out of
32 x CAMM , 40 Aster 30 Blk-1NT , 16 Aster 30 Blk-2 plus 8 x NSM
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
1: There is no quad-pack system developed, other than stand-alone ExLS. UK paying for it will be one idea. CAMM in Sylver or CAMM in Mk.41. Which shall we choose?Tempest414 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2023, 09:41Quad packing 8 cell VLS would give you 32 plus as said up thread if we fitted 2 x A70 in the space set aside for Mk-41 type 45 could carry 64 Aster 30 Blk-1/ Blk-1NT and later a load out of 48 Aster 30 x Blk-1NT and 16 x Blk-2
Now if we fitted the A70 cells and paid to quad pack CAMM in the A50 cells we could see type 45 with a load out of
32 x CAMM , 40 Aster 30 Blk-1NT , 16 Aster 30 Blk-2 plus 8 x NSM
2: I'm looking at different approach. CAMM is small, light weight, cold launch, can be located "anywhere". Increasing the top height of the "wall" of 48-cell Sylver and locating CAMM tubes there is surely doable, just a matter of money. No top weight issue (CAMM is very light weight).
2: If using 8-cell Sylver or Mk.41 dedicated for 32-CAMM, you need to dig a big hole. Other than the space reserved for strike-length Mk.41 VLS between the 4.5inch gun and the Sylver launcher, I cannot find good place for it. Only hope is follow the RAN FFG-2 case, to locate it before the 4.5 inch gun.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
1 : MBDA say they can quad pack CAMM in Sylver cellsdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑21 Feb 2023, 12:011: There is no quad-pack system developed, other than stand-alone ExLS. UK paying for it will be one idea. CAMM in Sylver or CAMM in Mk.41. Which shall we choose?Tempest414 wrote: ↑21 Feb 2023, 09:41Quad packing 8 cell VLS would give you 32 plus as said up thread if we fitted 2 x A70 in the space set aside for Mk-41 type 45 could carry 64 Aster 30 Blk-1/ Blk-1NT and later a load out of 48 Aster 30 x Blk-1NT and 16 x Blk-2
Now if we fitted the A70 cells and paid to quad pack CAMM in the A50 cells we could see type 45 with a load out of
32 x CAMM , 40 Aster 30 Blk-1NT , 16 Aster 30 Blk-2 plus 8 x NSM
2: I'm looking at different approach. CAMM is small, light weight, cold launch, can be located "anywhere". Increasing the top height of the "wall" of 48-cell Sylver and locating CAMM tubes there is surely doable, just a matter of money. No top weight issue (CAMM is very light weight).
2: If using 8-cell Sylver or Mk.41 dedicated for 32-CAMM, you need to dig a big hole. Other than the space reserved for strike-length Mk.41 VLS between the 4.5inch gun and the Sylver launcher, I cannot find good place for it. Only hope is follow the RAN FFG-2 case, to locate it before the 4.5 inch gun.
2: I would only quad pack CAMM in a already fitted Sylver out side of this I would look for other options like you say in the walls of the Sylver farm or in new boxes on top of the hangar
3: To be clear what I am saying is if we did quad pack CAMM in already fitted cells plus add 16 A70 cells in the space set aside for Mk-41 Type 45 could carry 32 CAMM and 56 Aster 30 without much cutting about however if we were to relocate the CAMM as said above type 45 could carry 24 to 48 CAMM plus 64 Aster 30 plus 8 NSM
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
No, it is not YET done. In other words, it is just a "possibility". No test fire, no fielded example, no customer ordering.
It is not so much different from saying "Typhoon and F35 can fire CAMM". Surely, it is possible.
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
You are quite right there has been no firing or fielding we know ofdonald_of_tokyo wrote: ↑21 Feb 2023, 13:20No, it is not YET done. In other words, it is just a "possibility". No test fire, no fielded example, no customer ordering.
It is not so much different from saying "Typhoon and F35 can fire CAMM". Surely, it is possible.
Typhoon and F-35 do fire CAMM
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
- Tempest414
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5598
- Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yes CAMM and ASRAAM hold many common key parts
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
In what regards Aster Block 2, it's just a PowerPoint, AFAIK. It'll take at least 10 years to become operational, if it ever does, so by the time it would come online, it'd be close to T$% OSD, so it won't be worth the time and treasure. If anything, it would make its way into T83, although I believe the RN will go for commonality with the US Navy.
As to CAMM, the only ready-to-go way of quad-packing it is via ExLS, everything else would require time and money for integration. Therefore, what I'd do is add 12 ExLS cells instead (and for about the same price of...) of the 24 cells currently anticipated, for a total loadout of 48 CAMM and/or its long-range derivatives. Leave Aster 30 cells as they are...
As to CAMM, the only ready-to-go way of quad-packing it is via ExLS, everything else would require time and money for integration. Therefore, what I'd do is add 12 ExLS cells instead (and for about the same price of...) of the 24 cells currently anticipated, for a total loadout of 48 CAMM and/or its long-range derivatives. Leave Aster 30 cells as they are...
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Yes but no. Having a common airframe is good for production. But, their electronics, data-link system, many things differ, and it is not integrated into none of them. So, no, CAMM cannot be fired from Typhoon nor F35.
If you say Typhoon can launch CAMM, it is just like saying Typhoon can launch SM-6 missile.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
The other curious thing about the A70 requirement for Aster Blk2, as I have tried to point out before, is all current French and Italian AAW destroyers only have A50. In fact of all vessels fitted with and currently in build with Aster only the 6x French ASW FREMM have A70.JohnM wrote: ↑21 Feb 2023, 13:48 In what regards Aster Block 2, it's just a PowerPoint, AFAIK. It'll take at least 10 years to become operational, if it ever does, so by the time it would come online, it'd be close to T$% OSD, so it won't be worth the time and treasure. If anything, it would make its way into T83, although I believe the RN will go for commonality with the US Navy.
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Has the aster blk 2 even been developed yet or is it just a proposal?
Re: Type 45 Destroyer (Daring Class) (RN) [News Only]
Right now it’s a PowerPoint slide…
- These users liked the author JohnM for the post (total 2):
- SW1 • donald_of_tokyo